Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 7th, 2022

[Dean Beeby]

You were asking about the future of investigative journalism. The branch of investigative journalism that relies on documents is dying, because of the inadequacies of the Access to Information Act.

It's not that other investigations can't happen. We rely on whistle-blowers. We rely on leaks. There are other things you can do to produce investigative deep journalism, but using documents that are obtained under freedom of information is a particular branch that has its advantages. The advantages are that you're not talking about one person's opinion of what happened, or one person's view about what should have happened, but you're looking at material from inside government itself that lays out the record. It's a form of investigative journalism that's hard for governments to brush off, to deny, if you're simply quoting to them the very records from their government.

That is a big loss, and we're seeing it happen now. We're seeing the loss of this document-based investigative journalism as we speak, as the access to information system becomes less and less reliable and available to journalists.

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

Mr. Jolly, would you like to say something?

[Brent Jolly]

Yes, thank you.

I would like to echo a lot of Dean's comments about the challenges facing...the decline of access to information documentary journalism.

In many ways, just to finish off what he was mentioning, the idea is that a poor access to information system transforms a lot of what could be considered day-to-day journalism into the need for investigative journalism, which, in the current economic climate of news, is largely unsustainable.

The second thought I would share is this. The inclusion of documents obtained through the access system, when they are included in journalistic storytelling, is very clearly an indictment of the system itself. The idea of having to go back, saying this took place five or seven years ago, for example, makes very clear to readers and the audience the challenges that journalists undertake to acquire and gain access to these materials. That's something that really needs to change.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Jolly.

Mr. Fergus, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses who are here with us.

I will begin with you, Mr. Beeby, because I have followed your career and your criticisms about our access to information system for a long time.

I would like to go back to what you said about proactive disclosure.

“Why are so many people seeking info from government, if proactive disclosure is working?” It was something to that effect.

In this committee, we have talked with officials from certain departments. Those people have pointed out that three quarters of access to information requests pertain to just one department, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. The people making those requests want an update, but that department's information systems are obsolete.

Does that answer your question in part?

[Dean Beeby]

The citizenship and immigration load on the access to information system is quite ridiculous. That department made a decision.... I don't know how long ago it was, at least 20 years. It was getting a lot of questions about clients' files, so it said, “We don't have the administrative capacity to respond to all these inquiries. We're just going to put the whole thing under access to information.” It was a deliberate decision to use the act in a way that it was not intended to be used.

The vast majority—I think it's 75% of requests—are of that nature. They're just immigration consultants and lawyers asking about their clients. To me, it is absurd that you would use a freedom of information system to answer that kind of question. Why wouldn't you simply set up your own separate computer system to respond to these questions instead of gumming up the access to information system?

The Information Commissioner has done a study on this. I hope you look at it. She said exactly what I'm saying. She said to get it out of access to information. This will be a big help to make things more streamlined and accessible.

[Andrea Conte]

This picks up on a point by Ms. Hepfner, where we talk about more information being available, or more access requests happening than ever before.

A lot of reference has been made in this committee to vexatious or unnecessary requests from the public. I think those happen in a few outlying instances. I think this is, in fact, insignificant when you think about the vexatious nature of government in this kind of example. They're misusing the Access to Information Act for things that are unrelated to what it was intended for, and using it for their own operations.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

You said you have been following the current discussions, as you followed similar discussions about fifteen times since this program was instituted.

This time, assuming that everyone at the table is in good faith, I would like you to tell me which government officials we should invite, in your opinion, to answer for the access to information system.

Mr. Beeby, would you like to answer this question?

[Dean Beeby]

Well, the system is overseen by Treasury Board.

One of my invitations would go to the President of the Treasury Board, and perhaps to the equivalent of deputy minister there. They are the ones who make key decisions about how this system works, and they should be held accountable for those decisions. Those are the two I would ask.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Other than those two people, Mr. Conte, is there anyone else you would suggest?

[Andrea Conte]

Yes, I would ask the access to information coordinator of CSIS, and I would ask Amir Attaran, a constitutional lawyer, who is well versed in case law around constitutional challenges and the relevance of the constitutional overlap with the current state of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Can Mr. Tromp answer the question as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We are now at five minutes and 38 seconds, but I will give Mr. Tromp another 10 seconds.

If you can give a quick answer, Mr. Tromp, that would be great.

[Stanley Tromp]

I would also be sure to invite the justice minister, who has often spoken on the ATI act before at committees, because he would deal with the law reform aspect of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Tromp.

Mr. Jolly, go ahead.

[Brent Jolly]

I might add, of course, the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, as this is something that's currently ultimately on his desk and in 2015, upon taking office, he promised to make his tenure one of Canada's most transparent governments in history. To date, I have failed to see much action on that front.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Jolly.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beeby, setting aside the act, do you think that all information must be disclosed, regardless of the circumstances?

[Dean Beeby]

No, I don't. I believe in privacy rights, for example. I do think some deliberations of government need to be protected for open and honest discussion. No, I'm not being unreasonable. I don't think it should be open to everyone. I think there are good cases to be made for protecting some kinds of information—security information, for example—but we need a watchdog to tell us when our politicians are abusing those protections for security, for privacy, for deliberations.

As I said in my remarks, at the cabinet level we do not have a watchdog. Cabinet makes its own decisions and you just have to live with them. There's no sheriff or ombudsperson to come in and say, let's have a second look at that.

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

Should the Information Commissioner have that power?

[Dean Beeby]

Yes, the Information Commissioner of Canada should be allowed to review decisions to withhold cabinet records, absolutely. It's not such a crazy idea. There's a professor at the University of Ottawa, Yan Campagnolo, who just wrote a book about this, and that was his recommendation, that the Information Commissioner should be authorized to review those kinds of decisions.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Beeby.

Mr. Conte, are you in favour of radical transparency?

[Andrea Conte]

What do you mean by “radical transparency”?

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

I mean transparency at all costs.