Canada’s information commissioner says federal departments are already denying Canadians’ Access to Information requests based on new criteria set out in a bill tabled by the Liberal government that is not yet law.

Suzanne Legault told MPs on a parliamentary committee this afternoon her office already has received a handful of complaints from people whose requests for information or documents from certain departments were turned down because they didn’t meet three new specifications outlined in Bill C-58, the Liberal government’s proposed package of amendments to the federal Access to Information Act.

Section six of the bill allows a government department to decline to process an Access to Information request if the requester does not include all of the following details in their application: “the specific subject matter” desired, the “type of record” requested and a time frame for the requested documents.

Legault gave two examples of denials based on these new criteria, noting she only knows about these cases because some requesters went to the effort to submit complaints. She said she “strongly suspects” there could be more and she’s “very concerned about that.”

“Institutions are already applying the wording of C-58 to deny requests when it’s not even enforced yet,” Legault told MPs on the parliamentary ethics committee.

“This is just beginning … this is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Legault on Wednesday outlined the major issues she has with Bill C-58 and her top priorities for amendments. They include the new order-making powers the bill grants the commissioner and the matter of opening up the prime minister’s office and ministers’ office to access requests – something the Liberals promised to do during the 2015 election and did not implement in the legislation.

“If C-58 is not amended in a significant manner, then I would much prefer to keep the status quo,” she said.

Legault, who has served as Canada’s Access to Information watchdog since mid-2010, has been outspoken in her opposition to Bill C-58, which the Trudeau government has promoted as the first meaningful reform of the Act since it became law in 1983. She slammed the legislation as “regressive” in a scathing report tabled in September.

In that report, Legault said the access bill “fails to deliver” and put forward 28 proposed amendments she thinks are needed for the legislation to be considered a step forward. With respect to section six, she said the new criteria create “a barrier to access.”

Legault told MPs this afternoon that general but “perfectly valid” access requests previously processed under the current access regime would be denied under the new rules. She used as examples the access requests that ultimately revealed the infamous government ‘sponsorship scandal’ and the Afghan detainee scandal.

“That’s a perfect example of how section six would amount to a massive regression,” she said.

Liberal MP Frank Baylis went head-to-head with Legault on that point, pointing to recent testimony the committee heard from the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The representatives both said they welcomed the new specifications in section six.

“They believe it would make them more efficient in fulfilling the (Access to Information requests) … but you’re against it,” Baylis said. “The people that have to do the work say it’s reasonable … but you’re saying it’s not reasonable.”

Legault, in response, stood by her argument that section six of the bill is a “regression of existing rights.”

“You can see that it’s perfectly understandable for government institution representatives to say that these are good amendments because it allows them to not process access requests,” she said. “The bulk of the requests in those two institutions deal with very specific matters.”

“It’s important to recognize that these provisions would not only apply to one department … they apply across the system, to over 250 institutions.”

Legault said she believes the current requirements set out in the Act are “sufficient” to enable government departments and agencies to process requests. She also noted the current conditions also include a ‘duty to assist’ provision – meaning an institution cannot simply turn away a request if it is poorly formulated and must work with the requester to properly phrase the application.

Legault also told the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics – which is studying Bill C-58 – that giving government agencies more leeway to refuse to process requests could deny Indigenous groups the historical records they require.

The information commissioner called on the committee to help “move the yard stick forward” by amending the bill.

“Even if it’s just a little bit forward, that’s a positive result,” she said.

With a file from The Canadian Press