For those who don't do Twitter, here's my Twitter “feed” from Monday's meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Ethics, and Privacy. It's presented in chronological order, from the beginning of the meeting to its conclusion. A note for non-Twitter users: On Twitter, you get 140 characters per message so there is a lot of shorthand. The Committee's name on Twitter is #CETHI, for example. Nicholson is Justice Minister Rob Nicholson
- lineup: Chair Lib Paul Szabo, Lib MPs Wrzesnewskyj, Simson, BQ MPs Nadeau, Lévesque. NDP MP Siksay. Con MPs in next tweet
- Lineup cont'd Cons MPs Poilievre, Dechert, Block, Hiebert, Dreeshen. Score: 5 Govt Mps vs 5 Opp MPs plus 1 Opp Chair.
- Why is there a stranglehold in the PCO on Access to information requests? Nicholson: Can't agree with you; things are getting better
- More background on broken ATI system: DFAIT, e.g., delay tactics “illegal as stink”
- BQ Nadeau — we're studying something we've been studying for a long time, all the way back to Lib Jus Min Irwin Cotler.
- Nadeau and Nicholson argue themselves into a dead-end. Moving on now to NDP MP Bill Siksay ..
- Info Commish Marleau's recommendations: Nicholson said he's not crazy about recommendation 4 & 11.
- NIcholson gets hot at Lib Michelle Simson “This country has an outstanding record .. (on Access legislation)
- Nicholson gone. Now up: Witnesses from the Justice Dept: Now up Carolyn Kobernick, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector
- LIB Simson tries to get bureaucrats to concede that Access to information is a basic human right. No Jus Dept lawyers agrees.
- other witnesses now up: Joan Remsu, General Counsel and Director, Public Law Policy Section and ..
- witnesses … Denis Kratchanov, Director and General Counsel Information Law and Privacy Section
- Con Dechert asks bureaucrats if it would ok to charge requesters for info requests. Bureaucrats demur.
- Cons Dechert wonders if it would be OK to identify those who make hundreds of access requests.
- Dechert is now attacking Ken Rubin – not by name — but that's who he's talking about: Is it reasonable for taxpayers to fund him?
- #CETHI now in camera. (Which means reporters get kicked out)
Maybe reporters thrive on ATI requests, seeking to dig up some dirt suggestive of political malfeasance. I would like to know how a lot of this information benefits the average citizen.
As a matter of fact, I strongly believe some of the information gathered and then released for general consumption is actually harmful. Let me give you an example.
After the recent release of two Canadian diplomats held hostage in Niger, the PM stated Canada had not paid a ransom for their release. That, in my opinion, should have been the end of the story.
However, a few days ago, Macleans reporter Michael Petrou was on Don Newman's Politics suggesting that indeed a ransom had been paid, perhaps not by Canada, but by or through the intercession of other countries.
Who does that information benefit? What does it add to me as a citizen? IMO, absolutely nothing.
However, whom might that information benefit, even if it is not proven as an irrefutable fact?
It might benefit hostage takers. They would be encouraged to carry out more hostage takings because they figure it's going to pay off.
So, benefits to citizenry, zero. To lawbreakers, dreams of a jackpot.
Another example. In Sept. 2007, then-NDP MP Dawn Black accused the Canadian military of having written the speech Afghan President Karzai delivered in the HoC. She claimed to have gotten that information via ATI.
Once again, how did that information add to my being an informed citizen? What benefit did it bring to me? Once again, I believe it added nothing. All it accomplished was to fuel some accusations back and forth for political smears and jeers. Not very edifying. It would qualify as a UBI – Useless Bit of Information.
Maybe a more judicious use of ATI would help clear up the backlog.