Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I've made a ruling, okay? You're not relevant, sir, on raising a matter that we are going to raise under committee business.

You have to understand, I've got to take a decision. And it's not debatable, sir. It's not debatable.

Let's just move on.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd like to challenge the ruling of the chair that I may not use my time as I see fit. I'd like to challenge the ruling of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's fine. Challenge the chair.

Colleagues—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, on a point of order, raised relevance. I accepted it: that in fact it is in order, that in fact the matter being raised is not relevant to the matter currently on the table before the committee, that in fact it is a matter that is coming after we excuse our witnesses.

The chair ruled that the point of order is correct, and that Mr. Del Mastro should, on the basis of relevance, move on to matters related to the commissioner. Mr. Del Mastro has challenged my decision. It is not debatable, and we must go to a vote. A recorded vote has been asked for.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Del Mastro, you will proceed with relevant questioning, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. Frankly, you may have succeeded in preventing me from making the committee members aware of this for now, but not for long.

I'll pass the rest of my time to Ms. Davidson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Ms. Davidson, we have eight minutes left.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Legault and your colleagues, thank you very much for appearing before us this morning. I certainly enjoyed reading your report and listening to your comments. The further information you've supplied to us has been extremely useful.

When I was going through your report I noticed the chart on page 17 entitled “Summary of caseload, 2006-2007 to 2008-2009”. When I look at those numbers, in just about every case there's an increase. But what I don't see is the number of complaints by individual.

I say that because at our last meeting, when Mr. Marleau was here, he gave this committee evidence that 29% of the complaints received last year came from only two individuals, and the top 10 complainants account for almost half of all the complaints received by your office. That seems to be rather excessive, on the point of a couple of individuals, with the caseload and workload you're experiencing.

I do note that in the information you gave us today in this extra handout there are some further figures and facts.

Can you comment further, without naming the individuals in question, on what percentage of the complaints came from your top complainant?

[Suzanne Legault]

It's about 50% of our business.

It's important for me to put this on the record, Mr. Chairman, because this is probably the only area where I disagree with former Commissioner Marleau.

The top complainants actually represent other individuals or other interests. I think those figures are relevant to us in terms of the client service perspective, because we are sometimes able to deal with matters in bulk, or with matters with portfolio against certain institutions. But my view, as interim commissioner, is that these complainants are providing a service. Some of them represent other individuals, and some of them represent the media.

Therefore, they represent a much broader public interest set of individuals requesting information than just the number of complainants.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Given that answer, are these users who might be reselling the information? Are they getting it on behalf of clients, and they would be reselling that information too, for profit?

[Suzanne Legault]

Some of them are doing that.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is there any cost-recovery mechanism in place to deal with these types of users?

[Suzanne Legault]

No, there isn't.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Would that help in handling the number of complaints? Would that make a difference, in your opinion, in terms of the number of complaints issued?

[Suzanne Legault]

In my opinion--this is really in accordance with international standards--access to information should not be framed on a cost-recovery basis. However, there are some models where this is done. In B.C. there is cost recovery for commercial users. Normally I would suggest that this be done with a complement of understanding that there should be a waiving of certain fees for public interest or non-governmental organizations or academic-type research work.

That being said, I would suggest that the most effective means of dealing with complaints would be to have discretion on which complaints our office investigates. Right now under the legislation there's an obligation to investigate every single complaint. Having discretion would help, and having the discretion to not deal with frivolous or vexatious complaints would help. It's something that is found in other pieces of legislation.

In my view, those two measures would be more effective than cost recovery.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

I'm looking at the information we received this morning, and it's not numbered, but it's under new complaints by institution. I'm looking at some of the figures that my colleague opposite was referring to. It's interesting, what kind of spin you can put on some of these numbers. Although the actual PCO number has decreased in 2008-09 from 2007-08, there has been a statement made that percentages are different. We can put whatever spin we want on numbers, we all know that, but the question I wanted to ask you is in regard to your comment about the double-counting with PCO.

Does that happen with any of these other areas, or is it just PCO that becomes double-counted?

[Suzanne Legault]

It was only with regard to the Privy Council Office in relation to cabinet confidence matters. This was something that was occurring in the previous administration, which we changed, because we felt it was not accurate in terms of reporting.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

You indicated in your statements to us this morning that you're moving ahead with the development of a new business model to streamline that process. Is that new model going to correct the double-counting of PCO?

[Suzanne Legault]

The double-counting has already been corrected.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

And that will show in the new statistics that we'll be getting?

[Suzanne Legault]

Correct.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It is reflected in the statistics that you have included for the first nine months of 2009?

[Suzanne Legault]

We no longer double-count. I think this practice was stopped at the end of last fiscal year, so it's no longer reflected in the numbers that you have there.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

So when I turn to the page with complaints received versus complaints closed, to September 30, 2009, it indicates that there were 747 new complaints and 902 complaints were closed.

So the 747 would not include double-counted complaints. Is that correct?