The current landscape of freedom of information (FOI) requests is undergoing significant changes. As the government works on reforming the regulations surrounding FOI requests, Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey reports an unexpected rise in review requests. He attributes this surge, in part, to an increasing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) for drafting disputes.
“In discussions with various organizations across the public sector, we are hearing similar feedback,” Harvey noted during a recent interview.
This phenomenon is just one of several pressures affecting the FOI system. According to Harvey, the growing political polarization and a general perception that the system is flawed are contributing to the rise in complaints. As the processing times lengthen, more individuals express dissatisfaction, creating a vicious cycle.
Over the past year, requests to Harvey’s office have increased by 60%. While they have improved their file closure rate by 36%, it still falls short of meeting the growing demand.
“A 60% surge in cases clearly shows that our current efforts are insufficient,” he remarked.
Concurrently, the government has introduced a new FOI bill aimed at allowing officials more flexibility in managing response timelines and denying certain requests.
Citizens’ Service Minister Diana Gibson presented the bill on February 26; however, it has yet to progress beyond the second reading. Gibson emphasizes the need for these changes given the escalating volume of data processed through FOI requests, which is straining government resources.
Critics, including various stakeholders such as third-party and Opposition MLAs, advocates of transparency, and taxpayers’ rights groups, have raised concerns about the bill. They argue that it potentially grants undue discretion to government officials in rejecting FOI requests.
While Harvey aims to remain neutral, he has shared his perspectives. Despite the criticisms, he does not believe the bill will negatively affect public access to information or hinder his oversight capabilities.
Concerned advocates have expressed worry about language in the bill that permits officials to dismiss “unreasonable” or “abusive and malicious” requests. Harvey, however, is not convinced that such provisions will diminish access.
“From our perspective, these terms do not retract our authority or diminish the right to access,” he stated.
He acknowledges that these new regulations may generate additional work for his office as people contest decisions, but he is not overly concerned about the impact this will have.
His primary focus remains addressing the substantial increase in complaints that his office is currently experiencing.
A Notable Increase in Review Requests
Harvey reported that the 60% increase in privacy complaints has raised the overall total to approximately 3,900 cases. During his remarks to the legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services on April 24, he utilized a well-known sports analogy.
“In data visualization, this is what you would call a ‘hockey stick’ growth,” he explained. “This surge indicates that the number of files submitted to our office has more than doubled over the past five years.”
These requests can be categorized into three main areas: privacy and access complaints, which have risen by 86%; FOI review requests, up by 50%; and reports of privacy breaches, increasing by 28%.
Harvey believes much of this growth can be attributed to AI chatbots that encourage individuals to file complaints when they encounter denied or redacted FOI responses. The accompanying documents often state that the privacy commissioner can be contacted regarding complaints, leading Harvey to suspect that AI is simply relaying this information.
Additionally, he notes that AI facilitates the complaint-writing process, making it easier than ever for people to articulate their concerns, which previously required more effort.
“In the past, many people would hesitate, thinking, ‘That seems complicated, and I’m not sure what’s involved,’” Harvey explained. “Now, with these tools available, they’re asking, ‘Could you generate a complaint for me?’”
Harvey and his team are still working on quantifying the impact of these AI-generated complaints, and currently, these observations remain largely theoretical without concrete evidence.
“Tracking the number of complaints we know or suspect stem from AI is something we’ll be looking into,” he said.
During the committee meeting, NDP MLA Rohini Arora asked if Harvey had thought about advising people not to use AI for writing complaint requests. He responded that he wishes to avoid undermining a tool that could be beneficial.
Ultimately, Harvey envisions enhanced transparency and timeliness within public bodies so that individuals feel less need to lodge FOI requests. “The goal should be to address these root issues,” he asserted.
As for a broader vision, he advocates for a shift toward a culture of “transparency by default” so that citizens won’t feel compelled to file FOI requests to access information.
