Information & Ethics Committee on April 25th, 2023

[Duff Conacher]

Well, I think this is the seventh or eighth time I have appeared on access to information reforms specifically since 1993. In terms of how that relates to disinformation, other than the secrecy of online posts and who's actually behind them, it is not something we really work on specifically in terms of access to information. Secrecy and misinformation are not really the main concern with the act. The main concern with the act is that the information that's released is the information the government wants released, not the information that the public has a right to know or that the public requests.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

With respect to the information that is released or not released, that is held up or not held up, that is secret or not so secret, I'm wondering who controls the quality of that information. Is it information that you feel is correct or incorrect, accurate or not accurate? What does disinformation have to do with access to information? I ask this because I think it's a really legitimate question in terms of making sure Canadians have access to what is happening in our government. However, when we're dealing with significant amounts of disinformation—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Khalid, we're at six minutes, so if you could—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

If the witness can....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Who are you directing your question to?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Beeby.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Beeby, please give a very quick answer if you can, sir.

[Dean Beeby]

I'm sorry, but I can't do a quick answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beeby, do you think that Canada is a democratic state?

[Dean Beeby]

Yes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Has it happened in this democratic state that you have had to wait up to seven years in order to gain access to briefing notes that you requested under the Access to Information Act?

[Dean Beeby]

I have waited more than seven years, yes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Do you think that a democratic state should be proud of this kind of turnaround time?

[Dean Beeby]

No.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

As a journalist, do you think it is reasonable to suspect that sometimes obstruction techniques are used intentionally within the state when it comes to journalists accessing information?

[Dean Beeby]

There are certainly intentional roadblocks put up. I don't know. I don't think it's common. I think the problem has more to do with administrative failures—let me put it that way.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Beeby.

Mr. Conacher, I read your recommendations. One of them is to impose sanctions when obstruction is intentional.

Before we go on to the subject of sanctions, I would like to get some more information and ask you to give the committee some examples of obstruction.

[Duff Conacher]

Thank you.

With your permission, I will answer the question in English because my French is rusty.

As I just said, the public gets access to the information that the government wants the public to get access to. This government has been focused on that in saying that open government is the same as open data. It has been making lots of changes to the open data system, but that system is to make public the information that the government wants the public to see.

Open government means the public has access to information that the government doesn't want the public to see. That system is broken, as has been documented in detail. There are deliberate obstructions. I can give you one example. I requested information and communications concerning the appointment of the current Commissioner of Lobbying, and two and a half years later the Privy Council Office, which was involved in the appointment, said there were no records. No one communicated with anyone within government, but somehow they appointed the Commissioner of Lobbying. After two and a half years they denied that there were any records they could find.

They don't want the public to see those records, because it would probably show something wrong with how that commissioner was appointed. I can't get access to those documents at all. Apparently they do not exist. The investigation took two and a half years, and the Privy Council Office delayed and delayed through that entire process, and finally said there were no documents at all. That's not a system that's working in any democratic way.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

In your recommendations, you propose sanctions that could be imposed when the obstruction is intentional.

On a practical basis, the committee is wondering if it is easy enough to prove obstruction. I would like to know what kinds of sanctions you have in mind and how harsh they would be.

[Duff Conacher]

If you close all the excessive secrecy loopholes and you empower the commissioner and give the resources to the commissioner so they can be doing timely investigations, then the abuse of the loopholes will be much more difficult, because they'll be much more restricted. Delays will not be tolerated, because the commissioner will be right on top of them. In terms of the penalties, they are generally called administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, and the lobbying commissioner is called to impose them on lobbyists, as well. They are a common method of having fines, on a sliding scale depending on the significance of the violation, that are imposed on people who are committing the violation.

It is always determinable who has decided something in terms of refusing to disclose a document. The commissioner would investigate, find who was responsible, and then fine them with an AMP.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Beeby, a little while ago you spoke of seemingly misleading statistics that had been provided by the department, the same department that told us that most requests are dealt within the time frames set out in the act. Obviously, we are able to see for ourselves if those time frames are indeed the ones that have been met and if they are acceptable or not.

Do you think it would be useful to have a public registry of access to information requests and of the turnaround times for those requests? This is information that should be made public, regardless.

Would that be a good idea and should we look at that possibility?

[Dean Beeby]

Yes, I do. I think the system could be digitized and made more available for statistical analysis.

If every department had to record every step of the progress of an access to information request in a system that could be accessed by statisticians, I think we would have a much clearer picture and a much more accurate picture of what's going on. Right now, it's balkanized, and each department is responsible for its own stats.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Garon and Mr. Beeby.

Mr. Green, you have six minutes. Go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses. You've been here on many occasions on this particular topic. We're grateful to have you back today.

My opening round is for Mr. Beeby.

In an article entitled “FOI's Whack-a-Mole”, you stated that the Information Commissioner's “new order-making power is bogus”. Can you expand on that?