Information & Ethics Committee on April 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm sorry for the delay. We had votes.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members can attend in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes, as we need to ensure that all members are able to fully participate.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 16, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of access to information and privacy systems.

I see that we have one witness online.

Madam Clerk, can you confirm that the audio testing has been done? It has. Thank you.

I have committee business to discuss before we get to the witnesses.

First of all, this will be the last meeting on the access to information system, so I'm expecting the drafting submissions. We already have the interim report. We've issued drafting instructions to the clerk and the analysts. If anybody meeting has drafting instructions after this, I would ask that you please submit them by 5 p.m. tomorrow to the clerk.

The other thing I want to discuss is with respect to the motions to summons two witnesses, Mr. Rosenberg and Madame Fournier. I will tell you that those meetings look like they are going to happen in a relatively short time. We had the motion that stated that it had to be prior to May 5, and I know that Madam Clerk has been working to make sure that happens.

The other thing, on the draft report for the ATIP, is that I have scheduled a minimum of three meetings for that to happen. I suspect that it's going to be a fairly substantial report, if the interim report is any indication, so we have three meetings for that.

After today, we have 13 meetings left. I want to keep that in mind, and I want the committee to keep that in mind as we discuss the schedule.

Of course, we have the commissioners, whom we need to invite to discuss the estimates. That will take one meeting.

I wanted to make sure you were aware of that at the beginning of this meeting.

I know we have two witnesses who are prepared to speak, and then we have a significant number of witnesses after this for the second hour.

Mr. Barrett, I'm going to go to you.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I have a motion I would like to move. I have just sent it to the clerk, but I want to make sure that colleagues across the way are either all signed on or all here when I put my motion forward.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm wondering if we've had the proper amount of notice for this motion in order for it to be moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're in committee business, so Mr. Barrett is moving the motion in committee business.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'm going to move the motion, but it appears it might be a short one.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Are we voting on it today?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Ideally, we will.

I move:

That the committee call the Lobbying Commissioner and the former Interim Ethics Commissioner to appear regarding the appointment of former Liberal minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, as chief corporate affairs officer at Rogers Communications.

To speak very briefly to it, because we have very limited time, my request would be that if the committee saw fit to adopt the motion, the chair find some time on the committee and House calendar when there are available resources, so that it doesn't impact the ongoing work of the committee.

I imagine we could dispense with it in pretty short order. The motion is self-explanatory. It's an item that's been of keen public interest, and just the two officers of Parliament would be able to speak to members' obligations post their employment as parliamentarians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have Mr. Fergus first.

We're in committee business, so I'm going to rule the motion in order.

I will remind members of the committee that we have Mr. Beeby and Mr. Conacher, who are prepared to go here. I would like to get to the witnesses today, but of course I'll leave it up to the committee.

The motion is on the floor. Mr. Fergus is up on the motion.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I was going to suggest that perhaps it's better that we come back and finish this at the tail end of the meeting. It's been introduced. It's in order. You've ruled that it's in order. It should be discussed, but our witnesses are here. There are some aspects of this motion that I know I want to speak to, but I don't want to interrupt the presence of our witnesses here.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to ask if Mr. Barrett would be so kind as to delay this until about the last 15 minutes before the end of the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Are you okay with that?

We have the witnesses scheduled until exactly 5:30 in the second hour. Is it the will of the committee to come back in the last 15 minutes, or not? I'm looking for consensus.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to make sure that everyone has their members at the table, so that if a vote comes to pass we're able to do that. I'd like to satisfy that first. That's important.

I guess if there's an interest in actually voting on the motion, with comments.... If the desire is not to bring it to a vote, and that's going to be the outcome 15 minutes before the end of the meeting or in the next couple of minutes when we move to the witness panel, then I would say let's just get to the voting. However, if there's an intention that this will come to a vote, I hope with the support of all members of the committee....

I guess that would be my question. In the spirit of collaboration, where this occurs on the meeting agenda with the least possible amount of disruption and where all members are at the table, then that would be my preference if I had my druthers. If we're just looking to.... If we're just going to fall off the end of the meeting, then we should dispose of it now, I suppose.

That would be my question back. If we think we can dispose of it at the end of the meeting, then I would support Mr. Fergus's suggestion and we can get to the witness panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that.

With the difficulty of understanding or knowing intentions, my preference would be to dispose of this now, if we can, in the next eight minutes that we have. If not, then perhaps at that point we can move on to the witnesses .

Ms. Khalid, go ahead, please.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I just want to reiterate the point made by Mr. Fergus. I think it does need to be at the tail end of the committee meeting. Obviously, we want to have some time to look over the motion. It was table-dropped. We had no negotiations and there was no communication from the opposition parties with respect to their intentions and what they're thinking on this.

I would appreciate it if we could move this to the tail end.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Are we good with doing that? I just need direction from the committee here. I'm prepared to move it to the end if we have to.

Are we good?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. We'll take 15 minutes at the end of the meeting, which will shorten up the panel for the next hour but give us more time for the witnesses in this hour.

I have two witnesses here. First, Mr. Beeby is a journalist, and he is here as an individual.

Mr. Beeby, welcome back to the committee.

Mr. Conacher is the co-founder of Democracy Watch. He is here by video conference.

I'll start with Mr. Beeby.

Welcome back, sir. You have five minutes to address the committee. Please go ahead.

[Dean Beeby, Journalist, As an Individual]

Thank you, committee members, for inviting me back as a witness as you wrap up your report on access to information.

Almost three years ago, the then Treasury Board president announced a review of access to information. Monsieur Duclos said in June 2020 that the review would focus on three things—the legislative framework, proactive publication and the administration of access to information. The minister said the review would also “seek the views of Indigenous Peoples on aspects of access to information that are important to them”.

I delivered a lengthy brief to the Treasury Board’s review team, proposing nine specific amendments to the legislation, because, after all, a review of the legislative framework was the very first thing on the minister’s list.

Last week I learned that my brief was a complete waste of time. The new Treasury Board president told the committee, “My current priority is to improve [the] administration of the existing law.” She resisted calls for amendments to the Access to Information Act, claiming that Bill C-58 had already done the job four years ago.

I felt duped. Many others who submitted legislative reforms must also feel duped.

Madame Fortier also said last week that halfway through the three-year review, Treasury Board realized that it needed to engage with indigenous people, and so asked for their input. Apparently, the minister and her officials did not get that June 2020 memo from Monsieur Duclos about the need to seek the views of indigenous people.

Once again, a government with no stomach for transparency has ragged the puck for three years. Now they promise a so-called action plan sometime in year number four.

An activist I know talks about something she calls the “cycle of denial”. She works to stop violence against women. Every police agency and government asks that her group supply evidence about the problem. She diligently puts together briefs and reports. Time passes. Agencies and governments with new leaders then ask for fresh evidence. The cycle of denial starts again. Nothing gets done.

The Treasury Board’s report on access to information last fall is the 17th such review since 1982—not a particularly insightful one, by the way—so we have our own cycle of denial in the transparency world. Nothing is getting done. That’s no accident. Governments always lose their appetite for openness one day after elections are held.

Your committee’s work is an opportunity to push back against foot-dragging by bureaucrats and ministers, to give voice to Canadians who dare ask how government is spending their money, and to help backbenchers get answers to questions that are routinely dismissed in Parliament. I hope your report will put important legislative amendments back on the table. They are as important to reform as administrative changes.

I'll be glad to take questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Beeby. You're well under time. I appreciate that. It will allow more time for questions.

Mr. Conacher, on the issue of access to information, you have five minutes to address the committee.

Thank you.

[Duff Conacher, Co-Founder, Democracy Watch]

Thank you very much, Chair and committee, for the invitation to appear before you again during your review of access to information.

I'm going to be brief. You have Democracy Watch's submission, setting out 18 key changes. I won't go through those changes again. They can be summarized very simply. Apply the law to all publicly funded and public-purpose institutions. Close all the secrecy loopholes. Require a duty to document. Create records of actions and decisions. Strengthen enforcement, including the independence of the commissioner, and empower the commissioner to actually impose penalties for violations of any of the provisions of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Conacher, I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I get you to throw your microphone down just a bit lower, if possible? The interpreters are having a difficult time.

There you go. Thank you.

Go ahead.

[Duff Conacher]

Thank you.

The Access to Information Act is misnamed. It really should be called the ”Guide to Keeping Information Secret that the Public has a Right to Know Act” because that's what it is. It is more loopholes than rules. As a result, the enforcement changes made by Bill C-58 can empower the commissioner only so much, because of the number of loopholes, exemptions and exclusions that can be claimed.

Stakeholders have made it very clear, including in the government's own consultation report released in December 2021, and all stakeholders have called for 10 key changes. I've listed 18 more detailed, comprehensive changes in our submission, and they all need to be made in order to have an actual Access to Information Act.

Rather than the committee's simply issuing a report—and I was happy to hear, in listening to—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Sorry.

Mr. Garon, I know there's no interpretation.

Mr. Conacher, I know you have the proper equipment on, but I'm going to ask if you can speak just a little more loudly, because we are having a problem with the interpretation. Maybe just move your microphone up a little, if you don't mind.

There you go. That might work, and speak just a bit more loudly, sir.

I stopped your time. Go ahead.

[Duff Conacher]

That's fine. Thank you.

As I was saying, instead of the committee's issuing yet another report—and this committee has issued reports already on the access to information law—Democracy Watch is calling on committee members to take the report and the recommendations that the majority of committee members support and turn them into a co-sponsored private member's bill.

Get things moving.

The Liberal government and cabinet have made it very clear that they're not going to introduce a bill that will close any of the secrecy loopholes, strengthen enforcement or create penalties for violations, so I call on you, as legislators, to act as legislators and co-sponsor a bill together.

I hope you will also take on the issue of the secret lobbying and whistle-blower protection, which isn't strong enough to allow whistle-blowers to report secret wrongdoing or secret investments that are allowed by cabinet ministers and top government officials.

Finally, I urge you all to reconsider and reverse your position on the changes to the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct that will allow for secret fundraising and secret campaigning by lobbyists, and secret gifts as well, worth hundreds of dollars, which will lead to secret problems and secret corruption.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Conacher.

I just want to keep the focus here. We're on access to information. The questions from committee members are going to be related to that.

We will start now with our first six-minute round. We're going to go to Mr. Kurek for six minutes, please.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing once again before the committee. I think your reappearance speaks to the fundamental importance of having an access to information regime that actually works and does what it's supposed to, and to the importance that has in our democratic system.

Because I've asked you the questions that I started with on every other witness, I won't get into how fundamental this is to democracy.

Mr. Beeby, I want to take a bit of a different angle here and go on to the human rights implications of having access to information.

I know you've done a fair amount of writing on human rights. Are there connections you would make between the access to information regime being effective, and needing to ensure the human rights of marginalized Canadians and also those around the world? I'm just curious if that is a connection you would make, and if you could expand on it.