Evidence of meeting #10 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was requests.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
It depends what you mean by evidence. Do I have somebody who was made aware that a request was submitted by me or by somebody working on my behalf on this specific subject? Yes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Could you furnish us with their names, their contact information? Could you supply letters from these people?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Newspaper Association
Mr. Kenney, in my remarks I made reference to a statement that you made in the House in 2004. It concerned the existence of a central communications group revealed by someone by the name of Jonathan Murphy. You may recall this. The purpose of this group, as Mr. Murphy alleged in an article published in The Globe and Mail , was to discuss access to information requests and do whatever they could to delay and thwart them.
If such a group did indeed exist—and I have no doubt that it did, though I have no evidence beyond what was published—it is beyond imagination that it would not have discussed the identities of individual requesters and the fact that they were members of the media. I find that difficult to believe.
My challenge to members of the committee and to the government is to clarify whether such a group still exists. Is this part of the tracking mechanism we've been talking about? The tracking mechanisms do exist, and the discrimination of media requests as opposed to other kinds of requests does take place. In this kind of management of requests from the media, it is likely that identities will be talked about, though I don't have the documentary evidence that you request. I just want to clarify.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
The problem the chair is looking at is this: on the one hand, the three witnesses are saying you shouldn't be entitled to this information; on the other hand, if there's a problem, the committee needs specific examples. Therefore, we're asking you to contradict the very thing you're asking us not to do. It's a bit of a problem. You're essentially asking us to trust you, that there are examples out there, but “we can't tell you about them”.
Monsieur Laforest.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I respect Mr. Kenney's opinion, which is that we are trying to determine whether names were given to the minister, but I also agree with what Mr. Gollob said, namely that the mandate of the committee is to make sure that our laws are respected, even though that is not specifically what we are examining right now. I do not believe we are necessarily in a position to find one or more guilty people, but we have to make sure that this type of situation does not happen again. That is why I think this is an important discussion.
The Access to Information Act has been in effect for about 20 years. I think that over that period, we realized that there were undesirable side effects for governments. In my opinion, the system of monitoring the categories of information applicants for statistical purposes generated other types of information. And I believe this has interfered with the public's right to know.
I think all reasons are good to explain what happened. The act contains very few sanctions for officials; in other words, it has no bite. Some people are caught between their obligation to protect the identity of applicants under the act and the desire to climb the ranks. So that way, I am convinced that this system presents great difficulties for many officials who feel caught between a rock and a hard place.
I have a question for all three of you. In your opinion, if the Access to Information Act were redrafted, should it includes specific provisions, much clearer than what currently exists, to prevent the identity of applicants from being revealed? Further, should there also be sanctions which would discourage officials from disclosing an applicant's identity, which they might otherwise do in order to get a promotion? Sometimes they might ignore the law in order to promote their own careers.
5:10 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I think the answer is yes. I think that if and when the act is redrawn, it will be important to clearly say that Canadians have a quasi constitutional right to obtain information. We have to make a 190-degree turn so that when an official receives an access to information request from a citizen, this official feels compelled to provide the information.
In its current form, the act is precious in many ways. Subsection 2(2) says that the Access of Information Act is a complement to existing procedures. Our fathers and grandfathers did not have access to this type of legislation, but they nevertheless managed to get information simply by making a request. Today, when you ask for information, how ever simple it may be, you will be directed to the act, which involves all kind of delays and processes. In my view, that is what the problem is.
5:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Newspaper Association
I think that the act should include explicit measures to protect the identity of an applicant. Further, there should be explicit sanctions, as is the case for people who obstruct access to information or who try to hide it.
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I think the mindset is such that we're operating under a very limited framework—and it has to be changed. And so when you're looking at the system, you have to say, how will the access to information coordinators fit into this new system under new guidelines; how will the Information Commissioner fit in with binding powers; how will we implement these penalties and offences? And in order to do all of that, you really have to have a totally new arrangement, because as has been pointed out by previous witnesses, it's perfectly legal for a minister, under certain guidelines, to have the identity and to track the users; it's perfectly legal to have amber lighting, and so on.
So in order to resolve this situation—because it's more than just the identity, but it's the tracking and surveillance combination that becomes deadly for people trying to exert their information rights—you have to give them better information rights, and mandate the authorities to have a different set of guidelines on pro-disclosure, and mandate the Information Commissioner to have that as a ground of appeal, which he can look at through binding powers, and impose penalties when need be.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
A point of order. We haven't had one of those in a long time. Go ahead.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
It's just to get consent to table a document. Can I go ahead with that, if there are no more questions?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Chairman, as soon as I learn that there are documents which are relevant to the mandate of the committee as far as this issue is concerned, I insist on sharing them with all committee members. I would like to draw your attention to an e-mail dated September 21 which was sent by Chris Froggatt, the Chief of Staff for the Treasury Board Secretariat. It is simply a reminder for government ministers and their chiefs of staff. Let me read part of that e-mail:
in view of the recent questions regarding the disclosure of the name of an applicant who made a request under the Access to Information Act, it is important to remind ministers and their exempt staff of the rules and regulations governing privacy and access to information.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
It's in both languages.
Does anyone else have anything to say?
Seeing none, I would like to thank all three of you. You've all been before this committee before. We appreciate your wise words and thank you very much for coming. Thank you, gentlemen.
Members of the committee, somewhere along the line, we're going to have to discuss where we're going next. I'm suggesting that on Wednesday at 5 o'clock we should set some time aside to discuss what we're going to do after that day.
The meeting is adjourned.