Evidence of meeting #30 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was request.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Suzanne Legault  Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Layla Michaud  Director General, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

December 4th, 2014 / 3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll call the meeting to order. Welcome to the second committee meeting of this session of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

We are very pleased today to welcome, from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Information Commissioner herself, Suzanne Legault. Welcome, Madame Legault.

She has brought with her Layla Michaud, the director general of the corporate services branch.

We are together today to examine supplementary estimates (B), and by extension the general operating budget of the Office of the Information Commissioner.

I understand you have opening remarks, Madame Legault.

3:30 p.m.

Suzanne Legault Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Then the floor is yours.

3:30 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

First of all, Mr. Chair, I must say that I am very happy to see that all of you are here safe and sound.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you for that.

3:30 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

With that, I think we can start with our regular business.

Good afternoon. Thank you for asking me to appear today. I am here with Layla Michaud, Chief Financial Officer and Director General of the Corporate Services Branch.

Mr. Chair, I would like to tell you briefly about the work my office has been doing to support transparency and accountability during my term as information commissioner. I am doubtful, however, that I can sustain this important contribution to Canadian democracy given the volume of work and the financial situation the office is currently facing.

As you know, the Access to Information Act establishes the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada as the first level of independent review of government decisions about releasing information under the act. Requesters who are not satisfied with how institutions handled their access request have the right to complain to my office. And in turn, I have a legal obligation to investigate all complaints that fall under the act. The information commissioner has no discretion when it comes to investigations. The office must investigate all complaints.

Because of the work of my office, Canadians often receive more information than institutions were originally willing to release. I also help requesters get information more quickly. After the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, for example, I was able to secure much earlier releases of information then Transport Canada had originally proposed.

Since 2009-10, I have looked at all my investigative and business processes to identify efficiencies. I significantly improved how my team handles complaints. As a result, we have closed more than 10,000 complaints since I have become commissioner. This is the volume of work that rests with the OIC. Most of these complaints were resolved without the need to resort to the Federal Court, which is the second level of review under the act. For the remaining unresolved cases, my legal team has litigated these matters before the courts with the consent of complainants.

Over the years, I have also made recommendations to the President of the Treasury Board on various ways to advance accountability and transparency. I am very pleased that most of these recommendations over the years have been implemented by the government.

Through the last four years, I also found better ways to carry out crucial financial and governance functions. I did internal reallocations to provide maximum support to investigations.

I have been able to achieve these accomplishments as my budget was decreasing. The reality now is that I have 11% less money to do the work than I did when I started. Then, last fiscal year, we faced a 30% increase in the number of complaints, which has brought the organization to a crisis point. Despite our closing 10% more files again last year than in the previous year, the inventory of complaints grew by 16%. That was the first such increase since I have been commissioner or interim commissioner for the last five years.

In addition to having an investigative team stretched to the limit, I have no financial flexibility to augment my investigative capacity, or to set aside for contingencies. My budget is so tight that last year I lapsed $37,000 at the end of the year. Therefore, I have no money to respond to unforeseen circumstances. For instance, if one of the servers breaks down at the OIC, I will not be able to replace it. There is not enough money.

This is the situation that we are facing now. Obviously, I will have to take action.

The situation will simply get worse, Mr. Chair, since both the number of complaints and the financial pressures will continue to grow.

Unless my budget is increased, I have only one option going into the next fiscal year to keep within my appropriations: to cut the program.

This is not a decision I take lightly. My independent oversight role is crucial to the access to information system, which is itself the foundation of transparency and accountability.

The government has identified these as priorities. The work I and my office do is crucial to its being able to meet them.

But as the workload grows, the gap between when I receive files in the office and when they can be assigned to investigators is increasing. The resulting delays are already jeopardizing the right to access. Requesters will have to wait even longer to get information. This, in turn, will delay their rights to pursue their matters through the Federal Court, if they wish to do so, since they must wait until the investigation of the OIC is completed before exercising their right to go to court.

For instance, Mr. Chairman, at this time the delay between receiving a file and assigning a file varies between six and seven months, so this will increase even more. Such developments are the last thing I want to see for Canadians, who have a right to timely access to government information. I have raised the red flag about this financial situation at every available opportunity. I have also pursued every option available to me to preserve my budget and ensure the integrity of the program. This includes making requests for funding through the 2014, and most recently, the 2015 budget process, so far without success.

In conclusion, let me say that I believe our actions at the OIC during my time as commissioner clearly demonstrate what I have always believed, that effective management of public funds is of paramount importance. I have told committee members in the past that I would have very difficult decisions to make to keep within appropriations, deliver on my mandate, and maintain excellence in governance. I have certainly had to make these decisions.

As I said in my last departmental performance report, which was recently tabled in Parliament, without additional funding, I will no longer be able to carry out my mandate responsibly and ensure the full respect of Canadian' rights to access to information.

If no resources are forthcoming, as a responsible steward of public funds, I will need to make cuts to the program to ensure my office continues to operate with the appropriations granted.

Rest assured: I will back away from the fiscal cliff rather than go over the edge. But, as I do, Canadians' quasi-constitutional right of access will be increasingly denied.

Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you very much, Madame Legault, for a very sobering presentation.

We'll go immediately to questions, beginning with seven-minute rounds and the official opposition. For the NDP, we have Charmaine Borg.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Legault, thank you for taking the time to speak to the committee today.

You described a rather disturbing situation. As commissioner, you serve a vital function, ensuring that Canadians' right of access is duly respected.

You said that your office experienced a 30% jump in complaints in 2013-14 and that your budget is 9% smaller than it was in 2009. I think you said that you now had 11% less money than you did at the beginning of your term, despite a greater number of complaints.

As you pointed out, that is a major problem and you may have to make cuts to the program.

What do we do about it? What will the repercussions on your office be? Will Canadians' right of access be jeopardized as a result?

3:40 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

Yes, absolutely. As I said in my opening statement, this is obviously my problem, as the information commissioner, but it also affects the rights of Canadians. It is not my job or position at stake but, rather, the rights of Canadians.

As a steward of public funds, I have already made cuts throughout the office, given our financial situation. I have already reallocated funding and achieved efficiencies in the area of investigations. Of course, we are committed to continually improving our office's efficiency, but any investigation-related improvements I am now able to make would be what I would call marginal. They would not enable us to process the 2,200 complaints currently in our inventory, in addition to the 1,600 to 2,000 new complaints we receive every year. That is where things stand.

As the person running the organization, I have done everything I can. The situation is now in the hands of parliamentarians and the government. At the end of the day, you are my bosses, and I'm telling you that, no matter what steps I take, the volume of work is so high that we can no longer respond to Canadians' requests.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Thank you.

You called us your bosses, but our bosses are the Canadians we represent. Therefore, we certainly need to make sure that we protect their right of access to information and that you have the budget you need to respond to the ever-increasing number of complaints.

If I understood you correctly, you have just $37,000, or 0.2% of your budget, left to work with until the end of the fiscal year.

Have you approached the government about the importance of rectifying the office's financial situation and, if applicable, made a formal submission to Treasury Board?

3:40 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

Tab 2 of the documents I handed out provides a history of the funding requests we have submitted to the government over the past few years.

A few years ago, officers of Parliament were under the authority of the advisory panel on the funding of officers of Parliament. In 2010, we requested emergency funding to address a specific case. The government then implemented cost containment measures.

When the officers of Parliament were asked for recommendations under the deficit reduction action plan, we advised Minister Nicholson that we could not absorb a budget cut. We, nevertheless, saw our funding decrease by 5%. In real terms, that is now equivalent to 6% of our budget. That was a larger reduction than what we had recommended to our minister. As far as I know, we are the only officers of Parliament who experienced that.

Then, last year, we were forced to relocate, and the government made us pay for the move. We made a Treasury Board submission outlining our financial situation, and we pointed out that we could not afford to pay for the office's move. So Treasury Board recommended that we finance the relocation with a loan, repayable over 15 years. Repayment of that loan further reduces our budget by 2%.

For the past two years, we have submitted our budget requests to the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for our office, in order to receive funding under the federal budget and be able to make a submission to Treasury Board. My colleague spoke with the people at the Treasury Board Secretariat to find out what funding mechanism we could use to make a request, as an officer of Parliament. I believe Ms. Michaud was even in contact with them this week, via email.

We were prepared to make a submission to Treasury Board but were told to direct our request to the Minister of Justice and to go through the estimates process. That is what we did. If the government tells us it will consider a Treasury Board submission, obviously, we will make one. It's ready to go, in fact.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

I have 30 seconds left.

I was going to ask you about the open government action plan and the fact that it lacks an important component, measures to modernize the Access to Information Act.

I don't have much time remaining, but could you comment on the fact that the plan is missing such important measures?

3:45 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

As I have said publicly in two letters to the President of the Treasury Board, I strongly support the open government initiative. In the beginning, I was one of its strongest supporters. So I'm very glad to see that the government is putting it in place.

As I see it, the most crucial part of the exercise, the cornerstone, really, is the modernization of the Access to Information Act.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

We'll have to leave it at that, Madame Legault. Thank you very much.

We have the first speaker for the Conservatives, Mr. Erin O'Toole. Welcome to the committee, Mr. O'Toole.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, Madame Legault and Madame Michaud, for appearing today.

I have the good fortune to be substituting today and to have an officer of Parliament on a subject I've often had some questions about myself from my past life as a lawyer, so this would be good opportunity for me.

I would like to thank you. It's clear you've been very diligent with the budget, very close to estimates, and not lapsing much; and closing 10% more is impressive.

Your concern about the volume of work leads to a number of questions to help me get an understanding. The 30% jump you're seeing in cases are unresolved access requests from the 27 institutions of government. Is that a fair way of describing it?

3:45 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

They are complaints. About 250 institutions are covered by the act. The year before last, which is the last year for which we have statistics, the government received 55,000 or so requests across the system. That was about a 27% increase from the previous year. This was completely unprecedented across the system; it's not just my office.

I can say as well, sir, that it was not related to any issue, any specific departments or trends that we could see. It's the same thing in our complaints. Usually if there's a big jump, there's a topic, there's an institution, something happens, or there's a big surge. That year there was nothing like that, no trends whatsoever. It was an across-the-board huge increase, and the main increase came from members of the public.

The only thing I can surmise from what I see in the data is that there is clearly a heightened awareness in the members of the public about their right of access. I can't see any other trends.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

So the 30% jump is consistent with general increases for access to information requests across government.

3:50 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Who, by and large, are the requesters? Certainly, when I was a lawyer, ATI requests could be part of regulatory preparation for large companies. They could be part of a litigation process. Certainly the media are well known for some of their ATI requests that find their way into newspaper articles. Is there a breakdown on how many are commercial in origin versus a citizen inquiry?

3:50 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

There is. There are Treasury Board statistics. As I said, that year when we had the big jump the majority was from the public.

I have them here. The public was first, and business was second. Out of the 55,000 requests you had that year, 22,000 or so were from members of the public and 21,000 from private sector businesses. That's a very broad category, sir. It's very difficult to know where they came from. It's not a very precise statistic.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Is media part of that business category or is that a separate category?

3:50 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

It could be. Media is a separate category. Media was 8,300 that year.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

For my own knowledge, for one of those 21,000 business inquiries, how much is the cost to a business of a general ATI request to a department?

3:50 p.m.

Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Suzanne Legault

How much did it cost the business or how much did it cost the government?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

I'm sure you pay a fee when you're putting in an ATI request. What is that fee?