The freedom of information (FOI) system is undergoing significant changes as the government seeks to update its regulations. Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey has observed an “unexpected surge” in review requests, attributing some of this increase to the rising reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) among the public for drafting complaint letters.
“In discussions with various client-facing organizations in the public sector, we are hearing similar experiences,” Harvey shared in an interview.
Harvey points out that the growing political polarization and a pervasive sentiment that the FOI system is flawed are additional factors that are prompting more individuals to submit complaints. This has created a vicious cycle — as response times extend, more complaints emerge, further straining the already burdened system.
In the past year alone, Harvey noted that his office has seen a staggering 60% increase in requests, while its file closure rate has only climbed 36%.
“Given a 60% rise in files, that increase is clearly insufficient,” he remarked.
In response to these challenges, the government is moving forward with a new FOI bill aimed at granting officials the ability to modify response timelines and deny specific types of requests. This bill was introduced by Citizens’ Service Minister Diana Gibson on February 26 but has yet to proceed to the second reading. Gibson emphasizes that reforms are essential as the volume of data generated by FOI requests continues to soar, placing additional demands on government operations.
However, the bill has received criticism from various stakeholders, including third-party representatives, Opposition MLAs, advocates for transparency, and organizations defending taxpayer rights. They argue that the proposed changes could afford government officials excessive discretion in rejecting FOI requests.
While Harvey remains neutral as an independent officer of the legislature, he does not perceive the bill as detrimental to public access to information or his ability to oversee the system. He maintains a cautious stance on certain aspects of the proposal.
Concerns Over Request Denial
Critics have raised alarms regarding provisions that would allow officials to reject “unreasonable” requests, as well as those seen as “abusive or malicious.” Yet Harvey expresses skepticism about whether this language will genuinely hinder access to information.
“Our assessment suggests that these words do not imply a reduction of our authority or a restriction of the right to access,” he stated.
However, he acknowledges that the new guidelines might lead to an uptick in workload for his office as individuals contest these decisions, although he does not foresee this as excessively burdensome. His primary focus is managing the current surge in complaints.
Sharp Increase in Review Requests
Harvey highlighted that the sharp 60% increase in privacy complaints has raised the total number to approximately 3,900 within a year. Addressing the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services on April 24, he used a well-known sports analogy to illustrate this trend.
“In data visualization, this would be described as a ‘hockey stick’,” he explained to the committee. “This surge indicates that the number of files entering our office has more than doubled over the last five years.”
These requests can be categorized into three main types: privacy and access complaints (up 86%), FOI review requests (up 50%), and privacy breach reports (up 28%).
Harvey suspects that a significant portion of these increases can be tied to AI chatbots encouraging the public to file complaints when they encounter denied or redacted FOI responses. Since the accompanying documents clearly inform individuals that they can reach out to the privacy commissioner with grievances, he believes that AI is merely processing this information.
Additionally, he acknowledges that AI is simplifying the process for individuals to articulate their complaints, which previously required substantial effort and time. “In the past, many people hesitated, thinking it was a complex process,” Harvey noted. “Now, with these tools at their disposal, they’re asking, ‘Can you just generate my complaint?’”
Despite this theory, Harvey admits that his office cannot yet quantify the impact of AI, lacking hard data to confirm these trends. “Monitoring whether complaints are AI-generated is certainly a step we may consider in the future,” he mentioned.
During the committee meeting, NDP MLA Rohini Arora inquired if Harvey had thought about suggesting people refrain from using AI to write complaint requests. He replied that he did not wish to undermine a potentially useful tool for the public.
Ultimately, Harvey’s vision is focused on enhancing transparency and promptness within public agencies, aiming to eliminate the need for complaints altogether. “I think the best solution is to address the root cause,” he concluded.
He advocates for a fundamental “cultural change” that embraces “transparency by default,” minimizing the necessity for citizens to file FOI requests in the first place.
