Key messages

Independence

Independence is crucial to my role as an agent of parliament. The manner in which my office and other agents of parliament’s organizations are funded should reflect this independence.
As agents of Parliament, we report directly to Parliament rather than to the government or a federal minister, making us independent of the government of the day. We perform statutory duties and report to one or both Houses of Parliament.
Institutions that we investigate are involved in determining if, when, and how much funds are allocated to us. This is not consistent with our independence or our accountability to Parliament.
We need a funding mechanism that properly reflects the OIC’s independence from the government of the day.

As I outlined in my letter to this committee, an independent funding model for my office and other Agents of Parliament is not an innovation.
Some of my fellow Agents already operate under such a model. They have amply demonstrated that, by incorporating the highest standards of stewardship of public funds and by including the necessary safeguards, they can ensure value for money.
This issue has been the object of Parliament’s attention before. Your committee could examine what was in place previously to determine the most suitable approach.
The most significant requirement for maintaining my independence is that the chosen model is independent from the government of the day.

2022-2023 was a record year, with a 7% increase in registered complaints and a 19% increase in complaint closures compared to the previous year.
As these new complaints replace the older ones we conclude, we are still managing an inventory of thousands of complaints.
Many of the remaining complaints in our inventory are very complex, sometimes involving tens of thousands of pages with multiple exemptions claimed.
My team has been able to increase its efficiency, but it has reached the limit of what can be done with the OIC’s current level of funding.
The longer-term trend is clear: more ATI requests and more complaints every year.
Additional resources are needed if we are to continue to reduce the number of complaints in our inventory, while ensuring that new complaints are dealt with in a timely manner.
More completed investigations means more requesters will receive responses to their access requests more quickly than they would have without the OIC’s intervention, in many cases with more records than they would have otherwise received.

Additional funding allocated was based on expectations that the OIC would need to close approximately 4400 complaints per year.
Since then, the number of new complaints has increased year after year.
While the OIC improved its efficiency and reached capability to close almost double the number of complaints than what it is funded for, we are unable to eliminate the backlog and absorb any additional increases in new complaints.
In order to adequately respond to the increasing number of complaints and tackle the inventory, the OIC will be pursuing additional temporary funding.
Additional temporary funding would be invested in hiring investigators to work on complaints.

Legislative review is a necessary part of a comprehensive review of the access system.
Legislative reform is needed to solve problems facing the access system and to ensure the Act lives up to its aims of openness and transparency.
In my submission to the review, I highlighted a number of recommendations that would improve the legislation. This includes recommendations to subject Cabinet Confidences to the Act, a public interest override, and a maximum length of time for consultations.
Many of the legislative changes suggested by others and myself are reflective of international norms. The Act needs to be modernized.

The Supreme Court of Canada referred to access to information as a pillar of democracy.
Requesters should be able to get answers from their government, and the state of the system as it is undermines democracy
Right of access is enshrined in law. It is a quasi-constitutional right.
An access request is not a service from the government or a privilege. Canadians are entitled to timely access to information.
Requesters should not tolerate a situation where their institutions do not respect the law of the land.