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.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Super.
We now go to the next five-minute round, for Mr. Jeneroux, followed by Mr. Massé.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Great. Thank you.
I have a question that will probably take up the majority of my five minutes, so I'll just ask it. Perhaps, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Aylwin, you could start.
Given the obvious conflict of interest of having a minister's office review access to information requests prior to their release, as is our current practice, should ATIPs be given to ministerial exempt staff prior to their release, in your opinion?
10 a.m.
Partner, As an Individual
The answer to your question depends on what the next step would be after the public agency's response.
Ministerial responsibility does, after all, rest with the minister. It is the minister who is accountable for their department's actions. Unless an access to information system is adopted that is parallel to government activities, as we have just discussed, the responsibility lies with the minister. They are accountable for the documents that must be disclosed.
The reason I am talking about the next step is that, if there is then an independent, adjudicative process, which makes binding decisions, I think this would provide a balance of protections, which would in turn enable us to achieve our objective as regards access to information.
10 a.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
To add to what my colleague said, I would simply note that the minister is always responsible for the federal institution. They are responsible for disclosure. It would be helpful to include a mechanism or something that would give the minister some oversight over the requests submitted. Too often, they are processed in a purely administrative way. At the very least, it would be helpful to create an informal process that would allow the minister to monitor certain requests.
10 a.m.
Partner, As an Individual
Returning to Mr. Weiler's comments, I would say that perhaps the issue here is one of transparency. When it is the minister who decides not to disclose a document, that should perhaps be indicated. As a matter of ministerial responsibility, if it is the minister who decides not to disclose a document, the response should indicate that.
10 a.m.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
Well, I don't think exempt staff in the minister's office should be part of the process, but let's face it; we hope shortly to have ministers' offices and the PMO covered by the act, so they're involved.
I'll give you the example of Minister Dion and the Saudi Arabia case, wherein he claims he couldn't interfere with the access process, nor could his staff. Well, yes he can interfere, not to create more exemptions, but he can order his staff, in his discretion—particularly if it's a discretionary exemption, as in these documents for national security—to release more.
The minister's office can play a very positive role, not an interfering role in the sense of repression and so on. I agree with the gentlemen, the corporate lawyers in Montreal, that the fact of the matter is you still need a review process. Without a review process, without transparency, it looks rather fishy.
10 a.m.
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
I'll just add that, at a request level, we need to make the chain of custody and review involved in the administration of the Access to Information Act transparent to both the applicant and the Information Commissioner. This is so that we know who's reviewing it. We know that full chain of custody, of review, of authority to withhold or disclose, and we make that internal process transparent.
10 a.m.
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
I mean names of staff and titles, so that when you get the document that says, “Here are your documents”, you know who has touched all those documents from the point of information retrieval all the way up to authorizing or withholding disclosure.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
That's about the end of your time anyway, so we'll move to Mr. Massé, for up to five minutes, please.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, gentlemen, for taking part in this exercise. Your input is greatly appreciated.
I would like to hear your views on information management by the federal government.
Mr. Weiler, as a librarian and subject matter expert, have you had the opportunity to explore how the machinery of government works in the departments as regards tools and processes? If so, have you identified any issues? Could you offer any proposals, lessons learned, best practices, methods, or tools that could be implemented to improve access to information? This is also important because there is so much information in different formats and on different platforms, spread throughout the machinery of government, right across Canada. I would like your input.
I would also like to hear Mr. Rubin's comments, if he has any.
10:05 a.m.
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
In information professions, there's a term called “description”. It's also called “metadata”. These are technical terms for information that describes information in complex information systems. A major function of “description” or “metadata” is to make it easier for people to find that information, and be very specific. Currently, paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act requires governments to publish a description of all classes of records under the control of each government institution.
Unfortunately, I think it's at a very abstract level. It appears in what is called Info Source. What the government is currently publishing are descriptions of program alignment architecture, which are an important part of the puzzle, but an incomplete part.
I would encourage Parliament to dramatically expand paragraph 5(1)(b) to include the mandatory publishing of record retention schedules. These are documents that describe what the government has, including record classification schemes, organizational charts, job descriptions of all employees in the department, as well as user guides for all software applications used within the departments. These are all tools that describe how information is organized within an organization, and they are critical to identifying what information a person very specifically wants.
I think the better able we are to describe that information, the better it is for users, who will then be able to be very specific in what they're seeking and not have these very broad fishing expeditions where they don't know what they're looking for.
That's what I would recommend.
10:05 a.m.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
It's very important because ever since the act came in.... I heard Newfoundland took a few years to bring their record management up to speed in order for them to do duty to documents. Federally, our record management system is in shambles. Look at the Auditor General's report about the information management system of Shared Services Canada.
I've heard many people inside the system say that now that we've gone to electronic records, they don't even know how to find their own records anymore. It's a serious problem. I guess the answer is, in part, to bring in a duty to document. People go oral because they want to hide things, but also because they don't know how to get the material. You also need mechanisms to monitor that. An information commission is one mechanism.
You have archivists. In Quebec they can actually penalize people if there are certain records that aren't kept properly. That's what I mean by companion legislation; without one, you can't have the other. If you don't have proper record-keeping, if you have sloppy record-keeping, you're not going to get the records. If we don't even have a system—and we don't right now have a good record retrieval system—we're in crisis in this regard. I'm sorry to say the technology being used now is not very good.
This is the problem we really have to deal with. I don't necessarily agree that the problem is making a distinction between unpublished records and published records, because all you need is good management and retrieval, and transmission in a usable format.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I don't know whether Mr. Boucher or Mr. Aylwin would like to add anything.
10:05 a.m.
Partner, As an Individual
I would add that these aspects should be considered as part of the entire access to information process. Regardless of what you might change in the act, if it is difficult to find documents, you could not impose short time frames. That is something to consider.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
That's fine.
I will share my time with Mr. Bratina or Mr. Long.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
There actually isn't any, but what I will do is come back and make sure any unfinished thoughts are wrapped up, and give everybody an opportunity to ask questions.
According to our official list, we now go to Mr. Boulerice, for the last three minutes of the questioning round.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask, if possible, for your thoughts on extending the application of the Access to Information Act to crown corporations. It is not simply a question of the scope of application, but also of the quality of information that can be obtained.
I remember that a journalist in English Canada had requested a study conducted by Canada Post on the possibility of obtaining banking services at post offices. It was a huge study, yet 701 of its 811 pages were completely redacted, blacked out.
I would like to hear your views on extending the application of the act to crown corporations, and also on the censorship noted. It is impossible to find out what was in the study, which pertains to services to millions of Canadians.
April 21st, 2016 / 10:10 a.m.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
Some crown corporations got covered under the Federal Accountability Act by Mr. Harper's crew, but they made a special deal, and they gave them even more exemptions than the current exemptions for commercial, and time restrictions, and so on. That's part of the problem.
Part of the problem is that we need even further groups covered. Canada Health Infoway is, in a sense, an informal corporation with public funds, and a lot of public funds, but you can't find out much about it.
If you're talking about extending coverage to businesses or corporations that are closely tied to the government, we haven't done a very good job. We need to have a level playing field and bring other corporations into the same disclosure regimes.
10:10 a.m.
Web and User Experience Librarian, As an Individual
I would add that with any crown corporation, the key thing is that the ATIP offices be adequately funded. Without adequate funding they'll struggle, and that will be reflected on people trying to use their rights.