Information & Ethics Committee on June 3rd, 2009

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

That's understood.

[Robert Marleau]

I refer you to my recommendations about cabinet confidences as a solution, maybe—close parentheses.

I said in my opening remarks that it's not just about the money; it's about mandate. I'm going to have to pursue that, and I intend to pursue it pretty aggressively. I don't think I should say any more on that.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I think I'm running out of time. Am I, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You have one minute.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

With the one minute, maybe you can provide a brief explanation, then—I'll take you into a more comfortable zone—with a couple of examples of the advocacy work that you would like to have been able to do, had you been given the funds.

[Robert Marleau]

The advocacy side was a very small part of it, actually. It was one FTE, essentially someone to track trends that we need to address, places we need to be internationally and nationally, what buttons to push and when, drafting speeches, and that sort of thing.

The systemic issues are more important. We had a three-year plan on which, if I may, I'll ask the assistant commissioner to comment; a three-year planned follow-up on systemic issues flowing from the report cards. We're going to have to revisit that.

To give you an idea of what we were going to do, I'll ask Ms. Legault to answer.

[Suzanne Legault]

Essentially, the idea behind systemic investigations is to take a much more strategic approach to them and make sure that we follow up on the recommendations. One of the issues that occurred before is that we would make recommendations and really not have the resources on a yearly basis to go back to ensure that the recommendations had been implemented. The strategic approach to systemic issues now is to basically look at the trends we can identify from our complaints, extract those trends, and then target them through systemic investigations, which are more widespread than just being based on a single case.

This puts us in a position to make much more widespread recommendations to the various institutions or to central agencies, as we did in the special report. It also allows us to follow up on these recommendations and to do formal systemic investigations on a recurring basis to target broad-based serious and systemic issues.

They are very resource-intensive, because they apply to several federal institutions.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

It sounds as though an investment in that kind of work might ultimately lead to the entire work that you do becoming more efficient and, I would argue, cost-effective.

Thank you for your answer. I think I'm done. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, you are, but I was trying to be nice for having blown your name.

Mr. Dreeshen, please.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I can, I'd like to share my time with Mr. Cannan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Absolutely.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Marleau and Ms. Neill and Ms. Legault, for coming here again today.

My question, being new, is whether it is customary for a department to come to a parliamentary committee asking for additional funds at the last minute.

[Robert Marleau]

I would say it's not customary, no, and this is really not a last-minute request. We spent a whole year working on the A-base review in tandem with Treasury Board Secretariat. We initially wanted to include it as part of the main estimates. At the Treasury Board Secretariat's suggestion, we moved it into the supplementary estimates (A). It was also convenient for us.

So it's part of the normal supply process. Supply is the main estimates, supplementary estimates (A), supplementary estimates (B), supplementary estimates (C). Supplementary estimates (A) occur in this trimester, supplementary estimates (B) occur before Christmas, and supplementary estimates (C) just before the end. If I were to be here on supplementary estimates (C) next March, I would be last-minute and I'd better have a good excuse.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

The question I was getting at, though, is this. We've asked what the amounts would be for costing certain of the recommendations you're looking at for next year or that you would like to see put into acts. You talked about the potential mandate creep that you see, but before it becomes a mandate avalanche, let's try to make sure we know what is going to be taking place. That's part of the concern we have about all of the recommendations, and I guess that's where I'm coming from.

I wonder whether you would expect this to be the norm for the future, then, coming with your supplementary estimates (A), (B), and (C) requests and things perhaps getting a bit out of hand.

[Robert Marleau]

All I can say is that this component—the mains plus these supplementaries, if granted.... I manage the act that I have, not the act that I want or the act that I propose we should have. All of this is predicated exactly on the statute as it is.

As to costing of some of the recommendations I've made, that could come, if they move forward. What we did with the recommendations was consult a base of users, practitioners, and academics and build a body of consensus around what needs to be done to improve ATIA. There are costs attendant on doing it, I grant you that, but some of them are government costs. Many of them will be in departments; some will be in the courts; some will reflect on me.

It's not really my responsibility or accountability to cost future legislative initiatives, if they occur. I don't deny that there are costs attendant upon any of the recommendations I've made. It's premature, I think, to try to cost them out, and certainly to cost them within my own budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Ron.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is supplemental to my colleague's questions. I'm just filling in, but I did some reading prior to having the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon.

I'm all for open, transparent, and accountable government, whatever party is in government, to make sure that our tax dollars are being spent prudently. Looking through the information in the report and the recommendations—there are some 12 recommendations and a variety of concerns—I would say that coming from any other committee or previous business experience, you would make a recommendation and you would obviously use the prudent and responsible measure and look at cost from a budgetary perspective. You can't expect anybody to make a recommendation and put a report to the House without any sort of cost attached or some accountability to a tangible business plan. Otherwise, you're just asking parliamentarians to put forward a blank cheque.

[Robert Marleau]

The background to the legislative recommendations or legislative change that I put before the committee flows from a long debate in this committee, going back to 2003, I believe. My predecessor tabled draft legislation at that time.

One of the concerns that was expressed by both the justice minister and Treasury Board at the time was that it would be very expensive. Many of the recommendations were costed out at the time by them, and I have some issues with how some of the costs were arrived at. The strategy here was to give the committee a focus of 12 recommendations, which are interlinked. Implementing them could be done fairly easily and quickly, potentially at less cost than the whole revamp of the statute.

But it's not a business plan that I put before the committee, and it's not my responsibility to cost out all those aspects—what the Federal Court might spend, etc. It's a bit like asking, what does the charter cost? When we brought the charter in, did you cost out every aspect of it before it was passed?

This is a fundamental right of Canadians. What I tabled before the committee is what is wrong in the near reality and what should be fixed as quickly as possible.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Further, if there have been six years of debate, obviously there's some pretty good research and some numbers. If you're saying they're too high, then you would have some information on why you figure you can bring your recommendations forward at a lower cost. But right here it's zero: we don't have any number to work with. If you had something—“This is what we're recommending”—as to why you feel it could be brought forward at this price and for this and this reason.... Otherwise and right now, as I mentioned, it's a blank slate.

You say that every Canadian absolutely has the right to have access to the Access to Information Act, which is a fundamental right of every Canadian. But there's also a responsibility for every Canadian and every person employed in the Government of Canada—or any employee—to be accountable and responsible, whether in the private or the public sector. At least you have a moral responsibility, if not a legal one.

[Robert Marleau]

I have to say, sir, I think that accountability and responsibility lie with the executive, not with the--

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

So you don't feel you're accountable for your work?

[Robert Marleau]

I didn't say that. I said that the responsibility for costing this out lies with the executive. It has to be an executive initiative, because the financial initiative of the crown is tied to any future bill. I've said that in prior testimony.

I'm accountable for the moneys that Parliament votes to me. I'm here today under supplementary estimates to account for the request I've made and have you decide whether we warrant that supplementary funding. But as far as global accountability for delivery of service to Canadians under ATIA, that lies with the Government of Canada.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

So what is the cost right now to process an application for access to information?

[Robert Marleau]

It's $1,425.04. In prior testimony, it works out to one Timmy's double-double per Canadian for the total cost of the program.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

But how many programs are there across Canada? There are a lot of Timmys.