Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Commissioner recommends two amendments to the act to address problems that came to light in the course of a review of a decision to refuse access to information by the former Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development.

The first issue was with a specific provision of the act, paragraph 24(1)(f), which states that a public body must not disclose information that is a statement of financial assistance provided to a third party by a prescribed corporation or board. The Commissioner interpreted the words "prescribed corporation or board" to refer to any corporation or board subject to the act. The department interpreted them to require a specific designation as a "prescribed corporation or board." The Commissioner recommends the act be amended to clarify the meaning of paragraph 24(1)(f).

The second issue was with the department's response to the Commissioner's recommendations, which in her opinion seriously undermined the credibility of the review process. The Commissioner's recommendations were based on the department's argument that the information requested was subject to a specific exemption in the act. On receiving the Commissioner's recommendations, the department declined to follow them on the basis that they had changed their mind about which exemption they wanted to rely on and that they had determined the exemption they had initially cited, and on which the Commissioner based her recommendations, did not apply to them.

One of the Commissioner's concerns with this kind of response on the part of a public body is that it leaves no recourse for the applicant other than to make an application to court and effectively sidelines the role of the Commissioner. The act does not allow for the Commissioner to reconsider a request for review if a department changes its mind about its arguments after she has made her recommendations. In her report, she therefore recommends an amendment to the act requiring public bodies to refer to all relevant sections of the act when responding to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and to be bound by those submissions. During her meeting with the committee, she suggested an alternative would be an amendment requiring that no final decision be made by the head of a public body until the Commissioner is given an opportunity to make recommendations based on all the arguments the public body wishes to rely on.

In our discussions with the Commissioner it became apparent to the committee that the underlying problem is likely not so much a gap in the legislation as the overall corporate culture and approach to requests for review of access to information decisions. The Commissioner advised us that public bodies often take what she referred to as a "lazy" approach in making their submissions and fail to provide complete lists of their arguments and the specific exemptions or sections of the act they wish to rely on. As the Commissioner pointed out, the onus is on the public body to demonstrate that an exemption applies. However, because of the poor quality of submissions, the Commissioner sometimes finds herself in the position of having to research and make the public bodies' arguments for them because of the possible consequences of not considering all the angles.

The committee is not convinced that the solution to this problem lies in amendments to the act. We see the problem as relating back to the overall corporate culture and attitude discussed earlier in this report, and therefore suggests that the appropriate response is leadership and direction from the top down to ensure public bodies are more diligent and thorough in preparing submissions to the Commissioner.