Evidence of meeting #23 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 cost.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Marleau, Mrs. Neill and Mrs. Legault.
Mr. Marleau, when was the Access to Information Act passed?
4:15 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
In 1983.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
If I am not mistaken, in 1987, the Justice committee had already made 100 recommendations to reform the Act. In 2000, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice had set up a committee of officials to study the Act in order to make regulations and establish policies that would modernize the Access to Information system. In 2001, the special committee chaired by John Bryden, a Liberal MP at the time, had tabled 11 priority recommendations.
Since then, a number of Parliamentarians have tabled private Bills to amend the Act. In April 2005, Liberal minister Irwin Cotler had asked the committee to study the Act. There was a detailed framework document relating to reforming access to information. In October 2005, your predecessor, Information Commissioner John Reid, had submitted a comprehensive Bill to the government of Paul Martin. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which I am now a member of, has twice called on the Liberal and Conservative governments to stop pussyfooting and to table a Bill to reform the Access to Information Act. All to no avail.
On November 3, 2005, New Democratic MP Pat Martin had tabled a motion asking the government to table a Bill. In December 2005, a certain Stephen Harper, leader of the old Reform Party which is not the Conservative Party, had stated that he would implement the recommendations of the Information Commissioner on reforming the Access to Information Act. We are still waiting and that is another broken promise.
In September 2006, Carole Lavallée, a Bloc québécois MP, had also tabled a motion in the committee asking the government to table a new Access to Information Act in the House before December 15, 2006. On September 27, 2006, the committee had tabled a report in the House of Commons with the same recommendation.
More recently, a motion passed on February 11 last by the committee chaired by MP Paul Szabo recommended to the government to table in the House before May 31, 2009, which is pretty soon, a new, stronger and modern Access to Information Act which could be based on the work of the previous Information Commissioner, Mr. John Reid.
On March 4, 2009, you submitted twelve recommendations which I have read and which have been studied several times by this committee. I would suggest that we include all 12 recommendations in a single one asking the government to keep its promise and to do what the Liberals did not, that is to say to be persons of honor and to table a Bill--with all the information gathered over the past 20 years--finally to give us a new Access to Information Act.
Could such a recommendation come from you? I do not want to put you on the spot but I want to help you to make sure that Canada leave the Middle Ages. Since you referred to a grandmother, you see where I am coming from.
4:20 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chairman, the honorable member has just summarized all the recommendations for reform made over the past 20 years. What he said is absolutely exact and correct.
In my second Annual Report, I stated that the government should follow-up on those recommendations and get to work. I believe that this type of legislative reform can only be launched by a minister, a member of the executive council. It will require investments from the government and there will be costs. As far as we are concerned, only the government can do this.
The efforts of Mr. Martin, of Mrs. Lavallée and of simple MPs--and I say this with respect-- are certainly laudable but, I believe, cannot lead to a modernization of this Act without some initiatives based on new investments.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I repeat my request to the representatives of the government--of which six or seven are present in this room--to talk to one of their ministers so that a Bill be tabled in the House of Commons--the text has already been drafted by Mr. Reid, Mr. Marleau's predecessor--so that we can move to something else like the tricks probably played by the Conservatives, the famous 67 persons who, during the 2005-2006 elections...
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Poilievre is well aware of what I am referring to. It is painful to him but we must be able to deal with that issue in committee and to stop playing games with this.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm sure the committee will want to discuss the matter of looking down the road to getting some progress here, and I'm sure it will be interesting.
I'm going back to Mr. Dechert. Then I have Mr. Siksay, and then Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Marleau, you have told us that a small number of people are responsible for a large percentage of both ATI requests and complaints. We went through the list of ATI requests to certain departments. I think in one case you mentioned that one individual was responsible for 500 requests with respect to the CBC.
Given that sort of situation, would it be fair, in your view, that large users of the ATI system be required to pay some kind of escalating fee above a certain minimum, especially in a situation where they are asking for essentially the same information multiple times?
4:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
You could have a graduated increase in the user fee, but to some degree that undermines the principle of transparency that underlies the statute.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
What about the principle of fairness to the taxpayer against abuse of the system?
4:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Recommendation number 4, in my view, giving me the discretion over investigations, would go a long way to cure that. I think I can deal with the few people who make frequent complaints, because we need to make a distinction between frequent requests versus frequent complaints. I can do this fairly quickly if I'm not bound by the law to investigate everything they send my way.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Let's talk about frequent requests, because frequent requests are what really cost a significant amount of money. The cost of your office is relatively modest by comparison. So if somebody makes 500 requests, times $1,425 per request, on essentially the same information, is there no point in having some kind of a deterrent fee to at least require them to be more reasonable about the requests? There's no way the CBC can refuse the request, is that correct?
4:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
They're not supposed to.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Right. They have to comply in every case, and that's a significant cost to the taxpayers.
4:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
You're talking about frequent requests and requesting the same information.
4:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
A general repository where that is posted would go a long way toward diminishing repeated requests for the same information.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Perhaps.
What percentage of access to information requests are for individual personal information versus non-personal information?
4:25 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I don't know that. I don't think it's classified that way by Treasury Board; it's classified by user group.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Presumably you would agree that personal information on any person or individual case is not something you're going to post. It's not something that's going to be posted on the Internet.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just so that everybody understands your point, could you give us an example or two of something you would consider to be personal information?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Sure. A veteran's pension account, for example. If they have a complaint about not receiving the amount they should be receiving, or they're not at all getting an amount they should be getting, they may make a request to the Department of Veterans Affairs for information about their veteran's pension account.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Yes, it's their own personal information.
What I'm trying to determine is what percentage of that kind of information versus just general information is requested on an annual basis.
I don't think you made a specific recommendation about posting information proactively on the Internet. Obviously it would be a somewhat complicated decision to make as to what should be posted and what shouldn't. There obviously would have to be some rules developed on that.
Have you done any study on the effect of proactive posting of substantially all of the government's information on the Internet in reducing the number of ATI requests?