Evidence of meeting #15 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 received.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Canada Revenue Agency
Yes. Several of my colleagues can attest to the same situation. There are individuals who send us a high volume of requests; they are are commonly known as frequent requesters. In 2014-15, one such person accounted for 30% of complaints received.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Would you say that those requests were frivolous and pointless, or did they have merit?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Canada Revenue Agency
I cannot comment specifically on the types of complaints associated with a given individual, but I can say that there are, indeed, various categories.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
In your report, which is also before us, you state that you have to request an extension for 41% of the requests sent to you. That's a lot. It means that, practically half the time, the 30-day principle is not systematically complied with. I find that number very worrying.
Do you have all the resources necessary to give effect to the legislation and to stay within the 30-day timelines?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Canada Revenue Agency
For approximately 41% of requests, we did, indeed, have to request an extension exceeding 60 days. Considering the nature of the matters that come before us, their complexity, and the number of pages associated with some of the requests, it is difficult for us to finish everything within a 30-day period.
Does this mean we are short of resources?
In my presentation, I mentioned that we've received additional resources in recent years. In order to answer the question directly, I would, perhaps, have to enter the realm of the hypothetical. But I can say that we constantly review our practices. And we are also looking at how informal disclosure can be improved.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much.
Ms. McCulloch, I see from your report that requests have not increased considerably, but that much of the volume reflects a new interest in cybersecurity matters. As an everyday citizen and consumer, when I hear talk of potential cybersecurity problems, I get concerned. I suspect that this type of problem would worry many of our fellow citizens, as well.
Could you give us some examples that involve these issues?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Shared Services Canada
Over the course of fiscal 2014-15, certain ATIP requests, concerning an attack against the government's information technology infrastructure, were submitted. I'm sure that everyone remembers Heartbleed. Since part of Shared Services Canada's mandate is to manage the Government of Canada's infrastructure, we were heavily engaged in the situation. We therefore received requests involving Heartbleed.
The incident involving the National Research Council also gave rise to some requests.
Some of the request volume was attributable to these security-related incidents, but we also received requests involving service delivery—specifically, matters involving contractual arrangements, which added considerably to the page count.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you very much, Mr. Boulerice.
We'll now move to Mr. Erskine-Smith for seven minutes, please.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks to you all for your presentations.
Mr. Marleau, my first question is with respect to extending coverage under the act. The current Information Commissioner has proposed extending coverage to bodies that receive public funding. Her proposal, when we got down to it, was effectively that where bodies receive $5 million of public funding and/or where they receive over 50% of their funding from the federal government, they ought to be subject to the Access to Information Act.
I wonder what your thoughts are on that.
9:55 a.m.
Former Information Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
I support the recommendation as to the level of funding, the composition of boards, and that sort of thing. I leave that to her to argue for.
The principle is this: follow the money. It's one that the Auditor General doesn't hesitate to do. Is government business being transacted? If government business is being transacted, then I think it should be accessible. You can have a discussion about how much funding, and about the composition, such as whether a majority of the board is appointed by the government. Those are the kinds of the details you'd work into legislation. But the principle is government business and follow the money.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
If we're following the money, let's talk about the Board of Internal Economy and court administration. A lot of money is spent on those bodies—support for Parliament, support for the courts. Can you explain to this committee why it's important to extend coverage to those bodies?
9:55 a.m.
Former Information Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
These are the bodies that, on the one hand, pass legislation, and on the other, interprets it over time. They're large administrations.
I'm a former secretary to the Board of Internal Economy, still bound by my oath of secrecy and so I can't go into any great detail, but I can tell you that there is no reason that the administrative functions of Parliament—which include the Governor General by the way, as there are three constituent parts to government—should not be covered by access to information.
Maybe in the context of the Duffy case, we might have had a different path through that administrative issue that ended up before the courts. It's not a guarantee, but we might have had earlier disclosures of some elements there in terms of expenses, policies, and administration.
You have to protect parliamentary privilege and for that, if you're going to structure this in a statute, I would make it a separate structure of the statute—not just an addendum to the list and the schedule, as Parliament or the House of Commons and the Senate would be. I think it has to be articulated fairly carefully in terms of protecting parliamentary privilege. Your legislative function, your function as a member, and constituency documents, those sorts of things have to be included.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
To pick up on that, the proposal is to extend coverage to administrative bodies supporting Parliament and the courts, to ministers, and parliamentary secretaries, and perhaps the Prime Minister's Office. There is a worry that too much information is going to be out there that should be confidential. Can you speak to the difference between exclusions and exemptions, and give comfort to this committee that confidential information will remain confidential?
9:55 a.m.
Former Information Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Exclusion means, at least in the current statute, means that it's just not available—not even for review. Whoever claims it to be an exclusion is absolute, and therein lies the flaw.
I have no assurance as a Canadian citizen that this is being done properly. I don't mean being done in bad faith, but that it is being done properly—and the courts can't review it either.
With an exemption you would apply the same sort of logic: the injury test and a series of other disclosure tests as to whether it should be disclosed or not. If it is your political function, it should be fairly obvious as compared to the cost of getting you from A to B.
I feel quite confident, even as a former parliamentary officer, that those exemptions would be more than adequate to protect the confidentiality of the politically partisan party and legislative functions.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Where the Information Commissioner reviews an exemption and determines that information ought to be disclosed, the minister would be able to appeal that decision to a court and a court would be able to review that same information and make a determination. Do you think the court should have that final say, or do you think the minister's office should have a notwithstanding clause or a veto power over an ultimate decision, even of a court?
10 a.m.
Former Information Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
I think it should go to the Federal Court as an independent judicial review. As I said earlier in my response to another member, I wouldn't want to be the minister who has to exercise that veto because there's no way I'll ever be able to explain it properly, or defend it politically.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
But then that's a political question, not a legal question, as to whether they ought to have that power?
10 a.m.
Former Information Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
That's right. In that kind of context I have some concerns about order-making powers by the commissioner to Parliament. You have a creature of Parliament now ordering Parliament. For parliamentary privilege, I think you'd have to set up in that separate part of the statute an independent review outside of the Federal Court. At the outset, appoint a retired Supreme Court judge to there to review any order he or she might make that might contravene the intention for parliamentary privilege.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Ms. Fisher, you've suggested that the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada look to other departments for best practices. I wonder if all of you around the table could identify the department that exemplifies best practices and give an example or two of those best practices.
10 a.m.
Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development
Many of us have our own best practices. The idea with best practices is that we can share them with others. We've shared some of ours. We've done a business process redesign that we think has resulted in some internal economies to allow us to handle higher volumes.
I'll give you one example, the IRCC—Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada—and Border Services have the same strategy of allowing their access to information employees or officers direct access to documents held in the program areas. We're thinking that could provide some significant benefit to shorten turnaround time. We also think that looking at available briefing note lists could shorten some of our turnaround time.
Those are a couple of very specific examples to contribute to operational efficiency.
10 a.m.
Conservative
May 17th, 2016 / 10 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
I'd like to begin with a question that perhaps picks up from where we left off with Mr. Lightbound's question on the appointment of ATIP coordinators by the Governor in Council.
In the recommendation from Professor Drapeau, which many have disagreed with, I didn't take it so much that he was motivated by wanting to ensure the independence of an ATIP coordinator, as much as he was talking about the accountability of the system. By making a minister responsible for the appointment of a coordinator, you now have the minister who is actually responsible for what happens, and a minister cannot simply wash his or her hands and say, “It's an independent person who has made this decision and my hands are off it.” The minister is then actually accountable, and in a democracy that's how we have democratic accountability.
I have a second question, so maybe I could get just a very quick answer on the issue of accountability for decision-making.
I'll keep it quick and ask Mr. Marleau to answer that question and then I'll move on.
10 a.m.
Former Information Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, in my view, you, the accountability is already stated in the statute in terms of delegations that take place and the arm's-length relationship between the minister and the ATIP coordinator. That's been a long-standing practice. We also have the Information Commissioner who has oversight and looks over this issue of accountability.
The first thing that we check in an investigation is the delegations. I'm sure that the ATIP coordinators will confirm that we ensure that the right delegations are in place and correctly done.
I still don't see what is gained by a Governor in Council appointment, which I think would create a disconnect in the knowledge factor, as well in providing service to Canadians, in terms of what the department holds. GIC appointments may well be made from within these ranks, I suppose, and for a period or a term, but I don't think it increases accountability. It may create a perception of more independence, but I don't think it's factual.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
I'd like to shift and ask each coordinator to comment on how much of your own workload would be reduced or eliminated by proactive disclosure?
Particularly, for the CBSA, I understand that 60% of your requests are from people simply requesting their own information. Through proactive disclosure, how much could you reduce the workload by?