Evidence of meeting #16 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 exemption.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay, I'll stick to a conservative five minutes.
Thank you so much for coming.
I'm just wondering if you can tell me what the threshold is for “partially funded” to be covered under the act. Would first nations be included in this?
Does that make sense?
9:40 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Partially funded?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Yes.
What is the threshold for partially funded and to be covered under the act for “entities”, and would first nations be included?
9:40 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
We have provided a submission to the committee with the details of those representations.
This submission provided more details in terms of how we could go about dealing with these issues of coverage and partially funded. What we looked at is whether there was a percentage that was provided by the public, whether there was a percentage in excess of $5 million that the organization received.
In terms of indigenous groups, in my view, we would have to deal with specific consultations with indigenous groups because of section 35 of the Constitution. I would say that would be a very separate matter, in terms of how that would come about.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
Maybe you can talk a bit about the $5 fee for this process. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that.
Instead of charging people after a certain number of hours, we just charge this $5 fee as a flat rate. That's my understanding, and you will have to forgive me, as I am stepping in today so I'm trying to catch up as we go.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this. Again, in Newfoundland, they charge after four hours. However, it's my understanding that if a person is seeking their own information, there is no fee at all. I'm wondering if you feel that this would help to eliminate perhaps frivolous requests.
9:40 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I don't believe that the $5 fee has any influence on frivolous or vexatious requests or on abuse of the right of access. I'm a proponent for no fees.
I looked at this again last night. The last stats show that the total amount of fees collected was $367,000 overall.
I just do not see the actual efficiency in doing that. It's consistent with open government and with the open data charter that we wouldn't charge for information. It is, after all, Canadians' information. The public service is being paid to work for Canadians.
I am really not a proponent of the $5 fee. I have said this many, many times. We don't charge it in my office. We stopped charging it in 2010, and we have seen no difference in terms of the requests we get, or the number of requests, or the requesters. It has made no difference at all.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
You mentioned that there are already public servants who are able to do this, but in February there was a similar question asked by the colleague I'm sitting in for. In my understanding, he asked what the implications were for your office when it began to expand and do ATIP requests. His question was:
What was the implication, then, on your office at that time? Did you have to expand your office? Did crown corporations then have to hire additional staff dedicated to these ATIP requests?
In your answer, you said yes, there were some extensions that needed to be made, and you also referenced the CBC and Canada Post. I think more what my colleague was hoping to gain from you—and I'm hoping to get the answer today—is about those organizations that perhaps are not entirely publicly funded and therefore don't already have the existing infrastructure to do this. What about those organizations? How do we make sense of that for them?
9:45 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
In terms of being able to respond to access to information requests? Is that what you're asking?
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Well, my question is, would the government then pay for those corporations to be able to set up the infrastructure to do this well? Or would they be responsible for covering those costs on their own?
9:45 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
I don't know what the decision of the government would be in terms of funding these institutions or not. That's a process that would have to be analyzed through Treasury Board submissions if necessary, and so on and so forth.
There is a cost to responding to access to information requests. You do need an infrastructure. You do need to have some software. When we're speaking about the administration of Parliament being covered by the Access to Information Act, I think certainly at the beginning there would be a need for an appropriate infrastructure to actually respond to requests.
It is somewhat difficult to predict. The way to go about it would be, at that time, for the administration of Parliament to go to the U.K., for instance, to see what happened when parliamentarians there became covered or when the administration of Parliament there became covered. We would have to look at comparatives, and analyses of costs would have to be done, and so on and so forth, but yes, there is a cost to providing this service to Canadians, as there is a cost for any service we provide Canadians.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you very much, Ms. Harder. You had a liberal five minutes there.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
May 19th, 2016 / 9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Thank you for being here with us, Ms. Legault. We greatly appreciate it.
My first question is along those lines. In recommendation 1.4, you ask that we extend the coverage of the act to the Board of Internal Economy, in particular. However, during the discussions we have had here, people have brought up the fact that the Board of Internal Economy is a place where parliamentarians are able to speak freely.
I was wondering how you intend for the act to be enforced in that case.
9:45 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
First, we would have to consult the people who work here in Parliament. They are the experts when it comes to developing a provision that would cover these institutions.
The Board of Internal Economy is also subject to the Parliament of Canada Act. There are measures or provisions on confidentiality that also need to be addressed. We also suggested that there be a provision or specific exemption regarding parliamentary privilege. That would be absolutely essential if the administration of Parliament is to be covered.
The advantage of this would be that all of the other provisions of the Access to Information Act would apply, including solicitor-client privilege, the protection of personal information, the protection of advice and recommendations, and so on. With regard to exemptions, all of the other provisions would apply. That is the advantage of these institutions being covered by the current legislation. The exemption regime provides for the protection of these things, with the exception of parliamentary privilege, which is not currently covered.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Do you have an idea of how parliamentary privilege could be defined? If not, is there a specific body that we could turn to in order to come up with the best definition possible?
9:45 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
If I remember correctly, in the report, we looked to the example of Great Britain. I did not do any legislative drafting in my report. I made suggestions regarding strategic decisions and policy decisions, but I'm not a legislative drafter. We would need to pay special attention to the issue that you are raising. We drew on the British model because it is a Westminster model. These people are covered and have experience in this regard, and that is what we put in the report.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Okay.
If you were granted the power to issue orders, you would have the power to investigate and the power to adjudicate access to information cases. How would these two roles be kept separate within your office?
9:45 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
British Columbia and Ontario use this sort of practice and it works very well. They have quasi-judicial tribunals. There is a legislative framework that makes that possible. This system works very well in British Columbia. These people have the power to investigative, mediate, adjudicate, educate, and research. They give advice to Parliament.
There will definitely need to be an internal reorganization at the Office of the Information Commissioner so that the adjudication function can be kept separate from the rest of the investigations and mediation, for example. In Ontario, mediation is a very independent process in that whatever is discussed and negotiated during mediation is kept completely separate from the adjudication process. This sort of system also exists in different formats in other quasi-judicial tribunals in Canada.
Right now, when we engage in mediation as part of our investigations, the same investigators make the recommendations at the end of the process. We are having a problem keeping that function separate right now. In the adjudication model, where there is legislation in that regard, those two functions can really be kept separate. Such a system could work very well.
Will we need additional funding? Yes, because my office already has insufficient resources. Will we need a lot more resources if we use the adjudication model? I don't know. We haven't done any detailed calculations. I'm waiting to see what legislative proposals are made and what legal framework we will be asked to work within. Right now, we're unable to do a practical evaluation of the impact.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
If the government gives the commissioner the power to issue orders in its reform of the Access to Information Act, how would that work? Have you thought about what type of administrative tribunal you would set up within your office?
9:50 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Yes. As I said, the model that is being used in British Columbia and Ontario is already well established.
9:50 a.m.
Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Ontario has a type of registrar like we do. That position already exists. Complaints are filed and decisions are made really quickly. We discussed timeliness earlier. In Ontario, there is a group that takes care of delay-related complaints and that group resolves those problems almost immediately, without the need for adjudication. It is extremely rare for such cases to require adjudication.