Information & Ethics Committee on May 16th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, but Mr. Kurek did.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek, and then I'll come to Ms. Khalid.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I just want to say that we're now 21 minutes into our meeting and we should be hearing from the commissioner, so let's get to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't want to get into debate.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead. This is on a point of order. There's no debate.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Absolutely, Chair.

Just to give my two cents on your ruling and statement on the point of order raised by Mr. Green, I believe the intent and spirit of the motion we originally passed on this specific issue have not been kept with what has ensued in today's meeting. I want to register that you've not done right by what this committee has been trying to do over the past number of weeks and months on this specific issue, and I—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're now getting into debate, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

—would really encourage you, Chair, to take into account what our committee members have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that. I feel that I am acting within my authority as chair.

We have, as I said earlier, two more meetings. Two of the witnesses here today are representing agencies that are part of that motion. We will work toward getting everybody to appear before this committee within those two meetings.

Ms. Maynard, I appreciate that you've been waiting patiently, and I appreciate that you are here today to provide testimony to this committee in relation to the study on the Winnipeg lab.

You have the floor. You have five minutes to address the committee. Go ahead. Thank you.

[Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you.

I'm pleased to appear before the committee for the second time this spring. My last appearance was only a few weeks ago, but a lot has happened since then.

Before I take questions about the committee's study, I'd like to take a few moments to provide an update on the activities of the Office of the Information Commissioner.

On May 7, I tabled a special report on my systemic investigation into access to immigration-related information. Three years after my investigation into the dramatic increase in access to information requests at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, requesters continue to use the access system to get information on their immigration files, for lack of a better alternative. This is now also impacting the Canada Border Services Agency, which has access to the same data and is now experiencing its own increase in requests.

This investigation allowed us to determine that the root cause of the problem was the lack of progress made by the IRCC in implementing a portal to provide the information that clients are seeking. I hope you will take the opportunity to read this report if you have not already done so.

As I mentioned last time I was here a month ago, in addition to not having received the additional temporary funding I requested, I'm now facing a structural deficit. This deficit is the result of rigid formulas used by the Treasury Board Secretariat to calculate the funding of salary increases resulting from new collective agreements.

The situation has evolved over the past few weeks. We are now looking at a total funding shortfall of $700,000, which represents a reduction in my budget of approximately 5%. In concrete terms, this will represent a significant portion of my overall IT budget, money to cover the cost of defending my orders in court, or funding for a full team of investigators. Basically, this reduction in my budget will spell longer delays for complainants who are seeking information from government institutions.

This state of affairs would not arise if my office were subject to a different funding model that was more agile, more flexible and more reflective of my independence as an agent of Parliament. Earlier this week, I sent a letter to the acting Treasury Board secretary to seek immediate redress of this unacceptable predicament, and it is my intention to keep this committee informed as things evolve.

My office has again made significant progress this year against our inventory of complaints, but more remains to be done. We need to continue to work through these complaints to avoid increasing our backlog. I also have multiple court cases to manage as a result of orders that I have issued against government institutions. Now is not the time for bureaucratic penny-pinching.

Let's now turn to the topic of the day.

As you know, the Access to Information Act provides that anyone in Canada, including members of Parliament, has the right to make an access to information request for records under the control of government institutions. If you are not satisfied with that response, you have the right to make a complaint to my office.

I can confirm that the topic covered by your study has indeed been the subject of access to information requests and complaints to my office. I can also confirm that I have investigated many of these complaints and that some of those investigations are still ongoing.

With respect to the parliamentary process that also allows members of Parliament to request information from institutions, it is completely separate from the access to information request process. The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons will be in a better position to discuss the details of this process when he appears.

With that, I am now happy to answer any of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Maynard.

We will now begin the first round of questions. Each party will have six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Ms. Maynard, it's nice to see you.

Have you followed the treatment of the Winnipeg lab documents over the last several years and the lengths that the Trudeau government has gone to keep them behind closed doors? Is it your assessment that this treatment follows the usual pattern this government has undertaken when dealing with information?

[Caroline Maynard]

I cannot comment on the process by which you requested those documents and on the delays, but I can tell you that under the access to information regime, clearly we've been seeing increases in timelines to respond to access requests.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Through the regular course of individuals and parliamentarians attempting to use the access to information system to access information, you have had to take the government to court. Is that correct?

[Caroline Maynard]

In some cases, yes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

In this case, the full House of Commons has issued orders for the production of documents, and the government has used judicial means to try to block the release of those documents. Is that consistent with your experience?

[Caroline Maynard]

Again, I don't know what reasons are being used, under the privilege of Parliament, for not providing the information to parliamentary requests, but under the Access to Information Act, we see the use of different exemptions and we see delays in responding to access requests. Whether it's related to this particular topic or other topics, we know the system is overwhelmed right now.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

The Trudeau government has claimed that it's open by default. That was a promise when it took office. Is it your experience that this government is open by default?

[Caroline Maynard]

My experience is that there's a lot more that can be done with respect to transparency.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

How many complaints about access to information or the management of files has your office received?

[Caroline Maynard]

I'm sorry, but about what topic?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

First, I mean just generally, and then on the specific topic of these documents.

[Caroline Maynard]

With respect to your study, we received 14 complaints, and with respect to management.... So far, with respect to all complaints, we've received over 4,000 complaints in the last year.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

In one case, there was an ATIP filed for information regarding the management of these files. One department, the Department of Justice, said they could have the information, but they would release the information in 13 years. Is that acceptable?

[Caroline Maynard]

I can't comment about specific complaints that we would be investigating at my office right now.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Is a delay of 13 years, hypothetically speaking, an acceptable amount of time for the government to respond to an access to information request?

[Caroline Maynard]

I've seen cases where extensions have been found reasonable because of the number of documents that people asked for, but I don't know about specific cases. Really, it's on a case-by-case basis.