Deceit, spin, politics, and a costly plan replace calls for greater transparency

OTTAWA—Treasury Board President Mona Fortier showed up, finally, at the House Access to Information Committee hearings, demonstrating that her government holds the power to resist getting on with transparency reforms. Her deceitful message, with the chief data and chief information managers at her side, was that it was all a misunderstanding to expect any access-to-information legislative changes. The slow-moving two-and-a-half year access review roadshow from mid-2020 to the end of 2022 was simply, Fortier said, a consultation with the public and Indigenous groups to identify “challenges." Any possible legislative concessions—if any are introduced—would have to wait for the statutory five-year review. That means stalling further until at least 2024-25. But the public deception and betrayal did not end there. Fortier said she held out “hope” in the interim that, months away, her government would offer a digital management plan. That plan, already underway in secret, includes further digitizing and “refreshing” open government/open data portal platforms, providing newer software to manage access files, and more centralized gate-keeping training for the cadre of access to information officers in a system already costing $90-million a year. That management plan—adding millions of dollars, using data-driven technology and artificial intelligence—would, however, bolster internal control of the access system without making any changes for fuller disclosure of public records. The plan is being led by two top Treasury Board technocratic officials Fortier brought along to the committee meeting who also testified. One, Stephen Burt, is a former chief data officer at DND and former security official; the other is deputy minister Catherine Luelo, a former top Air Canada and Enbridge Gas executive from the private sector. Behind closed doors, both are actively working on the data administration control plan that includes using IT and AI companies with data products to sell. But matters did not end there. During her testimony, Fortier, using her provided talking points, made claims that access to information was working fairly well. She stated more than once that contrary to public perception, Canada ranked high among nations in access, according to a Global Barometer rating. The ranking, however, refers only to the minimal open data products that her government produces at great expense. The vast majority of government operational records are not included in that ranking. As well, Fortier kept insisting Canadian access-to-information figures showed how good the government was at managing its releases, as more than 70 per cent of access applications were answered within time limits. But that figure included lengthy time extensions, usually over 120 days. She did not mention that many releases had many exemptions applied to them. Most access users wait months or years for replies that have many redactions. It's ironic that my recent request to Treasury Board asking for data on time extensions and delays resulted in a three-month time extension. Fortier did, however, make some admissions that are none-too-helpful for access users. One, in response to an MP's question, was that she has never filed an access request. That could be one reason the minister cannot see the delays, exemptions, and frustrations so many access users experience. Fortier also admitted that processing access requests during the ongoing employee strike would be hampered, and that in any case, access processing should never be considered an essential service. A downgraded access service simply means fewer obligations to deliver timely responses. Showing her limited grasp of the access file, Fortier had to correct her misleading statement that government-produced pro-active releases could include cabinet records. Yet she, egged on by Liberal MPs “questioning” on the committee, promoted the false message that government pro-actively sanitized handouts, including from the ministers' offices and Prime Minister's Office, made for better access to government information. At the end of Fortier’s appearance, Conservative MP and committee chair John Brassard, indicated that the committee was disappointed in the minister’s rejection of not bringing forth legislative amendments. He said that the access committee will proceed to make their own recommendations for access to information legislative changes. Already, Brassard indicated, their draft report has 26 such recommendations. The House Access Committee would do well in addition to starting a probe into Treasury Board's already-underway digital management control plan. The committee members will want to try to get the documents behind the plan and examine the implications for access and privacy that such a data-driven management agenda brings. Otherwise, the committee will be presented in the near future with a data management administration package as a fait accompli. And then there’s the ubiquitous behind-the-scenes partisan in-fighting at the committee. The Liberal Party members are content to promote government administrative solutions and only suggest eventual minor changes to the Access to Information Act. Expect dissenting supplementary opinions (the rules do not allow for minority reports) from some or all of the opposition parties. The House Access Committee hopes to have a report out in late May or early June. Fortier's appearance indicated a government intent on resisting and crushing calls for better disclosure legislation. It's time to fully realize that the broken-beyond-repair access system benefits those in power. Ken Rubin writes on transparency matters and is reachable via kenrubin.ca.

Read the latest Election 2025 stories

Deceit, spin, politics, and a costly plan replace calls for greater transparency

To keep reading, subscribe and become a political insider.

Only $7.76 a week for an annual subscription.

If you think that assisted dying in Canada is a mess, think again

Ottawa Treaty crucially important to reinforcing Canada’s resolve and protecting civilian lives

Does size really matter? Rethinking public service reform

Canada urgently needs a new growth strategy in response to Trump’s economic war

What Canada needs now is more robust, visionary diplomacy, not more military spending

AFN election priority report urges parties to make ‘clear, firm’ pledges to First Nations

Pundit panel: What is each leader’s biggest weakness?

Day 13: Poilievre eyes Trois-Rivières, Carney targets Scarborough

Arctic security takes spotlight as Canadian sovereignty remains key campaign issue

Tariffs ‘still devastating’ despite ‘reciprocal’ reprieve, says Senator on Canada-U.S. council

Health security must be recognized as a pillar of national security

Health security must be recognized as a pillar of national security

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Follow us

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Deceit, spin, politics, and a costly plan replace calls for greater transparency

To keep reading, subscribe and become a political insider.

Only $7.76 a week for an annual subscription.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter