Evidence of meeting #25 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was backlog.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Robert Marleau  Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Andrea Neill  Assistant Commissioner, Complaints Resolution and Compliance, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Suzanne Legault  Assistant Commissioner, Policy, Communications and Operations, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo

This is meeting number 25 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), we are examining supplementary estimates (A) 2009-2010, vote 40a under Justice, referred to the committee on Thursday, May 14, 2009.

Our witnesses today are from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada: the Information Commissioner, Mr. Robert Marleau; Andrea Neill, assistant commissioner, complaints resolution and compliance; and Suzanne Legault, assistant commissioner, policy, communications, and operations.

Welcome to all of you again. We apologize for the delay due to votes in the House, but we'd like to move swiftly into supplementary estimates (A) so that we can dispose of this matter today.

Mr. Marleau, if you would, please proceed with your opening comments.

4:35 p.m.

Robert Marleau Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to address you again on the issue of the supplementary estimates tabled in the House on May 14.

When I appeared before this committee on May 13, I talked about the profound institutional changes I made over the last two years to address inherent weaknesses that were limiting our ability to do our job. I also said that, while progress has been made in a number of areas, there continues to be a capacity shortfall in key functions.

That is why my office undertook a comprehensive review of our operations and funding levels in 2008-2009 to determine whether we had sufficient resources to be able to deliver on our mandate.

At the same time, my office developed a multi-faceted human resources strategy, which includes changing our competency profile for investigators from knowledge-based recruitment to one based on investigative ability, recruiting employees from universities and from outside government, developing standing offers to hire investigators on contract, reviewing learning plans and focusing on training, targeting underrepresented employment equity groups, and looking at ways to improve our employees' workplace.

In light of the conclusions of our A-base review, and after discussions with the Treasury Board Secretariat, we submitted a request for $2.72 million for additional funding for 2009-2010, and in March 2009 between $3.6 million and $3 million ongoing to the advisory panel on the funding and oversight of officers of Parliament. We felt that these additional funds were necessary to fully implement our business model, which will significantly improve the effectiveness of our operations and maximize compliance across the regime.

The Treasury Board minister approved $2.36 million of new funding for 2009-2010, and between $3 million and $2.3 million ongoing. If approved by Parliament, this new funding will help supplement our current budget and enhance our capacity to fulfill our mandate. However, I'm concerned with the Treasury Board's decision not to approve the full complement of resources requested and recommended by the advisory panel.

The submission for about $360,000 in additional resources for systemic investigations, report cards, and advocacy activities for 2009-2010 and about $600,000 ongoing was denied. This work is an essential part of our business model. The new funding would have allowed us to make the most efficient use of our investigative resources.

It's not just about the money. It's also about mandate. I understand that we're going through tough economic times right now. Therefore, in light of the Treasury Board ministers' decision, we'll make adjustments internally. I want to reassure the committee that we will continue our systemic reviews, we will continue to file report cards with Parliament, and we will maintain our advocacy activities, albeit on a different scale from that originally planned. This work is simply too important to abandon.

In the meantime, we will continue our discussions with the Treasury Board and the Department of Justice on the funding for systemic issues. We'll report back to this committee on how these adjustments have impacted our operations and how we're doing financially.

By way of caveat, Mr. Chairman, Treasury Board submissions and responses thereto are treated as cabinet confidences, so in answering your questions, I will have to be mindful of that convention.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to talk about our request for additional funding. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Having served on the panel and looking at this, I'm acutely aware of the unusual nature of how this thing evolved, but let me see if I can find out how serious this might be.

Do your requests assume a full complement of staff throughout the entire fiscal period?

4:35 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Robert Marleau

We had broken down our requests for staffing over two years. For the current year as a supplementary, we were going to staff only 50% of that request and build it up into the next year. The total request was for 30 FTEs, and we've received 24.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo

And that is likely to be what will actually turn out, so there will be lapsed....

4:40 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Robert Marleau

Without further funding, we'll now be operating with 106 FTEs going forward, as forecasted for the next six years.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo

Okay, we'll move on now.

We'll start with Mr. Dhaliwal, s'il vous plaît.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Information Commissioner Marleau along with Assistant Commissioner Neill and Assistant Commissioner Legault for coming here today.

Because I'm filling in today, I'm going to ask you the following question. Commissioner, you said that you already received $2.36 million of new funding for 2009-2010, and then you're asking for an additional $360,000 and also $600,000 ongoing. Is that on top of those amounts that we're seeing?

4:40 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Robert Marleau

No, sir. The $360,000 is the amount we asked for for this fiscal year, which was refused by the Treasury Board. The $600,000 ongoing was also refused by the Treasury Board for subsequent years.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

You say that this is an essential part of your business model. Can you tell us how it will negatively affect that business model if you don't get this funding?

4:40 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Robert Marleau

Just by way of background, I did circulate a copy of the business model, Mr. Chairman. The business model is founded on the issues that I discovered when I arrived as commissioner, bearing in mind this very large backlog and the need to do systemic investigations at the same time. There was one pool of investigators by and large, although in 2005-2006 Parliament did vote some supplementary investigating money for systemic issues.

A new business model really seeks to segregate the activities of compliance, in terms of individual complaints, and the activities of operations, and to rally under one activity all of the systemic issues that demand our attention from time to time. We have enhanced the report cards to try to extract more of those in the future.

So this means we had asked for five FTEs to devote to investigative issues and one for advocacy, and we'll have to adjust and make do with the resources we have now and make some internal reallocations accordingly.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

So when you say backlog, has it improved since last year, or how far behind are we now with the backlog?

4:40 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Robert Marleau

I'm happy to report that we've made some considerable progress, and I'll ask the assistant commissioner to give you the specific figures.

4:40 p.m.

Andrea Neill Assistant Commissioner, Complaints Resolution and Compliance, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Thank you.

We entered into a backlog of about 1,600 complaints, and in five months we were able to reduce them by 31%. And as of last Friday, I'm happy to report that we are now down to 999 of those 1,600 left to complete.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

So how much money is going towards reducing the number of complaints, and how much of the money that you're asking for will go towards the infrastructure part of things?

4:40 p.m.

Suzanne Legault Assistant Commissioner, Policy, Communications and Operations, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Essentially, the breakdown in terms of percentage is about 70% for compliance and 30% for operations. This is a little bit different for this year and the next few years because part of the submission included a renewal of our infrastructure in terms of technology. So we have an IM/IT strategy, which accounts for about $600,000 for the next few years.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

So if you don't get this money, what will the negative effects be? That's what I want to know precisely, so that we can weigh on one side what will happen if we give you the dollars, and on the other side what the drawbacks will be if we do not make those funds available to you.

4:45 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Robert Marleau

In 2005-2006 we voted extra moneys for extra investigators to deal with the backlog, and that was to sunset this year. It was on a sunset timeline. The A-base review looked at that. And now what is being proposed will carry us forward in terms of meeting our program mandate.

If Parliament does not vote the supplementary estimates (A) at this juncture in this fiscal year, I will have no choice but to go into aggressive cash management to stay within the vote. I will lose those five that were voted in 2005-2006, and I'll be looking at cancelling contracts and laying off staff.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

When you say cancelling contracts, with the unemployment numbers so high now, do you have easy access to the employees and the contractors you need? Are you still feeling the same challenges and difficulties that you did a year ago when I was on this committee?

4:45 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Robert Marleau

The ATIP community at large is challenged in trying to find qualified people. That's why in my opening remarks I said we've changed our human resources strategy to go from knowledge-based--we used to recruit people who knew something about the statute--to looking at competency profiles that show they have the ability to investigate, and we will train them on the content of the statute.

I'm confident that we can certainly staff up to a full complement, although contractors are getting to be quite rare. And we'd like to wean ourselves off contracts as we go forward.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

Thank you.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo

Mr. Nadeau, s'il vous plaît.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Marleau, Ms. Neill and Ms. Legault.

Let us talk about your funding. Unfortunately, we cannot really change it, because, if we decided to increase it, or even decrease it, it could cause a vote of confidence in the House, because the budget would be affected. But still...

Mr. Marleau, does the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada feel pressure from the government or from the general public? Do you feel the need to be always up-to-date with your files, by which I mean to achieve a certain response rate of 30 or 60 days? Is there pressure like that on your office?

4:45 p.m.

Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Robert Marleau

Mr. Chair, clearly, ever since we started receiving a large number of complaints about our backlog, the complaint from our clients—if you will—is that the office took far too much time to complete its investigations. That was especially the case with administrative complaints. As my colleague said, we have done a lot of catching-up and the backlog has been reduced. We have implemented a new model—especially in receiving, registering and quick resolution—to keep the backlog from getting any bigger.

We feel that we are in control over what is coming in and that the backlog ought to be more or less eliminated by the end of the current fiscal year.

Yes, we feel pressure from our clients, but I feel that we really have improved the situation in a very short time.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Let us turn to the Supplementary Estimates (A). Does the budget let you maintain adequate performance? There is always the human factor that we cannot assess as easily as we would like.

Does the government need to provide additional assistance so that the office of the commissioner is state-of-the-art and always able to maintain a pace that, while it may not be ideal, is at least reasonable?