Evidence of meeting #18 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recommendations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
The only comment I would make is that it's not an unusual provision; in other statutes it exists. It's something that has to be discussed again.
NDP
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
I think there are other examples of legislation where there is a five-year review, but I think that's about as much as I would say on that.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Okay.
Has the department offered any specific advice on recommendation 2, that all persons have a right to request access to records pursuant to the ATI act?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
Whatever advice we have would be advice confidential to our minister. We have, just for the record, obviously discussed and provided what we can in the way of advice to our minister.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Okay. I have a feeling that'll be the answer for most of the questions I'm going to ask—
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
Probably.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
—so maybe I'll go someplace else.
Let's try this. Your department improved its record on ATI under the existing act in the last year fairly dramatically, from an F to an A, in terms of the commissioner's reporting. I have a feeling that some of you are probably involved in that change. Can you tell us a little bit about what happened in the Department of Justice that moved the report card from an F to an A? What was it you folks did that improved your record so dramatically?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
Just for the record, none of us here is specifically responsible for managing access to information requests within the department. We all run fairly substantive shops.
Denis, if you want, perhaps you can talk about how we're organized and structured.
The only comment I would make is that we were all required, as part of our responsibilities, to ensure that timeframes were respected. That was the obligation we had, as officials in the department running our shops.
Denis.
Director and General Counsel, Information Law and Privacy Section, Department of Justice
Perhaps I can add that adequate resources to the ATIP office is something that's very important, and that the department took that role seriously. New staff was hired in the ATIP office to deal with the requests. But it's not simply there that the responsibility for success lies. Every employee, every manager in the department, was asked by the senior levels of the department to commit to meeting deadlines when access requests come in and to find the records that are requested and provide them to the ATIP office within a very short timeframe.
You have to remember that within 30 days of the initial response you have to receive the request and do the initial processing of that requesting, which is sent to different parts of the department and is then handled by various people in the department, who sometimes have very little experience dealing with the access act. These people have to find the records that are relevant to the request, do a first read of them, and provide some comments to the ATIP office. That obviously all takes time. Then the ATIP office will have to apply exemptions, if any, and perhaps consult with other departments or with third parties.
Certainly, if there was a success, it was not only because of one part of the department, although the ATIP office obviously deserves the greatest share of that success, but also because there were commitments by senior levels in Justice that were taken up by managers and employees throughout the department.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We've heard from a number of witnesses, including the commissioner, about this ongoing process of amber lighting requests made by members of Parliament. Do you agree with the policy of amber lighting, of slowing down a member's access to information requests as opposed to a written response if you don't have them? As a Canadian citizen, would you feel comfortable with this?
Director and General Counsel, Information Law and Privacy Section, Department of Justice
We don't agree with the slowing down of any access request. I think the Information Commissioner conducted quite a lengthy investigation a few years ago. Actually it was completed last summer, I think, because of a complaint of the Canadian Newspaper Association. The commissioner himself recognized that there was nothing wrong with the fact of the department--
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
They would pay special attention. We're talking about slowing things down.
Director and General Counsel, Information Law and Privacy Section, Department of Justice
--preparing documentation for ministers when access requests are being processed. That doesn't mean slowing down the request, and certainly we don't approve of any slowing down of access requests.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
As a member of Parliament, I can tell you things have certainly slowed down. In fact, I'll once again restate the numbers prior to 2006: 30 to 60 days, on average, and we're now, on average, 150 to 250 days.
Who within your department would be the person that red flags requests?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
I'm not sure I understand the red flagging issue.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
If there's a request that is deemed politically sensitive, that would be red flagged, who would be in charge of that?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
I have no knowledge of that process.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Okay.
Since the Minister of Justice is also the Attorney General, let's turn to a situation that recently occurred. You had an access to information request to the RCMP and documentation that involved former Conservative Bill Casey, who was unceremoniously removed from Mr. Harper's caucus. There were allegations, which were not substantiated, of criminality, and the RCMP released an access to information request that had all the names removed, except for in one spot Mr. Casey's name was left. He's a member of Parliament. It was during that whole pre-/post-election period we saw in 2006. The RCMP got themselves involved in the election campaign as well. But this request went out with Mr. Casey's name on it. What is your department doing to follow up, to make sure that this was done inadvertently and that this sort of situation would never arise again?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
I actually, again, have no knowledge of that, no personal knowledge at all, so I can't really comment on that.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Okay. Well, then, let's just keep it simple.
Do you think it's a good, bad, or dismal record to go from 30 days to 60 days, on average, to 150 days to 250 days, on average, to respond to a request?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Department of Justice
The only comment I would have is that we in the Department of Justice have tried to maintain our own deadlines. I think we've been successful. The minister has spoken to that. I think it would be presumptuous of me to really speak about other departments. Perhaps they have reasons, I don't know. That's all I would be prepared to say.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
One of the fundamental principles of democracy is the transparency of government. It goes back to what our chair had said previously, that if you don't provide this access...and that's what we're heading into. We're getting letters from departments saying that because of PCO consultations, things have been so delayed, that a certain amount of time has passed from when the request was first made, and because of the delay, they ask whether or not you're still interested. It comes back to this whole business of transparency, the government's democratic process, and fundamental justice--justice denied.
