Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 18th, 2006

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Laforest, do you have any comment on that?

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

I'd simply like to finish my question. I raised a subject that concerns access to information.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right, let's go very briefly. We are talking about the alleged disclosure of names in access to information. The topic you've raised is mentioned in a notice of motion that was filed by Madame Lavallée.

I agree that it is slightly off topic. I'm going to allow you to go, but I'm not going to let you spend a lot of time on it.

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

I'm quickly coming to my question.

The Ottawa Citizen reported that there was a computer system designed to conceal from the public certain information transmitted to ministers. I believe that's part of the same dynamic. Mr. Roberts said that a number of categories enable the system, the government, to understand and to know the existence of the requesters. The Privy Council says that it doesn't request it, but when you observe the entire process, you nevertheless wind up knowing the names of the requesters. In a way, the system shields the information from the public.

Mr. Eisler, is the Privy Council using this computer system to directly shield information? This also concerns all the departments.

[Dale Eisler]

I read that same article on the weekend. I'm not an expert in government access to information processes. So I can't give you an opinion on that.

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

You don't work in communications and consultations at the Privy Council?

[Dale Eisler]

Yes, I am, but this is a system-wide issue relating to access to information, and I'm not responsible for that.

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

So you don't know the scope of that.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Roberts, go ahead, please.

[Prof. Alasdair Roberts]

I would like to make a minor note about the disclosure of occupations within PCO.

In 2004 I did a little study of a request that had been sent to PCO for consultation on security grounds. After September 11, guidance was given to federal government departments that certain requests would be pulled out for review by PCO on security grounds, given the new circumstances. PCO later told me that it had undertaken 184 security-related access consultations between September 2001 and March 2003. My calculation was that three-quarters of those security-related consultations by PCO pertained to requests submitted by journalists, members of Parliament, or representatives of political parties. It was straightforward to make that calculation because PCO's own list of referrals included those categories on the list.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are there any questions, government?

Mr. Peterson?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I haven't heard anything that would indicate there was a breach of the regulations or law with respect to the disclosure of Mr. Bronskill's name. I'm far more concerned about how we can make this system work better, how we can speed it up so things don't get bogged down.

I repeat my question to Mr. Eisler. From what you've seen in the PCO, do you think there are ways that we could speed this up? Professor Roberts has said that any time it goes outside of the small group in the ministry that has to respond to requests, the bureaucracy really is layered on and time limits are broken.

[Dale Eisler]

It's difficult for me to respond to that, Mr. Peterson.

I see only a small piece of access to information, and I see that in the context of PCO's own access files. So system-wide, I can't really offer an opinion. It's just not my responsibility. I am speaking about this specific access issue that we've been addressing.

I know from my colleagues that efforts are being undertaken and progress is being made to improve the system. I think everybody agrees more work needs to be done and we need to improve, but I don't think I should be the one who should offer any views on what we should or shouldn't be doing.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Lavallée, go ahead, please.

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

My question is for each of you.

The people from the Privy Council Office tell us they've never heard of a person who requested the name of a requester. Doesn't the existence of such specific categories make it pointless to request who is the requester because we've already guessed it? Doesn't the note signed by Mr. Jackal and sent by e-mail illustrate the fact that we know who access to information requests come from because we know their category? It becomes so specific that we don't even need to request it.

[Prof. Alasdair Roberts]

I often make requests under freedom of information laws in different countries. An argument you sometimes get back from government agencies that don't want to give you information is called the mosaic effect. The argument is that the information I have asked for is innocuous, but if I attach that piece of information to other pieces of innocuous information I would end up with a result that would actually be quite harmful.

The argument I am making in this circumstance I think is somewhat similar. The disclosure of the occupation of a requester within a department or between departments or two central agencies may seem by itself to be innocuous, but put together with other pieces of information in the public domain, it can have an effect that undercuts the right to privacy, and that also leads to undue delays for certain kinds of requesters.

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

There are a number of different categories for each department, including five basic categories, I suppose, together with sub-categories. Couldn't there be sub-subcategories, that is, for example, a written request coming from a particular media organization, province, region and, while we're at it, city? Then you would only need to identify the family name.

[Prof. Alasdair Roberts]

I don't have any evidence that there are subcategories, but as a journalist once said to me, the number of Canadian journalists is small to start with. When you break it down by region and specialty, it gets smaller still. When you see a request come in on some topic pertaining to some region on a specific issue, and you know it's a journalist's request, sometimes it's very easy to figure out who the individual filing the request is.

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

Couldn't we conclude that that's because they already know that no one in a cabinet or any minister requests the names of requesters?

[Prof. Alasdair Roberts]

I'm in no position to know what ministerial aides or communications persons do with regard to actually asking for names. The point I would emphasize is to ask what legitimate purpose, pertaining to the law, is served by the routine disclosure of occupations within government.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Kenney, you have a turn next. I'm not going to say it's closing; we'll see what the opposition has to say. But you may speak, sir.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I am going to smuggle in a statement under the guise of a question here.

Obviously government members of the committee have an interest in establishing that the government--that is to say, political staff and ministers--did not act irresponsibly or illegally in this matter. I think that's been established. But I think it's equally important that in our report we respect the integrity of our public servants. And I just wanted to put on the record, for consideration when we come to drafting a report, the professionalism and the conduct of both Mr. Jack and Mr. Eisler. I think this whole unfortunate matter is the result of media misinterpretation of an innocent comment in an e-mail and should in no way be held against the author of that e-mail, which in this instance was Mr. Jack.

I will certainly, in drafting the report, ask that we reflect on that so that there's no cloud hanging over Mr. Jack's head for having acted responsibly in this matter.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Lavallée.