:
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.
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.
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.
:
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: 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.
:
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 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 had already done the job four years ago.
I felt duped. Many others who submitted legislative reforms must also feel duped.
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 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 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 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—
Mr. Garon, I know there's no interpretation.
[English]
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.
:
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.
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.
I'll get to asking you some questions about the 's appearance, which I'm sure you watched last week.
I'd ask maybe about actionable results. I've spoken with individuals who are involved in the access to information system currently, as we've heard at committee, and some have great concern about what's going on. There seem to be a lack of leadership and a lack of metrics that would define even what “success” is in terms of being able to close files, in terms of accountability, in terms of being able to ensure that the things are even done.
Just to reference a bit of what the talked about, when she referenced the number of cases that were closed within a specific period of time, I couldn't help but laugh, because it was not my experience, having filed quite a few ATIPs when trying to look for answers for constituents and on other important issues that face Canadians.
In terms of how the ATIP offices within departments and agencies work, what would you recommend be done so that we can see some actual results?
:
The statistics that we need to assess the performance of individual departments are collected by Treasury Board and the departments themselves. They're already suspect. It's also a very poor data collection system methodology.
Many of the statistics that we read, such as the one the cited last week, are not reliable and are in fact misleading. We need to have metrics that are independent and reliable to assess the performance of individual departments. As it is, it's masked.
The said last week that 70% of requests are answered within the legislated timelines. That is very misleading, because legislated timelines include these crazy extensions, which often last for a year or more.
Yes, the system looks somewhat good at 70% until you consider that it includes all those enormously long timelines to answer those requests. The gave us a good example of misleading statistics that make it look like the system is working, when in fact it's not.
[Translation]
With your permission, I will answer the question in English because my French is rusty.
[English]
As I just said, the public gets access to the information that the government wants the public to get access to. This government has been focused on that in saying that open government is the same as open data. It has been making lots of changes to the open data system, but that system is to make public the information that the government wants the public to see.
Open government means the public has access to information that the government doesn't want the public to see. That system is broken, as has been documented in detail. There are deliberate obstructions. I can give you one example. I requested information and communications concerning the appointment of the current Commissioner of Lobbying, and two and a half years later the Privy Council Office, which was involved in the appointment, said there were no records. No one communicated with anyone within government, but somehow they appointed the Commissioner of Lobbying. After two and a half years they denied that there were any records they could find.
They don't want the public to see those records, because it would probably show something wrong with how that commissioner was appointed. I can't get access to those documents at all. Apparently they do not exist. The investigation took two and a half years, and the Privy Council Office delayed and delayed through that entire process, and finally said there were no documents at all. That's not a system that's working in any democratic way.
She was given so-called order-making power in Bill in 2019, but it wasn't what she had argued for. It was a watered-down version, so her orders do not have the same effect as a Federal Court judge's order.
A Federal Court judge's order cannot be ignored. There are sanctions that will be applied to people who ignore that order. In her case, there are no sanctions. It's simply that her order goes out, and it can be ignored or the institution can go to court. It has no power, impact or authority.
She argued against this watered-down power when Bill was being debated, but she didn't get it, so we now have this really weak system.
In doing the math here, I think we have time for a second round of five, five, two and a half, two and a half.
[Translation]
We will start with Mr. Gourde.
[English]
Also, we started 15 minutes late, but I've been assured by the clerk that we are able to make that time up with an extra 15 minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Gourde, over to you.
I would like to thank our two witnesses. I will quite probably ask them the same question, starting with Mr. Beeby.
Canadians are concerned about access to information. All the witnesses that we have heard have spoken at length about the issue. They also have concerns about what will come out of the work that our committee is doing today to improve access to information.
Mr. Beeby, what is your greatest concern, and what would be your best recommendations so that Canadians can once again have confidence in access to information?
:
Well, as I said before, we need to reduce the brick wall around cabinet secrecy.
We need to reduce delays. There are things you can do legislatively that would help reduce delays. Delays are probably the biggest problem.
There's a section in the act, section 21, that refers to advice. It's a grand loophole. It's a Mack truck-sized loophole for government to withhold anything that it construes as advice. That needs to be narrowed quite a lot.
I also think we need to put a time limit on the Information Commissioner's investigations. They take too long. They don't allow users to go to court if she's taking years to solve cases. I've had personal experience of her taking years to resolve my request.
Those are four things that I think would go a long way to solving problems.
:
Well, I mentioned them before.
Require a duty to document all actions and decisions. Close all of the secrecy loopholes that allow for excessive secrecy. I agree with Mr. Beeby with regard to the advice and cabinet confidence. That is one of the most abused.
In terms of the commissioner's powers, I mentioned penalties, but also, the commissioner should have the power to audit the information management system of a government institution and make recommendations in terms of cleaning it up so that records are kept in a way that can be accessed easily. That would help a lot with the delays and would spur changes in a lot of institutions that simply are not managing records in ways that can be retrieved so that requests can be fulfilled in any timely manner.
I would emphasize those—but again, there are the penalties. People will react in government when there's a possibility that they could be personally penalized for failing to comply with this act, as with any other law. There are lots of penalties in place for parking illegally, for speeding. You actually have a better chance of paying a higher fine for parking illegally anywhere in Canada than the penalty that would be paid by any public servant for denying the public's right to know. It is a quasi-constitutional right, so the penalty should be quite high for violating that right.
To the witnesses, thank you for being here. Just as a reminder, if you do want to provide documents to the committee, I would recommend that you do that probably no later than this week. The analysts are preparing the final report, which we will be dealing with probably in the next couple of weeks or so. If you can get something in by this week, I would appreciate that.
On behalf of the committee, Mr. Beeby and Mr. Conacher, I want to thank you for coming back. Both interventions that you've made at this committee on this particular study have been extremely valuable to the committee. I want to say thank you on behalf of the committee and on behalf of Canadians as well. Thank you.
We'll take roughly three minutes in order to get the next witnesses ready. By my math, presuming the four witnesses go the full 20 minutes on their opening statements, we may be able to get one full round in before we get to those last 15 minutes. I'm just advising the committee of that right now.
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes.
Thank you.
:
Okay, I'm going to start the second hour of today's meeting.
I want to welcome, from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Dr. Nicole Giles, deputy director and senior assistant deputy minister, policy and strategic partnerships; and from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Sylvain Beauchamp, director general, client experience; and Tracy Perry, acting director general, integrated corporate business, corporate services.
Anne Bank from the Department of National Defence is here. She's the executive director, director access to information and privacy. From Library and Archives of Canada, we have Kristina Lillico, director general, access to information and privacy.
As I mentioned to the committee, hopefully our witnesses can keep it below five minutes—they have up to five minutes—and then we're going to get through one round of questioning and continue on with the business we started this meeting with.
I'm going to go first to Dr. Giles.
Please go ahead.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nicole Giles, and I am deputy director and senior assistant deputy minister for policy and strategic partnerships at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Responsibility for disclosure, access to information and privacy requests falls within my portfolio.
I'd first of all like to thank the committee for inviting CSIS to be part of this important study. Transparency and accountability are core values for CSIS, and we view strong access to information and privacy systems as absolutely foundational.
[Translation]
I'll begin with a brief word on the mandate of CSIS to help situate our activities. Our mandate and authorities are set out in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which guides everything we do.
First and foremost, we investigate threats to the security of Canada, which are: espionage and sabotage, foreign interference, terrorism and extremism, and subversion.
[English]
We provide information and advice to the Government of Canada on these threats and may take measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada.
CSIS also provides security assessments on individuals who require access to classified information or sensitive files within the Government of Canada, as well as security advice relevant to the exercise of the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Despite being an organization that must keep secrets, we are not a secret organization. As a national security agency, many of our activities do need to be protected from disclosure. The release of classified information can reveal sensitive sources, methodologies and techniques, which can be detrimental and even work counter to CSIS’s efforts to protecting Canada and Canadians from national security threats. It can jeopardize the integrity of our operations, pose risks to the physical safety and security of our human sources and our employees, and hinder our ability to protect Canadians.
That is why CSIS maintains robust mechanisms such as oversight and review, and has policies and procedures to safeguard information. This includes necessary segregation, safe handling, retention and destruction practices. CSIS’s stringent policies are supported by regular training as well as regular review and compliance.
While we need to keep secrets and protect information, we also need to be transparent. This poses a special challenge for CSIS. The public’s right to access information is balanced against the legitimate need to protect sensitive information and to maintain the effective functioning of government. In administering access to information and privacy requests, CSIS therefore must conduct line-by-line reviews to ensure that we release as much information as possible, while protecting information that could be detrimental if disclosed.
As you can imagine, line-by-line reviews take time. Despite this, CSIS has a strong history of providing high-quality and timely responses to requests. For example, in 2021-22, CSIS’s on-time compliance rates for Privacy Act and access to information requests was 94%. Our access to information on-time compliance rate has stood in the mid to high nineties over the past decade, with the exception of 2020-21, when it dropped to 81% due to COVID restrictions.
For this and other reasons, in 2019, CSIS received the Information Commissioner's award for excellence in ATIP administration.
In addition, CSIS regularly and proactively publishes information, including summaries of recent access to information releases, to allow the public to access previously released records.
Access to information and privacy requests are just one way that CSIS communicates information to Canadians. Over the past several years, we have taken concrete steps to increase our transparency and engagement with Canadians through various resources, including our annual public report; threat publications in over seven languages; speeches; briefings to engage with provinces and territories, indigenous groups, the business sector and academic and community organizations; and a budding social media presence.
[Translation]
All these transparency efforts aim to better inform our population, recognizing that all Canadians have a role to play in protecting our national security.
[English]
CSIS constantly seeks to strike the right balance between the promotion of transparency and accountability in government institutions and the protection of national security interests. As an intelligence agency, CSIS faces unique disclosure challenges, which we strive to meet in the very best interests of Canadians.
[Translation]
I would now be happy to take your questions.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.
[Translation]
I would like to thank you for the invitation today and begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on traditional unceded Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.
I am the acting director general of the integrated corporate business branch, and I oversee the team responsible for the access to information and privacy, or ATIP, program within IRCC. I'm joined today by my colleague, Sylvain Beauchamp, the director general for the client experience branch.
[English]
With over 204,000 ATIP requests received in 2021-22, IRCC is markedly the most accessed federal government institution. That year, IRCC received nearly 80% of all access to information requests and 28% of all privacy requests submitted to federal government institutions.
IRCC's ATIP volumes have been steadily increasing year over year, with daily requests now averaging more than 800 per day. This poses unique processing challenges that, in turn, affect the department's compliance rates.
[Translation]
In February 2020, Canada's Information Commissioner, Caroline Maynard, initiated a systemic investigation to better understand and address the surge of access for information requests and complaints lodged against IRCC. She also examined departmental strategies employed to address the root cause of the issue, namely the need for timely, improved communication with clients on their immigration applications.
[English]
The Information Commissioner called on IRCC to be bold and ambitious in its plans to transform the way it delivers information to its clients, saying the department could become a leader in providing relevant information to clients.
In response, IRCC has undertaken multiple initiatives to modernize its ATIP program and to address the Information Commissioner's recommendations. Specifically, we have been focusing on creating initiatives that improve the client experience through the availability of client immigration information, creating a comprehensive workforce management strategy whereby employees have access to enhanced training and development opportunities, and implementing new tools, technologies and processes.
As the committee has heard in previous appearances, IRCC is facing similar challenges to other government departments with respect to finding qualified ATIP senior staff.
The ATIP program is focusing on its people by working to stabilize senior staff, to train and promote staff from within to retain expertise within the competitive ATIP community, and to participate with the TBS ATIP community development office initiative.
[Translation]
And we are on a positive path forward. Within the past two years, we have moved from an ATIP program led by a single director and three managers to an organization that now has three directors supported by nine managers. ATIP is also a regular topic of conversation at departmental management committees, because IRCC believes access to information and privacy is a fundamental pillar of our democracy.
[English]
As we focus on our tools and technologies, we recognize that we can no longer rely on an antiquated system to process ATIP requests. We are incorporating new tools to create efficiencies in the processing of ATIP requests, including the use of robotic process automation in various ATIP processes.
RPA frees up staff from doing repetitive data entry tasks and allows them to instead complete decision-based work. We are also working collaboratively with the Treasury Board Secretariat to onboard to the TBS ATIP online request service portal, and we are actively working to acquire a new software for processing our ATIP requests.
Gains from these initiatives will take time before they can be measurably felt. However, by addressing the root causes driving request volumes and by streamlining our processes, IRCC will be in a better position to meet legislative timelines and to uphold the values of client service excellence, transparency and privacy protection.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, we would like to thank you again for the invitation to provide IRCC's view on this important subject and for welcoming us here today. My colleague and I look forward to any questions the members of the committee may have.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. My name is Anne Bank. I'm the executive director of access to information and privacy at the Department of National Defence.
[Translation]
I am responsible for the implementation of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts within the defence team, which includes the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
My responsibilities include overseeing the teams that coordinate, review and release responses to ATIP requests, as well as providing advice, guidance and training to the defence team in the application of the acts. I am also responsible for the team that establishes policies and processes related to privacy management and privacy compliance within National Defence.
[Translation]
National Defence is committed to openness, transparency and respect for the rights granted under the Access to Information and Privacy Acts.
[English]
As a result of reviews and investigations in recent years, we have made changes to our practices to streamline processes and promote transparency, and to stress the importance of our legislated obligations. Additionally, there is a close collaboration with the defence chief information officer and the defence chief data officer to ensure that both transparency and the protection of personal information are considered in the implementation of the defence data strategy.
[Translation]
I am happy to provide any evidence the committee may require and am eager to see the results of your study to further help us better serve Canadians.
[English]
I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for the invitation to speak today.
Let me recognize and honour the peoples and land of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation where we're meeting.
My name is Kristina Lillico. I'm the director general of access to information and privacy at Library and Archives Canada.
Ensuring access to the records of government is a cornerstone of a modern and functioning democracy, and it's embedded in Library and Archives Canada's mandate.
Here is why access to historical records is important today.
Imagine you are a veteran needing an urgent surgery and needing access to your service file, or a survivor from an Indian day school seeking justice for yourself and your family. Imagine when the Government of Canada takes legal action on behalf of Canadians, such as it did with big tobacco. All of this evidence is within LAC's historical records.
I'm here today to speak to the unique challenges of providing access to historical records.
I'd like to give you all a number: three million—three million pages. This is just one of the thousands of access to information requests that we're dealing with today at Library and Archives Canada.
Now picture this task. It would mean for one of our expert employees to read all seven Harry Potter books—4,100 pages—more than 730 times in 30 calendar days. Before that can be done, our experts help requesters to identify the material they want using both digital and analog lists of our collections. This is not a Google search.
Some of these lists have few details, and the way things are described has changed over time. We need to then locate these records. In the archival world, we may have one description for hundreds of boxes. Our experts have to go through all the boxes to find the records.
We have more than 200 linear kilometres of Government of Canada records dating back to 1867. That distance is equivalent to the two-hour drive between Montreal and Quebec City.
To add to this already complex situation, historical records are typically paper and would need to be digitized before an ATIP analyst can even begin their review work.
Now, while LAC shares many of the issues other departments face—labour shortages, employee retention and technology challenges—LAC has a distinct role in that it preserves and makes accessible the historical records of over 300 federal organizations, some of which no longer exist today.
Government records are either open to the public or they are closed, because they may contain information that's deemed sensitive. When they are closed, you need to submit an ATIP request.
The ATIP team at LAC, which I have the pleasure of leading, is de facto the main channel to provide access to the billions of pages of government records we preserve. It can take a significant amount of time to process an ATIP request for historical records, because historical records are old. To decide what needs to be redacted, you have to project yourself into the past and understand the context. This is no simple task. It requires an expertise that few departments have immediately on hand.
In addition, every redaction our ATIP analysts make must be documented to explain it to the requester, the Information Commissioner or the courts. This is how the ATI and privacy acts are implemented in Canada. In other nations, many elements are much more prescribed in access legislation or in the way information management is governed. A proactive declassification approach would align Canada with the Five Eyes, all of whom have declassification programs, and would manage information at the appropriate level, decreasing costs and effort and reducing the burden on the ATIP system.
Defined sunset clauses would recognize the decreased sensitivity of most information over time and ensure that historical records are open consistently and predictably.
In recent years we proactively opened over 45 million pages of records through a risk-based approach. These records no longer require an ATIP request. While this number may sound impressive, there are billions more waiting to be discovered.
ATIP really should be the last resort to access the historical records of the Government of Canada, This is the future that LAC is building towards, one where we proactively open government records while respecting privacy and the security of sensitive information.
We thank the Information Commissioner for her recent investigative reports, which bring to light LAC's ATIP challenges. We now have an action plan to guide our improvements, including working hand in hand with our colleagues at the Treasury Board Secretariat and across the Government of Canada.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we are eager to make the ATIP system work better for all.
Thank you.
:
Thank you so much, Ms. Lillico.
For those of you who have been to committee before, we are a little old school here. I'm not interested in going through the chair, so if a member is asking a you question, you can go to them directly. I'll just make that clear.
We're going to start with Mr. Kurek for six minutes.
[Translation]
I just want to say that Mr. Kurek will share his speaking time with Mr. Gourde.
Mr. Kurek, you have the floor for six minutes.
:
Thank you, Chair. Yes, I will be splitting my time.
Thanks. I appreciate you all for coming.
I've asked every witness who has come before the committee two foundational questions, and those are whether ATIPs and an ATIP system that works are essential for a modern, functioning democracy, and whether they're satisfied with where Canada's ATIP system is.
Virtually all—with the exception of the , interestingly—have said that our system wasn't where it needed to be, but everyone said that it was incredibly important.
I would just note, that's important in terms of the foundation.
Specifically, Ms. Giles, you're from a spy agency, reconciling secrecy with access to information. Can you just share practically what that looks like, so that Canadians can trust what is going on there, in about 30 seconds or so?
:
That is a very good question.
It would depend on what is being excluded.
[English]
Obviously, having anything that could be accessed relating to lawful investigations could jeopardize ongoing judicial proceedings. As well, we would be very concerned about anything that would limit our ability to ensure that no information is released that could be injurious to the defence of Canada or to the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive and hostile activities.
I would say that a significant proportion of the ATIP and privacy information requests we receive are related to immigration applications, so we also do expect to see some successes stemming from the modernization undertaken by IRCC.
I would like to start off by thanking the witnesses for being with us today.
We all know that access to information is extremely important. I remember a committee meeting that took place barely a year ago, when a superintendent from the RCMP lied to the committee. He misled us. This serves as a reminder that there is still progress to be made in this field.
I would like to start with the representative from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I'm interested in requests for permission to undertake an historical study. Witnesses, such as Mr. Andrea Conte, who was interested in the COINTELPRO file, have told us that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service still considers this to be an operational threat in Canada. Ms. Conte had to go to the United States and visit the National Archives in Washington to gain access to the very same file.
The United States seems to have an automatic declassification policy that kicks in after 25 years. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a similar policy here, so that we would have some consistency? I presume that the fact that the Americans have declassified the documents does not constitute a threat to our national security.
Do you have an opinion on this?
Dr. Giles, I'm going to come back to you on COINTELPRO. The author who was referenced, Andrea Conte, mentioned, for example, that the COINTELPRO file was considered still an operational threat by CSIS, which prevented him from accessing the archives related to this program at LAC. In the end, he had to go down to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., to obtain the documents.
Is it your testimony that the COINTELPRO file is still an operational threat and that legislatively you are not permitted to disclose it even though it's being disclosed in the States?
An hon. member: You could probably just get it from the U.S.
Mr. Matthew Green: Yes, I probably could get it from the U.S. You're absolutely right.
Okay, as a part of its information review, the Treasury Board published a list of key access to information measures that were being implemented and planned and are under way. Among these, it was noted that Public Safety Canada, in collaboration with the national security intelligence community, Library and Archives of Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, is leading a declassification initiative.
Does CSIS participate in this?
:
Perhaps Dr. Giles could provide a written response to your question.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. On behalf of the committee and on behalf of Canadians, thank you for your work.
I'm going to dismiss our witnesses, and we will continue on.
We have 15 minutes to conclude this. We can't continue past 5:45. At that point, I will be moving to adjourn the meeting.
I'm glad that the analyst is listening to me at this point.
If we're going to deal with the business where we left off, we can thank the witnesses, and we need to get back at it because we have only 13 minutes now to deal with this.
Are there any hands up for discussion?
I'm going to go to Ms. Khalid first and Mr. Fergus right after.
Ms. Khalid, go ahead, please.
I'd like to thank my colleague Mr. Barrett for bringing this motion forward. There were some discussions that we had outside of this table that I would just like to confirm with Mr. Barrett.
My concern of course, if you will forgive me, is that this is an attempt, through the back door, to get to the issue we were dealing with last week before the interim Ethics Commissioner resigned. She has resigned.
I just want to get reassurance that she's being invited to come here only to talk about the situation that is referenced in the motion by Mr. Barrett regarding “the appointment of the former Liberal minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, as chief corporate affairs officer at Rogers Communications.”
I'm wondering if my honourable colleague could confirm that.
:
Thank you, and thank you to Mr. Fergus.
There is no permanent Ethics Commissioner who has been appointed at this time, and there is no interim Ethics Commissioner. Therefore, the most senior person, we understand, is the now former interim Ethics Commissioner, based on the position that she was in prior to her appointment.
Looking for someone to speak to the issue—this issue—is why the former interim Ethics Commissioner is named by position to be invited to the committee. The intent is to exclusively address the matter at hand in the motion—the appointment of a former minister to work at one of the entities they were responsible for regulating, specifically, Mr. Bains at Rogers—and not to deal with any other matter.
If this motion receives the support of the committee, and should the former interim Ethics Commissioner accept the invitation, the official opposition's questions would be confined to this issue.
:
I would add this. One of the things that I've been dealing with—and it's been difficult to deal with as chair—is the lack of specifics in some of the motions that are coming forward. It leaves a lot of ambiguity and openness.
I'm going to suggest, before I go to you, Mr. Fergus, that we add the name of Ms. Richard, whom I assume we are dealing with here, to this motion, so that there is clarity. “Former interim Ethics Commissioner” could date back to 1980, if there was one.
I need that as part of this motion in order to deal with some clarity here.
Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.
:
The rationale for having the Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying come to committee to speak to this issue is that members have obligations to satisfy that are overseen by both commissioners. It would be unfortunate if we were to find ourselves in a position where questions are raised with the lobbying commissioner and the lobbying commissioner says, “Well, that should be taken up by the Ethics Commissioner.” Then we'd need to add another meeting.
I would again offer, in the spirit of my previous comments, that if the Ethics Commissioner.... If Ms. Richard accepts the invitation, appears at the committee, makes her opening remarks, is asked a question and has nothing further to add, I don't see any utility in continuing questions to that effect.
In the interest of brevity—and of time, which we don't have a lot of—by having the commissioners appear on one day, we could dispense with this matter and provide for Canadians the accountability function that we are charged with. Then we don't need to redebate over multiple days. The committee does not have the resources to do that, and we don't have a lot of weeks left in the parliamentary calendar.
I have just one last change, and again, I'd like to see if members could see this as a friendly amendment.
It's similar to yours, John, but it actually runs in a different way.
Rather than saying after the word “and”—after your “Lobbying Commissioner and”—replace the words “the former Interim Ethics Commissioner” with “a representative from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner”.
Would that be the right thing? I'm trying to run this up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes.
First of all I'll say that on the face of this, the optics of what transpired are outrageous. It's really outrageous to see where we're at with that merger, that minister and the appointment, which, in a way, looks like a patronage appointment.
I've come to my conclusions, and I think that in fairness to the individuals involved, this committee can present a way for facts to be presented to the committee in order to hold accountability in this space.
What I would suggest, in fact, even though I know time is of the essence, is that we consider perhaps sending an official letter from this committee to the former interim Ethics Commissioner, asking her if she's had any involvement, any communications, any advice, not just now but in the past. I would be keenly interested in knowing what type of advice might have been granted when Navdeep Bains was a minister. Did he receive any advice from the Ethics Commissioner related to his position as a minister and this particular company? I want all that information. I think this committee deserves to have all that information.
I am not clear about having the former interim Ethics Commissioner, given our past conversations and given her very linear relationship with . I don't want this committee to turn into that.
I would suggest, if the committee is open to it, that we direct the chair to write a letter to both, because I don't want to waste time having them come here and sit down and say in their opening remarks, “I know nothing.” Quite frankly, that's a waste of time and a bit theatrical. I am not naive to the way fundraising happens. All intentions could be good, but I don't want to see somebody impugned just because there is an insinuation that they may have been involved in some of this, because, quite frankly, at this committee it's never the crime; it's the cover-up, and I feel that we would put that particular person in a very difficult situation by bringing them here.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to put it to the committee that we look at a way of first verifying whether they had any involvement at all, even as senior legal counsel, quite frankly, between those two parties on that issue. I know they can't disclose it to us, but if they have, then they can come to committee. If they haven't, then I would say that we spare them the theatrics.
That would be my suggestion.
:
I think that's clear. On the amendment, I don't see any further discussion. Do we have consensus on Mr. Green's amendment?
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: Does the main motion as amended carry?
(Motion as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you, everyone.
Thank you, analysts.
Thank you, Clerk and technicians. I appreciate all your help.
We'll see everybody on Friday.