Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chairman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Are you saying there was unanimous consent? I keep saying there isn't. I don't know how you're getting that interpretation from me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No. I asked if there was someone who was prepared to make a motion for unanimous consent that the cameras stay, otherwise they're going.
Is there someone who cares to move that motion? There is no motion.
We are on the order of the day. It's planning—
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
So they're going, then, are they, Mr. Chairman? That's what you just said.
Conservative
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I'd like to table a motion that the cameras be removed.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. Mr. Del Mastro has moved a motion that the cameras be removed. All those in favour?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'd like to introduce the Ethics Commissioner, Mary Elizabeth Dawson, the Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, and the Access to Information Commissioner, Mr. Robert Marleau, who, as agreed by the committee in the last meeting, have come before us. They are limited to five minutes to advise the committee of their particular priorities and recommend to the committee priorities for consideration by the committee and the steering committee for future business.
I will start with Mr. Marleau.
Mr. Marleau, please, five minutes.
Robert Marleau Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a real pleasure for me to be here this morning to outline the priorities for my Office and hopefully assist the committee in setting its agenda of activities at the beginning of the second session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament.
I have distributed to you a document that will provide you with some background information for your review.
I apologize for not getting it to you any earlier, but my staff worked all weekend to put it together and translate it on time.
During my appearance last April on the consideration of the 2007-2008 Estimates, I indicated that we would not be asking for any money for that period to cover any specific changes with regard to the Federal Accountability Act. Now that we have more information, we are making a precise submission on our budgetary needs in order to comply with our obligations as well as the increase in our investigative workload. Our dialogue with the Treasury Board Secretariat on future funding requirements is positive.
A second area of improvement in priority is our service delivery. Although the office has maintained a consistent record of resolving almost all complaints without recourse through the courts, our record of timeliness in conducting our investigations is not as impressive.
In the 2006-07 fiscal year, the average turnaround time for investigations was about 12 months, as opposed to our standard of service of 30 days for administrative complaints and 120 days for denial of access complaints, and we have a significant backlog. At the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year, 1,030 investigations were in backlog status. We've devised a strategy and set challenging goals that are expected to be fully implemented during the fiscal year 2009-10.
Preliminary results of our complaints handling process review support the creation of a dedicated intake function and an early resolution function. This initial analysis also points to the need to review our service standards.
Since April 1, the number of complaints has doubled. It is too early to draw conclusions on the reasons for the increase, but, if the trend continues, as they say on election night, we need to re-evaluate our backlog strategy. We will provide you with an update in the spring of 2008, when our analysis is completed.
A third priority is continuing to monitor performance of federal institutions engaging in systemic and repeated breaches of the act. This is done through the report cards, where a federal institution can have a mark of A, for ideal compliance with statutory deadlines, down to an F, for alarming non-compliance. However, we've realized over the years that the current program may not have completely reflected or communicated ongoing efforts by institutions to improve compliance, or, on the flip side, it might not have clearly identified the reasons why specific institutions were consistently performing badly. This committee has played a crucial role in monitoring the results of the report cards by calling in poor performers before the committee to address their compliance record and propose a strategy for improvement.
We're currently reviewing our approach to increase the effectiveness of the report cards to ensure that contextual elements that may affect the overall performance of selected institutions are captured. We want Parliament, and more particularly this committee, to have a more complete institutional picture of their performance, if and when you decide to review them. We plan to table the result of this more comprehensive analysis in a special report on the fiscal year 2007-08 next fall.
Mr. Chairman, I will be sending you a letter explaining that process and its details following this meeting.
The concept of “duty to assist” is also a recent addition to the ATIA, which now requires the head of an institution to make every reasonable effort to assist the requester, to respond to the requester accurately and completely, and to provide access to the record in the format requested. This is called “duty to assist”. I believe that Parliament added those words to the statute for a reason. I believe that Parliament expects concrete and visible leadership. Heads of institutions should therefore lead by example in developing meaningful implementation of the new provision within their jurisdiction. For some it's an inherent part of the job; for others it will require a change in attitudes and culture. We will closely monitor developments relating to this new responsibility.
We will continue our efforts on the reform of the Access to Information Act. This is an ongoing priority of the Office. I am on record as stating that the Act is very robust. Any amendment to it should be approached with caution.
However, after 25 years of existence, there are many aspects of the legislation that either need to be fine-tuned or strengthened. Other aspects may not have been initially considered and their inclusion would greatly improve this service to Canadians. The Federal Accountability Act, adopted in 2006, was an initial stab at an update, but not an attempt to reform the Access to Information Act.
This committee has already clearly expressed its position to the government on reform of the ATIA. We have held informal discussions with Justice officials. We're trying to identify common ground on issues raised in the open government proposal. There is no indication, however, that reform is a short-term government priority.
Honourable members, I have provided you with a quick overview of the priorities of my office for the next few years. I have not listed them in any particular order of precedence. Legislative reform and report cards are two priorities that may intersect with those of the committee; the latter will only come up in the fall of 2008. Should you decide to pursue legislative reform, then it will become our first priority and we will do all that's required to assist the committee in its deliberations. You may wish to have further clarification on this.
Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I am ready to answer your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you kindly.
I would now like to hear from Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner, for five minutes, please.
Jennifer Stoddart Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since I last appeared before you, I believe in May, you and my office have been very busy. I take the opportunity to thank you for the thoughtful report you published on the review of PIPEDA. The Minister of Industry has responded to that, and, as you know, there is ongoing consultation on that till mid-January.
We have also tabled with you, via the Speaker, our report on the Privacy Act and our report on PIPEDA, and we also tabled our departmental performance review just last week, I believe.
In mid-September we held a very successful 29th international conference of data protection commissioners, and we were honoured to have the Speaker, Mr. Milliken, open that conference to a large audience of international attendees.
Mr. Chairman, the world of personal information, of which privacy is a part, is a world that's instantaneous now. It crosses borders. It is technologically driven. It is changed by business and culture, and, in turn, it is changing the way we do business and changing our cultural values. It is changing human values about privacy and intimacy, of what is public, and the values around the conservation and sharing of personal information. I give you the example of networking sites, which have become extremely important as a social phenomenon in the last year.
I draw your attention to the blog on our website that we started in mid-September in order to better communicate with the younger generation of Canadians with whom it's a challenge for us to communicate in our present regulatory form.
This leads me to my suggestion for your activities in the short term, in light of the world I have just described. I think it is very important that in the area of privacy, this committee focus not on what has been done, but on what we can do in the future in terms of preparation and prevention. In this context, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest two things.
First, continue with your work on identity theft. You began that last May, and you held a number of meetings on the subject. I would suggest that you continue with round tables and hear from a number of witnesses from across Canada, witnesses who would be interesting to people generally if these meetings are televised, witnesses who must be heard. You will remember that we demonstrated that identity theft is not just a federal problem. It is also a provincial, municipal and international problem, and a number of stakeholders must be involved. Witnesses I would suggest include the Minister of Justice, the President of Treasury Board, the commissioners of the provinces and territories, Mr. Flaherty—who was formally an expert on reform in these areas—the RCMP, Industry Canada et Professor Geist.
My second suggestion would be that you begin reviewing the Privacy Act. To help you with this, I distributed our latest document on suggested changes to the Act, which is dated June 2006. Changes could still be made to it. You may want to hear from professionals working in the area of privacy, human rights advocacy groups and of course the Minister of Justice.
Those are my suggestions, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Dawson is next, please, for five minutes.
Mary Elizabeth Dawson Ethics Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I took office in July 2007, so this is my first appearance before your committee since my appointment. I look forward to working closely with the committee in the future.
I will begin by outlining the mandate of my office.
The position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was created by amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act in the Federal Accountability Act. My office is an independent parliamentary entity reporting directly to Parliament. It replaces the former Office of the Ethics Commissioner that was created in May 2004.
Under the Parliament of Canada Act I'm responsible for administering conflict of interest regimes applicable to parts of both the legislative and the executive branches of the government. The Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons, drafted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and approved by the House of Commons, has been in effect since 2004 and was most recently amended in June 2007.
Members of the Senate are subject to a separate conflict of interest code.
The Conflict of Interest Act, which was part of the Federal Accountability Act, came into force on July 9, 2007, the day I took office. It applies to some 3,000 senior officials known as public office-holders under the act. They include cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff, etc. The largest group is the governor in council appointee group, with 2,400 people.
Except for the most senior leadership positions, employees of the Public Service of Canada are not covered by the Conflict of Interest Act. Public servants are subject to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service of Canada, issued as a policy of the government. Similarly, the judiciary is not covered by my act.
Now I will say a few words about the priorities for the first year of my term. As with any new organization, I face many challenges in the realm of organization. However, I've already put into place a revised organizational structure that strengthens our strategic, legal, and communications capacity. In addition, I've established the following priorities for my first year in office based on my desire to meet my objectives of clarity, consistency, and common sense.
First there's the imperative of applying the new law for public office-holders and the MP code clearly and consistently. We're undertaking a detailed analysis of both of them to get better interpretive guidance for the staff in my office.
Second, my focus is on prevention. My office is always available to provide confidential individual advice to public office-holders and members of the House of Commons. We encourage them to seek that advice.
Third, one of the objectives of the act relates to encouraging competent people to seek and accept public office. While I must respect and work within the act, I intend to apply it with common sense and due consideration to the people who are bound by it.
Fourth, an ongoing priority is to provide clear information on the act and the code to the persons covered. For example, my office completed a first mail-out to all public office-holders, providing them with a copy of the act and a summary of the provisions. As for members of the House of Commons, recent revisions to the code mandate the commissioner to undertake educational activities for members and the general public regarding the code and the role of the commissioner.
In that context, in the coming months I plan to put emphasis on educational activities aimed at not only the persons who are subject to the act and the MP code, but also the public at large, so they can better understand the mandate. I believe this is one area where your committee can help. We share a common objective of sustaining and enhancing, where possible, public confidence in our system of government and our public institutions. I'll be pleased to hear your suggestions on how we can together move forward on this.
Finally, I'm required to report annually on the act and the MP code. I intend to use these annual reports to highlight what appears to be working well, as well as problem areas.
Let me briefly outline the budgetary process and level of resources, if I still have a bit of time.
The Parliament of Canada Act outlines the budgetary process for my office. Prior to each fiscal year my office prepares an estimate for the funds required. The estimate is considered by the Speaker of the House, who then submits it to the President of the Treasury Board, who in turn tables it in the House with the estimates of the government for the fiscal year.
Because of this provision in the Parliament of Canada Act, the budget of my office is not subject to the review of the panel that was created as a result of the recommendations of this committee to examine the budgets of the other entities that report to Parliament. However, your committee is responsible for reviewing the expenditures of my office and reporting them to the House of Commons.
Just a few words on the reporting requirements for my office.
The Parliament of Canada Act provides that by June 30 every year I submit two reports on the activities of my office for the previous fiscal year.
One report deals with the activities relating to the members of the House. That report is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The second report relates to my activities concerning public office-holders under the Conflict of Interest Act. That's the report that's reviewed by your committee.
In addition, the MPs' code stipulates that I prepare an annual report on supported travel undertaken by the members, to be tabled in the House by January 31. That report goes to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I look forward to discussing my reports, expenditures, and other relevant issues with this committee once these documents have been tabled.
As I mentioned, the challenges of setting up a new organization are many. I am confident that with the help of the dedicated and experienced staff of the office, and with the guidance of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and your committee, we are up to the task in meeting these challenges.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you very kindly.
Colleagues, we are in this round table of proceedings. I want to indicate to the committee that we have six notices of motion that have been duly made. We will be considering these six motions after we have had a little bit of a round table on either your recommendations—or pitch, as it were—for future planning of the committee's work, or you may wish to inquire of the commissioners for further clarification. I hope the commissioners will stay.
I have Mr. Wallace first.
Mr. Martin.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, you have just invited more ideas about planning. We have notices of motion waiting to be heard.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
You've just extended the meeting by inviting submissions for more ideas.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Our order of the day is recommendations for future business, or planning of future business, and that's why we raised—
