Evidence of meeting #3 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
And thank you for being with us this afternoon.
As a new member of the committee, I'm struggling. The learning curve is slightly steep.
I wanted to ask Mr. Pulcine this. You mentioned at the beginning of your remarks the process you go through when you're seeking your budget. I wonder if you could go over that again just in general terms to let us know what that process is.
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Sure.
In the case of an officer of Parliament, I think in 2005 they put in place what's called a House of Commons Advisory Panel on the Funding and Oversight of Officers of Parliament to allow an officer of Parliament not to have to interact exclusively with the government with respect to a funding request.
So in the normal course of business, and what we've done for the business case I referred to that we presented in June 2008.... We had developed that business case over a number of months. We consulted with Treasury Board Secretariat as well as others with respect to that business case. We sought their input. They modified our views with respect to certain aspects of it. Ultimately then, we went before the parliamentary panel—I think certain members of this committee were on the panel in June 2008. That panel then heard from the officer of Parliament—in our case the Privacy Commissioner—and the Treasury Board Secretariat had an opportunity to present input into their deliberations.
After presenting our business case in June 2008, for example, the Treasury Board Secretariat fully supported our business case after recognizing that they did have input and did modify our demands slightly, especially in terms of the timing. That parliamentary panel then gave consideration to it. They then expressed their views through the Speaker of the House, who sat as the chair of that panel. They expressed their views to the ministers of the board directly.
Now Treasury Board ministers have received the view with respect to the parliamentary panel. We then have to go through the normal process of all government departments and agencies and submit a Treasury Board submission. We then turn that business case, as presented to the panel, into a Treasury Board submission. That Treasury Board submission then goes through to the secretariat and they will present it, like all other Treasury Board submissions, to the Treasury Board.
In this case the Treasury Board heard our submission in July and they approved it. It then was inserted into the estimates process. Depending on the time of year, it's either inserted into the supplementary estimates process, which is what the situation was here, or if the funding request was such that it didn't have to get consideration in the supplementary process, then you would modify our reference levels and you would be considering it as part of the main estimates process.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
What are the points in that process where it can be changed? Can it be changed after you've met with the parliamentary group?
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Theoretically I guess the answer to that question is yes. At that point, presumably, we've got the views of the parliamentary panel. But Treasury Board Secretariat has the right to modify that submission as we drafted it and asked for it to be presented. It has to be signed off by a minister—in our case our minister of record is the Minister of Justice. So theoretically it could get adjusted as it went, before it got to the ministers of the board for consideration.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Have you ever seen that happen, where it has been changed at that point in the process?
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Since 2005, we've gone to the panel twice with respect to an increase in our budget. Both times it was with Treasury Board Secretariat support, both times the panel recommended it to the ministers, and both times it was successful.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Is this new process a permanent process now, or is it still a pilot process?
4:35 p.m.
Director General and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
It was identified as a pilot and it still is a pilot, to my knowledge.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I was asked to reaffirm that I will continue to serve on it, so yes, it's still going on.
Madame Thi Lac, please.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you for meeting with us.
You said that you needed supplementary appropriations for new programs. Are there some sectors that have a more pressing need than others?
4:40 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Legal Services, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Thank you. That is a very good question.
I would say yes. We identified the backlog my colleague referred to, and we are doing three things.
First, we are using the resources to handle the backlog. Second, we are using a brand-new complaints sorting process, meaning that we start by trying mediation, then take the matter to court only when the parties cannot achieve resolution. Third, we are training the 20 new investigators we hired.
The other important aspect is our ability to work with technology. Privacy violations are happening on line more and more, and they tend to involve young people. Everyone working in this area thinks that it is very important to have an on-line presence.
We also want a dialogue with Canadians. There is a huge gulf between adults and young people. The latter tend to share a lot of personal information, especially on the Internet. Conventional ways of reaching the public no longer work. Speeches and media interviews are conventional. We are using contests to build a presence among young people on YouTube. We just launched a video contest for young people. We have received videos from high school students across Canada. In the videos, they talk about what privacy means to them, particularly on social networks.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
You have mentioned some of the proposed solutions to deal with the backlog. Do you have a target date for eliminating the backlog and another date as of which, thanks to the new process, there will no longer be a backlog?
4:40 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Legal Services, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, our target date is 2010. As my colleague said, we hope that we will have reduced the backlog considerably by the end of March. Then, with the new process in place, there will be a lot of mediation right from the start. The new investigators will perform triage, just like in health care, so that serious cases can be dealt with one way, and other cases can be dealt with another way.
In our comments on legislative reform, we mentioned that we cannot pick and choose which complaints we take. We have to take all of them, which creates problems internally.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Your explanation about specific issues resulting from the backlog was clear and concise. You also explained why the new processes would eliminate the backlog. If we were to refuse to give you the supplementary appropriations, what would be the primary consequences?
4:40 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Legal Services, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The most significant consequences?
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I want to know about the biggest impact our refusal would have on the backlog.
4:40 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Legal Services, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I will answer, but I also want to give my colleague a chance to speak to this.
From my point of view, it would have an impact on everything we have identified as important to Canadians. That is clear from the surveys. We are not the only ones who think this. There would be nobody to deal with identity theft, the cross-border transfer of personal information, and other important issues like that.
4:40 p.m.
Director General and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The significant progress that's been made to date would stop and an increased level of backlog would occur again when they could add. A lot of progress has been made, and that would all stop.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Thank you for being here. You mentioned earlier that there were additional expenses related to the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act. To my knowledge, that legislation was implemented in 2006. That was almost three years ago.
Haven't you made appropriate adjustments over the past three years to get ready for these changes?
4:45 p.m.
Director General and Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The predominant change with respect to the Federal Accountability Act was the establishment of an ATIP office for the very first time. We were subject to our own act as well as being subject to the Access to Information Act. There was also some concern about the increased coverage of the Privacy Act that would impact on the number of complaints that we would have received. The internal audit program was established as well. An internal audit function was also tied to the Federal Accountability Act.
In the case of the implementation of the last one, it was over three years, and we're in the final stages of implementing that this year. We did not need resources until the current year.
In the case of the establishment of an access to information and privacy office, ATIP office, we were able to do it. This year we required the resources that are now requested in the supplementary estimates. Last year we were able to absorb them internally.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
You mentioned a contest for young people to create a video to demonstrate the importance of this issue. Is that right?
4:45 p.m.
Acting General Counsel, Legal Services, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, it was one of several initiatives we launched.
It's part of a broad-based approach that we're taking to reach out to young Canadians, and part of a recognition that young Canadians' view of privacy is very different from that of older Canadians, which is not to say it is better or worse but simply that it is very important to understand what their approach is and what the impact on them is. There have been a number of cases that you may have heard about in which young Canadians have been denied jobs or been denied the capacity to travel because of information they have made public without realizing the possible consequences.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Under which section of your act are you given the responsibility for this sort of initiative?