Evidence of meeting #30 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was request.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you.
My colleague, Mr. Ravignat, asked you a question about political interference, and you gave a specific answer.
I'd like to look at the bigger picture. Do you think a culture of silence and a refusal to respond on the part of some departments could be viewed as political interference?
5 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
It is a matter of culture. My feeling is that the Access to Information Act is not consistently implemented in accordance with the act's underlying principles, which necessarily dictate openness. Exemptions from disclosure must be interpreted in a limited and case-specific way. That is how the act was developed and drafted.
Is that how the act is being implemented? Having examined 10,000 or so complaints, we feel that, when a department receives an ATI request, it first tries to apply all the possible exemptions and then releases the information that remains. To date, only a small number of people complain about the information they receive. I nevertheless believe that a lot of people are not satisfied with the information they get but do not complain.
What's more, I wonder why we are even called upon to intervene in many of the cases we handle.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you.
I have one last question for you, and a short answer will do.
We talked about the fact that the Centre for Law and Democracy ranked Canada 56th out of 95 countries in its study.
Where do you think Canada ranks?
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
It's hard to give a short answer to that.
Canada's legislative framework is 30 years old. One hundred and one countries now have access to information legislation. It is considered third-generation legislation. All we have to do is follow British Columbia's lead; its legislation is much more progressive. A modernizing of the act is overdue.
Although it is true that countries like India have better legislation than we do, not every level of government—municipal, provincial and federal—is subject to its implementation.
Canada is still a modern democracy. It's important to compare not just legislation, but also its implementation. It would be wonderful to have a robust piece of legislation, because that is what Canadians deserve.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
I'm afraid your time is up, Madame Borg. That is five minutes.
It's the Conservatives' turn next, with Ed Komarnicki
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I want to follow up on some of the questions that my colleagues have posed.
Am I to understand that if a request comes in that's within the mandate, as you say, as broad as it is, then you pursue the request? You don't look at whether or not it's reasonable or whether or not it's frivolous.
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No. We look at the complaints, not the requests, but even for departments there is no frivolous or vexatious.... There is no discipline at all around perhaps improper behaviour by requesters.
We get complaints, and seriously, sir, I must say that in all of the files that have come into the office since I've been there, there was only one instance where it would have been appropriate to have a frivolous and vexatious component in the act.
Also, in the other jurisdictions, when they do have it, it is not something that is used very often, but it has been. It could be that just having it in their legislation acts as a deterrent. It's difficult to measure a negative. It's not something that my colleagues see often, but they are satisfied that there is something like that in their law.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So on the complaints side, you're able to see it, and then on the request side, of course, you don't know, because if they haven't complained, they would just go through. From the study you've done of other jurisdictions, you say that there is a provision to deal at least with the requests being frivolous in terms of whether or not they're responded to, and that's not in this legislation.
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No, and it's mostly when it's something that develops over a pattern. In order to have something frivolous and vexatious, there are some criteria in law to actually make something frivolous and vexatious.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
If there are numerous requests made numerous times on related subject matters, and that's costing $900 and $1,200, at some point you might say that this needs to stop. Is that right?
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
It is along those lines. The legal test in various jurisdictions is along those lines. These are some of the criteria that have to be found before something is deemed to be frivolous and vexatious under access law.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Of course, outside of whether it's vexatious or not, the question of whether it's reasonable or not is not part of the legislation either.
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No, and I think, sir, that it would be very difficult to enter into that kind of analysis, because what is reasonable for you may not be reasonable for somebody else. The perspective of the requester, if we're not to judge their motives or look at their identity, is difficult to assess in any circumstance.
December 4th, 2014 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So ultimately when we're looking at the numbers and the increase in the requests, there really is no way of knowing exactly whether any of them are frivolous or not, because we're not in that place.
When you did the consultations with respect to your new strategic plan, you did public consultations, I would assume. Or did you not do that? What did you undertake in terms of consultations or talking to stakeholders or others in developing your plan?
5:10 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Very frankly, sir, very little. I actually have no money to travel very much, nor can I go around the country meeting stakeholders and things like that, so I do very informal meetings. We are just in the process of developing our strategic planning exercise, and we have very little ability to actually do any kind of consultation. It's very, very minimal.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Are you saying that you're coming up with a new strategic plan without doing what you think are necessary consultations with members of the public or stakeholders?
5:10 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I do what I can afford, actually. In terms of a strategic plan, I do have one mandate. It's very simple. But, yes, we do consult. We are planning to consult with the coordinators, for instance, because we meet with them regularly, all of the people who actually administer the access requests that come into the departments. They're one of our key stakeholders because they're across government institutions, so we'll consult with those folks. We actually meet with them regularly, particularly the top 25 institutions. We meet with that group regularly, about every third month or so, so that we get a sense of what's going on in the government. In terms of access complainants, it's very informal what kind of consultation we have, and we haven't done anything in that respect. No, I do not plan to go meet stakeholders across the country. There is just no way I can do that.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Mr. Komarnicki, your five minutes are up. Thank you very much.
We're going back to the Liberal Party, Ted Hsu.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Legault, in an increasingly digital world, the government does not respond to members' written questions electronically.
I'm quite fond of analyzing figures in order to sift out the pertinent information. Do you think the government should have to respond to members' written questions electronically?
5:10 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I think it would be consistent with the open government initiative if the information existed in electronic form.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Very good.
I just want to follow up on some of the questions here.
When one submits an access to information request, one writes a cheque made out to the Receiver General. Is it fair to say that the money never comes directly to the Information Commissioner?
5:10 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No, it doesn't come to us.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
So it's not so obvious that, if you charge various things here and there, your funding would increase, that if the government charged a different fee schedule that your office would actually see that money?
5:10 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Well, to be consistent with everything I have said today, I certainly do not support having a direct correlation between increasing the fees and funding the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. I don't think these two are related, and they should not be related.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Okay, thank you.
I understand that your office is not allowed to review any access to information complaints regarding redactions that are deemed to be cabinet confidences. Is that a hindrance to you in terms of fulfilling your mandate?