Our core contribution to public safety is achieved through the safe and secure custody of inmates through the provision of programs and initiatives to assist inmates to safely reintegrate right into the community, and by supervising offenders once they're conditionally released. CSC is a large organization operating 58 institutions, 16 community correctional centres, and 71 parole offices, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Over the course of fiscal year 2006-07, including all admissions and releases, CSC managed 19,500 different incarcerated offenders and 14,000 different supervised offenders in the community. CSC employs approximately 15,200 staff across the country and strives to maintain a workforce that reflects Canadian society. CSC's annual budget is approximately $1.9 billion.
Responding to both access to information and privacy requests poses particular challenges in the correctional environment. Like other organizations, we do this in a manner that fully respects privacy. However, we must also do this in the context of our overriding commitment to public safety.
The ATIP division, which ultimately reports to me and is led by Ms. Rooke, is the focal point for the application of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act in CSC. The ATIP division deals directly with the public in connection with ATIP requests and serves as the centre of ATIP expertise in enabling CSC to meet its statutory obligations under the acts. To that end, the division is responsible for ensuring that formal access and privacy requests are completed in a timely manner, and for promoting a culture of openness and accountability while ensuring that all appropriate safeguards are adhered to with regard to the handling of all personal information.
By the nature of its activities and legislated mandate, CSC handles a large volume of personal information and responds to a significant number of requests for information every year. In an average year, CSC receives between 7,000 and 10,000 privacy requests, with the exception of 2003-04, when there was a surge in the number of requests. With the exception of that one year, and during that year the number of complaints against CSC represented 65% of the total number filed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, between 2003 and 2007 CSC accounted for 18% to 25% of all Office of the Privacy Commissioner complaints.
This helps to clarify the information previously provided to the committee. I understand there was testimony that offenders represent 50% of the complaints filed with the OPC. The numbers that I gave you a moment ago are the correct numbers, and the OPC agrees with those numbers, that they're a more accurate reflection of CSC' s share of complaints that have been filed over the last number of years. I should note that those numbers include complaints that are filed by staff, offenders, and the public, all complaints.
With such a large volume of requests for personal information, it's not unexpected that CSC is ranked among the top institutions, including the RCMP and the Canada Revenue Agency, for the number of complaints filed with the OPC.
In light of the fact that CSC receives a vast number of requests every year, it's important to point out that the number of complaints against CSC represents, on average, only 2% to 10% yearly of the total CSC ATIP workload. Since 2003 there have been approximately 3,500 complaints recorded in the CSC ATIP database. Of these complaints, 91% were filed because the department did not meet the 30-day statutory time limit, or applied exemptions with which the requester did not agree.
As set out in section 12 under the Privacy Act, it affords the same right of access to all Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Indeed, our own statute, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, paragraph 4(e), states that offenders retain all the rights and privileges of all members of society, except those privileges that are necessarily removed or restricted as a consequence of their sentence. As a result, offenders are entitled to request personal information held by CSC. CSC agrees with the Privacy Commissioner that complaints must be handled indiscriminately by government departments, even though an individual may simply have an axe to grind against a government institution.
As you know, the Privacy Act requires that the OPC and all federal departments deal with all complaints and requests when they are received. There is no mechanism at the present time to assess whether complaints are trivial, frivolous, or vexatious.
With regard to the proposed amendments to the Privacy Act, it would not be appropriate for us to comment on changes the Privacy Commissioner has put forward, the ten quick fixes. I understand these are what she deems necessary to carry out her duties.
Having said that, this is a brief introduction, Mr. Chairman. We will be pleased to answer any and all questions you may have.
