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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Suzanne Legault  Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Layla Michaud  Director General, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

3:55 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

We see the redacted copy but we also see the unredacted copy, so we see what is behind the redaction. What you would get, as an access requester, is a copy with portions blacked out. You would see the number of the actual legal provision that is applied to that redaction. We get a clean copy, so to speak. We get a copy without redactions. Then we can determine whether or not we agree with that redaction, based on the words that have been redacted.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Can you give me an idea of how often that happens these days? What is the trend?

3:55 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

Well, we receive complaints. We have essentially three large groups of complaints. We have complaints where people complain that their access request is not responded to in time, which we call more of an administrative complaint. About half of the complaints that come in are about redactions. Of those, in about half we find that the redactions have not been properly applied. The third group is complaints about missing records.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Is there a graph to illustrate that you've handled more complaints about redactions over the years? Can you give me a trend on that?

4 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

Yes, I guess we could give you a trend in terms of the proportion of refusals versus administrative requests. It's usually about 40% of administrative requests, and the rest is other types of complaints.

Year over year, since I've been here, it has fluctuated a little bit. It's a bit high now in terms of administrative complaints, at 38%, but it's really fairly consistent.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Do you think parliamentary review is necessary for what you do?

4 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

Do you mean a parliamentary review of all the investigations?

4 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Of your job in general; a review of what you do.

4 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

Of what I do? Well, yes, I consider that it's very important to be overseen by Parliament and by this committee.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Have you asked for that in the past?

4 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

Well, we are here. There is a standing committee reviewing the work of my office on a regular basis.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

I told you I was new.

4 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

I'm just not quite sure what you mean. Maybe I don't understand.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

It just seems to me, or it's my opinion, that the act is stuck in the 1980s. We've talked about fees and we've talked about other things. I just think that parliamentary review is necessary to go through all of this.

4 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

What I consider to be probably the most progressive access to information law in Canada is subject to a five-year parliamentary review. That's the law in British Columbia. I think that is actually a very good process.

There was an initial parliamentary review when the act was passed in 1983, but there was only one in-depth parliamentary review done in the course of the last 30 years. There is no specific provision in the act for a mandatory parliamentary review of the act.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Do you think every five years is good?

4 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

You are out of time, Scott.

4 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

I think it would be an excellent idea.

4 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

Next, then, we'll go back to the Conservatives and Erin O'Toole.

You're like my leader in question period. You're taking all the spots.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

But not as entertaining.

4 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Oh surely.... Well, the day's not over.

4 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

December 4th, 2014 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to continue along the line that I was on, Ms. Legault, because I do find it interesting to review this from my first round. Of the 55,000 requests of all departments—I know they're going up and then what trickles up to you in terms of complaints goes up accordingly—29,300 were commercial in origin, or media/business, and that represents about 53% of overall requests.

If you look at the pure costs to government.... I don't think anyone here disputes the need for this process, certainly, and we appreciate the work done by your office to increase your closure rate. But it was a $995 cost in 1983, and a $1,295 cost in 2012, representing a cost of $71 million to government. This is an important cost, but I think funding could be found for not just your office but for getting rid of this backlog. I notice that your graph at tab 3 has you projecting this 30% rate to essentially continue until 2018, so we're going to be essentially in hundreds of millions of dollars of cost and we're still charging the five dollars that was the 1983 price. Even the Bank of Canada's own inflation calculator says that should now be a $10 and $65 charge.

Here's where I'm going. Would it not be smart for Canada to follow some other jurisdictions that have bifurcated this into a low-cost ATI option for citizens and a somewhat higher one, not full cost recovery, not $1,295...? But for a telecommunications company preparing for the CRTC, at a five-dollar rate they can throw out as many ATI requests as possible—and I've seen this—whether or not some of them are even germane to their filing, because there's such an inconsequential cost for business, yet government absorbs all the work.

Would you be in favour of a two-tier process whereby we keep the price low, maybe the $10 and $65, and gear the citizen request to inflation but have a significant, higher fee for commercial requests?

4:05 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

You would find it very hard-pressed to hear me say that I am actually in favour of an increase in fees. I really don't think it is judicious. I really don't. I find that fees generate delays for requesters. They generate extra costs for the government, because they lead to complaints. I actually have a case in court now related to fees.

I think these are almost red herrings, sir. I think it is definitely something that the government can study, and it can look at the different models. We would be more than happy to present information that we can find and gather in terms of various fee schedules and fee structures in other jurisdictions. It would be our pleasure to submit that to the committee.

I remain unconvinced that it is judicious to do that.