Information & Ethics Committee on May 8th, 2018

[Caroline Maynard]

I can't really comment on this particular file. I'm not even sure we have a complaint about it yet.

From my reading of the article, it was a request that would require the processing of 780,000 documents. I understand that sometimes there's a calculation, and depending on the number of pages some people have a little calculation. They're not supposed to do that, but they come up with how much time it's going to take one analyst to review this amount of paper. It is not acceptable that we would ask somebody to wait 80 years for an access. The question is then, how can we help the requester to narrow down, to scope down, what they're really looking into?

We're doing the same thing with complaints. That's why I talk to the complainants right away when we receive their complaints. If they know right away what they're looking for in 1,000 pages, then we can focus on the 100 pages that they really need. We are going to have a very successful and timely response. If we let it go and we don't respond right away, or we don't scope down the investigation or the request, it's going to take forever. We need to work with the complainants. We need to work with the institutions to help them understand that. They have an obligation under the act. I think most institutions do it; they have a duty to help. I think sometimes some stories like that come out and they focus on the wrong idea.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Sure.

I understand that this particular file is a closed file—15 years old. One would think that the essence of that closed file could be quite easily researched and provided.

[Caroline Maynard]

We have files that are really old and they still have national security issues, and for reasons of security they wouldn't let the information be released. It could be that they just want to make sure.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Okay.

You addressed the matter of staffing and the preference for permanent staffing and permanent experience. You also talked about using the budget to increase the number of experienced consultants being hired. Are these caseworker consultants that you're hiring?

[Caroline Maynard]

Yes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Is that a challenge for you in terms of having caseworkers who are familiar with the process and expediting results?

[Caroline Maynard]

I can tell you that we're all fighting for the same consultants and experienced people, because the professionals in the world of access to information are limited. All the institutions are having the same problem as I am, so we are all looking for people who have the knowledge. Especially for me, if I only have a year, I don't want somebody I have to spend six months training. We have enough to train them on the case management system and the technology we're using at the office.

However, if they can come in and know exactly how to interpret the Access to Information Act and deal with the institutions.... Often they still have contact with these institutions, so we make sure we use those consultants who are retired. We'll give retired coordinators from DND files from DND, because they know the people there and the types of files, and they can work on those types of files.

It's a very difficult thing, though, to hire people for one year, keep them, and make sure they can close enough files in that one year, appropriately using the funding that has been provided.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

We're at time, unfortunately.

Mr. Angus, you have seven minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madame Maynard. It's wonderful to have you at our committee again.

I want to follow up on my colleague's direction. Your predecessor was very scathing in her analysis of Bill C-58 and its threat to access to information. The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression have also raised many concerns about the way the act is written and how it will limit journalists' ability to obtain information. Do you share their concerns?

[Caroline Maynard]

I can tell you that I have shared three concerns, currently, with Bill C-58. The key area is the mandatory requirements in section 6. I do believe those requirements will limit access and will probably even deter people from asking for information. I've also made clear to Mr. Brison and his team, and to Senator Ringuette, that it's a concern I'd like to talk to them about. I don't think it's necessary. I think the status quo with the Access to Information Act will be better for Canadians.

Also, the transition period for the order-making power is a concern. The lack of enforcement for the order-making power is also something we want to address. The current Bill C-58 doesn't provide me with the authority to get a certification of the orders at the Federal Court level. Not having a mechanism to ensure they respect the orders could potentially lead an institution to not abide by those orders.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

My colleague mentioned a delay of 80 years, but we're seeing many delays of 900 days, and in the life of a political story, 900 days might as well be 80 years, because it's pushing any documents past the life of a present Parliament. Those documents can be rendered fairly useless just by delay.

Are you seeing an increase of these extensions? I've seen a number in my office already, for which we should be getting a straightforward answer, yet we're told...900 days or 1,000 days. Are you seeing that this is starting to be used more often?

[Caroline Maynard]

I think it depends on the institutions. Some institutions have a problem meeting their 30-day turnaround, that's for sure. We're working with them. They have high-volume requesters, and I believe we need to find solutions. We will often assign some of our own investigators to work with them on a backlog or on a type of file so that we can get them out.

However, demand has increased by 215%. The institutions are like me; they are not funded as much, maybe, and they're looking for professionals to analyze the requests.

I plan to go around and meet all the institutions and really try to focus on promoting “open by default”. I hope that will reduce the access requests, too.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, I find that when I make access to information requests, I'll get a response and they'll say that what I'm asking for involves x number of pages. They will ask me to be more specific or maybe to limit the timeline to a particular period. We work with them and we get it turned around.

We find there are other public institutions that do not seem to want to work with us and just throw up the blanket 900-day delay.

There have been report cards in the past, and there have been—seemingly—repeat offenders at certain institutions, like the Department of Justice, that don't seem to feel these quasi-constitutional rights apply to them. Will you be doing report cards on the compliance rates and the willingness of the various public institutions to fulfill their obligations under the act?

[Caroline Maynard]

My understanding is that the report cards are done by the Treasury Board Secretariat. Our office uses them when we meet with the institutions, because we are interested in how they meet their obligations under the act. My focus in the next year, and my mandate, is going to be towards collaboration, open government, openness, and transparency.

I really want institutions to understand the purpose of the Access to Information Act, and the rights of Canadians. Hopefully, we'll be able to get them to collaborate and understand better, but for sure we'll use those report cards in our meetings with the ministers, and with the ADMs and DMs, to make sure they understand what's going on in their institutions. Maybe it's a question of funding for them too.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

My concern is that access to information requests can be very damaging, embarrassing, to government. Certainly no one is interested on the government side in having documents turned over if a journalist is looking or an opposition member is looking.

In the act, where they can turn down frivolous or vexatious requests, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression has raised alarm bells about that, because that's an arbitrary designation that could allow a blanket refusal.

Do you believe that the ministries, the government, should have that power, or should that be your power to decide what is frivolous or vexatious?

[Caroline Maynard]

Under the current wording of Bill C-58, the institution will not be allowed to turn that down without our approval.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Without your approval.

[Caroline Maynard]

Yes.

We've already put together a preplan for our team to be responsive to those requests. We don't want those to be another reason to delay responding to requests, so we're going to have a special team responding, so the institutions know right away if we approve or not. The challenge will be to determine the tests.

Luckily, there are other jurisdictions that have those provisions in their act. The Government of Ontario has those, if I'm not mistaken, so we'll use their jurisprudence and develop our own tests and tools. We also want to work with the institution to develop the questions they have to answer before they make those determinations.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

Our last seven minutes go to Mr. Saini.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Sheehan.

Thank you very much, Ms. Maynard and your colleagues, for coming here today.

I want to start off with the funding and the backlog of cases you've had. I know the government has continued to provide funding to help you clear that backlog. Can you give us an update on the additional funding that was given, how many additional complaints you resolved, and how you plan to use the additional funding for the coming year?

[Caroline Maynard]

Last year, our office received $1.8 million extra for the year, and our plan was to close 1,900 cases. We succeeded with that plan.

We finished 1,974 cases in the—

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

And that was out of a backlog of 3,500 cases?

[Caroline Maynard]

We started the year with 2,800 cases. We closed 1,900. That means we've ended up with another bigger backlog this year.

The problem was that we received the extra funding in December. It's difficult at that point to make decisions on a long-term basis when we don't know if we're going to have the funding for the entire year and if we're going to have the funding the following year.

We're very excited this year. I've been told that the budget is providing us with $2.9 million. We're finalizing that with Treasury Board. We requested to get this fund as quickly as possible so we can plan and spend it throughout the year. With this additional funding, we're going to be able to hire 22 new consultants, or keep the ones we have.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

How many consultants do you have currently?