Information & Ethics Committee on May 10th, 2016

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

One of the fundamental components of the right of access is the independent review of the government's handling of access requests. The Access to Information Act established the Office of the Information Commissioner as the first level of independent review. Requesters who are not satisfied with how institutions handled their access request have the right to complain to my office. My office's primary responsibility is to conduct efficient, fair and confidential investigations into these complaints. I am required by law to investigate all complaints that fall within my jurisdiction. I have no discretion under the law to refuse to investigate any complaint.

The overall main estimates for my office is $11.3 million, including employee benefit plans. Of that amount, 78% is spent on the program and 22% on internal services. I have 93 employees to assist me in carrying out my mandate.

My office, Mr. Chair, receives two types of complaints: simply said, administrative complaints, which relate to matters such as delays in responding to requests, and refusal complaints, which relate to matters such as the application of exemptions or exclusions that are used to withhold information.

The number of complaints the office has received has ranged in the last six or seven years from 1,689 to 2,047, with a high of 2,081 in 2013-2014. Over the same period, the number of complaints the office has closed has ranged from a high of 2,100 in 2009-2010 to a low of 1,281.

We always strive for efficiencies. In the last few years, for example, we updated and rolled out a comprehensive training suite for all new investigators, we developed a pilot project for mediation of complaints, and we trained all of our investigators in mediation. We took strategic approaches to closing complaints, including investigating large groups of complaints together.

These efforts have led to results. For example, the average number of files closed per investigator has gone from 39 in 2011-2012 to 52 last year. The overall median turnaround time for closing complaints in 2015-2016 from the date the file is assigned to an investigator was 84 days: 48 days for administrative complaints, which are generally simpler, and 166 days for refusal complaints.

Currently there is a delay before a file can be assigned to an investigator. The median delay was 127 days as of March 2016: 83 days for administrative complaints and 230 days for refusal complaints. As of March 2016, the inventory at the office stands at 3,000 files.

We are continuing to implement changes in 2016-2017 to improve our investigations. For example, we are implementing a simplified process for investigating administrative complaints, we are rolling out our mediation project to all investigators and we are developing a code of procedures, an investigator manual and an online complaint form. We are also continuing to take advantage of shared services opportunities.

At our current resource level, I expect that the inventory of complaints will continue to grow, but I am hopeful that ongoing discussions with the government on additional funding will be successful.

I have submitted the following information for the committee's consideration this morning: an organizational chart of my office, a breakdown of expenditures by program and internal services over the last several years, a summary of our caseload, and the status of our inventory.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I am extremely fortunate as Information Commissioner to have a very dedicated and high-performing team. Together we continue to strive for excellence and for the protection of Canadians' right to know.

Thank you. I am ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

We will move to Ms. Shepherd for up to ten minutes.

[Karen Shepherd, Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the main estimates and to outline my priorities for the coming year. I am joined by René Leblanc, the deputy commissioner and chief financial officer.

My mandate is threefold: to maintain a registry of lobbyists, to develop and implement educational programs to foster awareness of the Lobbying Act, and to ensure compliance with the act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct.

The 2016-17 main estimates for my office are about $4.5 million, which is essentially the same amount as last year. I have a complement of 28 full-time employees, and salaries continue to represent about two-thirds of my expenditures.

I run a lean but effective organization. In past years, I was able to streamline operations without compromising the effectiveness of my office or my ability to deliver on my mandate.

Some of the accomplishments I would like to highlight for last year include the transfer of the registry of lobbyists and the OCL website to a more modern infrastructure and a new host. New tools were made available to lobbyists to facilitate the registration and the reporting of their activities.

While there were many significant accomplishments, the achievement I am most proud of in the last year is the new Lobbyists' Code of Conduct, which came into force on December 1.

The code outlines the high ethical standards expected of lobbyists when they interact with public office holders. I published guidance to help lobbyists comply with the code. I also used other methods to educate lobbyists about the code, such as information sessions, webinars, and one-on-one meetings.

In the last year, I was able to broaden our compliance verification approach to make it more effective. Following the election of the new government, I processed a higher-than-usual number of requests for exemptions to the five-year prohibition on lobbying that applies to former designated public office holders. We also started using a more robust case management system, which replaced the previous method that was used to track files.

The first program I would like to talk to you about is the registry of lobbyists. The registry is the primary source of information on who is lobbying federal public office holders and about which topics. A small team develops and maintains the online system behind the registry. It also provides guidance and advice to support registrants. I have allocated seven full-time employees and about $1 million to this program.

Following the reduction of my budget in 2013-14, I put the system in maintenance mode. Enhancements to the system were deferred, and funds were allocated both to ensure that it remained reliable and to protect the integrity of the information.

However, given the importance of the registry, deferring system development and upgrades is not sustainable for long. One of my priorities this year is to implement cost-effective solutions to ensure that the registry is supported by a modern and reliable technological foundation. The recent move of the registry to a new host will allow us to take advantage of new technologies and provide us with more control over the system's development. I expect to see efficiencies in the long term. That said, I believe additional funding may be required to modify and upgrade the registry if the act is amended.

Reaching out to lobbyists, public office holders, and other stakeholders to educate them about the requirements of the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct is a significant component of the work conducted by my office. I believe individuals are more apt to comply with the act and the code when they understand their obligations.

As public office holders are the targets of lobbying, the program also provides outreach to them to ensure that they are aware of the lobbying regime and their obligations.

A budget of about $800,000, including salaries for seven full-time employees, has been allocated to the outreach and education program. My staff and I conduct a wide range of outreach and education activities. We regularly offer group presentations and individual meetings to educate lobbyists and other stakeholders about the act. In the last few years, we began organizing webinars for new registrants. These online presentations are a cost-effective method to reach people, particularly when you are located outside of Ottawa.

I continue to look for ways to make outreach and education activities more effective. For example, last year we began surveying participants in outreach sessions to gather feedback on our approach. This data will help in the evaluation of the program plan for 2016-17. It is expected that this evaluation will help identify opportunities to further enhance the effectiveness of our outreach and education activities.

I believe that the resources I invest in education and prevention are essential to compliance. Lobbyists must know and understand the act and the code before they can comply with their requirements. Likewise, when public office holders understand the lobbying regime, they are able to contribute to compliance.

The third component of my mandate is to ensure compliance with the act and the code. I have a team who conduct administrative reviews and investigations into suspected or alleged breaches of the act and the code. Suspected breaches may be identified internally through the review of media reports and other public sources of information. Allegations may also come from complaints I receive from external sources.

I take all allegations seriously and will initiate an administrative review to find out more about suspected breaches. When an allegation is founded, I decide on the appropriate compliance measure, including whether a formal investigation is necessary. Since becoming commissioner, I have initiated 160 administrative reviews, tabled 10 reports on investigation of Parliament, and referred 14 cases to the RCMP. In July 2013, the first conviction was obtained for a breach under the Lobbying Act.

The act provides me with the authority to prohibit an individual from lobbying for up to two years if convicted of an offence under the act. I therefore decided to prohibit this individual from lobbying for a period of four months. Three other individuals are before the courts on various charges under the Lobbying Act.

My office also reviews requests for exemption from the five-year post-employment prohibition on lobbying. I grant exceptions when to do so would not be contrary to the purposes of the act. Last year, my office completed 15 exemption reviews, and I granted 11.

In 2016-17, my priority in enforcement is to take a more integrated and proactive approach to verify compliance. The performance agreements of my executives will thus include a focus on more strategic compliance efforts and better support for the integration of compliance activities across OCL programs.

A budget of about $1.1 million, including salaries for eight full-time employees, has been allocated to manage the compliance and enforcement program.

Finally, a range of internal services support the programs I just discussed as well as my corporate obligations. A budget of about $1.5 million has been allocated to internal services. This amount includes salaries for six full-time employees. It also covers the cost of agreements I have with other organizations to provide services such as staffing and other human resource services, financial management and support for the information technology infrastructure.

Approximately two-thirds of the budget allocated to internal services is spent to acquire services from other government institutions. This approach has been adopted by most small organizations because it provides access to a broad set of expertise in a cost-effective and timely manner. It also allows me to meet my accountabilities as deputy head under the Financial Administration Act.

My office collaborates effectively with its counterparts working for other agents of Parliament. This year I will continue to look into the possibility of expanding the agreement I have with the Privacy Commissioner with respect to hosting our IT services. This will provide us with a strong foundation to continue to streamline information management and business processes within the office.

At my last appearance before this committee, a member asked me if my funding was sufficient. My response was that I'm able to meet the demands of my mandate. I do this by allocating my resources and making the appropriate trade-offs to deliver on my mandate effectively and efficiently. However, additional funding would allow me to spend more on education, which would eventually pay off in greater compliance and reduced enforcement costs.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying that I am proud of the work my staff has done over the years. None of my accomplishments would have been possible without their dedication and professionalism.

Mr. Chair, I welcome any questions you or the committee members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much, Ms. Shepherd.

We now proceed immediately to our questioning round, and I'll go to Mr. Long for seven minutes.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back to some of you, and thank you very much for your presentations this morning.

I'm a business person. I'm in politics now, but my background is business. I want to ask questions of Mr. Leblanc, or any of the panellists, about the budgeting process. I asked the question last week of Commissioner Therrien about the process of budgeting.

In my experience, you start with departments that will submit budgets, and then there's budget challenge. I just wondered if you could comment on how the process evolves and unfolds, and who's involved with it, from your staff on up.

[Karen Shepherd]

I can start, and I'll ask René to join in.

Every December the executive group gets together, and we talk about what the priorities are going to be for the following year. That's what is used to determine the budget.

René works with the executives in terms of the process of coming forward with projects. It would then come to the executive committee, which consists of me and my legal counsel. I would have a challenge function at that point.

I'm at the beginning of the process with the priorities and at the end in terms of the challenge functions for final decisions.

Did you want to elaborate?

[René Leblanc, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying]

I think that explains the process.

Throughout the year we have a continuous review process to ensure progress is made against the priorities not only in terms of financial information but in terms of non-financial information as well: how is this project going, and how is it progressing against what we wanted?

Midyear we do a review of all the projects and all of the financial situations. We reassess if there are any funds that could be reallocated elsewhere or if some projects are lagging a little. It may allow us to use that funding for new and emerging priorities.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Do you include all staff in the budgeting process?

[René Leblanc]

At some point, yes, because all staff are connected to their managers, and their managers are part of the process.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Could you give me an example of an occasion when somebody came up with a great idea to save you money?

[René Leblanc]

A great idea to save us money. That's a good one.

When we were facing the problem of having to cut back, we had the challenge of finding where we would take out the money. It was decided we would find the money from the development of the system, so it wouldn't be as cutting edge as it was. That's not sustainable in the long run, so we needed to figure out a way to re-fund it in a manner that would allow us to continue with the development. We decided to find a new service provider that would be cheaper and would provide us with better value. That's when we decided to go with the Privacy Commissioner to fund the infrastructure of our system. Saving money and finding more value is what it's about.

It's always important to consider security in our business, because there's a lot of sensitive information. That was also part of the equation.

We've also developed a case management system to make the processing of files easier, faster, and more secure. We didn't save money per se, but we invested it in a way that would benefit the organization greatly.

We are moving to—I wouldn't say paperless, because it hasn't happened yet—a reduced paper environment. We streamline the processes on an ongoing basis. With our registration system, when some lobbyists register, they don't have to submit any papers anymore. By going that way, we avoid printing, and that saves money.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Perfect.

How am I doing with time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

You have three minutes.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Do you see opportunities to share with other departments?

[René Leblanc]

We do that all the time.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Do you constantly look at that?

[René Leblanc]

With my colleague Layla and the other CFOs in the group of seven agents of Parliament, I meet on a monthly basis, and more often if need be, to discuss opportunities to share. Our arrangement with the Privacy Commissioner's office to host our IT system is based on that type of arrangement.

We've also shared on the program evaluation contracts. We pool our resources to do that.

My colleagues can talk to you about coming together in the same building and sharing resources such as libraries.

[Layla Michaud, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

As an example, at 30 Victoria Street we're sharing the mailroom, the library, and the IT network room on the second floor. We're sharing that kind of infrastructure. We're also sharing the security services. There's a working group on security, and we're sharing best practices.

As René said, whenever there is an opportunity to share services, we do. Our HR services are outsourced to PWGSC in terms of shared services. We're also buying some IT security service from Shared Services Canada.

Whenever we can, if it's cost-efficient, we do it. Those are the marching orders we have from the commissioner, and we're doing as much as we can with the money that we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

That takes us past your seven minutes, Mr. Long. I appreciate that. I know there were some more comments, but I'm sure it will flesh itself out as we continue on.

Mr. Kelly, you have up to seven minutes, please.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We heard from a variety of witnesses, including four different provincial commissioners for information and privacy, whose offices handle both privacy and access to information under one roof. We also heard, both today and in reviewing the estimates for the Privacy Commissioner, about the amount of money that appears to be going into internal services. I see access to information at 22%. That seems to be a little bit lower than that of the other commissioners, but still quite high compared with that of private enterprises, for example.

I'm curious to know how much we could get out of internal services and into the core delivery of service to Canadians if we were to combine departments and have a single office for access to information and privacy, as has been recommended to us by other witnesses. Are there additional savings to be had? Does it make sense, given the connection between the two concepts of privacy and access to information, to have a single office to handle both?

[Suzanne Legault]

It's an option. There's no question about that. I think worldwide most offices are combined. Nationally, most offices are combined.

Would you get a lot of efficiencies in terms of internal services? I think you would get some. I think they would be minimal. In terms of the investigative cadre, in terms of service to Canadians on the core mandates of both institutions, I think both institutions are actually struggling to deal with their level of complaints. You would save a commissioner. You may gain some assistant commissioners in terms of handling the different portfolios.

It's certainly feasible. If the committee wants to have a study of the cost savings or the synergies, that's possible. Historically they were separated, then joined, and then separated again. The law allows for the Information Commissioner, however, to be the head of both institutions. That's already provided for in the law. The finances are already joined. In fact, it really does require a decision rather than any legislative changes or any changes to the financial administration, so it's definitely possible.

What you lose is the tension between the advocacy of my office and the position of my office in relation to what constitutes personal information and what the Privacy Commissioner would see as constituting personal information. You have to understand that personal information is the exemption that is most used at the federal level to deny disclosure to Canadians.

So there is a tension. It can be reconciled, but I think that's what you would lose the most in joining the two offices—having two strong advocates for very different portions of a system. You would lose a strong advocate for transparency and a strong advocate for privacy.

It's definitely something that is an option for the government and for this committee. It's not for me to decide. I'm just saying it's definitely a possibility. It's already provided for. It could actually be quite easily done.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Since we're discussing main estimates today, I was more focused on the cost savings, although, of course, the bigger picture and whether or not it's the correct system is also something we have to deal with.

I'm going to move to the lobbying commission and ask Commissioner Shepherd a question.

I have a copy of the Prime Minister's document entitled “Open and Accountable Government”. In providing guidelines for ministers and parliamentary secretaries, it includes sections that address relations with lobbyists. Could you comment on these sections and comment on how much it would cost your office to enforce all of them if you were given the authority to do so?

[Karen Shepherd]

Is this in terms of the fundraising? I just want to make sure I have the right section.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Well, there's a lengthy section that talks about how important it is that ministers and parliamentary secretaries avoid the appearance of conflict of interest and ensure that their conduct could never be construed as having been part of inappropriate relations or conflicts of interest with lobbyists. I'd like you to comment on whether you have the tools at your disposal to ensure that compliance occurs, and if not, what additional resources you would need, either regulatory resources and tools or financial resources, to carry out the recommendations.

[Karen Shepherd]

As I've always said, I take all allegations seriously. I regulate the lobbyists, as opposed to the public office holders. One of the reasons for revising the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct was that there are now four specific rules on dealing with conflict of interest. I have provided guidance on those four particular rules. I've also met with 350 lobbyists to explain the code so they clearly understand the issues. A number of lobbyists have written in to ask what they can do.

I think enforcing that and being able to look into those particular issues would fit into our current caseload.