Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
These tracking systems create a chilling and deterrent effect. They're not productive, unless you're an insider who is more intent on hiding, delaying, or manipulating data, or gagging your own officials. They add costs. They create administrative layers and fear inside the system. There is a code of silence.
And make no mistake, these tracking and coordination systems start at the very top. Back in 1986, records I obtained revealed that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney told the deputy ministers of defence and external affairs, through his political staff, to watch what they released on his prime ministerial foreign travel expenses. Jean Chrétien said the same thing when it came to his riding association.
This sent a signal to people down the line to watch access users more closely. None of the prime ministers since Prime Minister Joe Clark has even bothered to say to his officials that the main purpose is release of information. So when you get a Bronskill case, where official, tax-paid, private interdepartmental discussions are had about reporters, who's governing this country? Is it the people talking about the media and then naming them, or is it getting on with the real issues?
Heck, my name was brought up in the infancy of this act. I found out under an access request that the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada was discussing why I was applying for their records on nuclear safety regulatory problems. I was right there on the official agenda.
In the 1990s, departments such as National Defence--and your committee has heard briefly about it--took zealously to tracking and discussing certain access users like me, the Ottawa Citizen, David Pugliese, and my colleague here, Colonel Michel Drapeau. They were very prejudicial in the way they treated us. I'm sure Mr. Drapeau will testify to that.