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.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
I'm afraid I'm going to have to interrupt both of you.
You're well over time, Madam Crockatt. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madame Legault.
Next we'll go to Mathieu Ravignat for the NDP.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
On the open government plan, you've said—and I'll quote you so that it's fair—
...I remain of the view that the current commitments in your Plan will not achieve the stated objectives of the Government to effect a fundamental change in government culture, one that will drive the release of federal information and foster transparency, accountability and citizen engagement.
It's like a contradiction of the positive attitude you had when you were speaking to Madame Borg. With such a damning statement, what gives you any confidence that this is going to be successful?
4:35 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Well, I am confident. I think there is a public statement on behalf of the government that this is their stated objective. My recommendations are that the way the action plan is currently drafted, I just don't think it's going to be sufficient to actually achieve that objective. This is mainly because we want to have open government by default but we're going to open government by default by proactively disclosing what's considered to be eligible information for proactive disclosure.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Maybe it is. I just don't share your positive outlook. A lot of comments have come out, but when the government recently announced some of the open government stuff, there was more about what was missing than what was in it. The government rejected comments from your office. It rejected public consultations, experts, and even your own advisory panels regarding the need to update the Access to Information Act.
Michael Geist said that the consultation process was a farce, that basically decisions were made in advance of it. Do you agree with his assessment?
4:35 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I agree with what I stated in my letter, that I think the commitments are not sufficiently ambitious and they're missing the mark in terms of modernizing the Access to Information Act.
You will not have a proper open government by default if your access to information exemptions and the scope of those exemptions are so broad that nothing is going to get disclosed. At this time—and I have said this as well—the access act actually works as a shield to the disclosure of information as opposed to a lever for disclosing information. That's why that missing piece is crucial.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
One way of making sure that it is actually about the release of information would be to oblige public officials to recreate records necessary to document their actions. You could also provide a general public interest override for all exemptions. Are we headed in that direction?
4:35 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
In January, I am going to present a very broad set of recommendations for amending the act, and those things that you mentioned amongst other things are going to be in there, but there is no recommendation to increase fees.
December 4th, 2014 / 4:35 p.m.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Well, I commend you for the inclusion. I think that's pretty fundamental.
For journalism in this country, particularly investigative journalism, but journalism with some strong information, it's not an exaggeration that access to information is a fundamental tool that they use in order to keep us all accountable.
I don't know how many times I've heard from journalists frustrated at the length of delays in the timeliness of information. The timeliness of information is essential to the functioning of our democracy, because a hot-button topic can suddenly disappear from the news cycle, and if you don't get that information in a timely fashion, it doesn't work. So there's a direct relationship with the fundamental health of our democracy. How have journalists approached your office and what is your sense of where they are on these issues?
4:35 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Thirty seconds...? Okay.
Journalists are very frustrated. The act lacks discipline in terms of timeliness. I am in Federal Court of Appeal with the 1,110-day extension. The first level of the Federal Court judged that I could not determine whether that was reasonable or not, and this is compounded by the fact that, at this time given the resource level, there is a seven-month delay in my office before I can investigate a case. Once I do assign it, the median turnaround time is 90 days or less, so it's not because we're not efficient, it's because we don't have the people to do the investigations.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Thank you, Mr. Ravignat.
Thank you, Madame Legault.
We'll go back to the Conservatives, this time LaVar Payne.
I'm sorry I missed you last time around, Mr. Payne.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
No problem, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you for attending here today.
We were looking at your website and we looked at your early intake resolution unit and certainly we've talked a bit about your backlog today. I'm wondering if you could tell us when that early intake unit started and how you started addressing that backlog. How old was the backlog and how is this early intake unit working now?
4:40 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
The early intake unit works really well. Tab 3 looks at the progression of the inventory. When I first became interim Information Commissioner, I walked into an office that had 2,500 cases in its inventory, and every year we've managed to come down with that inventory. We had a decrease in the inventory. That means we closed more than we received every year except for the past year where we had the 30% jump.
So as far as I'm concerned, we have gained efficiencies all the time and we were making really good progress in terms of diminishing the inventory, and the intake is a really good success. We've just now added a mediation component to it, and that is generating some good results as well. What we're trying to do there is really trying to see, with the complainant in the institution right away when the complaint comes in, whether they're really getting what they're really looking for and whether they can circumscribe their request, their complaint, and whether we can resolve the matter more quickly with the institution, and that's working really well too.
So the intake works very well, but at this point in terms of efficiencies, we just did a whole mapping exercise. We're constantly looking to make things better, but the efficiencies I can gain now are marginal. I'm not going to close 2,000 complaints more. I may close 100 more. I may close 30 more, but I'm not going to be able to close the 2,200 that have accumulated again.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Okay. So obviously you've made some progress there. I guess one of the other things is this. When you're getting these complaints, could you explain how they are, first of all, brought to your office and how you determine whether they're fair? Is there specific criteria in place for those requests in order to make sure that they are fair?
4:40 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I don't determine whether they are fair; I determine whether they fall within the jurisdiction of the law because there is a positive legal obligation. One of the things that I am going to recommend in the act is that there be discretion for the commissioner in terms of investigating or not. At this time, there is no discretion whatsoever. If it falls within the mandate, I have to investigate it, and the mandate is described very broadly as any matter having to do with requesting records or obtaining records from a government institution. The jurisdiction is spelled very broadly, and once it fits into that, I have to investigate.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Okay. So if you have some cases that are not deemed needed for investigation, what happens to those cases?
4:40 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
We just advise the complainants.
4:40 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
We don't open those files. We just deal with those on the phone. We don't actually even—we should.... But we consider those enquiries.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Okay.
Do you have any idea of the number of those cases that were determined to be enquiries?
4:40 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Just enquiries? No, we don't track those.
4:40 p.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No.
