Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

[Andrea Conte]

Sure. I mentioned it in my opening statement.

I research historic events of the sixties, including the student protest that happened at Sir George Williams University, an event that Concordia University apologized for just a month ago, for calling the police. Yet when you go to the police archive—which is at Library and Archives Canada—of requesters who requested these documents in the nineties when they were first being released by CSIS, newspaper articles on that event from mainstream media organizations are completely redacted, so just imagine how redacted the documents are of the informer reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Conte.

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Green, you have six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all the guests.

I'm very grateful that we were able to embark on this study, given some of the false starts we might have had administratively in getting folks booked in for this. I want you to know that this committee, I can say with assurance, in a non-partisan way, takes this study very seriously. I'm looking forward to some substantive recommendations beyond just the talking about it and the consultations, so thank you for being here today.

I want to begin with Mr. Conte—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Green. Can you lower the microphone a bit, if you don't mind? Thank you.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is that a bit better?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You'll have to speak a little louder.

That's a bit better.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to begin with Mr. Conte.

Mr. Conte, have you had the ability to watch any of our previous studies related to this subject matter?

[Andrea Conte]

Do you mean previous hearings of the committee?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's correct.

[Andrea Conte]

Yes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I bring that up because I want to say that I've certainly referenced your work, and I've put the question of administrative sabotage to multiple subject matter experts across the country. I would say that a large portion of them agree on the context in which you framed it in your piece entitled “Administrative sabotage”, wherein you discussed how COINTELPRO records have become available in the U.S. due to their declassification system, but how in Canada these records are extremely difficult to access. As a result, accountability from the government for its past abuses—you've referenced a couple of other examples—is absent from policy discourse.

As somebody who in a contemporary way has been actively involved in civil rights, particularly regarding the Black Lives Matter movement, the Movement for Black Lives, police brutality and other things, I can only imagine that perhaps out there somewhere there might be a file on me.

Can you describe for a moment, in that context, how this retaining of documents and this withholding of critical information impacts the way in which Canadians view our own culpability within systemic racism and anti-Blackness in Canada?

[Andrea Conte]

I think the impact on the mainstream, of course, is obvious. If government documents on these events, be it historic events from the sixties and seventies or what's happening right now with the Trans Mountain pipeline and the criminalization of indigenous protesters, where you cannot access documents related to their arrests because they're seen as ongoing law enforcement issues.... I think that when you look at greater impact, whether it's contemporary or historic, it's a demonstration of institutional white supremacy.

If we have non-state organizations that are coming forth with apologies on these kinds of events yet state institutions are maintaining the status quo that they've kept for 40 years in terms of not disclosing or not being truthful on the kind of sabotage they performed during those exact events, then I hesitate to say what impact this has on the future of Canada, where so many different kinds of conflicts and different points of view are growing further apart.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

You referenced TMX. I think about the Wet'suwet'en. I think about the way in which the state holds the monopoly of violence and about the lack of ability to have civil or civic accountability—civilian accountability over policing. In a bunch of different ways, we're in fact dealing with that with the Emergencies Act, the occupation, the convoy. Getting information from our own governments, even as MPs, with what should be supreme powers to send for documents, has been very difficult.

In your opinion, does the continued classification of these documents...? I'll just expand on this notion of understanding the history of Canada and the abilities for citizens to advocate for policy changes, the ability for those in governments to write informed policy. You talked about this as being an extension of systemic white supremacy within government. I'm wondering if you could expand on that a little bit in terms of the work that you do and what you see in a contemporary context.

[Andrea Conte]

Lots of these issues are absent from policy discourse, because the starting point is knowing what the state's implication and role are to begin with. If I go, for example, on security state issues, all of these issues implicate CSIS, if not directly, then by consultation. Yet, if you want to consult a record from CSIS as an individual, you are not even allowed to know the access to information coordinator's name. When you look at the index of the access to information coordinator, which is listed publicly for every single department, you see that CSIS likes to pretend.... This office, the access to information office, is the most public-facing office of their institution, because they have to interact with the public, yet they like to pretend that they're in some kind of secret operation where the culture is like Fight Club: You don't talk about fight club.

How can you broker any kind of relevant discourse when this is the attitude when it comes to just knowing, let alone how to shift from knowing into public policy discourse?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I stopped the clock on the technical thing, so it's about 20 seconds, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, I'll just wait until the next round.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

At this point, I'm going to invite Mr. Tromp to join us.

I apologize, sir, for the technical difficulties. Like the other witnesses who are here today, you'll have five minutes to address the committee, and you'll participate in the second round of questioning, along with the other witnesses.

Mr. Villemure, I can confirm that the tests have been done for these witnesses as well, and everything is in order.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Tromp, please go ahead for five minutes.

[Stanley Tromp]

Hello, and thank you.

It's almost a miracle that I'm here today at all. That was the most complex half-hour Zoom technical challenge I've ever seen in my life.

Anyway, here we are. I'm calling from Vancouver.

To begin my remarks, as you must know, many leading open government advocates declined to testify to this committee. They regard it as a very ineffectual process, for many reasons, like other such parliamentary hearings on this subject in the past. For example, the short time frame renders it impossible. One expert group complained it was invited to submit written submissions at 8:24 p.m. one night, give its reply before 3 p.m. the next day, and expect an appearance on the following business day.

As well, the Treasury Board Secretariat announced a so-called review of the ATI act in June 2020, but it has repeatedly extended the deadline for completion, with no end yet in sight.

That being said, I will still utilize any opportunity to explain to MPs and the public why there is an urgent need for major reforms to FOI, as well as its value.

Today, I'm speaking only for myself and not on behalf of any organization. My testimony consists of three records. These and many more are posted on my website, canadafoi.ca.

First, the committee was sent a link to the report I authored for the Centre for Free Expression entitled “It's Time for Change! 206 Recommendations for Reforms to Canada's Access to Information Act”. This is the most complete set of ATI reform recommendations ever produced. It consists of advice often repeated over three decades—mostly to no avail—based on best practices elsewhere in the world and the advice of information commissioners, access policy experts, frequent users and civil society groups. I hope you've all had a chance to read over those 206 recommendations.

Second, I sent you a link to my book, Fallen Behind: Canada's Access to Information Act in the World Context. The first edition appeared in 2008, and the second in 2020. Because there was no time to translate this 400-page book into French, the clerk instead printed out its five-page summary of chapters. I hope you received that.

Third, I compiled a database of all 6,500 news articles produced through the ATI act since its passage in 1983, and I wrote a 100-word summary of each. They're in 41 topic headings. I created this index to demonstrate the value of FOI laws to the public, thus providing a morale boost and story ideas for reporters and journalism students. The sad thing is that most of the records in those requests should have been routinely released.

In brief, the ATI act contains three statutory black holes that most urgently require fixing. The first is section 21 and the exemption for policy advice. This needs a harms test, a 10-year time limit instead of the current 20 years, and a clear statement that background facts and analysis cannot be withheld as policy.

Second, Canada has created more than 100 wholly owned and controlled entities that perform public functions and spend billions of taxpayers' dollars while excluding these from the scope of FOI laws. For example, the exclusion of the Canadian Blood Services, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and air traffic controllers could result in harm to public health and safety.

Third, the greatest single threat to the FOI system today may be so-called “oral government”. This occurs when officials no longer commit their thoughts to paper and convey them verbally instead, in order to avert the chance of the information emerging in response to FOI requests. Thus, Canada urgently needs a comprehensive law to create and preserve records, with penalties for non-compliance.

We should follow the example of Newfoundland, where, in 2012, the public rebelled against the premier's plan to convert its FOI law into the worst in Canada and instead pushed to make it the best.

Sadly, although I believe you mean well, it is likely your advice will be ignored again by cabinet and the bureaucracy, as it has been for 35 years—as with the “Open and Shut” report produced by a panel of MPs in 1987. I only wish your power was equivalent to your goodwill.

Thank you.

I will be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Tromp. We appreciate your words.

We're now going to the second round.

As a reminder, we have about 55 minutes for questioning.

We will begin with you, Mr. Gourde. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

Looking at the changes in journalism, it seems that investigative journalism is disappearing as a result of access to information issues. The current climate is more favourable to opinion journalism. All kinds of experts write newspaper articles or discuss various topics on television programs. Social media have also accelerated the pace at which information is processed. A news item is released in the morning and people want to know the outcome by the afternoon. About forty years ago, when a news item was published in a newspaper, the story could be stretched out over a month, because there were always new facts emerging.

You said it was frustrating to have to wait five to seven years to get access to certain information before you publish an article. The news item might still be relevant and of interest five or seven years later, but it would no doubt have been more topical during that same month.

Do you think there is a future for investigative journalism as you practice it?

I would like Mr. Conte to answer first because he talked more about the frustrations he has faced. The other witnesses may answer after him.

[Andrea Conte]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Gourde.

When I referenced the five years to write an article, it was more so the five years of documented frustrations with the access act in terms of performing research on a single topic regarding COINTEL profiles in Canada. These were archives that I was trying to request from Library and Archives Canada, but I found myself having to go to the United States, to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., because they have a declassification system after 25 years.

This particular topic involves RCMP and FBI collaboration, so I found it very ironic that in order to do historical research on this era of Canadian history, I had to go to the United States to get the records, because in Canada, CSIS still considers them to be an operational threat.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Beeby, do you have anything to add?