Information & Ethics Committee on March 30th, 2009

[Prof. Michel Drapeau]

Madam Simson, the short answer is that I don't know. Canada is seen as an oasis of peace, and we may, in fact, receive more requests than Australia. Who knows? We would only know on the day.

Perhaps an analogy is that a lot of other countries have come to Canada to ask us to provide them with a model for their legislation. Whether or not there will be the same interest in coming to our data banks to have access to them will only be known once you open them. It is then that you would close the door. Only then would you know. It would take someone other than me to give you an estimate of whether there would be an increase of 5%, or 10%, or 100%. I simply don't know.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

The other countries have all reported there was no significant increase, so I guess my question would be what is the thinking behind your belief that Canada would perhaps suddenly be—

[Prof. Michel Drapeau]

But my thinking is not so much about what the volume is going to be. My thinking is that if we open the door--and I am assuming you are 100% right, and I would like to think you are—then why would we want to do it until and unless we clean up our house first? That's my point. Even if we were to go with your suggestion, there would be no increase—

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

But, sir, you haven't offered one suggestion on how we could do that. In listening to you, I really did hear a lot of pie in the sky, but what we're looking for is feedback.

[Prof. Michel Drapeau]

I've given you two suggestions. The first one is that we need to empower the coordinator to make sure that the law is respected as it is now written, by making sure that senior management provides the necessary directives on leadership first; and second, simultaneously, we should eliminate the backlog.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Madam Simson.

Mr. Shipley, please.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming out.

And congratulations on your anniversary. I hope you have a great evening with Madame Drapeau after this committee meeting.

Mr. Drapeau, I just want to follow up a little bit. I'm new to this committee or am just on it today, but I have a couple of things I would like to bring forward for some clarification.

I know the committee has had different witnesses before it and in that time has been told about the small number of complaints that come forward from individual companies. It says in one of the reports I read that there were about three individuals. I don't know what “individuals” means, but you referred to them.

And we discussed the costs, 99% of which, or the majority, actually get picked up by the taxpayer. You are opposing having any fee for this. I agree with you based on the fact that if it were a $5 fee, we know what administration does with $5. So we should never create a negative balance sheet just by creating some sort of silly fee of $5.

My point, though, is that if we have such a load, whether from large law firms—and these firms are collecting substantial fees from their clients—or the media or brokers.... We don't know who it is, but if it is mostly those who are making requests through the system, should there not maybe be a limit to the first amount they seek? You could get 10 or 15 requests, I don't know, and then after that, quite honestly, you're occupied with requests from an individual, the Bev Shipleys of the world who may want to put in a complaint or get access to information. I would tend to think that if it is important enough for me to ask for information, then it is likely important enough for me to pay something for it. We do that in just about every other system within our government.

So there should be some sort of user fees. I'd like you to consider if any part of this should be charged a fee, because you have said no to it.

But on the other hand, my further question will be about people basically wanting to be anonymous. Now, we have a major group of people, a handful, who are making most of the requests. And we aren't charging them, on the one hand, but are giving them a free lunch, asking them to the banquet hall and saying, here's a free lunch. But the reality is that you, the requester, never has to tell us that you have a company. You never have to indicate that. And these may be the same people time after time after time, repeat after repeat after repeat, who are making the requests.

So at some point in time, is there an obligation so that the one being requested to provide the information can find out who is actually making the requests for information?

[Prof. Michel Drapeau]

Let me try to answer your question by first perhaps opening.... I'm not speaking for data brokers, industrial--

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'm talking about people who likely are sitting there to abuse the system.

[Prof. Michel Drapeau]

Ironically, the very persons you are alluding to are already paying a premium by going to a law firm to hire the expertise and to submit the requests. If anybody's going to pay, and for whatever reason or whatever motive, which the court says should not be of importance to us, either because they don't want to reveal their identity or they want to have somebody who they know has the technical professional skills to put in a request at the right location.... Who knows? Whoever these individuals are, they are already paying professional fees to the law firms they hire, so why would we want to ask more of them?

I have to go back to how many requests we get a year: 29,000 from a population of 30 million. It's not as if we have any tremendous number. You almost have to ask yourself why people are hiring lawyers. Why are people going through these data brokers?

One of them, I would pose to you, could very well be a large media organization that uses the act repetitively and frequently. I know they do. The Library of Parliament uses it on your collective behalf. Ought they to be paying a premium because they asked, not for you but for the gentleman next to you, the gentleman next to him, and the gentleman next to him?

It's a road that I think would meet with more frustration than actual savings, if you know what I mean. Why would you want to penalize this? Why would you want to look behind the veil, wondering if the 15 requests I've received from this individual represent one client or five clients, and so on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Unfortunately, we're already over five minutes, and I'm not sure whether the other two....

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, you took three and a half minutes for the question. What can I say? I apologize.

I think Mr. Racicot wanted to add something here.

[Marc-Aurèle Racicot]

You have to look at the right of access. It's not the privilege of access. You have a right to access information.

If you see a large volume of requests aimed at one department, it means there's a need to be more informed about that department. So why not make it public instead of waiting and accusing the requester of making too many requests? There's a will from the citizen to be informed about that department, so make it public.

[Duff Conacher]

Yes, require all government entities to maintain information in a way that is easily accessible and to routinely disclose all of it that can clearly be disclosed under the act. You'll eliminate the problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We've completed the two rounds and we have a few minutes left. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj wanted to ask a question or two, as did Mr. Siksay. Is that about it?

We'll deal with those two and then I think we're about done.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Let me address a personal frustration. I've done some access requests, one to the heritage department, in fact, which I think was 48 or 49 pages. I thought it was pretty innocuous, but all but two pages came back blank.

We've heard a number of times that MPs' requests are amber-lighted. Now, we have a great responsibility, in that we are elected public representatives. We happen to be in opposition. As a loyal opposition, we should be able to hold the government to account, yet when we try to get information--and this isn't QP, this is through access to information--we're amber-lighted.

Perhaps just very quickly, could I have your thoughts on the fact that MPs are being amber-lighted? Then I have a second question,

[Prof. Michel Drapeau]

Absolutely. I have no doubt about that. That's why some MPs come to me, so I'm amber-lighted as opposed to the MPs. But yes, it does.... So are members of the media.

[Marc-Aurèle Racicot]

I would add that this should be one of the pressing matters: addressing the amber light system. It's not there.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay. Let me move on to something else.

Mr. Drapeau, you've said that the system is dead in the water and the machine is broken, yet at the same time, you've said that government has been let down by its institutions. It's not that something isn't functioning in this particular department or in this area; it's overarching, and it's the whole system. At that point, would you not agree that the government is responsible for making sure the system gets fixed? We can't blame the officials within the departments.

I'd just like to go one step further before you answer that. In an article in The Globe and Mail, Mr. Page, the budget officer, spoke of his frustrations in getting the finance department to provide details. The article says right there that “Tory MPs defended withholding...documents”, and I believe Conservative MP Mike Wallace, the parliamentary secretary, kind of sets the tone there.

You've said it's the institutions that have let all of us down, but it seems to be quite clear that the final responsibility, where the buck stops when the whole system is broken.... Is it with the government or is it not? Is the government addressing this in a serious way or is it part of the problem?

[Prof. Michel Drapeau]

The buck stops with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister has to jump-start the system in almost the same way as Mr. Obama did when he issued a directive when he was first in office. If that were to happen, changes would occur tomorrow. If the Prime Minister were to say, as Mr. Obama said, disclosure is the rule, exemption is the exception, that's fine, bingo, it's done.

[Duff Conacher]

Very briefly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is another example. It says he has a right to any information he requests from any government entity to fulfill his mandate, but he can't penalize anyone if they don't give it to him. What he has started to do is name them all, but naming and shaming is not very—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

He's still got a bad report card, and I don't think he has done anything about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Siksay, you had a couple of final thoughts.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Yes, thank you, Chair. I have just one question, really. It's about how Mr. Marleau's recommendations affect the recommendations of former Commissioner Reid.

I think, Mr. Drapeau, you've said that Mr. Marleau's recommendations constructively reject Mr. Reid's recommendations. I'm wondering if all of you could address that question about whether what Mr. Marleau is proposing affects what Mr. Reid has proposed.