Evidence of meeting #75 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 video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Suzanne Legault  Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Nancy Bélanger  Deputy Commissioner, Legal Services and Public Affairs, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I'm imagining I'm in the department of defence, and somebody has made a request about the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan, which is a pretty sensitive topic. If I were to deem that as vexatious, that this is somebody who is just looking to attack the Canadian military unfairly and put us in the news, with no other definition, could that request then be denied under terms of vexatiousness?

4:55 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

It could, potentially—

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I'm not saying would it have been—

4:55 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

Based on what C-58 does, yes, it could be denied, because it could generate a large number of requests. It could be denied because it's not specific enough and doesn't meet the criteria of section 6.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

It would have to specify which detainee to which prison on which date.

4:55 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

It could be even if you were just to say, “all records in relation to Afghan detainees”.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

That would be too broad and would be denied.

4:55 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Okay.

The point of this is to hold government to account. That's the whole point of the act and the whole point of your office.

I have a request in to the Pacific Pilotage Authority that I've used in this committee as an example. It is over 300 pages, most of it redacted. It was about an incident that happened in my riding. I asked so that I could relate it back to the people I represent, to tell them what happened. I can't tell them what happened. Even under the current rules, I have to appeal this.

We just heard the Prime Minister talk in the House of Commons during question period about how much he respects you—not you specifically, but all the office-holders, including the Ethics Commissioner. Your recommendations for this act to do its job are very specific. If it is not amended, Bill C-58 does not follow the principle of “do no harm” under legislation, that you shouldn't introduce bills that make things worse. Your broad assessment is that this bill is broadly regressive, broadly unhelpful to Canadians trying to get information that they deserve and need. Is that right?

4:55 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

I would agree with you that if Bill C-58 is not amended in a significant manner, I would much prefer to keep the status quo.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

Your time is up, MP Cullen.

You have five minutes, MP Kent.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON

Thank you again, Chair.

I'd like to come back briefly to the matter of fees. You reminded us that in 2015-16, the government collected a total of under $400,000 in fees, which certainly meant the expenditure of considerably more than that in collecting and processing. You also say in your statement that Bill C-58 not only reintroduces fees but leaves the door open for a variety of ways to increase fees. I wonder if you could speak to that.

4:55 p.m.

Deputy Commissioner, Legal Services and Public Affairs, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Nancy Bélanger

Certainly.

Currently the Access to Information Act stipulates very specifically when fees can be incurred, and the government, back in May of 2016, if I'm not wrong, issued an interim directive for no fees at all, and that was very welcome to requesters.

The current proposal in Bill C-58 introduces fees without explaining in the act what kinds of fees are intended. It says that an application fee could go up to $25. I believe that Minister Brison has said that for now it will stay at $5, but the act will allow bringing it up to $25, and any other fees that could be imposed would be done by regulation. We do not know what will be in those regulations.

Of course, it's a lot easier to pass regulations than to make amendments to the act, as we all know, and therefore, that's the risk. At the end of the day, as the Commissioner's report says, is it worth it? Really, given the quasi-constitutional right of access and that this is information that belongs to Canadians, should there be fees at all? That's the worry.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON

Thank you.

Of your 12 red lines, it would not be a make-or-break matter should the government ignore that recommendation. It would not be in the top rank of red lines that you addressed at the beginning of the session.

5 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

I will say that fees have been the bane of this Information Commissioner's existence.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON

Really?

5 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

It is in the sense that I profoundly disagree with the charging of fees.

In the experience I've had with the charging of fees under the access act over the years, I've seen a whole bunch of stuff. I've seen abuses by government institutions using large fee assessments in order to not process access requests, and that leads to complaints. We have to do the investigations, but until all of this is done, no information is even disclosed.

It's not a cost-recovery system. If you were going to make it a cost-recovery system, you'd have to charge around $900 per access to information request, because that's roughly the estimate of the cost that the government is putting forward. It's not a cost-recovery system.

I think the government has to decide, as it does with the implementation of the Official Languages Act, that this is a value that we have in our democratic society, that this is part and parcel of the work that public servants and public institutions give to Canadians, and that it is how we respect our quasi-constitutional rights. Really, in this day and age, with this whole movement of open government, when we basically say we're going to provide open data for free and we've signed a charter basically stating that we're going to provide open data for free, let's just give Canadians their information for free, shall we?

5 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON

Finally, to get your specific characterization, you said that Bill C-58 is a regression of existing rights. How would you characterize it with regard to open government? I take from what you just said that it would be an affront to the concept of open government.

5 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

I just don't think it's going to help the government's public policy objective of fostering open government.

This committee has done an extensive study on the amendments that should be made. I certainly have done an extensive study on amendments that should be made. These are meant to foster and develop a culture of openness within government institutions. The bill that's before us, Bill C-58, addresses some of the concerns that access to information professionals have in responding to access requests within government institutions. That's really evident. However, does it address a requester's desire to access easily and in a timely manner government information? It doesn't. It doesn't address any of the recommendations that both this committee and I have made in relation to exemptions, in relation to timeliness, in relation to full coverage, or in relation to full order-making power. It doesn't do that.

The government is stating that this is the first phase. My hope—and it is my most sincere hope—is that the work of this committee and Parliament will ensure that this first phase moves the yardsticks forward in matters of access to information. Even if it's just a little bit forward, forward is a positive result. If it goes backwards, then that's regression.

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

Next up is MP Erskine-Smith.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

That comment is a perfect lead-in to what we want to accomplish as well.

I have a few small questions. One has to do with your recommendation that all complaints be subject to the same process. It makes sense that we ought to defer to your office in respect of order-making powers, whether it's you or your successor. Does it make any sense to have this dual-track system of order-making powers in relation to one set and the current state of affairs in relation to the second set? Would that complicate things in your office?

5 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

It definitely would complicate things in my office. The transition period, in my view, would have been required if any changes had been made to the actual exemptions. That would have created a difference in terms of the transition period—

5 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

That would not be so much the case with order-making.

5 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

—but there are no changes to the exemption regime, so I don't see any problem with doing all the investigations under a new regime.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

This is a small question, but we've heard some testimony about Info Source and the removal of it. One possible solution—and I open the floor to you—would be keeping section 5 but encouraging a digitized version of Info Source. This would be in keeping with the original intent when it was first enacted.