Evidence of meeting #35 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Out of 2,000 complaints last year, 400 related to a time extension.
Bloc
Jean Dorion Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
I quoted a comment taken from the introduction to Mr. Marleau's report, but he has also made statements to the media about the need to establish a culture that promotes access to information in the public service of Canada.
Do you have the impression that such a culture does not exist at this time?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chair, I would say it is very obvious, based on the report cars we prepared last year, that there is a lot of leadership in some departments and that makes a huge difference in terms of the application of the Act. For example, there is a lot of leadership in the Department of Justice, and that department achieves excellent access to information results. And yet it is one of the departments that has mandatory consultations. In the area of solicitor-client privilege, that department has an excellent track record.
Leadership in institutions and among deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers truly produces results. Obviously it has a major impact in policy terms. As Commissioner Marleau has said several times in the past, clearly, if a Privy Council directive were to require that 85% of requests receive responses within 30 days, the public service would get into action. In a word, leadership does have a huge impact.
A few weeks ago, I heard Senator Fox suggest in the Senate that deputy ministers' performance in respect of access to information be included in the performance agreements.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses today.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak with the Information Commissioner. I want to continue on with the line of questioning that I had the opportunity to work through with your predecessor, Mr. Marleau, for whom I have tremendous respect and with whom I had worked on another subcommittee.
I'm going to move to page 42 of your report. In the context of the length of the report overall, a thoughtful reflection on advocating for legislative reform, I spent some time looking at more than a dozen substantive recommendations and some other commentary. I want, for the record, for the benefit of the committee, and certainly for Canadians, to reflect on that 25 years and get an appreciation for some of the things that transpired.
Last week we heard Mr. Marleau testify at this committee that the Conservative Federal Accountability Act was the most significant reform to the Access to Information Act, the act itself, since it was first passed in 1983. Do you share that view?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
There were essentially two reforms since 1983. There was the reform to add section 67 of the act, Madame Beaumier's private member's bill to make it a criminal offence to wilfully thwart the efforts of the Information Commissioner, and the Federal Accountability Act. The Federal Accountability Act, in my view, made numerous amendments. Whether or not they had a significant impact in matters of actually reforming the access to information regime, I would say that it had little impact, because it changed nothing to the compliance model, which I consider to be very weak.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
In terms of your comments on section 67 of the Federal Accountability Act, isn't it true, though, that there were significant changes in reform to access to information in the context of the number of departments, institutions, crown corporations, etc., that would be therefore subject to a higher-level scrutiny or accountability, if you will, vis-à-vis that act?
Is that a fair statement?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Yes, it's a fact that the Federal Accountability Act added 69 institutions to the coverage of the act.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
In fairness, right in the last sentence in paragraph one, after the word “sadly,” it's clear that you have some...and you mentioned that in your discussion about some of the technological challenges we face moving forward in this dynamic environment. Certainly it changes rapidly, that's for sure.
But again, for the record and the benefit of the committee, I think it's important to understand that there was a period of time under the previous government, for 13 years, where this was left untouched. Clearly, we have statistics that show us a massive expansion of the scope of accountability through the Federal Accountability Act.
Indeed, are you aware that the government in 2005 voted against a motion to extend access to information laws, particularly to crown corporations?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No, I wasn't aware of that.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Well, perhaps now you are, but in any event, we can build on that and just appreciate the number of departments....
In 2006-07, there were 186 institutions subject to the act. Since the coming into force of the Federal Accountability Act, you're aware now that 255 institutions are now subject to the Access to Information Act.
In your view, would you describe that as sweeping reform to the extent that more institutions, departments, and crown corporations, particularly crown corporations, are affected?
November 3rd, 2009 / 10:35 a.m.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No, I wouldn't call it sweeping. I would call a sweeping reform of the Access to Information Act in terms of coverage when the act actually covers anywhere people's and taxpayers' money is being spent--i.e., parliamentarians' administrative offices, courts' administrative offices, and so on.
That's what I would a sweeping reform.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
But isn't it true that since September 1, 2007, the Government of Canada is more accessible with a larger number of institutions covered under the Access to Information Act?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chairman, I will say, in all fairness, that it's true: 69 institutions were added. What I would also say, however...because this is very much at the forefront of what my office is going through right now.
For instance, we added the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but we added them with an exclusion under the act. I'm now finding myself in court with an institution that refuses to provide documents for us to effect our review.
So yes, we added some institutions, but we also created some exclusions and some mandatory exemptions.
Liberal
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I hope I have a good line of questioning too, Chair. You're passing out the compliments today.
Liberal
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Legault, with regard to the special investigation into the so-called amber lighting of complaints, the office made three recommendations to Treasury Board. Has Treasury Board accepted those recommendations and implemented them?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
They have accepted the recommendations. The first one was targeted at the 21 institutions.
In terms of the statistics, I know that Treasury Board Secretariat is pursuing the collection of additional statistics. I have a letter in my office waiting for my signature because Treasury Board Secretariat has also consulted us in the matter.
I must say that in terms of the follow-up to the CNA investigation, the Canadian Newspaper Association, we did look into this also. We did the follow-up to the investigation with the 21 institutions and we also looked at this matter in the report cards of last year. There is still some concern in one institution in particular that has not completely eliminated the additional delays that some institutions attach to sensitive or amber-lighted requests.
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
It is Health Canada.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
What's your follow-up at this point with those recommendations and their implementation?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
We're following through this year as part of our report card process, so when we publish our special report with our report cards, there will be the compte rendu, the summary of that follow-up that will be published in a special report.
