Evidence of meeting #42 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rubin.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Cutler, thank you for being here today and for everything you've done for many years to protect whistleblower information.
I will put the same question to you about the Commissioner's statement, as to whether there is a culture of secrecy or transparency. She told us there is a culture of secrecy.
What's your opinion on this?
5:15 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
Excuse the en anglais. My French has really declined since I retired officially from the government. If you don't use it, you lose it.
5:15 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
Yes, there is a culture of secrecy, and it's hard to explain, except that nobody wants to tell you anything. That's really what it is. It's closed units.
You ask for access to information and they tell you.... As I said, the RCMP told me that what I was asking for was information, not documents. Well, that's a way of preventing me from getting into where I want to be. This happens all the time. It's like a closed door, and I'm out there banging on it, trying to get in. I have a battering ram, but it's not working.
I'm using expressive material, but it's so frustrating, because they have the culture—
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to ask you two more questions.
In your view, has government culture in this area changed in all these years?
5:15 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
Not in the last couple of years, but over the last 10 years, yes.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
5:15 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
I don't put it down to a party so much as a bureaucracy, and a culture within a bureaucracy.
All you have to do is look at Phoenix, which is a prime example. In the private sector, you'd be fired for the debacle. In the public sector, they were, in the worst-case scenario, transferred to a new place, and they still got their bonus.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Merci , Monsieur Villemure.
Next we'll go to MP Desjarlais from the NDP. Sir, you have six minutes.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleagues for good questions, and also the witnesses for being present. I think those are good words that you shared with us at the beginning of this meeting.
I want to delve into parts of what you mentioned.
I think for Canadians, it's particularly important to understand the framework of access to information versus the right to information. It's easy to talk about access—imagine going to a library and not being able to read any books—versus the right to actually have the information.
I'd like to have testimony from each of the witnesses, starting with Mr. Rubin, on the difference between access to information and the right to information.
5:15 p.m.
Investigative Researcher and Transparency Advocate, As an Individual
Right now there's a myth that we have the right to information, but until we firmly establish under charter subsection 2(b)—which is freedom of expression—that we have a right to access freedom of information, we're at a loss.
I don't care what the courts say about a quasi-constitutional thing. Until it's put in there as an amendment to the act that we have the constitutional right, we don't have that right. It's a privilege, and it's taken advantage of by government people.
That's part of the problem with the culture of secrecy. Everybody likes to say on both sides that it's broken. Well, in whose interests is it broken? It's in the vested interests of the government officials who want that secrecy and who want to continue with that secrecy.
Until the system is really reformed with less secrecy and until we have a right, it is never going to work—never.
5:15 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
He's absolutely right. I have a right to access information, in my opinion. Am I able to access it? No.
As I've said, it's like a closed door, and they keep the key, which is even worse, so they're not going to let me in, but what else can I say about it, except that the information's there? You can change the law, but you also have to change the culture. You need the people at the top, the politicians of all parties, to say, “This is what it will be.” Then the bureaucracy will conform.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
5:20 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Government secrecy is a recipe for corruption, waste, abuse of the public, and decisions that protect private interests and violate the public interest. “Sunlight is a good disinfectant”, as a wise U.S. Supreme Court justice said about a century ago.
The secrecy that is allowed under the Access to Information Act is not the only form of excessive government secrecy. Secret lobbying is allowed. Secret investments by cabinet ministers, by MPs and senators, by their staff and by government employees are allowed.
As mentioned before, our whistle-blower protection system is actually protecting people from having the whistle blown on them, as opposed to protecting whistle-blowers who are reporting wrongdoing. All of that secrecy adds up to bad government decision-making.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much to each of you for that.
Just quickly, I would like to confirm this. Mr. Rubin mentioned this idea that it's a privilege. I want to confirm for the study that the concept of the right to information is currently not within the existing ATI system. Is that true?
5:20 p.m.
Investigative Researcher and Transparency Advocate, As an Individual
It's a statutory provision that was even decimated further by Bill C-58. It's not part of the Constitution Act. Until we get that, we're lost. We will never.... The powers that be—the corporations, the law enforcement agencies, the bureaucrats and the politicians—will not allow this, even though Parliament and MPs right here have problems getting information and should realize that their rights are being screwed around with too.
5:20 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
It's interesting that Mr. Rubin mentioned information for parliamentarians. I know for a fact that I asked a couple of years back for some information and I got it through Access to Information. The particular minister I was dealing with asked for it through an order paper, and on the same question he had different information.
I couldn't believe it. How do you control that? The bureaucrat, in the way the bureaucracy is structured, controls the flow of information. If they don't like you as a minister, as a politician, they're going to make it very difficult for you, because they have tremendous power from the top down.
“Things have to change” is the only way to say it.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
I want to make sure that Mr. Conacher has a chance to answer this portion.
5:20 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Well, the exclusions and the loopholes define the rights to access, and so you're right. The Access to Information Act is actually more loophole than it is rules in providing access. The purpose in subsection 2(b) “is to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society and to enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions”, but the rest of the act does not fulfill that purpose in any way.
The 18 changes I'm calling for today, and that have been called for by many others in the past, would actually turn it into an open government law instead of a guide to keeping information from the public that they have a right to know.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Conacher, and MP Desjarlais.
The bells are ringing in the House.
Mr. Gourde, you have the floor for five minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here and explaining the situation to us based on their experience.
I'm not reassured and neither are Canadians. We're talking about a culture of secrecy. We're talking about a culture of incompetence. Our access to information rights are being violated. In your opinion, if we continue on this path, where will this code of silence, hiding information from Canadians, take us?
I'll start with Mr. Cutler, then Mr. Rubin and Mr. Conacher can respond.
5:20 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
In my experience, I went through the sponsorship scandal, obviously, and everybody said things were going to improve. What I have witnessed since 2006 is a deterioration in society. The more the federal government accepts it, the more society accepts corruption, and you start looking at what people are representing. The government is representing the worst and not the best. In terms of access, when we're trying to get the information out, again, it is giving us the worst, not the best that it can give us—with some exceptions; don't get me wrong. Many access officers really want to do a good job, but their hands are tied by the legislation, by what's going on.
I've had misinformation given to me, and the answer is, when I'm challenging it, “Go to the Information Commissioner.” I'm saying, “Well, wait a second; I can prove you're wrong when you're telling me I can't have something, but you're saying I have to go to the Information Commissioner.”
There doesn't seem to be a good solution under the present act. We are a third world country with our legislation, and there's no denying it. We cannot maintain.... We're up there; we're a third world country.