Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 24th, 2022

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witness for being here today.

I want to go back to the point.... Correct me if I'm misquoting you here, but I think you said that more than half of the requests in the past year were questions directed to immigration.

When we had the Information Commissioner here at committee, we heard that she was extremely impressed with everything that the department has done to improve this system. There are online portals where people can check their information, rather than having to file an access to information request. She was very impressed.

I'm wondering if you knew about this. What are your thoughts on how this might improve the entire system, once those systems are up and running?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

Last year, the 145,000 requests being made basically brought the system to a halt. I don't know if the significant increase in complaints all result from the same.... They probably do.

Now the Information Commissioner has 10,000 complaints from last year, so something is amiss. I don't think we need to have applicants obtain their records or whatever information they're after by going through the access regime. It wasn't designed for this. In fact, it totally overcomes the capacity of the bureaucracy within those departments and within the OIC to respond to the other users.

A first priority, I believe, is to make sure that this particular system to respond to immigrants, refugees and so on be outside the access regime and, to the degree possible, have a positive response. In other words, you don't even need to ask for it; you can have access through this particular medium or this particular platform on request.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I understand that that is under way at that department. What do you think the overall impact will be on the system?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

I think it will substantially reduce this sudden increase, both in complaints and requests, and have a beneficial impact. When I say it increased by 52% this year, before this year there were still a high number. Removing them from it will probably bring the volume of requests more in line with the ATIP staff, both at the federal institution and the OIC office.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I understand you said that in 2015, this government really opened up the system. There was a lot more access and more information available to Canadians.

Can you talk about that a bit more? What was the impact of opening up the system and making more information available to Canadians?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

There were a number of institutions—like CBC, Canada Post, the National Arts Centre and a number of others—that came under the act. The courts, many agencies of Parliament, the House of Commons, the Senate and so on all became subject to the act, and CBC was on top of that.

That opened it up quite substantially. Many of these organizations have responded fairly, but some of them have responded not so well. They still have a lot to learn. We have considerably reduced the number of institutions that are still absent and still excluded from the act.

Also, over the past decade or so, with regard to the costs a user would have to endure, the user rate of $5 has remained, but in those days you had search fees, photocopying fees and so on. Sometimes those fees were in the hundreds of dollars.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I remember that well as a journalist 20 years ago. The costs would be prohibitive—

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

Exactly.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

—for a lot of news organizations, so you dropped the whole thing.

This government also brought in Bill C-58, which gave the Information Commissioner the power to make binding orders related to access to information, the release of government records, time extensions, the language of access and the format of disclosed information.

Can you comment on that legislation and what sort of impact it's had on the system?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

I don't have any statistics to see how often...or what guidelines the IC has given herself. As to how to use this power, I have a sense—and it's an opinion—that she's acted in a timid fashion, maybe as she should, so that people could begin to understand. Basically, using a power is the last club she has.

How often she's used it.... Are there some specific institutions that have been targeted more than others and some specific sections of the act, such as section 20? I don't know, and her report doesn't provide us with this kind of information. I wish it did.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Drapeau.

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

Mr. Drapeau, I want to thank you today, on behalf of the committee and Canadians, for coming before us. You've provided us with some valuable information.

I know that you're experienced in coming to committee. You came prepared and accorded yourself very well, sir. Thank you for being here.

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes while we move to committee business.

Again, thank you, Mr. Drapeau.

We'll be back in two or three minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting back to order. We have some committee business.

As I mentioned to the committee last week, I did meet with the analysts and the clerk this morning to get a sense of where we're at in the transition. There are a couple of issues that I think need to be dealt with. One is related to the travel motion that was passed by the committee. The report has already been tabled in the House, so I don't necessarily see the need to travel. Monsieur Villemure, I know that it was your motion, but I don't see the need for us to be travelling to either Denver or Palo Alto now that the report has been tabled. I think we should discuss not having that trip happen.

Maybe you can start us off with a few comments, Monsieur Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, since the report has been tabled and we now have a lot of work to do, I don't think it's wise to maintain the trip, even though I always thought it would be interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

I don't think we need to go to a vote on that if there's unanimous consent from the committee to not plan that trip.

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

Chair, very respectfully, I think perhaps we should table it for now, unless we need to make a decision as soon as possible. Can we just keep it on the back burner in case we do change our minds later?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

My understanding is that discussions with the company indicate that what they do is not even germane to what the committee was studying. They don't do facial recognition. To me, tabling the trip with no purpose really doesn't make any sense. If the report's already been tabled in the House and this company doesn't do facial recognition, there really is no reason for us to plan it or have it on the books or table it in that regard.

My preference would be to get rid of it. That way, it's clear to the clerks and the analysts that there is no plan for this committee to travel.

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

Again, respectfully, Chair, I know that Monsieur Villemure had really presented this not in an effort to be specific about that company but to expose and explore the bigger issue of facial recognition and artificial intelligence. I'm not even sure if this company would be willing to let us go in, but I still think that perhaps we should keep our options open in terms of going to California to visit them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Again, in the discussion I had with the clerk—you might want to help out here, Nancy—the company has nothing to offer this committee in terms of what the study was. There's nothing germane to the study, and the study has been completed and presented.

You may have some more information.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I was in contact with Palantir at the time. What you have to keep in mind is that it's not just about the company and the desire of the committee. It's mostly about the fact that the House did accept it and gave permission to the committee to travel. The committee does not have to travel, but if the committee wants to do so, the committee can.

There are conditions as part the motion of the House. If the committee wanted to travel at some later time, then the committee would possibly have to redo the process and ask for a budget. The committee could do it again later, but at this time there are conditions to the motions of the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes.

Again, I think we can revisit this later if we need to. We don't have to deal with this now. If it's the will of the committee to ask the House for permission to travel, then we can do that at a later time.

Do we have unanimous consent to annul the plans for the trip?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Mr. Green, I see your hand is up on Zoom. This is going to be new for me, trying to get everybody's attention here, but go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just wanted to acknowledge the passing of Mr. Michael Dagg. I wanted to go on the record today and acknowledge his passing on September 1. He was somebody who obviously contributed to this committee. I want to take a quick moment to acknowledge his passing. I found out just now, through the testimony of Mr. Barrett.

Thank you.