Evidence of meeting #37 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 year.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mary Dawson  Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Suzanne Legault  Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Denise Benoit  Director, Corporate Management, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Lyne Robinson-Dalpé  Director, Advisory and Compliance, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Karen Shepherd  Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Daniel Therrien  Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

As per the agenda, we have some distinguished guests with us for the first hour of our meeting, Mary Dawson, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as well as two of her directors, Ms. Robinson-Dalpé and Ms. Benoit. Ms. Dawson will have 10 minutes for her presentation on the main estimates.

Following that, the Information Commissioner of Canada, Ms. Legault, will also have 10 minutes for her presentation on the main estimates. Committee members will have until 4:30 p.m. to ask them both questions. That's the plan for our first hour.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today and giving us their time.

And now, without further ado, I will hand the floor over to Ms. Dawson for a maximum of 10 minutes.

3:30 p.m.

Mary Dawson Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you this afternoon as you consider my office's budgetary submission for the 2015-16 main estimates. I thank the committee for inviting me.

Accompanying me are Lyne Robinson-Dalpé, Director of Advisory and Compliance; and Denise Benoit, Director of Corporate Management.

I was appointed commissioner in July 2007 with a mandate to apply the Conflict of Interest Act for public office holders and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. These two regimes seek to prevent conflicts from arising between the public duties of elected and appointed officials on the one hand and private interests on the other. The act applies to over 2,400 public office holders and the members' code applies to all 308 elected members of Parliament. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries are subject to both regimes.

My office supports me in fulfilling my mandate. It includes advising public office holders and members on how to comply with the act and the members' code, receiving and reviewing their confidential disclosures, maintaining confidential files on these disclosures, making some information public in the public registry that my office maintains for the act and for the members' code, administering an administrative monetary penalty regime under the act, and investigating alleged contraventions of the two regimes.

In its first five years, my office maintained an operating budget of $7.1 million. I felt this amount would be sufficient once my office was fully operational. We have had surpluses each year that can be attributed to my reserve, vacant positions, and cost-saving practices. I reduced the non-salary portion of my operating budget by a total of 3% over the past two fiscal years. Although that reduction was partially offset by an increase in my salary envelope to cover economic increases, I was able to proactively offer an overall budget reduction of 1.4% in 2013-14 and again in 2014-15. Savings were achieved by centralizing some functions such as printing and procurement and by reducing the amount set aside as a reserve.

I've determined that I can accomplish my current mandate in 2015-16 with planned expenditures of $6.95 million for my office. This is up slightly from the $6.94 million approved in last year's main estimates because of a small adjustment to the employee benefit plans where contributions have increased from 16.5% to 16.8%, as determined by the Treasury Board.

I note, however, that any amendments resulting from the reviews of the act and the members' code could have resource implications for my office.

Finally, I expect that an adjustment to the salary envelope will become necessary next year to compensate for economic increases that have been absorbed by my budget over the last few years. I do not plan to request an increase in my overall budget but rather an adjustment between the salary and the non-salary envelopes.

Over the last eight years I have built a solid internal management framework. It's based on the principles of sound resource management followed in the public service, even though as an entity of Parliament my office is not subject to most Treasury Board policies and guidelines. This framework is supported by transparency. Annual financial statements, quarterly financial reports, and status reports on travel, conference, and hospitality expenses are posted on my office's website, and since 2010-11, our annual financial statements have been audited by an independent auditor.

My office uses external partners to provide expertise in the area of information technology and security, accounts payable and financial reporting, and compensation through shared services agreements. This provides greater efficiency and adds one more level of scrutiny in the management of resources.

Given the nature of my mandate, salaries represent our largest budgetary expenditure. Non-salary expenditures are mostly related to the cost of shared service agreements and the standard costs of running an office.

Measures implemented internally to reduce spending continue to produce expected results. My office continues to spend less than its allocated budget, in part because of these measures, but also because we have explored new management structures and have decided not to fill vacant positions immediately. I maintain a reserve to cover unexpected operational pressures such as an increase in investigation activities. I also use it to fund special projects and initiatives internally.

My primary goal as commissioner continues to be to help public office holders and members meet their obligations under the act and the members' code. The focus is reflected in the size of my office's advisory and compliance division, which is the largest of the five divisions and accounts for over a third of my staff.

Our advisers help members and public office holders to comply with the members' code and the act. This is done in part through formal mechanisms set out in the two regimes such as the initial compliance process, the annual review process, and the requirement to disclose material changes. Members are also required to disclose sponsored travel and gifts that have a value of $500 or more, and reporting public office holders are required to disclose gifts with a value of $200 or more.

In addition to these formal mechanisms, advisers provide information and confidential advice on an ongoing basis to individual members and public office holders and in some instances to their organizations as a whole.

In 2014-15 my office had over 4,000 communications with individuals who were subject to the act or the members' code. This volume is expected to increase this year as a result of the upcoming election.

While the major focus of my office is on prevention, I also investigate possible contraventions of the act and the members' code. In 2014-15 it was a typically busy year in terms of investigative activity. My office dealt with 45 investigation files including six that were opened during the previous fiscal year. Some of those files resulted from formal requests from members of the House of Commons or referrals from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. Others were initiated by myself as a result of information that came to my attention in other ways such as media reports and communications from the general public.

We closed the majority of those files without proceeding to an examination under the act or an inquiry under the members' code or issuing a public report. Five files resulted in the release of public reports this year, all of them under the act. Eight investigation files were carried over into the current fiscal year, and we have since closed two of them.

Last month, after 12 months of work by my staff in collaboration with the House of Commons, my office launched a new public registry of public declarations. We previously maintained separate registries under the act and the members' code. The new registry combines the two making it possible for visitors to more quickly and easily access information. The registry's launch was the first component of a two-phase initiative. The second phase will give members and reporting public office holders access to a portal system that will enable them to file their public declarations electronically.

Four positions are currently vacant, and staffing processes are either under way or will be launched shortly for three of these four positions. While employee turnover remains low, I expect some departures in the coming year, including some as a result of planned retirements.

This concludes my opening statement. Again, I thank the committee for inviting me to discuss the budgetary requirements of my office. I will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Commissioner, thank you for your presentation.

And with that, I will turn the floor over to Ms. Legault, Information Commissioner of Canada, for a maximum of 10 minutes.

Ms. Legault, thank you for joining us today. You may go ahead.

3:40 p.m.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to discuss the main estimates of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

The salary and operating budget for my office in 2015-16 is approximately $11.3 million, including employee benefit plans. I have 93 employees to assist me in carrying out my mandate.

As always, I dedicate as many resources as possible to the program while maintaining internal services functions at a sufficient level to ensure proper stewardship and governance of the office.

My office is a very lean organization. In addition, year after year my office receives unqualified opinions from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

In 2014-15, the office received 1,749 new complaints and we completed 1,605 investigations. Since 2012-13, we have seen an increase of about 10% in complaints overall, with a spike of 30% between 2012-13 and 2013-14. At the beginning of this year, our inventory of files is standing at 2,233.

During my last appearances before this committee, I raised concerns with my organization's budget and the risks the current funding level had on my ability to carry out my mandate and to face contingencies. I've also pursued all available channels within government to seek and obtain additional funding.

The most immediate impact of our financial situation has been longer wait times for complainants. There is currently an overall delay of about five months before a file gets assigned to an investigator. For the more serious complaints—the refusal complaints alone, which comprise about 87% of my inventory—the delay before I can assign a file is about seven months. This situation will continue and is only getting worse as no new source of funds was granted to my office through the most recent budget exercise.

However, I plan to continue to safeguard the right of access to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances.

To further enhance efficiency and bring discipline, predictability and clarity to the complaints handling process—internally and with institutions and complainants—my team and I continue to improve our investigative processes.

Together we are resolved to maintain the course of excellence we value and to uphold Canadians' information rights to the best of our ability and our capacity. Given the quasi-constitutional status of the right of access, Mr. Chair, anything less would be unacceptable.

With that, I'm prepared to answer your questions.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Commissioner, thank you for your presentation.

I will now turn the floor over to committee members, who will, no doubt, appreciate the opportunity to ask you questions until 4:30 p.m.

Mr. Martin, you have seven minutes.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses here today. I want to start at the outset by saying what a rare pleasure it is to have these officers of Parliament here presenting before a parliamentary committee, because it's a rare and a wondrous thing, in my view, in my recent experience, given the efforts we've gone to in order to have annual reports, etc., dealt with by parliamentary committees.

We have very little time, seven minutes for questions and answers. I'd like you to consider this as if you were playing Reach For the Top and this was the short, snappers segment of the TV program.

First of all, to Madame Legault, does your office have adequate funding to meet its responsibilities?

3:40 p.m.

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

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Can you confirm that, since 2011, when the government achieved its majority and ended the advisory panel for providing independent oversight for your funding, your funding has been reduced by 11%?

3:40 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

That's correct.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Can you confirm that, for two years straight, you have requested additional funding from the government, and the government's response has been to further cut your budget?

3:40 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

The cuts were announced government-wide, but yes, I have requested additional funding and received none.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Can you confirm, though, that for two years you went to the President of the Treasury Board and he said, “I am committed to working with the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada so that it has the resources to fulfill this role. He also said, “should the information commissioner put forward a submission for funds”, which implies you did not apply for funding.

Can you correct this seeming contradiction?

3:45 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

This is somewhat internal to government workings, but we are being advised by the Treasury Board Secretariat to put forward our requests for funding through the budget exercise, which is it first goes through Treasury Board Secretariat analysts, then is referred to the Department of Finance, and then we have to wait as to whether or not there is an item in the budget allocating additional resources to our office. Should that be in the budget, we are then advised that we can make a Treasury Board submission.

We have been ready to make a Treasury Board submission and have been working with Treasury Board Secretariat for the last two years. Otherwise, we have followed all the processes that the Treasury Board Secretariat has told us to follow.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Do you believe it's disingenuous on the part of the President of the Treasury Board to imply that you have not requested additional funding to be able to fulfill your mandate?

3:45 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

The truth is that we have followed all the appropriate lines to seek and obtain this funding. Whether that's disingenuous of the President of the Treasury Board, I think you would have to ask that question of Minister Clement.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

If we can ever get him before a parliamentary committee, we will do just that, Ms. Legault.

The government has a history of being tough on watchdogs. In fact, budgets have gone down. Those who hold them accountable seem to be either punished by budgets or worse: Linda Keen, Peter Tinsley, Paul Kennedy, Pat Stogran, Munir Sheikh, Kevin Page, Howard Sapers. In looking back at this, have you spoken to other parliamentary agents and oversight commissioners about the funding of your budgets recently? Were you signatory to a letter to Parliament in the last few years signed by seven agents of Parliament asking for independence for your budget-setting process?

3:45 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

Letters were written some years ago in relation to the advisory panel. I'd have to see which letter you're referring to, but that would be some time ago in terms of the advisory panel.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

I'm going to move on to the budget implementation act, directly related to the estimates we're dealing with here.

Do you believe that the RCMP has broken the law in the matter of the gun registry records?

3:45 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

In the special report to Parliament I advised Parliament that I have made findings with the RCMP and Minister Blaney, so first I asked Mr. Blaney to process additional records that I believe are responsive to the request of the complainant. That recommendation was rejected. I have also recommended that the remaining records that deal with the Quebec registry, a static copy of the remaining records, be preserved. I have received assurances from Minister Blaney that this was going to be done.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Do you believe, Madame Legault, that there has been political interference in this case, whereby the RCMP may have broken the law?

3:45 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

I have referred the matter to the Attorney General of Canada for an investigation as to whether or not there was a breach of section 67.1 of the Access to Information Act.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

You wouldn't have referred this to the Attorney General if you didn't have reason to believe that there was such a violation of that section of the act.

3:45 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

I do have evidence that the records were destroyed. I do have letters that ask for assurances that the records would be preserved. I did not investigate whether this was done with a clear intent to deny the rights of access under section 67.1.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

What do you think of the retroactive changes in the budget implementation act regarding your powers? Do you see this as a dangerous precedent?

3:45 p.m.

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

Suzanne Legault

Yes, I have said so very publicly. The retroactive application of the provisions of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act goes back to October of 2011, even before the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was in effect. It nullifies the request of the complainant in this case. It nullifies all my investigations. It nullifies all the use of the formal powers in the documents that we've obtained through that. It nullifies the application we made to the Federal Court, and it nullifies any potential administrative, civil, or criminal liability of any of the actors involved.