Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

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

With regard to the CAIRS complaint investigation, when do you expect that to be completed? Is there a timeline on that?

[Suzanne Legault]

It should be completed fairly soon, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the secretary of the Treasury Board changed, and we had a change in our office so we had to re-engage the conversation on the CAIRS file. That's what caused the additional delays. But it should be fairly soon; certainly before Christmas, I'm hoping.

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

One of the things your annual report talks about is the internal audits the office has under way in a number of areas. Have there been any results on any of those internal audits? I notice you say they will be available on the website as they become available. Have any of those been posted, and which ones?

[Suzanne Legault]

In terms of the internal audit function, when we speak about proactive disclosure, all the information in relation to the first audit is published. It was a very critical audit of our intake in early resolution function. As I said in my opening remarks, they highlighted to us several shortcomings in our new unit, which we addressed this summer and this fall. All the details of the action plan are published on the website.

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

Are there more audit results expected soon, or is that the only one that was expected?

[Suzanne Legault]

We did only one this fiscal year. It was our first year with the internal audit function. We are reviewing our internal audit plan with committee members this fall. There hasn't been a final decision, to my recollection of our last meeting on interim audit, but we are debating whether we are going to do one or two a year. They are quite resource-intensive and that's our concern.

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

This is a bit off track, but the first act of President Obama's presidency was to call for a new access to information commitment in government in the United States. Many folks saw that as a way of trying to establish a new culture of access in an open government in the United States.

Have you had any discussions with American colleagues or do you have any sense of the effect of that early decision by the Obama government? Has it made a difference? Are people seeing results from that course of action?

[Suzanne Legault]

I have had discussions with certain people in the States, with some people from the Carter Center--that's Jimmy Carter--that has a strong component of access to information, and also with the director of the justice department who is responsible for access to information within the Obama organization.

Yes, it was hailed as a major success in terms of reiterating the president's position to the administration in relation to the presumption of disclosure in the administration of the act. Has it had tangible results? I don't know that there has been any data collected in that respect. What I do know is that one of the major initiatives of the Obama administration has been this new open government website, Data.gov, which basically puts forth raw data in relation to several initiatives. For instance, in regard to the budget information, they did not produce a PDF version of the budget; they actually produced the raw data that was used to produce the budget.

So that is a completely new initiative in the States, and it has already generated quite a lot of usage.

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

You mentioned in your opening statement the Right to Know Week. Could you tell us more about that? You said it had been a significant week and there were some significant outcomes from it. Can you share some of that with us?

[Suzanne Legault]

Right to Know Week originated in Bulgaria in 1999. The day of September 28 is actually Right to Know Day internationally.

In Canada, we celebrate it as a weekly event. We collaborate with our provincial and territorial colleagues. It was significant this year because we were actually able to have a national event for the first time. We shared a common trademark for Right to Know Week. We shared seminars via webcast. We had four events. Mr. Chairman participated in one of the panels. We had a legal panel, an international panel, a session on the new age of government information disclosure with Senator Fox, and an evening with journalists and academics in relation to access to information. CPAC collaborated with us, so at virtually no cost it was televised across Canada.

For me, the major success of Right to Know Week, which is to bring access to information to Canadians, is that my father was able to watch it in his living room. To me, that's what Right to Know Week is all about; it's to actually spread the word about the importance of access to information.

We also collaborated with the Canada School of Public Service, which webcast the Senator Fox seminar so that it would be available to all public servants.

So for us, this year, it was not only significant because we were able to have several events in collaboration with universities as well—the University of Ottawa and Carleton University—but also that it was done in a manner that was accessible to all Canadians across Canada, in both official languages, and that we had tremendous collaboration from our provincial and territorial colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Would it be possible to provide the breakout of how many of the complaints to the Privy Council Office in the years prior to 2008-09 were due to cabinet confidences? Could that be provided to the committee?

[Suzanne Legault]

Certainly.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

In 2006, in the Conservative Party election platform, “Stand up for Canada”, there was reference made over and over to making a decision that cabinet confidences would be subject to review by the Information Commissioner and that powers would be granted so that the commissioner could review and release that information. Has that occurred?

[Suzanne Legault]

No.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Also in that same election platform, the following was stated, which the Conservative Party pledged to do, and I quote: “provide a general public interest override for all exemptions”. Has that occurred?

[Suzanne Legault]

No.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That's quite a track record.

It's interesting; there are two ways to block access to information. One is to put up a wall. Another method is to create a frustrating maze, at the end of which people just give up. We've seen numbers increase, double. I'm referencing the Privy Council Office and these new mechanisms put in place whereby departments say, “Well, it's in PCO consultations”. Things are dragging out as long as almost a year now, up from the 30 to 60 days that existed previously.

I can't help but think of the TV commercial that we see these days of a little boy with a red truck that's been given to him by a banker. After 30 seconds, time's up and the truck gets taken away, the boy gets a cut-out cardboard truck, and the banker says, “Sorry, read the fine print”. You see the disappointment in the child's face.

There is incredible disappointment; I almost feel that I'm being treated in a similar manner as an elected representative when I try to make these access to information requests.

You've clearly stated that disappointment not only exists among MPs and journalists—people are giving up—but there's a tremendous amount of disappointment in your office. Do you intend to once again follow in Mr. Marleau's footsteps and say, “We need some quick fixes”? Perhaps we've reached a point where we say we need a general overhaul; let's take a look at the open system in New Zealand, where everything immediately gets posted on the Internet.

The minister has basically thrown our report out--work that all of us agreed to, pretty much unanimously, 12 recommendations for quick fixes. It's clear there's no intention on behalf of the minister to address any of this. Ten sessions were spent to work quite meticulously on those recommendations.

Is it time to say, okay, enough of this, let's just overhaul the whole system? We have the opposite of access to information. We have a culture of secrecy.

[Suzanne Legault]

Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening remarks, I do stand behind the 12 quick fixes that were presented to this committee by Commissioner Marleau.

It's obviously a matter for legislators to decide how they wish to reform the access to information regime at the federal level.

From my end, my job is to implement the act as it currently stands, which I'm doing.

Second, if this committee or the government wishes to continue reform initiatives, I will provide my staff and myself in terms of participating in those efforts.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

If we see current trends, how many years of frustration do you think you could put up with?

[Suzanne Legault]

I'm not an easily frustrated person.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That's encouraging. Thank you.

In 2001, under the Anti-terrorism Act, the Attorney General of Canada was given new powers to issue certificates to halt investigations under the act. Are you aware of whether over the last year, or in previous years, any such certificates have been issued by the Attorney General?

[Suzanne Legault]

I'm not aware; I would have to verify and provide you with that information.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That would be appreciated.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Dechert, please.