Information & Ethics Committee on June 3rd, 2009

[Robert Marleau]

That's the only split we didn't come with. It's 70%--it's down to 64% with the reductions--for what you would call operations, which would include management.

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

So operations include management.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mrs. Block, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back, Mr. Marleau, and welcome to your colleagues.

Just so I'm clear, based on what I've seen in your estimates, your opening remarks, and perhaps some comments that my colleague has made, your budget has not been cut this year, but you have asked for additional funding. Is that correct?

[Robert Marleau]

That's correct. The budget was not cut, and we asked for additional funding. We got less than we requested after going through the Treasury Board Secretariat process and the advisory panel.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay. It was less than what was requested, but there was no cut to your original budget.

[Robert Marleau]

If we do not get these supplementary estimates, the original budget will go into position and be minus five investigators. But that's not a cut from this year. That was a sunset provision put on those when granted in 2005-06.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

You've clearly done some costing based on the A-base review that you referred to in your opening comments. We have another report from you that we're looking at, some recommendations. What I'm interested in is whether you have done any additional costing on those recommendations--in particular, extending the act worldwide and instituting a public education mandate.

[Robert Marleau]

No. The costing of this submission in the A-base review is based on the existing statute, the existing mandate. We did have a discussion with Treasury Board at one point about mandate creep on some of the issues, but we resolved those. No, it is based on the statute as it sits.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay.

Do you have any idea what increasing your mandate to include a public education piece would be for your department?

[Robert Marleau]

No, we didn't do the A-base study, but in terms of the impact of the legislative amendment proposals that I've made, we've looked at them as low, high, medium, and for the education mandate we came out with high in terms of the cost, the base increase, if you like, to our budget, but not to the system.

There are good reference points. The Privacy Commissioner, for instance, or PIPEDA, has an education mandate. But there we'd have to do a proposal, develop it, cost it out, and submit for extra estimates. I don't want to pick a figure out of the air. It would depend on what the mandate is.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Marleau, I want to follow up on a very good point that Mr. Siksay was trying to get at. I didn't give him enough time to develop it, and I'm sorry, but he's on the list again and he will get a chance.

With the report cards that you have just given in the last report, which were not very encouraging for the ten, would it be fair to assume that the rate of new complaints will continue at similar levels to what we've had in the past year?

[Robert Marleau]

The line has flattened, if I can put it that way. Issues of the day can cause it to go back up. It seems to have flattened. We have that under some control. Our early resolution process is starting to show real benefits, but we have no control over what comes in the door and what causes it to come in the door.

The report cards are about systemic issues, things we identify that need attention, either from a compliance or performance point of view.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm trying to identify the factors that may lead one to conclude that there may be a movement in the number of new complaints coming in, and I thought we might have some performance problems identified in at least some of those.

Another factor would be that we do have an economic situation that is going to impact pretty well all departments, and this is a very serious issue. I suspect that may also spur more people to make requests and consequentially more complaints to ultimately come. Would that be a fair assumption?

[Robert Marleau]

It's hard for me to say if that's a fair assumption. I would say that it is an assumption that warrants consideration. When the act was changed and broadened, we got a large increase in complaints. It has now flatlined. Going forward, as part of our A-base, we're estimating 2,000 to 2,100 per year. That's up from about 1,500, historically. The bulge we had in 2007-2008 was about 2,300 to 2,400, so it's flattening out at around 2,000. But with AECL, Chalk River, isotopes, who knows?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The inevitable expenditure review may be a 5% target for all departments to start finding.

What priority does servicing ATIP requests generally get within departments, in respect of their susceptibility to being part of the cut?

[Robert Marleau]

It's hard for me to answer that question, since I'm on this side of the fence. When public servants are asked to do more with less, I suspect that it cuts right across the board. This legislation can't be suspended—it's there. It's difficult for me to say what impact this would have on a particular departmental ATIP office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We'll see how that goes.

Mrs. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Ms. Hall Findlay. I haven't been a Mrs. for a while.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

My apologies.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

My thanks to all three of you for being here.

I have been paying some attention to the challenges you have been facing in obtaining sufficient resources. From your prior testimony, public comments, and reports, I know that there have been significant problems, in some places more than in others. I have inferred that what you required, besides funding, was an attitudinal shift that with the right leadership would bring forth the necessary tools and resources. What were the reasons given to you for not being given the funding for the systemic and the advocacy pieces you are missing?

[Robert Marleau]

There is a question of cabinet confidences with respect to how these submissions are treated. Without violating any of that, I can say that I was given no reason. Based on discussions I had before it went to Treasury Board, I have an idea of what the reasons might have been. But it would be a violation of cabinet confidence to go into it.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Understood. We don't want to put you on the spot, but it is a matter of some interest to us, because we feel strongly that access to information is important for a functioning democracy.

I note prior testimony that related to President Obama's unusual and commendable move on his first full day in office to change the default attitude in the United States towards freedom of information. He shifted the burden: instead of releasing information only when it can be proved that it's required, information in the U.S. will now be released unless it can be proved that it should not be disclosed. I'm trying to get a sense of whether we are still in the situation previously in effect in the U.S. I'm unsure about whether one can make that conclusion. We would certainly love to see this government adopt a more positive attitude toward disclosure.

Can you comment on this?

[Robert Marleau]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the honourable member's indulgence about cabinet confidence, and I might say parenthetically that it's a highly uncomfortable position for an information commissioner to say he can't answer a question.