Evidence of meeting #10 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was need.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
Federally, yes, it's five hours.
I haven't experienced it to be a particular problem. Now, as an experienced user of the Access to Information Act, I know how to narrow down what I am looking for, so it generally doesn't take five hours. I work with the ATIP officers to ensure that it is narrow. I don't want to be getting thousands of pages of documents, because I have to go through them. I think having some limit is reasonable.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
We still have a couple of minutes left if somebody wants to pick up on this.
Mr. Bratina, go ahead.
Liberal
Bob Bratina Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I'll start with Mr. Weiler.
Whatever we do with the information we have, we prepare a report. What do you think we should be doing with regard to reviewing our decisions and improving on them—an annual review situation? We want to make sure we progress and move forward. We are obviously going to be presenting recommendations, which to some extent will be accepted, but then there needs to be a review process. What would you say to that?
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
Do you mean an overarching level five-year review?
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
Obviously, having some review is important. Five years seems quite reasonable.
I think those reviews have to be informed by actual information data. What I think is crucially important is for the information system to collect more data about itself, about what it is doing, so we can really speak and review from a position that is informed by the data.
For example, I would require governments to track how long it takes to search for information, how long it takes to consult on redactions, how long it takes to prepare for sending it out to the applicants. Feed that information regularly to the Information Commissioner so that her office is positioned to come from a very informed point of view in reviews like these.
Liberal
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
Absolutely, there should be measures, and we should be collecting data on the information system itself in a more detailed manner.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
I just don't want to get started on something great. We'll come back to you, Mr. Bratina, I'm sure, at one particular point in time.
Now, we move into the five-minute round.
Mr. Kelly, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank all of our witnesses for appearing today.
If I may just comment and pick up on something Mr. Rubin said in his opening remarks, he wanted to talk about broad concepts in access rather than technical fixes or the minutiae of legislation. We are, as legislators and as a committee, here to deal in law, making new law and dealing with technical matters. Having said that, we've heard from many witnesses already about issues relating to culture around disclosure, and a technical change doesn't change culture overnight. If there is a cultural opposition to disclosure, you can't instantly solve that with a fix.
I'd like a brief word from each witness on how best to address cultural change in approaches to access, if indeed there is a need for a change in culture.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
Since you pointed to me, I agree with you that legislators can be limited in what they do, but other countries, as I've pointed out, have done better, and have done things that put disclosure in a whole different light.
Sweden started off with a culture of openness 250 years ago. They didn't reimpose, as Canada did, a culture of secrecy. We seem to have this hang-up that cabinet records and policy advice, and things like that are sacrosanct, which they are not. In a modern day, for sure they're not. Central to all of this, I think you need several measures. You can't solve and change a culture of secrecy by just giving access to records. You have to open up meetings. You have to open up new forms of records for disclosures, such as a system for monitoring airborne diseases and bacteria with respect to food, and on and on it goes. You cannot expect just because an information commissioner says “I'm going to fix the problem by giving myself order powers to make me more effective administratively, but I'm going to keep in place all the exemptions”, that you're going to change the culture of secrecy. You have to engage in basic changes, and that means engaging in a multi-strategy. I've given a lot of thought to this because I've been patient. I'm not the Queen; I'm not 90, but I feel it's important that we don't just stick our head in the sand and say that we can just do one or two changes and all of a sudden disclosure will happen. It doesn't work that way.
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
I'll say the Access to Information Act creates an institutionally mediated information retrieval system. The key words are “institutionally mediated” and “information retrieval system”. It's an information retrieval system that government employees are involved in implementing, and I think the key to creating a culture of openness is to make that information retrieval system itself more transparent. Who's involved in retrieving the information? Who's involved in consultations? Who's involved in authorizing whatever is released? Are communications officials involved?
Behind any access to information application sometimes there can be a massive institutional bureaucracy that is coordinating that, but the end user just gets a letter in an envelope. You don't realize what's going on behind the scenes. That creates a shelter of safety, or a curtain, behind which this institution can hide. I think we need to make it more transparent so that people know what's going on behind the scenes, and people who are involved in retrieving the information on the government side are aware they are being supervised by the public.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Mr. Kelly, you have about three seconds left. I now you're quick, but I don't think anybody's quite that quick.
We'll move over to Mr. Lightbound, for up to five minutes, please.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for being here today and for your excellent presentations. It is especially nice to see my former colleagues again, knowing that they can't give me any more work.
This week, the Newfoundland and Labrador commissioner told us that, pursuant to the changes that province made to its act, when the commissioner issues a recommendation to a federal institution, it has 10 days to comply. Otherwise, the institution must apply for a judicial review of the commissioner's decision.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this model, which, in a way, lifts the burden of going to court from the individual and, instead, places it on the institution.
My question is for Mr. Aylwin and for Mr. Boucher.
Partner, As an Individual
Actually, that is the mechanism in Quebec, although the timelines are different. When the access to information commission orders a public organization to disclose information, it must comply or appeal to the Court of Quebec. The access to information commission's decision can then be reviewed.
We represent public organizations and we know how it works. I am not very familiar with the process in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the way it works here is that there is a hearing where each party can make its respective representations. The person making the decision steps back, makes their decision, and then issues a written decision with reasons. If one of the parties is not satisfied, it can appeal. This applies to both parties. If the commission decides that the documents must not be disclosed, the requester can appeal to the Court of Quebec, or the public organization can appeal, as the case may be.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
That's perfect.
My second question pertains to timelines, which you also mentioned in your presentation. The commissioner recommends a maximum of 60 days for an institution seeking an extension beyond the 30-day limit. In other words, the institution must apply to the commissioner for an extension beyond the 30-day limit.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the time limit is 20 days. If the institution wants an extension beyond that, it must seek permission for any additional period of time.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this, and any comments from the other witnesses.
Partner, As an Individual
There are two models. Actually, there are more than two, but let's stick with these two. The first model has a firm deadline: either the organization responds within 30 days or it is deemed to have refused to comply. The requester may then take the matter to court for a review of why the documents were not released. Under another model, which falls between the two, there is a limit of 20 days or some other time limit, with a maximum 10-day extension. In Quebec, it is 20 days plus 10 days, but this has to be indicated. I'm not sure there is actually much difference when the time limits are so short. There is, however, no need to request permission. Once again, there is ultimately a firm deadline.
My concern, especially at the federal level, is the volume of extension requests that the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada would have to process. We know there are already over 1,000 extension requests for access to information files that have not been processed. Will the commissioner's office actually be able to process so many extension requests in a timely manner? My sense is that creating such a mechanism would not be a good investment of resources by the government. I think a firm deadline would be useful, but perhaps parameters should be set to keep access to information requests manageable and to ensure that they could be processed in a timely manner. That would have to be adopted at the same time.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I completely agree with my colleague. This is especially important since, when an information request is submitted to the commissioner, a recommendation is issued. In Ontario and Quebec, however, the matter is very often already at the quasi-judicial stage. To my mind, the requirement for quick action, which is characteristic of administrative tribunals, is truly indispensable.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
I have a quick question and I'd like a quick answer, too.
We heard from Mr. Drapeau, who mentioned the role of coordinators. He suggested that coordinators be appointed by Governor in Council so that they have more independence, and they would treat the bulk of the demands.
We've heard other opinions about how to give more independence to the ATI coordinators within each institution.
I'd like to briefly have your take on it.
I'll start with Mr. Weiler.
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
I'll just say that the ATIP coordinators are absolutely fantastic, in my experience. Anything that gives them strength and power I would support, recognizing that we have to be careful of it, but the more support, the better.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
I have suggested an arm's-length arrangement. At this point I think you need a central pool, because many of the issues are complex and involve several departments. Access coordinators not only need independence, but they also need to facilitate access. Right now they're gatekeepers for fees, for time extensions, for spending their time blanking out information. Their mandate and role is really for management; it's not for us as the users, primarily.
You need to have a different philosophy, a different independence, and a way for them to really do a job that helps us.