Information & Ethics Committee on May 27th, 2009

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Marleau, Ms. Neill, and Ms. Legault. I really appreciate your time. I'd like to echo Ms. Thi Lac's congratulations on this. I think this is an outstanding piece of work. Nothing illustrates better where people are positioned than a colour-coded chart.

In your opening comments you mentioned that the minister in his testimony had stated that this was an extremely good piece of legislation, which obviously flies in the face of what was described in a major newspaper article this week as legislation that keeps Canadians huddled on the dark side of the renaissance. I found that very interesting.

A lot of the complaints seem to be cost-related. That brings me to number 2, the right of all persons to have access. The minister testified and acknowledged that a lot of other jurisdictions have universal access, but cost could be an issue. Do you have a sense from any of your colleagues across the country, or have you seen in any of these other jurisdictions, whether that could be the case? It doesn't say cost would be an issue; it's the minister's perception that it could be an issue.

[Robert Marleau]

I can only echo what the other witnesses said in support of this recommendation. Virtually every one of them said that if it's being done, it's being done now. The lack of direct right of access can be easily circumvented by using data brokers. The requests are currently being made through third parties. These restrictions are easily circumvented. So in terms of costs, we already bear them, I believe. There might be an initial surge, but I put that one at a low impact in cost.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you.

The colours tend to give you an overall picture of how the witnesses saw the particular recommendations. On recommendation 6, the advisory mandate to the Information Commissioner on proposed legislation in the legislative initiatives, it seems to have broad-based appeal, with the exception of two witnesses who essentially disagreed with almost every recommendation. It seems to appeal to all the witnesses. The minister remarks that it represents a departure from the usual process. If that were adopted as one of the initiatives, a departure from the usual process wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. How would you see that enhancing it and making future changes to legislation easier than this process has been?

[Robert Marleau]

That recommendation actually finds its genesis in what goes on in privacy right now. You're looking at the Privacy Act. You know about privacy impact assessments. It's also a recommendation from former Justice La Forest in his report on access to information. It's a recommendation from the Delagrave report.

The idea here is that before government begins a new program or new initiative, or develops a new database or new care system, they would consult with the commissioner, who would advise--advise--on accessibility. What are some of the needs of requesters in terms of when you produce whatever you're going to produce from the program? How are you going to more efficiently retrieve it or structure it so that it is retrievable? That's all it is.

When the minister says it's a departure from usual practice and wasn't sure in his testimony.... PIAs--private impact assessments--have been going on for several years. It's a policy of Treasury Board; it's not required by law. In other jurisdictions it is required by law. It's simply coming to the commissioner, without prejudice to future investigations, and getting the best advice in terms of how the system could be made to improve access for those who want to have information. That's all it is.

In terms of Monsieur Drapeau, he seems to believe that it might interfere with my investigations. We have to be bicephalous from time to time and look at policy issues and deal with the investigations as well.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Dechert, please.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, again, Ms. Neill, Mr. Marleau, and Ms. Legault.

Mr. Marleau, earlier today you mentioned that the current $5 fee is certainly archaic and probably unreasonable given the current circumstances of the cost of the system. You also, I think, quite correctly pointed out that it probably costs the government $55 or more to process a $5 cheque. Given all that, and given the costs, which I think you earlier mentioned were about $1,425, on average, to comply with an access to information request, what would you suggest a reasonable fee be in the current context?

[Robert Marleau]

Zero.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Zero. So you're saying we should go down from $5 to zero.

[Robert Marleau]

It's costing you money. You'd probably save $50.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

All right.

The last time we met, you mentioned that a significant number of ATI requests, and the complaints to your office generated by those requests, actually came from requests to the Department of National Defence. They pertained to the cost of equipment used by our armed forces. When I asked you who was making these requests, you said that you thought a lot of them were made by lawyers, presumably acting on behalf of defence manufacturers, perhaps foreign defence manufacturers. Given that those requests were made by commercial organizations for commercial information, do you think it would be fair that these organizations contribute in a reasonable way towards the cost of providing that commercial information?

[Robert Marleau]

It becomes quite difficult to make a distinction between commercial and private users, because under our statute, and I would argue that it should be maintained that way, the requester remains private. The access request is processed without regard to the identity of the individual.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

But they do know, do they not? The ministry does know. Each department does know the name of the....

[Robert Marleau]

They should not. As they process the request, only the ATIP office knows, and they are bound to process that without regard to the identity of who's asking. If we were looking at charging fees for commercial endeavours, I think you'd have to restructure part of the statute for that. Since I made this so that it can be done quickly and easily, I didn't address that particular point.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Do you think it might be worth looking into this? You mentioned that a large percentage of the complaints to your office were derived from these kinds of requests. You gave us a chart, as I recall, that showed increased numbers of requests to various departments and ministries, and one was the Department of National Defence. These aren't individuals asking about their veterans' pensions or anything of that nature. Who else would want to know the cost of a particular piece of equipment the military is using?

[Robert Marleau]

I think, with respect, Mr. Chairman, the member is confusing two things. There are those who make requests on those kinds of issues and who they might be, and then there are those who complain to my office.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I realize.

[Robert Marleau]

The largest users of the access to information system broadly, as reported by Treasury Board, are business—pharmaceuticals, whatever.

In terms of complaints in my office, right now business represents about 18% and media 12%.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

So you're saying the vast majority of access to information requests, which are the things that cost on average $1,425 to comply with, are from business organizations. Is that correct?

[Robert Marleau]

The vast majority, yes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Then it seems to me that it's worth some time investigating a system where you would have requests for personal information about individuals, such as veterans' pensions or Canada Pension Plan pensions, that sort of thing, versus what is obviously commercial information, which is being used for a commercial purpose and sold for a commercial purpose. Would that not make sense? Would that not save the taxpayers some significant dollars that perhaps could be put to some other important need of the government?

[Robert Marleau]

I think you have to have a larger policy discussion about it. It would add a revenue recuperating cost aspect, as you suggest, but corporations pay taxes too. Lawyers' offices pay taxes too. A corporation is a legal person. I think it would be quite a trick to draw a distinction under the current structure.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What about foreign corporations or foreign governments that aren't paying taxes and perhaps want to bid on a defence contract or just want to know what we're spending?

[Robert Marleau]

They're doing it now through the brokers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Your time has expired.

I'm going to have to move to Mr. Nadeau s'il vous plaît.