Information & Ethics Committee on March 27th, 2012

[Suzanne Legault]

Yes. The minister wrote to me in July and wrote again in December, asking for the results.

I don't have it before me, but the July letter essentially asked us to abide by the intent and spirit of the DRAP exercise, which we agreed to do. That's why we embarked on the analysis with IBM.

In December they asked us to provide the details of our analysis. This is what I actually sent to the committee at the same time that I sent it to the minister.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

And you haven't heard back from the minister on exactly what's going to be the result of this?

[Suzanne Legault]

No.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Do you suspect what the result will be?

[Suzanne Legault]

No. I have no information.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Okay.

Your office has expanded over the last number of years. Do you think you're being asked to do more with less money? Is it a concern that you've been asked to do more, but now you're going to be asked to do more with less?

[Suzanne Legault]

Well, we have to do more with the same envelope. We have to do more because our inventory has changed so much; it is a lot more complex than we used to have.

An administrative complaint is usually about whether or not the institution has responded to the allotted timelines under the legislation. A refusal complaint—for example, I have a CRA file where I've actually had two investigators working on this file, almost exclusively, for almost two years. That means those resources cannot work on other investigations.

They're not all like that, not all so voluminous, but some of them are very complex. The national security files, obviously, are highly sensitive. They deal with highly sensitive material. We have to take a very cautious approach to the analysis of these files. It's essentially line by line. Improper disclosure actually has a lot of consequences, so we have to make sure that our position is proper.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

If the envelope does change, and it gets smaller, will the result be that you're taking longer to do investigations? Or what will be the other consequence?

[Suzanne Legault]

Well, our envelope has gotten smaller, because in the last Parliament, in the last budget, we were asked to absorb the salary increases of collective agreements. For us, when most of our budget consists of salary and we have very little O and M manoeuvring, a decision like that meant, I think, a $320,000 decrease in our envelope.

That's very significant for us. We've already had to address this. I have three positions that were cut this fiscal year, and I have some people who've left and have not been replaced already to absorb these cuts. So this has already been integrated, if you wish, into our budget. I'm already doing more with less.

As to where we're at right now, frankly, it would take longer to do cases, but it's more than that. It's a risk in our internal services. There are a lot of reporting requirements. We have reporting requirements very similar to those of any other institutions. We do have to have an internal audit function.

Contrary to small agencies, we have to have a full-scale internal audit function, because we are an agent of Parliament. We have had an unmodified audit from the Auditor General for the last five years. I really think we need to keep that. We're looking at sharing our services in terms of human resources simply because the risk in terms of the expertise is too high. Small institutions do have to be aware of those things.

Frankly, as to the people I have in my office, everybody's working so hard that, at this point, I don't think I can ask them to do more. They're going to have to do it on a longer-term scale, if our budget is cut.

I think we'd lose the gains we're making in terms of reducing our inventory, and I think that would be a shame. I really have to clean that up. I still have 1,800 cases in my inventory, and I need to bring that down. My goal is to bring it down to about 500 as a carry-over from year to year so that requesters' rights are really respected. Delays in my office also have a negative impact on requesters' rights.

So it is my responsibility to clean it up. We're making progress, but I'm really convinced that significant cuts.... You know, at some point, there are few areas where I can cut, so....

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

I just want to go back to a question that was asked earlier about Bill C-30.

I know the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Ann Cavoukian, has been very vocal and has expressed a lot of concerns. Just to clarify, you haven't reviewed Bill C-30? Do you have no comment at all on Bill C-30?

[Suzanne Legault]

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario made comments and that's because she's wearing both hats. In fact, all of the information and privacy commissioners across Canada are, I think, united with our federal Privacy Commissioner in their position in relation to that legislation. But, no, we haven't spent time on that.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I have a question regarding your complaints from 2011-12. You had four commissioner-initiated complaints. What is the status of those four complaints? Could you just refresh our memories? You may have told this committee in the past of those particular cases.

If your budget does get cut, would you do less commissioner-initiated complaints? Would that be something that would get lost if your resources are decreased?

[Suzanne Legault]

With regard to the commissioner-initiated complaints, I really do them when I need to do them. Obviously, I'm very mindful of the fact that whenever I initiate a complaint I add to the load.

I do have two systemic investigations that are still ongoing. They're taking a very long time. I basically now have one person doing these two systemic investigations. That's what happens when I don't have a lot of resources to allocate to that. Those will hopefully be finished in the fall of 2012.

In terms of the other self-initiated complaints, I have the complaint I initiated when Minister Ambrose referred me documents from Public Works in relation to possible allegations of interference. That investigation is still ongoing.

I think I have about 18 self-initiated investigations in total. I'd have to verify that, but I'm one of the top 10 complainants in my office.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews and Madam Legault.

Mrs. Davidson, for seven minutes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Commissioner, for being with us once again. It's always a pleasure to see you.

Certainly, in the time I've sat on this committee, I've seen remarkable progress being made in your office since you instigated the new work plan and your new methods of clearing up some of the backlog. When I look at the figures in your report that you gave to us, you really have brought the caseload down that is being referred over from year to year. I think that is great.

One of the things that you talked a little bit about with my colleague was the reduction in administrative complaints. I think that's very important. Can you talk a little bit more about that? I know that you said that you felt that the administrative complaints were part of the biggest waste within the system. Can you just elaborate on that a bit more and tell us how they're being reduced? What's happening that's making this action take place?

[Suzanne Legault]

I can't give you a complete diagnostic for that because I am not privy to all the information requests that go to the departments. I see only the complaints. What I do see is that there is a significant reduction. I probably intake about 30% administrative complaints on the overall inventory; it used to be 50%. And we're closing them. We're closing more than we're receiving, so we're actually really making a dent in there. That's why my inventory now is basically all complex cases. This is exactly where I want to be, by the way. These are the important cases. This has to deal with what information is going to be disclosed to the requester and the complainant.

With administrative complaints, it's not about the information that's disclosed, it's about when it's going to be disclosed, or how much the department is going to charge for disclosure. There is very little clout, very little deterrence, because these cases can't really go to court. It's a little bit complex on the legal side, but normally speaking, these cases are not cases I would take to court for disclosure.

As to what's happening in the institution, we are completing our third-year review in terms of the report cards. The report cards are going to be completed and tabled probably in May, and I think that will complete our three-year review. We've made a lot of recommendations. These report cards dealt with administrative complaints. I think we'll have a really good snapshot, and we'll see then in more detail what is happening with the institutions. If you remember, three years ago we did 24 institutions. Those represented about 88% of all access requests across the system, so we had a pretty good diagnostic then of what was happening.

For this report card this year we did 18 institutions. We did the 13 that failed and the five that got a C, because those were at risk. We'll see then what the diagnostic is going to be. That will be in May.

We don't have that completed yet, so I really can't share that with the committee, but definitely that goes to Parliament and to the committee. I think we'll have a much better diagnostic at that point. If that shows a clear improvement, then it should reflect what's happening on the complaint side.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Very good.

One of the things we heard a lot about, and I'm sure you're well aware of it, is the CBC study. We heard a lot about section 68.1, and—I don't know if it was confusion, but we'll say—the confusion that it was causing.

Do you think that redrafting or changing section 68.1 will have an impact on the number of concerns that are raised and the number of complaints that are raised, and therefore impact your department?

[Suzanne Legault]

That's a good question.

We now have the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, so we are now in a position to review the documents. We are investigating the cases. We have closed, I believe, 177 cases now, out of the inventory with CBC.

The recommendation that I made to the committee at the time was that if there were to be an amendment, I would prefer to have a discretionary exemption based on injury and public interest. That would actually track the language of the Broadcasting Act, which is not quite the situation we have. If the government decides to amend the legislation at this time, my concern—and I think it could be addressed; I think it would have to be addressed—is that there should be transition measures, because I have inventories of files, requests, and complaints that have been made under the current legislation. I think it would be extremely complicated to deal with these cases if I had new legislation that didn't deal with transition measures.

That would be my concern. Obviously, ultimately, after that it's the decision of the government to amend or not.

I'm planning to send a letter to the Minister of Justice highlighting my views on that, which I've just expressed, in any event, before this committee just now.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

One of the other things you talked to us about this morning was that the statistics show an increase of 18% in 2011 for the number of access requests received by institutions. You talked a little bit about CRA being one of the ones that could have an influx of new requests being made, and therefore an associated influx to your department.

How would you handle that if it takes place?

[Suzanne Legault]

These statistics are quite worrisome to me because, according to these statistics, the Canada Revenue Agency has had a 44% increase in its number of requests year over year. These statistics are for 2010-2011. How would we handle that? We already have quite a lot of resources dedicated to these files. We work very closely with both complainants and the CRA. I met with the interim head of the CRA about a month ago to discuss some of the strategies they could have. They have a mix of cases. In my view, some of the cases could be dealt with by proactive disclosure. I've asked them to look at their practices to determine whether they could proactively disclose more, and thereby possibly reduce some of their access requests. We're working with them on these very complex files. They're collaborating with us on an ongoing basis. We have the appropriate approach.

If I get a complete influx, I will have to deal with it when it comes, but, yes, it would be very serious. By the way, on one of these files there is actually a mandamus application in federal court urging us to complete our investigation faster. This is another problem that arises if our program is affected and our cases take longer; complainants can take me to court from mandamus applications, and that generates more cost to the system.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Ms. Davidson.

Thank you, Madam Legault.

Mr. Dusseault, you have five minutes.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Legault, thank you for being here. I am going to make you speak a bit of French this morning.

In response to my colleague's question earlier, you painted a pretty clear picture of the situation. You mentioned the 5% and 10% savings you had been asked to achieve. That is why you prepared a deficit reduction action plan, a fairly comprehensive one.

I have many concerns, as I am sure you do. Your office is undergoing some major improvements. The number of pending complaints is steadily declining as well. It is my feeling that the cutbacks, the scale of which remains a mystery, are going to hurt. From what I understand, you planned for the worst case scenario of 10%. Is it realistic to think that you will be able to continue on your path of improvement?

I did not read the plan in its entirety, so I would like more details on how these cutbacks could be applied and whether service will be compromised. That is what matters most. As you said in your opening remarks, 75% of your budget is allocated to salaries. If your budget is cut by 10%, how will you continue to provide the same level of service? Do you have any details on how you will do that?

[Suzanne Legault]

As I told the committee and as I suggested to the Minister of Justice, in my view, it is not possible at this time to make cuts to the resources of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

If 5% of our budget is cut, as of next year, we are talking $587,000. If 10% of our budget is cut, it would mean $1.174 million. If you want to know the truth, at the end of the last fiscal year, I had just $148,000 remaining, and that included $400,000 in emergency funding. The year before, it was $182,000.

It is obvious to me that our fate lies in the government's hands; it's their decision. If I have to make more cuts, I will have no choice but to do so. As the person overseeing the commissioner's office, I will have to implement those cuts. As I see it, that will seriously compromise the office's activities, in terms of both programs and internal services.

We are an extremely small organization. I have only one parliamentary relations person. I have no money left at the end of the fiscal year. I urge you to take a detailed look at the document we submitted and to compare us with other institutions.

What it boils down to is the risk of longer completion times. As I explained, my investigations already take way too long, so if they take even longer and I don't get to them, I could be subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. Will that benefit taxpayers? I don't think so.

We are currently examining the possibility of shared services with the other officers of Parliament. As I also mentioned, we are going to consider shared services with respect to human resources, because Public Works and Government Services Canada already has a system in place that could be effective.

It is not as though I have a lot of people working in that area. So even if I do take a shared service approach to human resources, I still have to maintain some internal resources to liaise with that group.

As for the fiscal efficiency, actual cost savings, there is very little financial gain in shared services. We would not benefit as a large department would. Where we would benefit, as a small organization, is in terms of risk reduction. We would have access to more shared service expertise by doing business with groups that already have extensive knowledge in those areas. That is how we would benefit the most.

But the financial gain we will derive from a shared service approach will be fairly minimal. We are slated to begin sharing accommodations with other officers of Parliament in 2013, so we are studying the possibility of working with them on more shared services.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I am not sure whether I have any time left.