Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I have already.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

In any event, members, the first few rounds went a bit longer, so the other two parties will have equitable time.

You will have about eight and a half minutes.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair, I appreciate that.

I'll pass on your compliments to Mr. Martin. He is always keen to be at this committee, because it's a subject that has been very dear to him in his political work over a long period of time.

Thank you for being here again, Ms. Legault, with your colleagues. It's nice to see you in the middle chair for a change. That's a good thing.

I want to go back to something you said in response to Ms. Simson. I found it quite disturbing, actually. You said that some requesters have given up on the process and have told you they no longer make requests. I see that as a victory for closed government. It's a very serious development that anyone who has attempted to use the system would give up in frustration.

I wonder if you could say a bit more about that. How widespread is that kind of response and that kind of frustration?

[Suzanne Legault]

I don't have any data in terms of who has decided not to make an access request. Obviously that would be very difficult to measure.

What I would say, and I have said this many times, is that the way the system works now is not conducive to Internet generations making access requests. You have to send a letter and you have to send a $5 cheque.

I will share this with you without naming anyone, but I have actually received complaints where people think government departments are using a delay tactic by obliging them to send a $5 cheque. My 20-year-old children do not use cheques; they don't own a chequebook. Something in the system is so arcane that it's just not responsive to the tech-savvy generation of people. They don't expect to have to write a $5 cheque--which probably costs around $70 for the government to process-- instead of sending something by PayPal.

So it's not only that it's taking a long time, it is no longer living in modern times.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Do you see a real generational change in terms of attitudes toward access to information generally?

[Suzanne Legault]

My children actually laughed at me when I explained how you go about doing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

They'd laugh at all of us.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Suzanne Legault]

They just don't even have the tools anymore. It's as simple as that.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

And it's your belief that Treasury Board could change that tomorrow if it wished? They could change that system administratively?

[Suzanne Legault]

I think that's administrative in nature, yes.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I want to come back, as well, to Madam Freeman's question and your response to her. I think you were saying there was some hope the government might engage further consultations, that there might be some possibility of that.

Is there any evidence that the government is undertaking further consultations on access to information now? You were commenting on the minister's response to the committee report saying there was a need to do that. Have you seen any evidence through your office or networks that those kinds of consultations are happening?

[Suzanne Legault]

Mr. Chair, what I meant is that, to me, when I read the letter...and when a government states that we need more consultation, then I think we have to make sure this doesn't turn into--I'll use this for parliamentarians--a Sir Humphrey exercise.

If we're claiming that we need more consultation, and this is something that should be a government-led piece of legislation, then let's have a plan for consultation. Let's do it. Let's have a plan for getting results from consultations and let's have a plan for tabling legislation.

I'm just saying that if the minister's response actually says that, then.... I like to see things getting done, so let's get them done, if we need more consultations.

That is my only comment.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

But you have seen no evidence of that kind of plan from the government or the minister.

[Suzanne Legault]

I have not.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Okay.

I want to come back to the issue of systemic investigations. In your remarks today you said you tabled a plan in July about a three-year plan around systemic investigations. I wonder if you could share some of that.

The other concern I have is how the budgeting issue affects those special investigations. I know that was one aspect of the budget request that had been approved by the parliamentary process but wasn't accepted by the government. Could you tell us about the plan? Is there going to be any effect of that budget shortfall for those kinds of investigations?

[Suzanne Legault]

Mr. Chair, first of all, the three-year plan is very transparent and the idea is to foster self-compliance in institutions. In essence, if I tell people right off the bat that next year we'll be doing a report card on them, the idea is that they'll start putting their house in order this year. That's the first idea behind the three-year plan, to foster self-compliance.

This year, the first leg of the plan is to follow up on last year's report card--i.e., hold departments accountable for the recommendations in the action plan they stated they were going to follow. The second is that we're increasing the number of institutions. Last year, we were only able to do ten. This year, we're doing 24. They are 24 institutions where we have received at least five complaints in the preceding year.

We're expanding the scope because we wanted to have a better sample and a better understanding. These 24 institutions also encompass the 15 institutions where we have the most complaints in our office year to year, so they are essentially the departments where there are more issues.

We are targeting consultations and extensions and delays of any kind this year. At the same time we're doing the report cards, we're actually doing a specific systemic investigation on consultations and extensions related to consultations. The reason is that at this time, there are no statistics being collected by the Treasury Board Secretariat on the actual time taken for extensions. We've recommended that they take those statistics, but at this time they are not collected. What that means is that we have some evidence of the times of these consultations, but we don't have any complete data. We need to have a diagnostic and we need to hold the consulted institutions accountable.

Right now the way it works is that department A receives a request. It needs to consult with department B. Department B asks for a 300-day extension. Department A then says it needs 310 days to process department B's request, and if the consulted institution doesn't give department A the response in time, it's department A that gets dinged from our office while the consulted institution has no accountability. That's why we are targeting those institutions and those specific issues.

Next year, we're doing new institutions that became subject to the act in 2006-07, including the crown corporations and the agents of Parliament. The third year, we will have to assess, depending on what the two first years gather in terms of information. My goal is that in the third year we will no longer be dealing with delays in consultations. I'm hoping that the diagnostic will have made a difference.

In terms of budget, what we have done this year...because there was about $500,000 that did not get allocated to us this year because of the decision of Treasury Board in relation to systemic issues. We have reallocated part of our funding to continue to do systemic investigations.

We are actually working at a skeleton level. What we're going to do next year is negotiate--Lisa here, assistant commissioner Campbell, has basically started--with Treasury Board Secretariat in relation to this matter. But it will also be done in the context of the implementation of the business model.

As we move along in the implementation, we'll have a better sense of how the resources are being utilized, how effective the business model is, and whether the resource requirement is actually effective in complying with the business model.

For now, we're okay. We're moving ahead. We're continuing discussions with Treasury Board on the budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

Mr. Del Mastro, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for the testimony this morning.

Perhaps I could seek your indulgence for a moment.

Committee members, as I indicated earlier in my intervention, I did bring a motion on Friday. The motion, which I wanted to make you all aware of, reads:

November 1st 2009 represents the fourth anniversary of the first report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, presided over by Justice Gomery. Despite the time that has passed--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I see Mr. Wrzesnewskyj on a point of order.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm aware of the text of what is being read, and I don't see any relevance to the proceedings that have been scheduled at this time with the Information Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, I have booked this meeting until 12 o'clock noon as opposed to just the two hours that 11 o'clock would have given us. We will have ample time to fully exhaust your commentary on another matter.

I would ask you, maybe; let's just move on to dealing with the witnesses so that we can discharge that information and move on with that other committee business.

Okay?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

This will take about 30 seconds, Mr. Chair.

With due respect to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, it's my time. I can use it how I see fit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, if you want me to force it, the point of order was in order. It was on the basis of relevance.

I'm familiar with your motion, and I'm very familiar with the fact that the interim Information Commissioner has absolutely nothing to do with your motion.

I'm going to ask you to move on to matters that are relevant to the interim Information Commissioner--now.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee—I signed into this committee—I do have rights within this committee. I've been granted time to speak. I would like to use my time to speak. That's a matter of my personal privilege.