Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 1st, 2017

[Suzanne Legault]

I think so, and I think that Info Source needs to be modernized. There's no doubt about it, even if it's in component form. Be wary of providing something only in digital format, however, because sometimes when we do that, we actually limit access for certain people who do not have access to digital environments.

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

One thing we haven't heard much about is the extension of the timeline for tabling of the departmental reports and their compliance with the Access to Information Act. Perhaps you could speak briefly to whether that extension makes sense and the rationale for it and what this committee ought to do.

[Suzanne Legault]

The extension of the timeline is, to me, not a very positive thing. I've been recommending for some time now that the government produce the information, the statistical data, on a quarterly basis in an open and reusable format.

I use these statistics quite a lot, and they assist everyone in holding the government to account in its performance. What happens now is that in the spring we usually get these statistics trickling in, and this typically continues until September. September is also the projected extension of the timeline, which is very late in the day, because that's performance reporting on the previous year.

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

The last question I have is in relation to proactive disclosure.

If you had oversight powers of proactive disclosure and there was something blacked out—this is my understanding—the exemptions would still apply in the act. If something was blacked out in an appropriate way because it related to advice and recommendations, you could review it to say it was properly blacked out. There is an exemption related to cabinet confidences, which I understand you would not be able to review because of an exclusion. Any other exemption, however, you would review and say it was properly blacked out.

Ought the government to have any worries about this? You already have that power under the Access to Information Act, right?

[Suzanne Legault]

Correct.

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

You mentioned a culture of openness, and we heard a lot of testimony about a culture of delay in our original study. It's funny to listen to some of the colleagues on the other side insist on a culture of openness, given that a culture of delay was fostered under Stephen Harper for 10 years.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That wasn't me.

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

No, I wasn't speaking of the whole side.

I take it that some of this worry, because of that culture of delay, has solidified in some ways, in that we can't give additional powers to say no. Your worry is expressed in certain ways in your recommendations.

If we were looking to fix section 6 to the extent we're able to do so, it would be giving you oversight on proactive disclosure, insisting on a timeline for the mandate letter and on improved timelines, insisting on publication and mediation, making all complaints subject to the same process, and addressing Info Source and the government reports of compliance with the act. All this, you said, would be a small step forward, but you also said your sincere hope was that it would at least be progress.

With those changes in hand, would you say that these would be positive steps in amending this act?

[Suzanne Legault]

What about certification of orders?

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

Yes, let's add certification of orders.

[Suzanne Legault]

“Frivolous and vexatious” should limited to proposed paragraph 6.1(1)(d) and not the other components.

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

Okay.

[Suzanne Legault]

That's way too broad, especially in the first phase. Having the frivolous and vexatious element reviewed, getting permission from the Information Commission...what I'm looking for is essentially all of the recommendations.

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

Okay. Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

You're under time. Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

The last name I have on the list is MP Baylis.

If you still want to ask a question, please let us know.

MP Baylis, you have five minutes.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

There's another area where you don't seem to agree, which is with the commissioner of privacy. I'd like to understand a bit more about that issue. You gave some statistics, which I tried to write down, but you didn't provide a written document of your testimony.

[Suzanne Legault]

We will. I apologize for that.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'd like access to that information, but....

[Suzanne Legault]

We will provide it. We just didn't have time to translate it.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I hope it's under 73 pages, or whatever—53.

The most frequently cited complaint you have is that there is a denial because there is a question about access to private information. Is that right?

[Suzanne Legault]

Yes.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You said that there are 300 complaints a year, approximately?

[Suzanne Legault]

Yes.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Okay.

You said 52% of all exemption complaints are related to this, so whenever someone says, “No, I can't give it to you”, 52% of the time it's because it's related to privacy. Is that right?

Then people might turn around and complain, so you got 300 complaints.

[Suzanne Legault]

No.

What I mean is that, of those 300 complaints in my office—