Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Ken Rubin]

Well, listen, if this act were really utilized, if a million Canadians used this, do you think that parallel system wouldn't break down? I'm saying it's already broken. I disagree with the deputy information commissioner. I don't think it's needed. I think it just creates problems. It creates opportunities for people to censor, to delay, and too many unwritten things are said....

I've seen too many communications strategy plans that have called for low-profile release or that try to dampen expectations. If a government wants to govern, let them govern. Let them not waste all our time by doing these parallel systems.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Wallace, and then Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have you on the list. Do you want to say anything?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Drapeau, you said a little earlier that you received boxes of information on the referendum. I would offer to pick them up and feed them into the shredder.

But seriously, I would like to come back to the issue we are discussing, more specifically finding solutions. Even if you say you do not feel like a victim, the fact remains that it is something the three of you have in common today. The minister is streamlining and strengthening the access to Information Act. I am sure you have solutions to propose.

A little earlier, Mr. Rubin told us how he would like to see the Act changed. I would like to know what Mr. Gollob thinks. Do you think we should change the fact that the minister can have access to the identity of an applicant?

Mr. Drapeau, I would like you to briefly tell me under what specific circumstances a minister should know the identity of an applicant in order to govern the country.

Lastly, since you all have been victims, I would like to know what sanctions should be imposed on those who break the rules. I do not think that the current legislation contains anything of the sort.

Mr. Drapeau, I would ask you to please answer briefly, so that the other witnesses also have time to respond.

[Col Michel Drapeau]

In my opinion, the minister should be responsible for that. The Act says that it is the minister's responsibility. He entirely delegates his authority. I see the minister as being a member of the Privy Counsel, and sometimes, when you govern a country, in exceptional circumstances, the minister should know the identity of an applicant. Again, I would like to clarify that the minister should decide, and not his staff or other officials. However, I cannot put myself in the shoes of the minister and say under what specific circumstances that should happen.

As for the tools which should be used, I believe that the heart of the problem lies with the access to information coordinator. This person should expect her performance to be evaluated at the end of the year. That should be reported. Only then should it be determined whether the coordinator acted in accordance with the Act. But that is currently not done.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Gollob, how would you like to see the Access Information Act changed?

[David Gollob]

The Canadian Newspaper Association supported the amendments proposed by the former information Commissioner, Mr. Reid, as well as the suggestions made by justice John Gomery. He also supported Mr. Reid's recommendations.

Further, at the time we supported the program put forward by Mr. Harper in a Montreal Gazette editorial which appeared in June 2005 and which basically supported the same proposals.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Among the recommendations you supported, did any include sanctions for people who broke the rules, especially when an applicant's identity was disclosed?

[David Gollob]

At that time we did not study that matter.

In my view, we can draw an analogy between the study being carried out by this committee and the broken window of an apartment. The window is broken because an intruder entered the apartment. Rather than focussing on the broken window, we would rather look at the intruder and the fact that a robbery actually took place. In this analogy, the robbery is actually the entire system which discloses the identity of applicants and whereby media requests are given specific attention.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I am not quite sure I understood. When you talk about an intruder, are you comparing that to the person who disclosed the identity of the reporter?

[David Gollob]

Of course, I talked about a committee which, based on the testimony of a person who was a member of the Liberal Party at the time, existed in 2002. The point of the committee was to slow down access to information and it held meetings where information requests made by reporters were discussed.

I suppose that at those meetings the names of the reporters were mentioned. In my view, that was not really the problem, but rather the fact that they tried to block access to information.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Nevertheless...

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few very quick questions. I just need a yes or no for the first two.

I think I've got this right: to amend the Access to Information Act, Mr. Gollob, you say definitely yes.

Mr. Drapeau, you say no, that it's not required.

Mr. Rubin.

The next question.

[Ken Rubin]

What did I say?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I'm sorry. You said we definitely need...and I think you gave us 10 recommendations.

[Ken Rubin]

That was just for this problem. I think we need a totally new act. You can't just amend this act; it's broken.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay, so you say it needs a new act.

Mr. Ken Rubin: Yes.

I want to get back to the original question, the very reason we were going to have this forum: are the names of access to information requesters being given out? I think that's a clear way of asking it.

Mr. Gollob, do you believe that the names of access to information requesters are being given out?

[David Gollob]

We believe that it is routine.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Drapeau.

[Col Michel Drapeau]

Yes, and I know so.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay.

[Ken Rubin]

Yes, and three strikes and you're out on this one.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

All right.

From that, we can conclude that the former government definitely did take that practice. The question today is, is this still happening? If so, we want to put an end to it.

I'd like to quote from Mr. Dale Eisler in respect to the Bronskill matter:

There was no knowledge of an ATI request by any specific reporter. We are never privy to that information. In this case, there was a discussion about ATI files that were being released on the issue of alleged CIA overflights. It was well known that Mr. Bronskill had already written several stories on the matter, and had been calling Public Safety and other agencies for comments and clarification. In this case, the assumption was that, given his particular interest in the subject, he would be writing another story. In retrospect, it was inappropriate that any such assumption was made. This was a discussion only among officials. There were no involvement by political staff and the summary report of the discussion by officials was a practice that predated this government. These type of summary reports were regularly shared with members of the previous government's Prime Minister's communications office.

Here we have a top PCO official basically describing public officials speculating on a name and then including it in the routine minutes of their meeting, which was distributed to the political staff as well. Do you think this is evidence of a deliberate violation of the law by political staff?

I guess I need the same thing, just an answer from everyone.