As the government aims to reform the rules governing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey reports an “unexpected surge” in review requests. He attributes this increase, in part, to individuals relying on artificial intelligence (AI) to draft their disputes.
“Through discussions with various client-facing organizations across public entities, we’re encountering similar experiences,” Harvey shared in an interview.
This surge is just one of several factors currently placing pressure on the FOI system. Harvey suggests that rising political polarization and a widespread perception that the system is failing are also prompting more individuals to file complaints. As processing times lengthen, frustration mounts, further exacerbating the issue—slow response times lead to more complaints.
Harvey noted that his office has seen a 60% increase in requests over the past year. Although the office has improved its file-closure rate by 36%, he emphasized that this is insufficient in light of the surge.
“A 60% rise in files is clearly not manageable with just a 36% increase in closures,” he stated.
In response, the government is proposing a new FOI bill aimed at simplifying the process for officials to adjust response timelines and deny specific types of requests. Citizens’ Service Minister Diana Gibson introduced the bill on February 26, but it has not yet proceeded to the second reading. Gibson argues that the growing volume of data from FOI requests is straining government resources, requiring new measures.
Critics—including third-party lawmakers, transparency advocates, and taxpayer rights groups—have voiced strong opposition to the bill, asserting it grants officials excessive authority to reject FOI requests.
Harvey maintains a neutral stance as an independent officer of the legislature and is cautious not to express support for the bill. Nevertheless, he shared his observations.
Unlike many critics, Harvey does not believe the FOI bill will diminish public access to information or hinder his oversight capabilities.
However, he does have concerns about specific provisions in the bill that would allow officials to reject requests deemed “unreasonable” or “abusive.” He is not convinced that this language will lead to reduced access.
“In our assessment, those terms do not encroach upon our authority or limit the right of access,” he explained.
While he acknowledges that the changes may lead to an uptick in challenges to these decisions, he is not overly worried about their impact on his office.
Harvey’s primary focus remains on managing the significant rise in complaints he is currently experiencing.
Sharp Increase in Review Requests
Harvey reported that the 60% rise in privacy complaints brought the total to approximately 3,900. Presenting before the legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services on April 24, he employed a familiar sports analogy.
“In data visualization, this would be referred to as a ‘hockey stick’ growth,” he remarked. “This spike indicates that the number of files entering our office has more than doubled in the last five years.”
These files consist of three main categories: privacy and access complaints (up 86%), FOI review requests (up 50%), and reports of privacy breaches (up 28%).
Harvey believes that a significant portion of this increase stems from AI chatbots prompting individuals to report denied or redacted FOI responses. Given that the documentation accompanying these FOI responses specifies that the privacy commissioner can be contacted with complaints, he suspects AI is simply reiterating this information.
However, AI is not the sole contributor. Harvey notes that its capabilities are enabling people to articulate their complaints more easily, a task that previously required considerable time and effort.
“In the past, many thought, ‘That seems like quite a process, and I’m unsure of what’s involved,’” Harvey observed. “Today, with the assistance of these tools, they’re more likely to say, ‘Please generate a complaint for me.’”
His office still cannot quantify the exact impact of AI, as this remains a hypothesis without concrete evidence, such as tracking data on AI-generated markers. “Determining how many we either know or suspect to be AI-generated is something we’re considering,” he stated.
During the committee session, NDP MLA Rohini Arora asked if Harvey had thought about discouraging the use of AI for crafting complaint requests. He replied that he did not want to deprive people of a helpful resource.
Ultimately, Harvey focuses on fostering a culture of transparency to mitigate the need for complaints in the first place.
“To truly address the issue, we need to focus on the root cause,” he said. He envisions a “cultural change” towards “transparency by default,” minimizing the necessity for FOI requests altogether.
