Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a real pleasure for me to be here this morning to assist you today in considering the estimates of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.
I will admit that I'm still near the bottom of a steep learning curve about the intricacies of the Access to Information Act and my office's role in its enforcement. In fact, this is my first appearance as Information Commissioner of Canada before your committee. However, I do have a good understanding of the role of the committee and the specific relationship that I and the other offices of Parliament have with their respective committees and with Parliament as a whole.
What I most want to say in these opening remarks is that I'm looking to this committee and to all MPs and senators to help me be the most effective Information Commissioner I can be.
It's been said that the right to know is the oxygen of democracy. Yes, there are many justifiable reasons for government secrecy, but too, there are great pressures on all governments to tolerate secrecy creep, to use secrecy as a strategic political tool and to hide behind it, sometimes to avoid embarrassment and accountability.
The mandate Parliament has given me, for the next seven years, is to be its agent for ensuring that governments keep the proper balance between openness and secrecy—a balance which is carefully articulated in the Access to Information Act, a balance which has stood the test of almost 24 years of time. In the coming months, if the government responds positively to the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, members of Parliament will be called upon to scrutinize government proposals for access reform and to ensure that this law remains strong.
My priorities are set by the statute. I'm obligated to deliver to individuals through thorough and fair investigations into complaints made against government institutions. My mandate is to convince government institutions to correct any instances of excessive secrecy without the need for recourse to the courts. My pledge is to be a constructive voice of reason wherever and whenever there are debates over the proper balance between openness and secrecy in the federal government. In other words, I will not be an advocate for access requesters, nor will I be an adversary of government. I will be a servant of Parliament in the application of the ATIA and its purpose, which has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada as facilitating democracy by ensuring that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process.
The core business of the Office of the Information Commissioner is investigation of complaints under section 30 of the ATIA. It is the goal of all our investigators to resolve the complaint, and they are very good at it. The volume of complaints and the length of time to complete them continue to be a concern. Last year's funding increase for investigators was a great step forward. We were unfortunately delayed because of the lack of appropriate space to house the new recruits. That's been resolved now, and we should be up and running by the summer of this year.
If government does not follow the Commissioner's recommendations, the next avenue of recourse is to the Federal Court of Canada. During confirmation hearings, I said to Parliament that I have, and will have, a bias against going to court. Despite my reluctance to go to court, when citizens' fundamental rights are at risk and mediation has failed, the Commissioner has no choice but to aggressively pursue the matter before the appropriate tribunal, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
Over the years, the ATIA has proven to be very robust; the jurisprudence has been largely in its favour. There will, no doubt, be hard cases that require court interpretation so as to protect the integrity of the statute and the rights it provides to Canadians, in which the court will benefit from the commissioner's views and input.
The Office of the Information Commissioner has no specific statutory audit or education mandate. Yet the pressure on my office to assist institutions is growing. We do systemic investigations and report cards. Believe it or not, many heads of agencies want to be in full compliance with the ATIA, and they look to us for advice and evaluation. The better their performance and knowledge, the fewer complaints we have to deal with. It might be better to invest in resources to advise, train, and educate than to incrementally increase the investigative budget.
The Office of the Information Commissioner and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner have, for four years now, worked with the University of Alberta on an online certificate program for ATIP officers and aspirants.
Over the past year, my office has been working with a distinguished group of access and privacy experts to develop national professional standards for access to information and privacy administrators. I have already made it a personal priority to get the Treasury Board, as the federal employer, to support the University of Alberta program and to recognize the new national standards as desirable, if not required, in its recruitment and advancement policies for ATIP officers. In the coming months, I hope to engage the standing committee on this matter and also to make it a component of any future debate on the reform of the ATIA.
As you will see from parts II and III of the estimates documentation, my office is seeking Parliament's approval in vote 40 for resources in the amount of $6,684,000, of which $5,278,000 is for employee salaries exclusive of employee benefits, and $1.4 million is for the anticipated operating expenditures.
Honourable members, I am ready to answer your questions. I will endeavour to provide you with some information about who we are, what we do, how we measure our performance, what is on the horizon for us and how we have utilized our resources. You may wish to have further explanations, which we are here to give. I am confident that we will develop a fruitful relationship.
Thank you very much.
