Information & Ethics Committee on April 25th, 2023

[Dean Beeby]

The Treasury Board has initiatives of some kind to improve the system. I'm not the best to tell you about them.

My experience over many years is that there's a lot of heat and not much light coming out of Treasury Board. I think there are people of goodwill in Treasury Board who are looking for ways to make things work, but without the support of their bosses, I don't think things are going to get better.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Beeby.

Merci, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Green, you have the final intervention on this round for two and a half minutes, sir. Go ahead, please.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The Treasury Board also published the results of the “Evaluation of Proactive Publication under the Access to Information Act”. It indicated:

Currently there is no data on the public's use of proactive publications, so the degree to which proactively published information meets user needs or whether government accountability is strengthened by proactive publication is unclear.

That's what they've stated.

In your view, what measures should be put in place to better monitor proactive disclosure under part 2 of the Access to Information Act?

[Dean Beeby]

I should say first of all that I think proactive publication is a red herring. I think it distracts our attention from the real problem, which is that the first part of the act empowers citizens to pull information from government and the second part talks about government pushing information at citizens. I think those are two very different things.

However, if you're going to do proactive publication, yes, you should ask the question: Is anybody looking at this stuff? There are mountains of proactive material out there that I am convinced no one is looking at. Can you imagine the amount of resources and the bureaucracy dedicated to this proactive—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is it a difference between open government and open data?

[Dean Beeby]

Those are terms I don't....

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fair. I'll go on to my next thing.

Given that the report has been released.... I believe you had in your initial engagement 11 points with solutions that didn't seem to be reflected at all in any of the documents, and we'll get to that in a second, but following the release of the review, do you have any new recommendations, given what you've seen of where they are now?

[Dean Beeby]

Yes. I probably have about 200 of them, if we can spare the time.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't want to get you caught in the cycle of silence, as you've talked about, but for the interest of this committee, as you know, your recommendations can become part of our report back. Notwithstanding this notion of doing a PMB, which in my opinion would go absolutely nowhere in terms of the legislative timelines, we can provide recommendations.

Would you be willing, upon reflection on that review, given your 11 solutions, to add any more that you might see fit, in writing?

[Dean Beeby]

Yes, I would.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Conacher, would you provide any new information, in writing, subsequent to the report ? Would you be willing to do that?

[Duff Conacher]

The 18 recommendations are the 18 recommendations. If one party leader gave a PMB slot to this PMB, it would be right at the top of the agenda. In a minority Parliament, all the opposition parties could pass it. The Senate would presumably—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would love those ideal circumstances. It's just not, unfortunately, how it works.

Thank you for being here today. I appreciate you all for taking the time.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

To the witnesses, thank you for being here. Just as a reminder, if you do want to provide documents to the committee, I would recommend that you do that probably no later than this week. The analysts are preparing the final report, which we will be dealing with probably in the next couple of weeks or so. If you can get something in by this week, I would appreciate that.

On behalf of the committee, Mr. Beeby and Mr. Conacher, I want to thank you for coming back. Both interventions that you've made at this committee on this particular study have been extremely valuable to the committee. I want to say thank you on behalf of the committee and on behalf of Canadians as well. Thank you.

We'll take roughly three minutes in order to get the next witnesses ready. By my math, presuming the four witnesses go the full 20 minutes on their opening statements, we may be able to get one full round in before we get to those last 15 minutes. I'm just advising the committee of that right now.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, I'm going to start the second hour of today's meeting.

I want to welcome, from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Dr. Nicole Giles, deputy director and senior assistant deputy minister, policy and strategic partnerships; and from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Sylvain Beauchamp, director general, client experience; and Tracy Perry, acting director general, integrated corporate business, corporate services.

Anne Bank from the Department of National Defence is here. She's the executive director, director access to information and privacy. From Library and Archives of Canada, we have Kristina Lillico, director general, access to information and privacy.

As I mentioned to the committee, hopefully our witnesses can keep it below five minutes—they have up to five minutes—and then we're going to get through one round of questioning and continue on with the business we started this meeting with.

I'm going to go first to Dr. Giles.

Please go ahead.

[Dr. Nicole Giles, Deputy Director and Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Partnerships, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nicole Giles, and I am deputy director and senior assistant deputy minister for policy and strategic partnerships at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Responsibility for disclosure, access to information and privacy requests falls within my portfolio.

I'd first of all like to thank the committee for inviting CSIS to be part of this important study. Transparency and accountability are core values for CSIS, and we view strong access to information and privacy systems as absolutely foundational.

I'll begin with a brief word on the mandate of CSIS to help situate our activities. Our mandate and authorities are set out in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which guides everything we do.

First and foremost, we investigate threats to the security of Canada, which are: espionage and sabotage, foreign interference, terrorism and extremism, and subversion.

We provide information and advice to the Government of Canada on these threats and may take measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada.

CSIS also provides security assessments on individuals who require access to classified information or sensitive files within the Government of Canada, as well as security advice relevant to the exercise of the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Despite being an organization that must keep secrets, we are not a secret organization. As a national security agency, many of our activities do need to be protected from disclosure. The release of classified information can reveal sensitive sources, methodologies and techniques, which can be detrimental and even work counter to CSIS’s efforts to protecting Canada and Canadians from national security threats. It can jeopardize the integrity of our operations, pose risks to the physical safety and security of our human sources and our employees, and hinder our ability to protect Canadians.

That is why CSIS maintains robust mechanisms such as oversight and review, and has policies and procedures to safeguard information. This includes necessary segregation, safe handling, retention and destruction practices. CSIS’s stringent policies are supported by regular training as well as regular review and compliance.

While we need to keep secrets and protect information, we also need to be transparent. This poses a special challenge for CSIS. The public’s right to access information is balanced against the legitimate need to protect sensitive information and to maintain the effective functioning of government. In administering access to information and privacy requests, CSIS therefore must conduct line-by-line reviews to ensure that we release as much information as possible, while protecting information that could be detrimental if disclosed.

As you can imagine, line-by-line reviews take time. Despite this, CSIS has a strong history of providing high-quality and timely responses to requests. For example, in 2021-22, CSIS’s on-time compliance rates for Privacy Act and access to information requests was 94%. Our access to information on-time compliance rate has stood in the mid to high nineties over the past decade, with the exception of 2020-21, when it dropped to 81% due to COVID restrictions.

For this and other reasons, in 2019, CSIS received the Information Commissioner's award for excellence in ATIP administration.

In addition, CSIS regularly and proactively publishes information, including summaries of recent access to information releases, to allow the public to access previously released records.

Access to information and privacy requests are just one way that CSIS communicates information to Canadians. Over the past several years, we have taken concrete steps to increase our transparency and engagement with Canadians through various resources, including our annual public report; threat publications in over seven languages; speeches; briefings to engage with provinces and territories, indigenous groups, the business sector and academic and community organizations; and a budding social media presence.

All these transparency efforts aim to better inform our population, recognizing that all Canadians have a role to play in protecting our national security.

CSIS constantly seeks to strike the right balance between the promotion of transparency and accountability in government institutions and the protection of national security interests. As an intelligence agency, CSIS faces unique disclosure challenges, which we strive to meet in the very best interests of Canadians.

I would now be happy to take your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Dr. Giles.

Next we are going to Ms. Perry for up to five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Tracy Perry, Acting Director General, Integrated Corporate Business, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

I would like to thank you for the invitation today and begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on traditional unceded Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

I am the acting director general of the integrated corporate business branch, and I oversee the team responsible for the access to information and privacy, or ATIP, program within IRCC. I'm joined today by my colleague, Sylvain Beauchamp, the director general for the client experience branch.

With over 204,000 ATIP requests received in 2021-22, IRCC is markedly the most accessed federal government institution. That year, IRCC received nearly 80% of all access to information requests and 28% of all privacy requests submitted to federal government institutions.

IRCC's ATIP volumes have been steadily increasing year over year, with daily requests now averaging more than 800 per day. This poses unique processing challenges that, in turn, affect the department's compliance rates.

In February 2020, Canada's Information Commissioner, Caroline Maynard, initiated a systemic investigation to better understand and address the surge of access for information requests and complaints lodged against IRCC. She also examined departmental strategies employed to address the root cause of the issue, namely the need for timely, improved communication with clients on their immigration applications.

The Information Commissioner called on IRCC to be bold and ambitious in its plans to transform the way it delivers information to its clients, saying the department could become a leader in providing relevant information to clients.

In response, IRCC has undertaken multiple initiatives to modernize its ATIP program and to address the Information Commissioner's recommendations. Specifically, we have been focusing on creating initiatives that improve the client experience through the availability of client immigration information, creating a comprehensive workforce management strategy whereby employees have access to enhanced training and development opportunities, and implementing new tools, technologies and processes.

As the committee has heard in previous appearances, IRCC is facing similar challenges to other government departments with respect to finding qualified ATIP senior staff.

The ATIP program is focusing on its people by working to stabilize senior staff, to train and promote staff from within to retain expertise within the competitive ATIP community, and to participate with the TBS ATIP community development office initiative.

And we are on a positive path forward. Within the past two years, we have moved from an ATIP program led by a single director and three managers to an organization that now has three directors supported by nine managers. ATIP is also a regular topic of conversation at departmental management committees, because IRCC believes access to information and privacy is a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

As we focus on our tools and technologies, we recognize that we can no longer rely on an antiquated system to process ATIP requests. We are incorporating new tools to create efficiencies in the processing of ATIP requests, including the use of robotic process automation in various ATIP processes.

RPA frees up staff from doing repetitive data entry tasks and allows them to instead complete decision-based work. We are also working collaboratively with the Treasury Board Secretariat to onboard to the TBS ATIP online request service portal, and we are actively working to acquire a new software for processing our ATIP requests.

Gains from these initiatives will take time before they can be measurably felt. However, by addressing the root causes driving request volumes and by streamlining our processes, IRCC will be in a better position to meet legislative timelines and to uphold the values of client service excellence, transparency and privacy protection.

Mr. Chair, we would like to thank you again for the invitation to provide IRCC's view on this important subject and for welcoming us here today. My colleague and I look forward to any questions the members of the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Perry. You did not use all your speaking time.

We like that, being under time.

Next we have Anne Bank, who is from the Department of National Defence.

Ms. Bank, you have up to five minutes to address the committee. Thank you.

[Anne Bank, Executive Director, Directorate Access to Information and Privacy, Department of National Defence]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. My name is Anne Bank. I'm the executive director of access to information and privacy at the Department of National Defence.

I am responsible for the implementation of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts within the defence team, which includes the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

My responsibilities include overseeing the teams that coordinate, review and release responses to ATIP requests, as well as providing advice, guidance and training to the defence team in the application of the acts. I am also responsible for the team that establishes policies and processes related to privacy management and privacy compliance within National Defence.

National Defence is committed to openness, transparency and respect for the rights granted under the Access to Information and Privacy Acts.

As a result of reviews and investigations in recent years, we have made changes to our practices to streamline processes and promote transparency, and to stress the importance of our legislated obligations. Additionally, there is a close collaboration with the defence chief information officer and the defence chief data officer to ensure that both transparency and the protection of personal information are considered in the implementation of the defence data strategy.

I am happy to provide any evidence the committee may require and am eager to see the results of your study to further help us better serve Canadians.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Oh, Ms. Bank, that is a record. Thank you. We appreciate that.

Next we're going to go to Ms. Lillico.

Ms. Lillico, you have up to five minutes, or one minutes and 40 seconds, if you can match that.

Go ahead, Ms. Lillico. Thank you.

[Kristina Lillico, Director General, Access to Information and Privacy , Library and Archives of Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for the invitation to speak today.

Let me recognize and honour the peoples and land of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation where we're meeting.

My name is Kristina Lillico. I'm the director general of access to information and privacy at Library and Archives Canada.

Ensuring access to the records of government is a cornerstone of a modern and functioning democracy, and it's embedded in Library and Archives Canada's mandate.

Here is why access to historical records is important today.

Imagine you are a veteran needing an urgent surgery and needing access to your service file, or a survivor from an Indian day school seeking justice for yourself and your family. Imagine when the Government of Canada takes legal action on behalf of Canadians, such as it did with big tobacco. All of this evidence is within LAC's historical records.

I'm here today to speak to the unique challenges of providing access to historical records.

I'd like to give you all a number: three million—three million pages. This is just one of the thousands of access to information requests that we're dealing with today at Library and Archives Canada.

Now picture this task. It would mean for one of our expert employees to read all seven Harry Potter books—4,100 pages—more than 730 times in 30 calendar days. Before that can be done, our experts help requesters to identify the material they want using both digital and analog lists of our collections. This is not a Google search.

Some of these lists have few details, and the way things are described has changed over time. We need to then locate these records. In the archival world, we may have one description for hundreds of boxes. Our experts have to go through all the boxes to find the records.

We have more than 200 linear kilometres of Government of Canada records dating back to 1867. That distance is equivalent to the two-hour drive between Montreal and Quebec City.

To add to this already complex situation, historical records are typically paper and would need to be digitized before an ATIP analyst can even begin their review work.

Now, while LAC shares many of the issues other departments face—labour shortages, employee retention and technology challenges—LAC has a distinct role in that it preserves and makes accessible the historical records of over 300 federal organizations, some of which no longer exist today.

Government records are either open to the public or they are closed, because they may contain information that's deemed sensitive. When they are closed, you need to submit an ATIP request.

The ATIP team at LAC, which I have the pleasure of leading, is de facto the main channel to provide access to the billions of pages of government records we preserve. It can take a significant amount of time to process an ATIP request for historical records, because historical records are old. To decide what needs to be redacted, you have to project yourself into the past and understand the context. This is no simple task. It requires an expertise that few departments have immediately on hand.

In addition, every redaction our ATIP analysts make must be documented to explain it to the requester, the Information Commissioner or the courts. This is how the ATI and privacy acts are implemented in Canada. In other nations, many elements are much more prescribed in access legislation or in the way information management is governed. A proactive declassification approach would align Canada with the Five Eyes, all of whom have declassification programs, and would manage information at the appropriate level, decreasing costs and effort and reducing the burden on the ATIP system.

Defined sunset clauses would recognize the decreased sensitivity of most information over time and ensure that historical records are open consistently and predictably.

In recent years we proactively opened over 45 million pages of records through a risk-based approach. These records no longer require an ATIP request. While this number may sound impressive, there are billions more waiting to be discovered.

ATIP really should be the last resort to access the historical records of the Government of Canada, This is the future that LAC is building towards, one where we proactively open government records while respecting privacy and the security of sensitive information.

We thank the Information Commissioner for her recent investigative reports, which bring to light LAC's ATIP challenges. We now have an action plan to guide our improvements, including working hand in hand with our colleagues at the Treasury Board Secretariat and across the Government of Canada.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we are eager to make the ATIP system work better for all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you so much, Ms. Lillico.

For those of you who have been to committee before, we are a little old school here. I'm not interested in going through the chair, so if a member is asking a you question, you can go to them directly. I'll just make that clear.

We're going to start with Mr. Kurek for six minutes.

I just want to say that Mr. Kurek will share his speaking time with Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Kurek, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I will be splitting my time.

Thanks. I appreciate you all for coming.

I've asked every witness who has come before the committee two foundational questions, and those are whether ATIPs and an ATIP system that works are essential for a modern, functioning democracy, and whether they're satisfied with where Canada's ATIP system is.

Virtually all—with the exception of the minister, interestingly—have said that our system wasn't where it needed to be, but everyone said that it was incredibly important.

I would just note, that's important in terms of the foundation.

Specifically, Ms. Giles, you're from a spy agency, reconciling secrecy with access to information. Can you just share practically what that looks like, so that Canadians can trust what is going on there, in about 30 seconds or so?

[Dr. Nicole Giles]

That's a great and very reasonable question.

We have highly qualified ATIP analysts, many of whom have served as intelligence officers, and so they are very well placed to do a line-by-line analysis of whether any of the exemptions apply. That is reviewed by supervisors to make sure the maximum amount of information has been revealed. That's our default. A very high number of exemptions are applied, primarily as relates to lawful investigations but also as relates to information that would be injurious to national security.