Evidence of meeting #49 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 things.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs and Associate Dean, Faculty of Public Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
For sure, yes.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Do you think the Access to Information Act should apply to documents covered by cabinet confidence?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs and Associate Dean, Faculty of Public Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
That's a hard one, and I think that's kind of divisive among the access community. I think there are a lot of reasons why we want to see that.
I would also say that I understand that decision-making in cabinet is not easy and there needs to be room for discussion and deliberation. People need to feel free to have difficult discussions and to change their minds.
I think that one is a little bit complicated. I can see arguments on both sides. Perhaps that's just an academic wishy-washy answer, but—
November 28th, 2022 / 5:05 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
They could be disclosed for the reasons we discussed.
Should the Information Commissioner have the ability to look at documents covered by cabinet confidence to say whether they were classified properly? Then, the commissioner would know whether they had been classified appropriately or whether they had been overclassified.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs and Associate Dean, Faculty of Public Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
I would say yes. She doesn't have to release them, and she is very careful about that, but I think it's important that there is an oversight mechanism where somebody can look at all of the information involved and then make a decision. I think that's an important point.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Ms. Francoli.
Mr. White, what are you hoping to accomplish by appearing before the committee today?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
The first objective, I would say, is a recognition from maybe this committee and anyone interested in the access to information system that there are real barriers to victims, complainants and survivors in accessing essential information, which hasn't yet been a real part of the conversation. I think steps have been taken, but there are still a lot of things that no one has clued into, as in, “Oh, we wouldn't have thought that might be a problem.” I can share that both from personal experience and from what I've heard from others as well.
The second piece is that I think it needs to be looked into further to get a real sense of the scope of the problem or of creative solutions, because action is really what's needed. It's great that we have the laws in place, but if they're not followed or they're flouted, effectively they don't achieve the results needed.
Those are two of the objectives.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. White.
Thank you, Monsieur Villemure.
Mr. Green, you have six minutes.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I have a point of order prior to my intervention, if I could, Mr. Chair.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I want to note that the procedure guide for witnesses states:
Testimony before a parliamentary committee is protected by parliamentary privilege. This means that witnesses enjoy the same freedom of speech and immunity from prosecution or civil liability as do Members of Parliament.
I want to ask you, Mr. Chair, if we know for a certainty that this would extend to members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Yes, Mr. Green. It expands to witnesses who appear before committees.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
I want to begin with Mr. White.
Mr. White, if I heard you correctly, you were of the opinion, in your opening remarks, that your participation here—given the culture of the armed forces—may result in reprisal. Is that correct, sir?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I won't get into specific details about your current participation.
Are you satisfied that what I just read out, in terms of your protections, would extend to you as a witness, or do you still believe the culture of the Department of National Defence would supersede the directions and protections accorded to you by the House of Commons?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I think the simple answer to that question is that there are a lot of creative ways you can suffer reprisals, which are not easy to link back to testimony at a committee. It could be administrative or a reassignment of duties. These are all things that have been flagged, throughout Operation Honour, as things victims have faced after coming forward.
The best I can say is, it's nice to hear that there are protections, but protections are only as good as that which you can truly enforce.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
As a member of Parliament, I'm joining the other members here in going beyond just thanking you for your service. It's certainly my intention to ensure that parliamentary privileges are accorded to you by our Standing Orders. The House of Commons would hopefully suffice in providing you with that kind of protection, in terms of whistle-blowing.
What I want to do, seeing how you're coming to this committee with lived experience, perhaps, and anecdotal experience from people you've worked with.... Could you share other jurisdictions or armed forces around the world that may have, in your opinion, more adequate and suitable whistle-blower protections?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
The short answer to that question is that I would have difficulty pointing to those other organizations, as it's outside the scope of what I've studied.
I can say that, from what I understand through other experts—perhaps some of you have heard it at committee or in the news—Canada has an atrocious record when it comes to whistle-blower protection. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for people who come forward. I understand that even if members in the forces, or the government broadly, are not interested in participating in wrongdoing, they are very willing to look the other way in the interest of putting food on their table or putting their kids through school.
It is incredibly difficult to want to tell anyone. There is no reason or incentive to come forward, unless you have an incredibly strong sense of justice, in terms of what is right. I can assure you there is no benefit or reward that comes from it. In fact, my experience has been that you get a lot of the opposite.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I can appreciate that.
I want you to know, for the record, that we are in the midst of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.
In your opening remarks, you certainly raised the spectre of a whole host of problems. I think you, quite rightly, also identified the ongoing investigations into the culture at the most senior levels of the armed forces and the Department of National Defence. I want to thank you for that, and I hope this committee.... I would say, sir, that you have been successful in flagging this as a very real concern. In a non-partisan way, I would imagine every member of this committee has taken your testimony to be of the utmost importance and seriousness.
I will now reflect on some comments made by Associate Dean Francoli.
You mentioned, in previous testimony, that you were not sure whether the “open by default” policy in place in the U.S. would have any significant effect on open data. I flagged the language used with some folks earlier. It's kind of like a jargon in government. It sounds great, a bit of sloganeering: “open by default”.
I'm wondering whether your opinion is still the same. Is this language around us more words than action, when it comes to governments providing more transparency?
5:15 p.m.
Director, Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs and Associate Dean, Faculty of Public Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
Here in Canada, when we are talking about “open by default” and open data.... We've seen more movement on open data than “open by default”. It's tough, because it involves a bit of what Mr. Villemure was saying. You have to think about the classification of things in advance. It's more like proactively releasing things—making withholding information a rarity and limited to things like national security.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Your subject matter expertise is going to be helpful, so why don't we give you the opportunity to create some definitions? If I don't have the time accorded to me, then I would ask that you submit it.
However, in regard to principles of open government, what principles require the greatest improvement given the current access to information regime?