Evidence of meeting #71 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 commissioner.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I actually just said, Nathan, and you could take yes for an answer, that we would be open to actually providing the commissioner with a different role in this and actually—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—and if this committee has guidance that they want to provide us.... We don't operate committees like branch plants of ministers' offices.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The ethics committee already did make that recommendation to you, Minister. The previous committee who studied this act said it should apply to the ministers' offices. And the determination of vexatious or bad faith—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Good afternoon, Ministers. Thank you very much for coming.
I want to start off on what Mr. Kent and Mr. Cullen have said.
We know that for the access to information regime to work, we have to make sure that the system is working properly and those who are tasked with providing the information are able to focus on the legitimate access to information request by also avoiding those that are maybe pursued for other reasons and may bog down the system. We have to be absolutely certain that legitimate requests are not discarded in the process or the power to discard them isn't abused. Can you explain what safeguards will be put in place to ensure this doesn't happen? Also, could you describe what the usual process is to help ensure that people get the information they actually want even when their initial request might not be clear or is missing information?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thanks, Raj.
First of all, there are genuinely bad faith requests, and I think we understand this. The commissioner understands this. This committee understands it.
We want to make sure that no government abuses the frivolous and vexatious clause of this, and we are open to suggestions as to how to strengthen it. Let's keep in mind that eight provinces and three territorial governments have similar clauses in their legislation, in their access to information acts, because this is an important issue.
These bad faith requests do gum up the system. This committee has in fact called for this type of approach as well. There is currently a process in this legislation whereby somebody who doesn't believe their request is in fact frivolous and vexatious can appeal to the commissioner. The commissioner has sought more of a front-end role in the process, and we are open to that. So, I'd be interested in the guidance of this committee.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Most normal legislation is reviewed within a five-year period but on this one, your ministry has put in a special case where you want it reviewed in one year. Can you explain why you've put this one-year review into the bill? What do you hope to gain within one year's time?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
First of all, by putting into this legislation a mandatory five-year review, it will ensure the Access to Information Act never becomes as out of date as it is today, 34 years after it was first introduced.
We believe that after one year of this bill receiving royal assent, we will have a better understanding of what some of the changes in Bill C-58 made to the act, some of the differences those changes have effected, and it will help inform future changes. We will have a better idea of some of the impacts of the changes, including what we intend on doing in terms of strengthening the technology, the resources, and the training.
We are committed as a government to a more efficient and responsive access to information regime, one that is consistent with open and transparent government. We will have a better idea after one year of this bill receiving royal assent as to what other changes we can make to further strengthen it. The Access to Information Act and its regime ought to be an evergreening process that our government and future governments on an ongoing basis look at to find ways to strengthen the access to information regime for the Government of Canada. I think we'll learn more. Also, technologies change, approaches change, and we learn from other governments. That's part of our role as a co-chair of the Open Government Partnership, that we are learning from and sharing practices with other countries as well.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Prior to this bill, the current model was the ombudsperson model which put unreasonable demands on their requesters for information, and also to seek judicial redress from the government. Something that we heard about during the study of this bill was different types of systems. One of the systems that we heard more profoundly about was the system in Newfoundland and Labrador, which has a hybrid model.
Why did you feel that the change was necessary, and why do you feel that the hybrid model would be the best to pursue?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
The commissioner has not had order-making power in the past, and, Raj, Nathan actually brought up a specific example. If a requester of information felt that a request was being refused inappropriately, order-making power would enable the commissioner to demand that a particular piece or request be fulfilled by the department. The department would have 30 days to either provide the information or to challenge the order in court. I can tell you that departments and agencies aren't going to do that unless they believe very strongly that they can defend their decision in court. That does raise the bar, and it gives her real authority.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
To follow up on that point, during committee testimony, some witnesses complained that in some cases their request for information took a very long time, sometimes weeks, months, and in some cases, years. Clearly, we know that the model we have right now isn't working. Do you think these new powers that we're going to give to the Information Commissioner will help provide an opportunity for information to be received in a more timely manner?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
First of all, we are still working with the system we inherited from the previous government. We hope that this legislation will help address some of the challenges.
There are issues around resources. We need to make sure that the commissioner's office is properly resourced, that the departments and agencies are resourced in terms of being able to fulfill requests, that they have the right technology and platforms, and that we provide more uniform training across government departments and agencies.
What we're proposing in this legislation will make a difference. I hope we see an improvement in terms of the responsiveness of departments and agencies to ATIP requests. We will be working to ensure that. We want to take very much a service focus to access to information and make it more responsive. Again, we believe we will know more as we see the impact of some of these reforms, and that information will help inform future changes.
There's a lot to be done, both in terms of the operations and the scope of the legislation, but we're committed to making it work better for Canadians.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses and the two ministers for being here. We know that you have very busy schedules, but it is important for you to take the time to come and see us.
I’d like to get back to requests that are thought to be frivolous or made in bad faith. This concept is relatively wide, and the bill contains no provisions that would make it possible to understand it. It’s up to public servants to determine if a request deserves or not to be processed. It can offend certain Canadians seeking information.
Can you tell us how we will determine that a request is frivolous?
