Evidence of meeting #30 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was request.
A video is available from Parliament.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Let me see.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
I can say that Madame Legault doesn't have the briefing note that was provided to committee members, but it looks like she's getting it now, Mr. Boughen.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
This document was prepared by the Library of Parliament. I have that document now.
Conservative
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
The difference between last year and this year, sir, happened because we had a $2.6 million loan to move our offices. We were lent the money to move our offices. We were booted out of our location and we had to move, so we were loaned $2.6 million to move. It cost us $2.6 million, and we have to repay it. That's costing us an extra percentage, a reduction in our budget, because we have to repay it.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
So the $2.6 million ended up as $3.3 million due to interest on an outstanding loan? Yes or no?
Layla Michaud Director General, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
There's $2.6 million for the move, but as well we are the end of a five-year IM-IT strategy, so there's almost $300,000 there as well.
As well, we began last year to repay the cost of our move, so there's $170,000 there. So we're close to the $3.3 million, and then there's some pay list shortfall, or salary-type resources, that were transferred to us, but we have to pay for others and so on. So that's mainly what it is.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Okay.
I was interested in your discussion about how you refer back to a client without an address, without a name. Does the client get a number, and the number matches the number with you folks? Can you help us understand how that transition happens?
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
We try to protect the identity of the complainant as much as possible. Obviously, we have to function, we have to send them letters. But within our correspondence with the institution, within our institution, we mostly function by file number. So the institution has a file number and we have as well, so in the end when we do write—for instance, if we can't resolve a file, we have to write to the minister, and I'm writing to the minister through all these steps—we're only referring to a file number. The people in the institution who are being asked to review the representations, they don't know the identity of the complainant.
That's how it works, and it's all in our data management system for our files. But yes, of course we do have the name of the complainant eventually and we do write to them, and some of them want us to write to them by email now, and so on, so we abide by that. But we try to put these measures in place to protect identities.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Mr. Boughen, you have about 45 seconds left if one of your colleagues wants to use it up.
Conservative
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Very good. Thank you very much.
Then we'll move to another round, also with the Conservatives, Mr. Erin O'Toole.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's been a very interesting process for me, particularly, as I said at the beginning, because I did see, when I was working in law in Toronto, the commercial value of information.
I have a few questions following something you said to my colleague, Ms. Crockatt. You suggested, to the best of your knowledge—because you weren't commissioner in 1983—that the five-dollar fee was not really a cost recovery but was more of a nuisance barrier in that anybody applying has to actually think about it. Is that an approach other countries use, a bare-bones barrier so that it's just...?
We see people on Twitter tweeting all day, just one click of a mouse button. I think there has to be some sort of reasonable ground between open, accessible government and having, at the click of a mouse, bureaucrats being charged with gaining information with the cost of almost $1,300 inherent in each request. What would you say that nuisance amount should be?
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Let me ask you this question, because I'm not quite sure how to answer your question, as you have gathered by now. What's the nuisance cost of publishing a dataset? What's the nuisance cost for the government to produce a dataset and to publish it proactively under the open data system? There is a cost for the government to do that. There is a cost to proactively disclosing travel and hospitality records. There is a cost to disclosing anything on a government website. Why is that different from releasing records through access to information?
In a way, you could look at it as a cost-saving measure because the government is actually not disclosing everything it produces. It produces some things proactively because it considers them to have value. They're open datasets, so geospatial data. It produces other information publicly such as annual reports and departmental reports because it considers that they have value for transparency and accountability.
What's different? If citizens—actually 55,000 citizens out of our entire population; it's actually a low number—want to have access to other pieces of information, why is there a nuisance threshold for that information when the Supreme Court of Canada has determined it's a quasi-constitutional right of Canadians? That's the real question, sir.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
I have to correct you, Madame. There are not 55,000 citizens. There are 55,000 requests, and we've established that almost 30,000 are not citizens; they're corporate entities.
It's good to see my NDP friends here supporting corporate Canada in their access to records. My vision to address what is clearing a rising need and your office's very good handling of it would, I think, fill your coffers. It's a system broken into three parts. One part would be a zero charge for any access by citizens to any document pertaining to them or their life. The second part would be a more nominal charge of $25 or $30 for citizens' requests for items not pertaining to their direct life. If they're interested in fisheries and they want to see that, then they should have that access. It would still be a nominal charge, but it would be certainly a lot more than the 1983 amount of five dollars.
The third threshold would be for commercial entities that are clearly potentially commercializing the information. A five-dollar nuisance threshold to billion-dollar companies, I would say, is not a nuisance threshold. It's not even tokenism. A $200 charge to a telecommunications giant or an oil company, I think, is reasonable for a corporate entity.
The reason I'm pursuing this line of questioning is that I think it would result in what you'd like to see: more money, particularly if you were able to earmark some of that to your department, which I think we all agree is doing a good job.
What do you think of my three levels? I know you don't support them, but do any other countries use that? I know that the U.K. actually assessed how much time it would take to gather the information, charged on a fee threshold, and then charged a communication fee for the phone calls and stuff. Do other countries do it this way?
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
I'm afraid Mr. O'Toole didn't leave you much time to answer, Madame Legault. We're over five minutes already, but given the depth of the question we'll give you a minute or so to answer.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I think the best thing I can do is to provide the committee with some research, then that can be the basis for your consideration, whether I agree with it or not. At least it will be more factual for the committee to consider. I think that's the best thing to do: to actually do a bit of a benchmarking exercise and look at what's out there. You will find there is a variety of models. Again, I think we're making the system more complex that way.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Well, then, I think your office should be given the time to provide a proper international overview.
I'm not on this committee normally, so could I be copied on the...?
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Certainly.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.
That concludes the second round of questioning, but there is an appetite still if you're willing to stay, Madame Legault. There's still interest on the part of committee members.
We'll begin a third round, and that begins with the NDP, Charmaine Borg.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you.
Now I'd like to come back to the budget issue.
In your opening statement, you said that if your office's financial circumstances did not improve in the immediate future, you would have to make program cuts.
What programs would be subject to cuts if your finances did not improve immediately?
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
My only program is the investigations program.
I will not be able to function without additional resources, as I have only $37,000 remaining in my budget. If a server goes down, for instance, I will have to close up shop, and that isn't a solution.
I need a contingency fund of about $400,000 to $500,000, which would cover 7 or 8 investigator positions. I would not have to lay off any staff since a number of employees are going on maternity leave or retiring. I just won't replace them, but that will have an impact, as the chart shows.
I think that would be catastrophic. I can no longer ask my employees to stretch themselves even thinner. That is what I have done for years, and they are now stretched to the limit. We will continue to do our job under these conditions, but it will mean more and more delays. If delays are too long, it means the investigative process is no longer valid, in which case, I would no longer be delivering on my mandate.