He gave the impression that the public acc
ounts committee was relying on the Office of the Information Commissioner, or at least relying on the act, to get
information, when I would have thought the powers of Parliament, having no restrictions on them—the powers of Parliament to send for “persons, papers and records”, and the power of subpoena of Parliament—are hugely more effective and direct than the ATI. But I understand and accept the accuracy of his comment that in a revised ATI legislation, the statutory imposition of a burden
...[+++]to keep a record for a government decision, making it mandatory, would help establish the paper trail, and that would be a positive thing when Parliament or the citizen goes looking for records.
Il a donné l'impression que le comité des comptes publics comptait sur l'aide du commissariat à l'information du Canada, ou à tout le moins sur la loi, pour obtenir de l'information. Or, il me semble que les pouvoirs du Parlement, qui ne sont soumis à aucune restriction — et je songe au pouvoir qu'a le Parlement de faire comparaître des personnes, d'exiger la production de documents ou de dossiers, de convoquer des témoins — sont beaucoup plus efficaces et directs que la Loi sur l'accès à l'information.