Of course. I'd be happy to. My apologies.
Again, with two exceptions, I don't propose to speak to each of the recommendations that Monsieur Marleau has made to the committee. I will say that those recommendations would introduce important features that are already found in access to information laws in British Columbia and elsewhere across the country, notably, but not limited to, Quebec, Alberta, and Ontario.
In this light, his recommendations would, in my view, address many problems with the existing legislation federally, notably in the crucial area of oversight and enforcement by the commissioner's office. These are important recommendations because an access to information regime is only meaningful if there's effective independent oversight of compliance.
The first specific point that I would like to make about the recommendations before you has to do with order-making powers. At present, the Access to Information Act provides for a de novo review by the Federal Court of an institution's refusal of access to information, but not, as I understand it, a review for administrative disputes such as fees or time extensions.
In this context, I fully understand why my colleague has made recommendation 3 in his set of recommendations, which would provide meaningful oversight powers to his office in matters of fees and time extensions and thus complement the existing role of the Federal Court respecting refusals of access to information.
In B.C., by contrast, I have full order-making power, as do commissioners in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and Prince Edward Island. In effect, we function as administrative tribunals, issuing binding orders that either uphold a public body's decision to refuse access or order disclosure of more information.
Now, this role extends to appeals regarding fees and time extensions, I should add, as well as other actions or decisions of public bodies under our access law. Our orders are fully subject to judicial review by our superior court, not de novo appeal, on the usual administrative law grounds, thus providing an element of accountability and a check and balance on our action and decisions.
Speaking only to the situation and experience in British Columbia, we have found, over the 16 years of our office's experience, that order-making power has served, in fact, to encourage dispute resolution. Using mediation, we consistently resolve some 85% to 90% of the access appeals that come to our office.
Lawyers generally don't get involved early on. In a small minority of cases where we do hold formal appeal hearings, which are held in writing, I might note, we're able to issue a reasoned, precedent-setting decision that educates both parties, the public, and government institutions. We are, on average, taking a judicial review only a few times a year, although the possibility of judicial review, I can assure you, focuses our attention on the quality of the decisions that we issue.
My second point relates to Monsieur Marleau's recommendation 7 that the access law should apply to records relating to “the general administration of Parliament”. On that, I will say only that this is not at present the case in British Columbia, although it is in Quebec. I certainly fully support that recommendation and will be making a similar recommendation on the upcoming legislative review of British Columbia's law, which is slated to begin this fall.
Before inviting questions from the committee, I would like to make two further points, by way of recommendation, for the committee's consideration.
The first point has to do with routine disclosure of records. I have long taken the position that a comprehensive program, mandatory in nature, of routine proactive disclosure of records, without access requests, should be made obligatory by law. Such an approach of proactive disclosure has two advantages. First, routine disclosure more meaningfully implements the law's goals of openness and accountability. Second, routine disclosure could reduce the costs of freedom of information by avoiding the more expensive business of responding to specific and often repeated access requests for the same information.
Mandatory disclosure would make a major contribution to a culture promoting transparency [Technical difficulties - Editor] which must remain up to date and be approved by the Information Commissioner.
The United Kingdom approach has much to commend it, and similar schemes have been recommended in Quebec and British Columbia. I note, also, that in 1998 the then-President of the United States mandated creation of electronic reading rooms so that a system of proactive disclosure could be implemented. I urge the committee to recommend a U.K.-style scheme of routine proactive disclosure without access request as part of a forward-looking and cutting-edge Access to Information Act reform.
The second specific recommendation I would like to raise with the committee has to do with access impact assessments. Public institutions and businesses across Canada have, for a number of years, used privacy impact assessments that are designed to assess the impact on privacy of proposed programs, laws, or systems. They allow mitigation or avoidance of impacts on privacy from the very outset, and as governments move more and more into the electronic realm and out of the paper world, I would argue that it is critically important that openness and transparency not suffer as new electronic information systems are adopted and expand.
It is not an option for public institutions to decline to grapple with ensuring that information rights are as meaningful in relation to large-scale electronic information systems as they are in relation to paper-based record-keeping systems. Access requests under current laws increasingly test the limits of usefulness of those laws, and public institutions ought to ensure that their electronic information systems are designed and operated in a way that enables them to provide access to information under the law.
The public has a right to expect that new information technology will enhance, not undermine, information rights and that public institutions are actively and effectively striving to meet this objective. A legislated requirement to conduct access impact assessments at the earliest stage possible of system design, or of the consideration of new laws or programs, will help ensure access to information is designed in, not forgotten and then later frustrated. I urge the committee to recommend that access impact assessments be made a feature of the Access to Information Act and the federal scheme of access to information.
In conclusion, I thank the committee for inviting me to appear today and would welcome your questions when appropriate.
Thank you.