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.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I'd like to go back to Bill C-58, which allowed proactive disclosure of lots of information from this government. I'm wondering—I guess from all three of you—if you think this helped to make government more open and transparent in any way.
Mr. Rubin, you can start.
5:05 p.m.
Investigative Researcher and Transparency Advocate, As an Individual
Well, no, it didn't, because it's one-sided information.
Take briefing notes, the lists that are prepared.... What do you get? You go and get the briefing notes, and they're sanitized talking points. They have nothing to do with the real operations of government, which people should have the right to know. That in itself is illustrative of the proactive disclosure. You get a few Prime Minister's records, but you can't get all of his other records, so it's a farce.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Cutler, do you see anything more open and transparent in government since we've had Bill C-58?
5:05 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
Absolutely nothing: I have seen really no change from one bill to the other except for the fact that the whole process has fallen apart. The idea of getting information in a timely fashion has been thrown out the window. They don't care, because they know nothing will happen if they don't do it, so what can you do about it?
I can't do anything about it. You are the only people who can do something about that.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Yes.
Bill C-58 ignored this committee's unanimous June 2016 report. It ignored all the other stakeholders. The information commissioners have documented in their annual reports very clearly that things are worse than they have been in the past.
I challenge you, as committee members, to work together and put forward a private member's bill. Ignore your leaders if they're saying they don't want to do this, because the June 2016 unanimous report didn't work to foster key changes.
I challenge all of you to work together, put out a unanimous report, and then put a private member's bill together. Jointly all support it and challenge the rest of your colleagues to vote against it and vote for excessive government secrecy and denial of the public's right to know.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Okay.
In that vein, we've heard from a number of proponents who would like to broaden the existing Access to Information Act to remove some of the exclusions that are in place, such as solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidence. I'm wondering if any of you think this would remove the ability to have frank and open discussions and that some individuals might start using less secure personal networks to discuss government business. I'm wondering if this is a risk that any of you think is a valid point of concern.
Mr. Conacher, do you want to start?
5:05 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
This claim has often been made, but I think it's that you're unable to speak truth to power and have frank discussions when you're doing it in secret, because then the government can always deny what has been recommended from the public service and there's no record of it, so the public service can't speak up and say, “No, that's not what we recommended.” Openness facilitates having frank discussions.
If there's a duty to document, then it will be illegal to go off-line, so hopefully penalties for doing that, among other violations in the duty to document, would make it very clear that if there is a decision made and there's no documentation of it, obviously someone's violating the law.
That's the way to go forward to have good democratic and good government decision-making, as opposed to the secretive and bad government decision-making we often see now.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
How about you, Mr. Rubin? Do you see any value in cabinet confidence?
October 26th, 2022 / 5:05 p.m.
Investigative Researcher and Transparency Advocate, As an Individual
With a few areas, I could see it, maybe for two or three years, but in most areas, no. It's just highly overrated. I went and got cabinet discussion papers when they were available, about 400 of them, and it was just like municipal council records. There was nothing in there that, in most cases, was highly sensitive. It's so overblown.
They're not cabinet confidence; they're cabinet records. They're just like any other record in the government.
Take the example of cabinet confidence. Do you know that the records of cabinet are never kept in full? There's no transcript. They're just sanitized summaries, and that is not full and frank discussion. Even if it is full and frank discussion, Canadians have the right to know that.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Former President, Canadians for Accountability
I have the most limited experience of any of them.
What struck me when you were talking about not keeping records was that text messaging is rampant in the government. They're really avoiding keeping records, and they know what they're doing, because if they text back and forth, there's no written record. It's becoming more and more common to just avoid the whole business.
I'm certain Mr. Rubin and Mr. Conacher would agree with me.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
One change I've noticed since I was a journalist filing access to information requests is that the cost is a lot lower for anyone who wants to access information. It's five dollars across the board. It doesn't matter how many documents you.... I was a journalist before, and we used to decide not to pursue a particular avenue of inquiry if it was going to cost too much money. Now it's just five dollars, and a previous witness in our last committee suggested that this fee should be higher.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Ms. Hepfner, can I suggest that maybe in the next round you get to that question?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Mr. Conacher.
I'd like to ask you some rather specific questions.
Is section 20 of the Access to Information Act balanced? Is it too narrow or too broad?
5:10 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
I could say the same thing about any of the exemptions. They're all, unfortunately, too broad. They all need to be narrowed. Section 20 is one of the most regularly abused. That's our general recommendation. There can be a specific discussion about how to narrow any particular exception.
There are also exclusions, and those exclusions should all be turned into exceptions, because currently with exclusions, the commissioner has no power to review the documents to determine whether they're being withheld properly.
Those are the general recommendations I would make, and if you ask me about any of the sections, I would make the same statement. They're all too broad and they all need to be narrowed to ensure that what is not disclosed—for example, to protect national security, a police investigation or a cabinet decision-making process—is protecting only what really needs to be protected. Again, as the Liberals promised in 2015, government information shall be “open by default”.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much.
At the October 5 committee meeting, during our discussion with the Information Commissioner, I asked her if there was a culture of secrecy or transparency in government. She said that it was more of a culture of secrecy.
Would you like to comment on her statement?
5:10 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Please forgive me, I should have practised my French more, but I have to answer you in English.
Yes, there is a culture of secrecy. The act is called the Access to Information Act, but it really should be called the “guide to keeping information from the public that they have a right to know”. It's not surprising, because such a law encourages a culture of secrecy, not a culture of transparency.
Many others have pointed this out for more than 20 years. Certainly in my experience, many reports have called it out. This House as well has called unanimously for key changes to stop this culture of secrecy. It's well established. Again, we're behind more than 50 other countries in the world in terms of best practices in access-to-information standards.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
You talk about good governance in your writing. Does the government overuse the national security exception when asked to divulge such things as contracts or agreements between parties?
5:10 p.m.
Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Yes, and like all exceptions, it's too broad. There cannot be exclusions at all. There has to be a proof of harm if disclosure happens, and also a public interest override, with the commissioner able to examine all documents.
In the whole area of contracts, the area of commercial information, often much more information is protected than needs to be. All that needs to be protected is proprietary information that is very much the basis of a corporation's operations. Anything more than that—protecting contractees and subcontractees—is excessive government secrecy.