Information & Ethics Committee on May 4th, 2009

[Carolyn Kobernick]

I'm sorry, is there a question?

I don't mean to be disrespectful. I think what you're saying are truths. I wouldn't argue with you that—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So the transparency of government in a democracy is a fundamental principle. You didn't say it's a right, but at least the transparency of government....

[Carolyn Kobernick]

Yes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

And what we have is a lack of transparency, and, in an Orwellian way, access being denied to Canadian citizens and to members of Parliament.

[Carolyn Kobernick]

It's an interesting type of question. I think I would agree with you that transparency in government is certainly paramount. I leave the government members here to talk about their views of the government, which is open, transparent, and accountable. I think I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Madam Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you to our witnesses for coming today.

I just have a couple of questions.

Currently the act gives access to approximately 30 million Canadians and others with direct ties to Canada. Mr. Marleau's recommendations would expand this to four billion people. What do you think the implications of giving the act a global reach would be? And then, more specifically, what would the implications be with regard to the volumes in your own office?

[Carolyn Kobernick]

I'm having difficulty hearing just the end of that question.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

First I want to know what you believe the implications would be of giving the act a global reach. And also, then, what would the implication be in your own office, for example?

[Carolyn Kobernick]

On the first point, I think I've already made a reference to the fact that increasing access to a larger audience increases costs. I think this committee would like to talk about the implications of that. Certainly I couldn't speak further than that.

With respect to our own office, I would think it would be the same. As Denis has mentioned, we've already had to add additional resources in order to go from an F to an A—not insignificant resources, is my understanding. That would be something that I think every government department would be required to do.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Monsieur Nadeau, then Mr. Siksay, and then the chair has a quick question.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Kobernick, I don't want to put you in an awkward position, far from it. If you have any power to make recommendations, could you tell the minister that it would be a good idea to draft a bill to modernize the Access to Information Act? I'm just tossing out that idea, and I will let you think about it.

Mr. Chairman, I'm giving the rest of my time to Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

He can get on the list. We're not finished. We'll finish when members are finished. Are you finished?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I know that other committees do this, that is to say, they allow members to use their time as they see fit. So I'm giving the rest of my time to a colleague. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It's not necessary to transfer. The member will have his chance to speak again. He'll get his full chance.

Mr. Siksay, please.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank the officials from the department. I don't want to ask you the political questions, and I know that's often difficult in this circumstance for you, but one of the commissioner's recommendations is that the Access to Information Act be amended to provide him with an advisory mandate on proposed legislative initiatives. It would strike me that that's sort of the kind of work you folks do in the department and for the minister. I'm wondering if you see this as sort of a departure from usual process, if you see any conflict between your roles and the roles of folks in the commissioner's office who might do a similar function, and if there are other places where the kind of work you do is duplicated or performed in other agencies or commissions.

[Carolyn Kobernick]

It would be a departure from the usual process, as I think our minister has indicated, and again, something for this committee to look at. If he's asking for that opportunity, perhaps it will be something other officers of Parliament would seek to have as well.

He does have an opportunity to comment on legislation once it's been tabled in the House. And I think, as our minister has said, that's the appropriate way to work with legislation, with draft legislation.

There was another part to your question at the end, but again, I didn't catch that part. I'm sorry.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Well, I think you were addressing the idea that this is a departure. Do you know that this doesn't exist, to your knowledge, with other departments and commissions or separate offices that have that specific kind of mandate?

[Carolyn Kobernick]

I don't, but my understanding is not necessarily federally. Perhaps someone else is aware if something exists provincially, but I'm not aware of it.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I understand that two requests to the Department of Foreign Affairs for information on detainee transfers are being delayed. They're at 290 days and counting.

We have a request at the Department of National Defence for information on the acquisition of Chinook helicopters. It's been delayed for 330 days.

There's a policy now that even for something as simple, for instance, as the Service Canada youth employment strategy and summer work experience program, search fees are being applied. For example, on a request for rejection letters in May 2007, Service Canada said that 570 hours would be required for these letters that all went in just in one month, for a fee of $5,650.

What I'm providing are specific examples that show.... I used the term “Orwellian” previously, not lightly but because that appears to be what's going on. We have a government that claims they've expanded the access, yet in fact the statistics are showing the exact opposite, and we're getting at the fundamentals of democracy, the principle of openness.

There's an incredible amount of frustration among MPs that their requests are being delayed, in some cases by a year, and we still have no answers. We hear we're being amber-lighted. Journalists are being amber-lighted. Do you not agree that this type of secrecy and Orwellian approach to access to information in fact totally subverts the intent of the act?

[Carolyn Kobernick]

No. I have no knowledge of the cases you've brought to committee, so I actually have no comment on that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That wasn't the question. We're getting at the principles. I provided a series of examples.

Let's go back to the case of Canadian Press reporter Jim Bronskill. The former director of communications for the Prime Minister, Sandra Buckler, publicly, in a conference call, gave out his name. I think most people would feel terrible about that. Are you aware that a new policy has been put in place such that the current communications director would never do something of this sort?

We don't want journalists to be put under that sort of pressure, or to think that perhaps somehow they're even being blacklisted.