Information & Ethics Committee on June 3rd, 2009

[Robert Marleau]

That was the main objective of the comprehensive review we conducted. The review forms the basis of this submission. For example, in the past, we expected investigators to be able to handle about 45 files per year. Now we are looking at an efficiency rate that will increase that number to 60 per year.

However, that remains to be determined. The analysis that we did with the help of an outside firm, IBM, shows that our business model is solid. Now we have to make sure that our performance is too.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

From what you said earlier, what we are offering here is not exactly what you asked for. Do you feel that your tasks can be reduced in some areas, in spite of the increased expectations and in spite of all your determination to carry out your mission?

[Robert Marleau]

For investigations of specific, individual complaints, I am reasonably hopeful that we will have the necessary resources to make sure that, not only do we process them better, but also, to some extent, the clients' satisfaction level is acceptable. We are reluctant to set deadlines, whether they be ten, six or four months, because we have to consider the complexity of each case.

Where I will have difficulty, this year especially, but also in the years to come, is with the programming that we had planned and designed as a result of the study we did with IBM. These are the systemic investigations that we want to do. We are going to have to rethink the approach and the scope of those investigations, but not the business model.

The performance report cards that we presented at the beginning of March were the beginnings of the systemic investigations. You may remember that we discovered that, even though they were acceptable legally, the extended deadlines were too numerous and too long. We need resources to do that kind of analysis from one end of a system to the other. At least for the moment, it has been decided not to provide the office with those kinds of resources.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I am against the principle that I am going to mention, but I am going to ask your opinion about it anyway.

if you have a smaller budget, you have to streamline. You have no choice. Letting staff go, reducing the organization's investigative capacity , using contractors, is that the kind of streamlining you could do? Would that create more work managing staff that it would help with the organization's mission?

[Robert Marleau]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure I understood the question.

Are you asking whether it would be preferable to use contractors rather than permanent staff for our work?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

That is it in a nutshell, really. Personally, I am against budget-cutting and bargain-basement operations. But I am wondering if you are basically trapped.

[Robert Marleau]

We are. We had no other choice but to use contracting as a way to deal with the backlog.

But our human resources strategy was to eliminate contracting and to train qualified staff, especially in legal matters. In the longer term, that staff will be a better resource for the government in access to information matters. On average, a contractor costs twice as much as a permanent employee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Siksay, please.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here again, Commissioner, with your colleagues.

Commissioner, you've talked about your new business model. I was just wondering if there was ever any buy-in from anyone outside of your office, from Treasury Board or from the advisory panel. Or is that something you developed within the commission? Has there been any review of or support for that program outside of your own office?

[Robert Marleau]

It's a business model that we developed in-house, but with the assistance, as I said, of IBM as the A-base review consultant. It was the platform, if you like, on which we based our submission to Treasury Board.

I can say that in terms of the Treasury Board Secretariat performing its challenge function, as it should do and do well, it was very well received and supported as the platform for justification of the supplementary resources. Also, the A-base review took reference points or benchmarks, if you like, in other similar organizations of similar size in order to justify each one of those resources.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Is the A-base review something based in government, or is it something from the private sector? I don't quite understand the A-base review.

[Robert Marleau]

Your annual voted amount is your A-base. Every year you re-challenge it. It's kind of like going to zero budget. Normally, going forward, you should be able to defend A-base. Anything above that has to be justified. We had not gone through one in the OIC for several years, but cyclically organizations will go right back to zero. In this case, we just wanted to implement a new business model to reach efficiency and justify not just the existing resources but the increased resources against that model. The A-base is something you do with an outside third-party consultant who specializes in that. They have a challenge function. It's not just a question of selling you a product. They have to live by and behind their recommendations as well.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Is this shortfall in your request part of any across-the-board government cutback to all departments, or is it something facing the commission individually?

[Robert Marleau]

I can't speak for other organizations. I can tell you that if it were part of a larger fiscal restraint measure such as 5% off the top for everybody, or targeted elements such as travel across the organization, I'd have fewer issues with it. But no, it's a specific component that we had for advocacy and for systemic issues that was withdrawn from approval.

When I say it's not just about the money--I have very competent managers, and we're going to manage within this envelope if Parliament votes it--it's about mandate. I'm concerned--and I have no rationale, so I can't and won't speculate--that the Treasury Board ministers denied a component that goes to the core mandate.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

It sounds like a fairly serious concern or allegation coming from someone of your experience in government. It sounds as though you're saying that the responsible ministers have concerns about the advocacy and systemic review that's done by your office.

[Robert Marleau]

As I said to my colleague, it's hard for us to go to Sparks Street and bleed right now, because we got 24 FTEs out of 30. Those will considerably enhance our program delivery. The fact that systemic issues were treated in the fashion they were causes me concern.

I'm willing to have the dialogue. I'm willing to have the debate privately and publicly. That's not the issue. We haven't had that opportunity. As I said in my opening remarks, a good part of this is cabinet confidence, and I don't want to go into some of the details and conversations I've had around this, but I've certainly expressed my views clearly and, I would say, fairly frankly.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Legault, you talked about a 70-30 split. I can't remember if that was for funding or staffing resources.

[Suzanne Legault]

That's for overall resources that we asked for, including both the FTEs and the O&M, operating money. It comes down to a split of about 70% that's allocated to the program and 30% to internal services.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Can you tell me what kind of staffing goes with those numbers in terms of the staff working in those two areas?

[Suzanne Legault]

It's 24 additional FTEs. The breakdown of that 24 is essentially about fifteen and nine.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Sorry, out of the 24 FTEs, it's...?

[Suzanne Legault]

It's fifteen for program and nine for internal services.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

In terms of the overall staff component and not just the additional that you were seeking, how is that divided between compliance and operation?

[Suzanne Legault]

The total staff we're going to have, once all of the FTEs are staffed, will be 106. We currently have 82. Out of those, 24 are the new FTEs that we would be getting out of the supplementary estimates (A). The way they are divided, there would be 35 that would be strictly dealing with investigations. In addition to that, there are lawyers who are dedicated to the program. There would be people dealing with systemic issues and people dedicated to parliamentary relations, which are part of the program for an agent of Parliament.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

How does it break down in terms of management and other staff in the office?