Evidence of meeting #31 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was institutions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Calandra.
Mr. Easter, for five minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have to make a comment on Mr. Calandra's points in terms of his claim that the government is more accessible. In fact, where it really matters the government is much less accessible.
The fact that the Canadian Wheat Board and the CBC have opened up is all well and good, with one exception. Part of the reasoning in opening that up is the government wants to find ways of attacking the very institutions they're responsible for. We see that with the Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian Wheat Board all the time. But where access to information really matters to all Canadians, at the centre of power, the PMO and less so ministers' offices--because all the power in this government rests with the PMO--that access to information is far less available than it ever was, in my view.
I'd offer members of the government a suggestion from the official opposition. We have produced a document called Opening Government to Canadians. Right off the bat we say: “The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to democratic renewal--and that means a commitment to open government.”
I'd suggest we're committed to four points. One is to immediately restore the long-form census, and I do have a question for you on that particular issue in a moment.
Two, we would make as many government data sets as possible available to the public online free of charge at opendata.gc.ca in an open and searchable format. Those are some of the things that are happening in some other countries, and we'd start with Statistics Canada data, including data from the long-form census.
Three, we'd post all access to information requests, responses, and response times online.
And fourth, we'd make information on government grants, contributions, and contracts available through a searchable online database.
That's what we're suggesting the government do. That's what we as the official opposition are committed to doing should an election occur.
As you know, the government has substantially cancelled the mandatory long-form census. From your perspective, or maybe you don't care to answer, has that presented a limitation on the information or the accuracy of information that is available to the Canadian public, or will it in the future when this census is done?
5 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chair, I must admit I have not looked at the comparison between the long-form census and the national household survey. I suggest that would be a question perhaps best asked of people who work at Statistics Canada rather than me. I certainly have not looked at that carefully.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The government proposal certainly has been very broadly condemned, not only from the point of view that we're getting less accurate information and it's costing Canadians $30 million more for this government news. It's certainly been broadly condemned, and one of our worries is that the trend lines that have been set based on the mandatory long form and the way it's done are now going to be in jeopardy as a result of the government's decision on the mandatory long-form census.
Just one other question. The access website itself was up at one time. What's the situation now?
5 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Do you mean the CAIRS website? It's no longer available. The secretariat decided to no longer ask institutions to input into the CAIRS system, and that's what led to complaints to my office and led to the investigation. I've provided you with a detailed account of the investigation and with some of the background of the CAIRS system.
At the time, the representations we got from the secretariat said that the CAIRS system was really antiquated technology, and we agreed with that representation. It became very costly to modify the CAIRS system in order to adapt it and include the 17 new institutions that became covered as part of the Federal Accountability Act.
At the time we were consulted, before that decision was made, our position was that the CAIRS system should be kept in place until a new system was put in place to replace it. The secretariat decided not to follow our recommendation at the time. That led to the demise of CAIRS and led to the complaints, which led to our investigation, and it was a very lengthy investigation.
I could have closed this investigation last year, but what has happened since then is that we've had some really good discussions with the secretariat and we're sensing a real openness in terms of the disclosure logs and having disclosures of access requests posted online. Once there was that openness and the willingness to work with institutions and continue in that vein, it led us to then conclude the investigation. We're going to continue to collaborate with Treasury Board Secretariat to see how this evolves over time.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes.
The reason I wanted to have a chance to go back at this is that I'd like to have a clear distinction between the various kinds of proactive disclosure that have been envisioned and to understand which is your preferred.
Is it your view that in an ideal world government would proactively disclose everything that is accessible under ATIP, or would the government simply proactively disclose all requests and responses under ATIP?
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
These are two different things.
Should the government disclose everything all the time? I don't think it would be a good cost-benefit exercise, plus it would be an overload of information. Part of the way the other jurisdictions are developing this is that they're consulting their stakeholders to understand what their stakeholders value among the information sets they have, so that they will put priority on a disclosure of that information, if there's no restriction on their access to information.
On their access to information, ideally yes, we would post the access requests that are received and completed; then, if you speak to people such as David Eaves, he will suggest that you should have a tracking system on the processing of your access requests, because now, he says, the technology exists for that. People would be able to follow where a request is in the system, a little bit as you would figure out where your post is. If you have something sent by priority mail, you can follow the progress and see where it is. The technology exists to do that. This is something that could be added as well.
But there's a distinction between what you disclose proactively and what's disclosed through the Access to Information Act. The way we're looking at it now within the Office of the Information Commissioner is that when we produce documents we're going to look at whether or not these documents can be proactively disclosed and whether our stakeholders are interested in this information. If so, we will start posting it proactively.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So when you secure information under the Access to Information Act, you would automatically disclose it to the broad public, unless it pertains to a person's individual file with the government. Is that what you're saying?
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
No. I'm not sure I understand your question, actually. I'm sorry.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
For example, if I file an access to information request and want to know, for example, the cost of the APEC summit that was held in the 1990s, including all security, etc., are you proposing that under access to information the response I receive would then be made automatically public in an information registry that anyone could access at any time?
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
We'd have to consider the implications for official languages, in terms of whether or not that could be done.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I've heard you testify twice on this subject, and I'm having trouble envisioning exactly what it is you want the government to do in a very specific way. What kind of end product would you like to see?
5:05 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
For instance, there's the disclosure of statistical data free of charge, the disclosure of geospatial data, the disclosure of weather data, the disclosure of immigration data. This can be disclosed proactively. There's the disclosure of access to information requests that are completed and received within institutions.
Whether or not institutions can disclose the documents that are the subject of the access to information request requires, I think, more work, because if there is a particular requester who makes an access to information request, sometimes there is information that is personal to this requester, and it would not be available to the general public. But presumably all the other redactions under the legislation would be the same for everyone.
That's what generates more work. That's why the recommendation we made to the secretariat, as a first step, is to disclose the access to information requests that are received and post the ones that are completed.
What this means is that if you then see this list and want to make an access to information request and see that it's the same one, the institution will already have produced that information. So it's actually easier for the institution; all they have to do is make sure they're not disclosing to another person information that's personal to the first person.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Are you saying that the request would be disclosed—all requests except those that are personal—or that the responses would be disclosed?
5:10 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
The access requests that are received and the ones that are completed, one or the other, can be disclosed.
In terms of the actual bulk of the documents, we have to consider the implications for official languages. Would there be a requirement that all of this documentation need be translated before it's posted online, because it would be posted on a federal institution's website? I don't have the answer to that question yet, and that's why we didn't go there in terms of the recommendation to the secretariat. But this is a consideration.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
One issue, Madame, that has not been raised by any of my colleagues is that of resources or costs. Certainly it's a concern of every member of Parliament. You've described the concept that governments should disclose information on a proactive rather than a reactive basis. This concept has been embraced in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia, and it certainly has been embraced by all the information commissioners, both provincial and yourself, across Canada.
I know you wouldn't have any concept of a detailed breakdown, but can you comment in any way about what costs we're looking at, what additional resources it would cost government? You mentioned that in some cases it would be a cost saving, because you would reduce duplication. But do you have any thoughts or comments that you can leave the committee about costs or resources that would be required to conduct this endeavour?
5:10 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
That's a very valid question. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis to this.
The only data I've seen is as part of the Australian task force work, which has looked at the cost and benefits of disclosing the information. The Americans will tell you that they think it leads to so much innovation within the economy that there is a large benefit. In terms of each institution, that is why a good way to start is to basically look at the data sets that are being produced currently by institutions and see the possibility of disclosing that information.
The way the Americans did it was to have consultation with their stakeholders so that they identified the priority sets of data that stakeholders are interested in. You don't disclose everything; you disclose what's of value to your stakeholders. That way you have a better cost-benefit ratio, if you will.
But have I done any cost analysis? No, I have not.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Legault, I told you earlier that I greatly appreciate this discussion, but I must tell you that I have great difficulty in following you with regard to the implementation of a true transparency policy. I am astonished. Either I have not understood correctly, or else I was expecting that we could say, at the end of our meeting, that the commissioner came, that she showed us ways in which the government could be more transparent, that she suggested a plan that would enable us to know how much time the implementation of a policy could take, and how much it could cost. All we have as an answer is that you do not know, that we should consult other countries, that we should look elsewhere. You come up with fine principles, but a principle loses its credibility if it is not supported.
On the one hand, have you conducted any studies or made any plans that would enable you, at least, to suggest to the members of this committee some ways that would help them find their way through this? On the other hand, if the planning has been done, our research service is telling us that "the Chief Information Officer of the government [...] wants to see the implementation of the government transparency plan within the coming six months or one year". Is it possible to set up, within six months to a year from now, the main features of what you just outlined for us? Otherwise, will it be some very meager information published online for each department? These are three important questions.
5:15 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chair, I agree entirely with the honourable member. I do not have that mandate. I certainly would like to have it—
5:15 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I would be very happy to have it, but I do not have it. I have no mandate to do research, policy development or education. I have no personnel mandated to do such research. I have a mandate to investigate. I consider that as the ombudsman, I play my role by influencing government through the exercise that I conduct jointly with Treasury Board.
The things that you mentioned are not in my mandate. I am very sorry, I entirely agree with you, but I could not really produce for you all the details of the implementation plan.
Moreover, to answer your question about Ms. Charette, let me say that it is basically up to her to come here and present this. She is the one in charge of the development of information and technology within federal institutions. Besides, this is why she is one of the first witnesses that we suggest you should hear.
I am very sorry, Mr. Chair, because I cannot give you anything more concrete than what I gave you today. I am giving you some leads; this is all I can do and I am sorry.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
No, it is all right.
In the same vein, you and your colleagues the provincial commissioners tabled some resolutions. There are five resolutions. You submitted them, I suppose, to the Canadian government. I want to know how it reacted. Did any of the resolutions startle anyone or raise any eyebrows?
5:15 p.m.
Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
This is a good question. In fact, I did not send this to the Prime Minister's Office.