External Consultations

Roundtable with Journalists - St. John's
May 27, 2001

On May 27, two members of the Access to Information Review Task Force (chair Andrée Delagrave and member Stephen Bindman) held a consultation roundtable with journalists attending the annual convention of the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) in St. John's, Newfoundland.

This was part of the consultation process of the Task Force to solicit input and views from members of the public on access to information. Although some journalists attended one of the formal roundtables led by the Public Policy Forum, the Task Force felt it important to hear specifically from journalists, who are frequent users of the Access to Information Act. As the CAJ is the largest national association of journalists, its annual meeting was an ideal venue for such a roundtable and the Task Force thanks the organizers for helping to set up the meeting.

Participants:
David McKie, CBC Radio Ottawa
Percy Hatfield, CBC TV Windsor
Nick Russell, writing coach, author of Morals of the Media
John Gushue, freelancer
Joy Jones, journalism instructor, Kwantlen University College
Terry Pedwell, Broadcast News/Canadian Press, Ottawa
Steven Morris, Canadian International Development Agency
Sandy Cameron, University of Regina
Rod Nickel, Brandon Sun
Jacques Poitras, CBC Radio, New Brunswick
W. Bilal Syed, Canadian International Development Agency
Mike Gordon, CBC Marketplace
Rob Cribb, Toronto Star
Ann Rees, Vancouver Province

The following is a summary of the discussions that took place on May 27, 2001.

Task Force Review Process

Several participants expressed concern about the review process, calling it secretive and expressing the view that other countries, such as Australia, have held more open reviews of their access legislation. The concern was voiced that access users and non-profit groups such as Open Government Canada do not know what "well-resourced" bureaucrats have already told the Task Force and will not be able to counter those impressions. One participant expressed the view that there is a "tremendous appetite" among officials of Treasury Board and the Department of Justice to raise fees and extend deadlines. Several cited a study on the Task Force's Web site that looked at the costs of the Access legislation but noted there is no parallel study of the benefits of Access and the important stories that have been reported as a result of access requests. They questioned whether the "public interest" is adequately represented in the Task Force process on the same level as bureaucratic concerns. Some complained that journalists should have been attending other roundtables/consultations not only as participants but to report on them.

Andrée Delagrave emphasized that the Task Force had not yet reached any conclusions other than that there needed to be reforms to both the legislation and administration of the Act.

Access Process

Several participants expressed the view that the Act is applied very unevenly from department to department and even from official to official. They suggested that there seems to be arbitrariness in the way exemptions are applied. One journalist noted that some staff in ATI offices are "great and others are dreadful." Good officers will get back quickly to a requester, explain what they are doing, how much time it will take and attempt to help the requester zero in on the records they are really seeking. Bad officers only send a written reply when the deadline is up. "It's all about culture," one noted.

Some journalists indicated that dealing with American FOI officials is "like night and day" from dealing with their Canadian counterparts - there appears to be a different mindset in the U.S., that government records belong to the people and not to the government, as in Canada, and that someone is going to fight for the requested records. Some participants felt that there is a well-entrenched culture of secrecy in the Canadian bureaucracy.

It was noted that a good access regime requires a signal of leadership from the top and the fact that the Prime Minister's Office is constantly in court to fight the release of records sends a message to the entire bureaucracy that "we need to keep more secrets." This does not encourage public servants to release sought-after records.

Participants felt that there should be consequences for individual public servants who invoke exemptions that are later found to be unwarranted, or miss deadlines. There is currently no downside for not obeying the Act - "you need to make it personal rather than institutional" and fines and even jail terms were suggested. It was also suggested that new deputy ministers be required to take training about the Act so they are aware of their access obligations and that their salaries should be tied to their department's access to information performance.

The concern was expressed that different types of requests are dealt with differently - the more sensitive the information sought, the more people in the department are required to sign off, causing further delays. The response to media requests for information was perceived to be more cautious and more defensive. There was also a concern that communications staff are involved in deciding what information is released based on political considerations that should not be part of the access process.

There was a discussion about the need to routinely release documents and post them on departmental web sites (the U.S. FDA was described as a model of routine release of information). When it was noted that the Official Languages Act requires that all material posted on federal Web sites be translated in English and French requiring time and resources, one participant commented that "the right of access can't be subject to translation".

Scope of the Act

It was noted that Crown corporations are not subject to the Act and should be. "We should know what Peter Mansbridge makes," one journalist commented. Concern was raised that the nature of government is rapidly changing and that governments shouldn't be able to hide information by simply privatizing a department or a function. "The government shouldn't be able to contract out access rights," one observed. Governments are getting into bed with private corporations and "information just disappears from the purview of the Act." Export Development Corporation, NavCan and Canadian Blood Services were specifically cited as examples where critical information is not now accessible.

Privacy

Concern was expressed over the recent comments by the Privacy Commissioner that privacy always outweighs access rights. Participants said that privacy is often just a code word or an excuse for secrecy and that privacy must always be balanced with access. In some circumstances, it was suggested, personal information should be released because of the greater public interest involved. It was noted that the Quebec legislation is explicit that the name of an individual is not personal information. Said one participant: "Your health records should be private but whether a person attends a meeting shouldn't be considered personal information."

Exclusions / Exemptions

One participant stated that the exclusion of Cabinet documents from the Act was "highly questionable" and the notion that documents dealing with Cabinet confidences are automatically excluded and can't be vetted is contrary to the spirit of the Act. Another stated Section 24 (statutory prohibitions to disclose) was the "biggest hole in the Act."

It was further suggested there should be no class exemptions, only harm tests ones and there should in any event be a public interest override, as in the B.C. legislation.

Consultation