Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 30th, 2017

[Dan Proulx, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Division, Canada Border Services Agency]

In our opinion, yes, it would help reduce the burden.

Having folks file requests by subject matter would stop what we commonly refer to in the ATIP community as “fishing expeditions”, whereby folks will ask for anything and everything without a subject, and sometimes without limits around that request.

If you complement a duty to assist with the efforts of government for open government initiatives, and then you include section 6 as it is currently proposed, I see it working quite well. If more information is public, folks will know what type of information to request, and the requests will be specific. There will be perimeters around what they can request and how much of it they can request, which would stop, as I mentioned, those types of requests that simply say, “Give me anything and everything you have about between two individuals for the last six months.” There's not even a subject. It could include the most common type, which is email accounts. Someone would ask for your entire Outlook email account because they don't know what you are working on. Instead of asking for a subject, they are going to say, “Just give me the whole box.”

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

CBSA, you said that 45% of your ATIP requests are about travel history.

IRCC, do you have similar numbers in terms of common requests?

[Michael Olsen]

Yes. I think about 96% of our requests are related to case information.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Those are individuals asking for information about their own case.

[Michael Olsen]

That's correct.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It seems that this is not really what ATIP was originally designed for. Is there no way to make this information available to individuals, a way for them to log into an account and find this information themselves, without going through a cumbersome ATIP process?

[Michael Olsen]

We are working on a way to get that information to people much more easily. It's not necessarily as easy as it might appear at first blush.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I would encourage you to speak to the folks at the CRA, who seem to have figured it out.

The only other question I have is not specific to the legislation but to ATIP requests. It's about the software different departments use.

Do you speak to ATIP folks at other departments? Are you all using the same software, or are you on different software?

[Michael Olsen]

We are on AccessPro Case Management. Most departments are, as I understand. We use it, but it's getting near the end of its useful life. I know that Treasury Board Secretariat is actively looking at replacing it, and we look forward to the replacement.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

CBSA, how about you?

[Dan Proulx]

We use the same system.

It is commonly used in the federal government, because there are limitations out there as to who can produce an ATIP tracking system.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Next up is MP Kent, for seven minutes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all of you for appearing before us today.

First, I have a general question for the agency and the department. The Information Commissioner has quite roundly considered Bill C-58 to be a regression of existing rights.

I would like to get your opinions, Mr. Mundie and Mr. Olsen. How would you characterize Bill C-58 in the Information Commissioner's terms?

[Robert Mundie]

Thank you for the question.

The Access to Information Act has not been looked at since 1983, so this a long time in coming, but it seems to me that it's a step-by-step process of reform. I think the discussion that we just had here around proposed section 6 is an indication of something that would help the community to have more precision around the types of requests we get. I see that as a positive, not a negative.

Along the lines of what Mr. Olsen said, it's really the way that we would use that section of the act, should it exist. We're going to use it in a very deliberative fashion, with direction from the Treasury Board Secretariat, so that we're fulfilling that duty to assist but still insisting that we get from the requester a greater detail on what they're looking for.

From that perspective, I think it is positive.

[Michael Olsen]

I agree. I think, certainly from the perspective of the public, the changes are positive.

The sections that require proactive disclosure of briefing books of ministers, for example, and also of deputy heads, are very positive for the public. There are other things that also help, such as the parts about the expenditure of public funds.

If I can put it this way, I know the Information Commissioner has said that she didn't want any limit placed in proposed section 6.1 on how many records, if records were too voluminous—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

That was my next question, actually.

[Michael Olsen]

As an example, we are dealing with a request right now for which the number of records could get into the tens of millions.

Let's just say there were 30 million. If you were processing one page a minute all day, every day, it would take.... Well, you can do probably 120,000 pages a year. What that means is that it would take roughly 300 person-years to process that one request for all those records.

Imagine all of the members of the House of Commons working on one file for an entire year—nothing else, just working on one file—and the person who suggested that file paid $5 to make that request. I do not believe that is a prudent use of taxpayer dollars. I think there should be some limit on that.

We should be able to limit the requests that we answer in some ways, and I think what's in the act is in fact quite reasonable.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The recommendation that all fees be removed would obviously be—

[Michael Olsen]

The interim directive from the Treasury Board Secretariat was that the vast majority of fees are being reduced. The $5 filing fee is still there, and that remains unchanged. I can't really make a recommendation on that.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Last week we had an appearance by Mr. Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner. One of his key points was that he sees Bill C-58 as a disruption to the balance between his office, himself as commissioner, and the Information Commissioner.

You've spoken to the balance that you try to achieve within your agency and the department. I'm wondering whether you believe there is potential for disruption of an existing balance, in either of your situations.

[Michael Olsen]

There are elements in the act that allow the Information Commissioner to exercise order power. In those cases where the information would involve personal information, the Privacy Commissioner, to my mind, must be notified of that. Otherwise, I'm not sure that I see a lot of problems in the current—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You would agree in that case with his position that Bill C-58 confers order-making powers in an unwise way, in a way that would disrupt your balance.

[Michael Olsen]

As I said, as long as the Privacy Commissioner was consulted on the release of that information, I wouldn't necessarily see a problem. There might be a cleaner way of doing it, but I'm not sure I see a huge problem.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Mundie, would you comment?