National Defence Committee on Feb. 14th, 2024

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

He has six and you have one.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Fillmore, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'd like to direct my question to Mr. Drapeau and Mr. Shimooka, if I could.

Everyone around this table wants to ensure transparency, wants to ensure accountability and wants to reduce wait times. We're trying to get to the underlying causes of those things, and we want to make sure we're solving the right problem.

If I could set the table for a moment, I think everyone around the table probably remembers the time when it seemed like almost overnight, compact computers equipped with email appeared on all our desks in all our workplaces with the promise of making things more efficient, with faster communication and a better exchange of information. I think we all know that with the advent of that was a proliferation of information—too many emails, too much communication—and we quickly realized that this apparatus of emails and computers on everybody's desks made more work, not less work.

I'm trying to get at the idea that one of the causes of the delays we're seeing, which is sometimes perceived as lack of transparency, is the unbelievable amount of data. When someone requests a bit of communication between folks, it turns into a spidery email trail that goes into all different directions, and it understandably takes a great deal of time to uncover all of that.

Mr. Shimooka, you said that you had a great experience in 2002 with a very quick turnaround that would be unheard of today. Again, we're in a place where there is so much more data.

I wonder if either of you, Mr. Drapeau or Mr. Shimooka, would reflect on the preponderance of information being part of the problem we're dealing with here.

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

It's part of the problem, but some of the problems can be divided into segments. For instance, there's no reason on this earth why an access request that is put in legally for five dollars cannot be accepted and cannot be acknowledged. In fact, I could give you numbers on some of our requests. For three of them made this past September, we're still waiting for an acknowledgement. There's no excuse for that.

Despite all the requests, there aren't all that many, come to think of it, with a population of 40 million. If you compare yourselves with agencies in the United States and the hundreds of thousands of requests they receive, it can be managed, but you have to have a certain discipline. Accepting and recognizing them is one thing.

In terms of the 30-day system we have in place, I'm not particularly wedded to it. Perhaps we need to change that. We need to say 60 days and then enforce it, as opposed to having 30 days and people abuse it.

The Office of the Information Commissioner doesn't have a God-given right to continue working in the manner in which it does. In the United States, if you put a request in to the agency, you also complain to the agency, and if you don't receive a response by a certain time, then you go to court.

Many of my clients—some of them corporate—are frustrated by the fact that when they ask legally, not through a brown envelope but through the access regime, to have access to records, they're not getting a response, or if they do get a response it's exempted. They put the complaint to the Information Commissioner, and then they have to wait a year or two or three. Maybe some large corporation says, “We're eager to go to court so the court can decide on it,” but they can't until the Information Commissioner issues a report. That has to be changed.

Perhaps we also need to change whether or not we have an Information Commissioner. Is it required under the circumstances?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Drapeau.

If I have another moment—

[Richard Shimooka]

Could I give a quick response?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Yes, I was going to invite you. Please go ahead.

[Richard Shimooka]

Look at the statistical information that's put out by the office about how many documents have been released over the past decade and a bit. The number of documents hasn't changed. About 10,000 pages have been released, and the number of requests has roughly stayed the same. There have been fewer questions the past couple years.

To your question about whether or not there has been.... I agree with you a hundred per cent that there have been far more documents. The information society we have produces more documents, but that hasn't really been reflected in the number of documents being produced or released at this time.

I'm not too sure what it is. I know there have been issues with WhatsApp discussions, text messages or what the information law captures. Those are other challenges, as well, that I don't think the current law fully gets at or is fully able to accept.

On the American side, far more individuals are available to undertake this level of discussion. They don't have to go to the line staff to do the redactions. There are individuals who are able to do that outside of the policy-making process.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you both.

I've heard that the preponderance of data is present in the problem, but it's not the problem, so we need to understand how to deal with data better. There are other things. We've been hearing from a number of witnesses about the importance of modernizing the systems we use. This could be technological modernization or hiring more people.

Ending where I began with the footing of trying to find solutions, to any of the three panellists, are there specific recommendations to improve transparency and timelines? That would be greatly appreciated.

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

We've heard at a number of committee meetings that a number of requests from 2019 have yet to be satisfied. There's no reason for that. I also have some from 2019. We're already waited five years. There are also some from 2021. Why? There are some failures in the bureaucracy that are attached to the management requests. I don't think the volume is to be blamed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Ms. Normandin, go ahead for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their opening remarks.

Mr. Shimooka, you talked about how access to information has evolved over the past 20 years. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how requests are formulated.

For example, has there been a change in the wording that should be used to obtain a specific document? Is it becoming increasingly difficult to get your hands on exactly what you want? Do you need specific file numbers? Do you have to do some preliminary research, which is increasingly difficult to do, in order to establish what you're looking for so you can obtain it correctly? In short, has it been basically the same for the past 20 years or so?

I also invite Mr. Drapeau and Mr. McSorley to add their comments, if necessary.

[Richard Shimooka]

I think that is much more complex. In my experience, and Colonel Drapeau can probably elaborate much better than I can, it often requires a very clear understanding of what you're trying to find, even the document name and number. Even then, I've seen exclusions occur that require a grievance because we know it exists.

This goes back to the point that we have developed a more adversarial view of ATIP. It's clear that the government internally does not want to release in certain areas, and you have to know exactly what you're looking for to obtain what you need.

That's my personal experience.

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

The information you request has to be detailed enough so that an experienced member of the department can understand and act on it.

When I teach access to information, I inform students what is required. I tell them not to play cat and mouse, say exactly what their after and then put in a request. Put a background on it: “Once upon a time, there was a study. I'm interested in this.” Then there's no hesitation as to what records you're after.

A skilled requester will know how to get those records. Info Source, which is produced by Treasury Board on a yearly basis, provides a mountain of information on programs and so on so that you as a requester can inform yourself and can have a deliberate explanation to what you were after.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Let's take the example of ordinary citizens who can't afford to go and see a specialist. Should there be a more simplified mechanism for people who want access to information?

Should there be a more universal way of doing things, rather than having a process reserved for a certain group of employees who are familiar with the process and know how to use the Access to Information Act?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

The legislation already stipulates that the coordinators of each access to information team have a duty to assist requesters who can't express themselves properly.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

With respect to the responsibility of public servants who handle access to information requests, there seems to be a tendency to avoid disclosing too much information, for fear of reprisals. In addition, they are often not particularly well trained to deal with access to information requests. It's a small part of their job, which is much broader.

Should there be some form of impunity in cases where too much information is disclosed, so that people don't feel incited to keep as much information as possible?

I'm talking about the people on the ground, the ones who process the requests right from the start. Should this situation be fixed in order to ensure that public servants don't fear reprisals if they disclose too much information?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

I don't think that's a problem at the moment. The teams that handle access to information requests do a tremendous job, given the number of requests and the lack of support they receive from their respective departments.

That's why I'm saying it's absolutely essential that the Auditor General carry out a review to determine whether these teams have the right tools, the right number of employees, and so on. That has never been done, and it should be done.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Shimooka, would you like to add anything?

[Richard Shimooka]

I would agree with that.

I would say that utilizing staff resources generally for policy-making doesn't help. It is an onerous burden for the departmental staff, who are, as I said, overburdened. There are not enough individuals who can undertake this. In their day-to-day work, they are going to err on the side of caution, especially if it's a side job they're doing in addition to their main duties.

To the point of having an audit, maybe put more resources into the ATI system in order to get better responses.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Would it be a good idea to assign people exclusively to processing access to information requests as a way to ensure that this is never done by anyone who also has other duties?

[Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau]

I think most of the people doing this work right now, at least those who work in access to information offices, are dedicated exclusively to this task.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. McSorley, my next question is about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA.

Last summer, David McGuinty mentioned that there were problems related to the government withholding a number of documents. I'd like to hear your thoughts on solutions that could be considered, perhaps from a legal standpoint, to give NSICOP the power to request these documents. Unless I misunderstood you at the beginning of your opening remarks, there isn't really any such mechanism at present.

My time is up, so you can answer in the second round of questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madame Normandin. I appreciate your respect for the clock.

Mr. McSorley, you have a few minutes to think about that question now.

Madam Mathyssen, you have six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Maybe it's a little less than a few minutes, because it's my question, as per usual.

Mr. McSorley, I think it's part of the recommendations you mentioned you didn't have time to give in your opening remarks. In terms of the review mechanism that's required and needing more of the parliamentary oversight that's granted, could you talk about that to answer both of our questions?