Remarks to House Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

[2005-4-12]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to give evidence before you concerning reform of the Access to Information Act. I am accompanied by the Deputy Information Commissioner, Alan Leadbeater and the Director of Legal Services, Daniel Brunet.

Each year, I include on the first page of my Annual Report to Parliament, a quote of some words of wisdom or interest relating to the right of access. Last year I quoted from John Bryden’s speech on second reading of his Private Members’ Bill C-462 - An Act to Amend the Access to Information Act. Here is the quote:

"This initiative of bringing transparency and accountability to government has always been an initiative of all members of the House, regardless of party. It has not been an initiative of government."
(Monday, April 26, 2004)

All members of Parliament, but especially the members of this committee should never lose sight of Mr. Bryden’s message. The right of access arose from backbench and opposition ranks, no government enjoys the rigors of transparency and accountability imposed by the right of access, and no government will nurture and strengthen the Access to Information Act without persistent encouragement from non-front bench members.

For this reason I was deeply disappointed when the Bryden Bill did not proceed into committee with a full wind in its sails of a unanimous recorded vote of support at second reading. An intervening election changed all that; and now we are left with an undertaking by the Minister of Justice in his appearance before you on April 5, 2005, asking you to support his comprehensive framework to review the Access to Information Act. Can this government – any government – be trusted to avoid the temptation to make the reform process self serving? Will a government’s comprehensive framework be an irresistible opportunity for government to seize back from citizens, the power to control what and when information will be disclosed?

These are concerns with foundation. The government has in its hands the report of a Task Force of insiders which is replete with recommendations for how to make the Access to Information Act work better for government and the public service rather than for citizens. I drew my concerns in this regard to Parliament’s attention in a Special Report tabled in September 2002 – copies have been made available to each of you. I fear that this Task Force Report will be the blueprint for the government’s reform of the Access to Information Act rather than the blueprint set out in the Bryden Bill, which garnered such widespread support in this House.

Members of this committee deserve the gratitude of Canadians for being proactive in guiding reform of the Access to Information Act. Canadians cherish the "right" to get the facts on any subject and to get the truth when governments are suspected of rewarding friends, punishing enemies, putting self-interest above public interest or simply of using secrecy in paternalistic ways. We sometimes lose sight of it here, inside the Queensway, but Canadians grasp and hold dear, the profound advance our democracy made in 1983 with the passage of the Access to Information Act.

Every non-insider review of the Access to Information Act over the past 20 years has come to the same conclusion: narrow the scope of exemptions, broaden the coverage to include new records and institutions, make the system speedier, reduce fee barriers, strengthen the powers of oversight and make government more accountable for its obligations under the Act.

This committee will quickly come to the same conclusions; you already have, by voting for the Bryden Bill. Your real task is to hold the government’s feet to the fire – to ensure that this Access to Information Act is strengthened not weakened. Your task is to sniff out and unmask any wolf in sheep’s clothing!

I don’t intend in these remarks to give you my wish list for reform. This is set out in the Special Report to Parliament which I referred to earlier and of which you all have copies. Of course, I will endeavor to answer any questions you have.

However, permit me a few additional moments to mention the urgent need for you to consider, in your deliberations, the troubling shift – especially at senior levels in government – to an oral culture. Our right of access, no matter how strongly worded, will be of little effort if there are no records showing what decisions were made, what action was taken, who called the shots and who knew.

The overall creation and management of records in the federal government is in crisis. It is this crisis, more than any defect in the Access to Information Act, which puts at risk the public’s right to know, to challenge, to participate in, to influence and ultimately hold to account, the government. I urge you to make information management reform a key element of your access to information reform work.

Thank you.