Absolutely. I would hope, as all these things have to do with the production of documents, that it is self-evident, but if you'd like, I will say that production of raw documents, as I just noted, can cause these challenges, which is why I'm speaking to the removal of this particular thing. Is the production of documents without a request for narration useful or good? That is something I would ask this committee to think about.
Sometimes that context tells the entire story. I would always hope, when I was in my previous role, that rather than compelling a production of documents, somebody would reach out to me first, because that context is very important. I think about the Kenney government and how quite often these actions were weaponized against it in order to create a picture that was not necessarily complete or compelling.
Then, of course, as we have talked about at length, one of the challenges that a production of documents provides is that it can prejudice ongoing proceedings. These broad disclosures can interfere with the activity going on and prejudice it in such a way that we get a negative outcome for the public. Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard provided very reasonable commentary on this point. I think I'll let their commentary stand.
There are then the ephemeral things, such as reduced co-operation from witnesses and stakeholders. Outside experts might be less likely to engage, knowing that their commentary might show up on the 15th without context. Municipalities, provinces and civil society groups might believe their communication will be broadly exposed later and used against them without context. They may share less information with government.
Government runs on information. It is important that government have access to it. That is why all of our access to information laws reflect this point. That is why ATIP here at the Government of Canada and FOIP at the Government of Alberta always provide the ability to protect those interests.
Federal, provincial and international relations can be strained by the release of these documents. We talk about the release of things that will maybe be read about by some of our partners in a way that's, again, without context and indiscriminately dropped out. That causes challenges. It also normalizes this unlimited power without guardrails.
This is the point that I started on. I said that by using these powers to produce indiscriminately, you are creating a challenge where all of a sudden these powers will be used perpetually and no longer for their intended purpose. If they're used without the norms of restraint, future committees of all parties may inherit and escalate those practices. Colleagues have spoken about this, but I want to underline that short-term tactical gains can create long-term institutional damage. We are all here to serve the long-term institution.
I get that this is hard. There are always two public interest intentions: transparency and accountability on one side, and effective, lawful, rights-respecting government on the other. What is important for this committee or any committee to consider as it is going through this is that it acknowledges that this is hard. It does not play this game where it pretends there is an unalloyed, universal good of always acting in one fashion or the other. Neither of those two things—transparency and accountability, and effective, lawful, rights-respecting government—can automatically defeat the other. Better practices need to protect both.
Strong committees use narrow, disciplined approaches. They define precise subject matter. They set relevant date ranges. They identify custodians or departments. They exclude clearly personal data. They use in-camera review more regularly. They appoint law clerks or independent arbiters. They permit explanations for withheld materials and for given materials. Most importantly, they require productions when it makes sense rather than demand everything at once or on a regular drumbeat. It has to be triggered by an action. It has to be triggered by a concern. Otherwise, you are wasting time that does not belong to us but rather to the good people of Canada.
The issue is not whether committees such as those in the House of Commons of Canada should have production powers. Of course they should. The issue is whether those powers are exercised with enough discipline to serve accountability without impairing wider public interest.
I appreciate that an overly broad production order can provide short-term wins. Isn't that what is happening here? However, it loses the longer-term governance fight. It weakens candour. It weakens privacy. It weakens state capacity. It weakens trust. It weakens institutions. The best committee work needs to be forceful and precise, but considers weaknesses it might otherwise be introducing.
I will mention again that I was a senior official. I want to provide what happens when a production order comes in. Everybody downs tools. Other work, including other ATIP work, stops. That is suddenly the top priority.
In Alberta, there's FOIP. It's called FOIP because of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. There are a number of different considerations that go in every single time one of these orders comes through. I appreciate that sometimes individual interest looks like it's in conflict with public interest, but those are conversations that happen behind the scenes with officials, as we're going through.
Not everything can be released easily or makes sense when it's released. What might some of this information be that we've had to deal with in the past? What if one person has sent an email and the other person has deleted the email? They maintained their retention policy, but all of a sudden, there's a gap in the record, so we need to see if somebody has a version of it or we need to make sure that it exists in some way, shape or form. This happens all the time in government.
I'm not sure if people fully appreciate what the best practice in government is. It is that we maintain final documents. There were a number of documents along the way in the Government of Alberta, which the Kenney government had, that were not final documents. We didn't always have records of them as we were going along, because at the end of the day, we knew we were required to have the final documents for records production. This was a real and present challenge we had in those cases.
There were also many conversations about how we could make the system work more fluidly with the deputy ministers' council. I was not previously in a situation where I could stand up and say, “Let's have sanity prevail.” I was in government—it was my job to do what the officials were doing—and I am now. That is why I was happy to come here and make sure that I could provide my insights into what it looks like from the other side.
There are many costs that are incurred. We drive people from the public service. They're not just people like the Prime Minister, but people who are in possible situations because of motions like this.
Mr. Sabia and Mr. Blanchard are consummate professionals. They have a commitment to our system—absolutely. It cannot be impeached. You should consider the incredible irony here. If you want to truly manage a conflict in the public interest, to keep it from the Prime Minister's awareness, you can't be reporting it to committee every 15 days. You put them in an impossible situation. To protect the public interest, it would actually be in the interest of a government official not to do this, but they know they must do it for the benefit of the committee. They're not going to come to the government if you put them in these impossible positions. You might be passively incentivizing future governments to break rules. You might be discouraging moral people from joining the public service.
Colleagues, it is easy to talk in absolutes. It is easy to take absolute positions. I'm asking you to take thoughtful positions. Are you responsible enough to not talk in absolutes and to acknowledge the downsides of such overly broad and overly prescriptive motions?
With that, I want to wrap by saying this. Mr. Hardy talked on Thursday about trust in institutions being lower. Why might it be lower when insinuations run amok, when leaders thoughtlessly insinuate for political gain and when institutions are weaponized into fishing expeditions? Why, in that situation, would we be surprised if people don't have trust in institutions? We ask a lot of our public servants, particularly our senior public servants, and we are throwing more and more at them all the time. The role is evolving, and we are asking them to help us at a critical time for our country. I ask you, colleagues, does this actually serve the public interest?
With that, Chair, I conclude.