Evidence of meeting #73 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 c-58.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Acting Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
I don't recall.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Acting Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
No, there have been ongoing revisions.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Ongoing, so I suspect you would agree that these periodic updates have helped keep the legislation up to date and modern.
4:10 p.m.
Acting Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
Yes.
I might submit, one of the areas where B.C. is a bit unique is that we have a data localization provision which created a lot of logistical problems and subsequent legislative updates to exceptions to that. However, in some other areas, there have also been changes to the act as well.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you for sharing that.
Now I'd like to turn to Evidence for Democracy.
I must commend you for the work you do and have done over the past number of years to advocate for evidence-based decision-making, something I am very supportive of.
My first question is pretty basic but not too long, so we'll start with that. How does access to information support your work in holding governments to account?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Evidence for Democracy
I have a really concrete example.
We have touched on the muzzling of scientists that was an issue for a number of years. Around 2013, we wanted to do a study that looked at the communication policies for government scientists and compare the policies in different departments. We contacted a lot of people within government, tried to find these policies online. We were not able to get our hands on the policies through those means, so we ended up having to get them through filing many access to information requests.
We were able to get the policies through that mechanism, and this allowed us to do a very comprehensive report comparing the policies across departments and making a number of recommendations. This report was quite foundational in that issue, in dealing with it and providing solutions.
It also gave us a helpful baseline of the communication issues for scientists. Hopefully that will allow us to repeat similar studies down the line to see how things have changed.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
You mentioned a situation where a government wasn't releasing the information you were looking for or are still waiting for, or you believed that they are intentionally ignoring your request.
Do you believe that the commissioner's legal powers to compel documents would act as a deterrent to such malicious behaviour?
4:10 p.m.
Director of Policy, Evidence for Democracy
I think in its current form, no.
As mentioned by Mr. McArthur, I think it would be better if the Information Commissioner followed an order-making model. Further, I think that if the Office of the Information Commissioner were able to publicize her investigations, that would be an additional deterrent.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Finally, as I understand in your statement, you would like to see vexatious and malicious more concretely defined.
How would you do that? That's what I'm trying to understand.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Evidence for Democracy
It's a good question.
I think our colleague here would probably have a better idea. I think it is a very rare case that there are requests that shouldn't be acted on. It should be a very, very rare thing.
My concern with a term that subjective and broad is that it could be so easily used by governments. It's vexatious to whom? I do worry that, as it stands now, it could very easily be used by governments to not release information.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
That's perfect time. Thank you, MP Fortier.
Next up is MP Kent, for five minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you very much.
Thanks to you all for appearing today. It's obvious from each of your presentations that you've expressed very clearly your general agreement with the commissioner herself in terms of her characterization of Bill C-58 as regressive, and with any number of amendments required to develop the sort of fulsome legislation that you've all recommended.
I'd like to make a few comparisons. I'll start with you, Mr. Taylor-Vaisey. Let me just say that I remember fondly the original founding moments of the first incarnation of the CAJ back in the seventies. What has been the experience of your membership with the B.C. commissioner's office as opposed to the federal office?
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Journalists
I don't think I have a fulsome response to that question. We, as an organization, have not focused regionally on British Columbia. We've had concerns, now and again, with the flow of information in British Columbia, but as an organization, we have focused largely on the federal legislation.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
I see. Thank you.
I wonder if I could ask Ms. Walsh and Ms. Gibbs whether they've had experience with any provincial information commissioner.
4:15 p.m.
Director of Policy, Evidence for Democracy
My experience provincially has been limited, but we do have some experience with B.C. The only difference was the timeline. It was similar. There was a bit of backlog and delay, but it was comparable federally, I would say.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. McArthur, you were talking about the fee consideration. We've had witnesses who have said that sometimes the collection of fees is actually counterproductive or not terribly significant. What sort of revenues do you collect annually in terms of fees?
4:15 p.m.
Acting Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
I don't collect any revenues. That goes to the government.
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Acting Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
There are no fees for access, but there are fees beyond a certain number of pages or a certain number of hours. Typically, if it's beyond a five-hour search, fees can be imposed. You can't deny based on fees, and the government has to confirm with the applicant that they want to proceed on a fee quote. That's the point in time when many people come to our office to say they think these fees may be excessive. We do get complaints on that. I don't have the number of complaints.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
You mentioned the benefits of mediation rather than the issuing of orders. I'm sure there isn't a strict average, but is there any sort of average time consumed in terms of the toing and froing through mediation? Is there a point where you would finally decide that an order must be issued?