Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I will now call the meeting to order, and I'll welcome everyone.

This meeting, colleagues, has been called pursuant to the Standing Orders. This all has to do with the report card issued by the Information Commissioner of Canada. It was tabled on April 10, actually. It was entitled “Out of Time: 2008-2009 Report Cards and Systemic Failures Affecting Access to Information in Canada”.

Last week we had the associate deputy minister and two other officials from the Department of the Environment. Today we are pleased to have with us, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. Gérald Cossette, the associate deputy minister. He's accompanied by Madame Roxanne Dubé, director general, corporate secretariat; and Monique McCulloch, director, access to information and privacy protection division. I want to welcome each one of you.

Before you begin, Mr. Cossette, I want to make a few comments to set the context of this hearing.

As I said, this hearing arises from the report card issued from the Information Commissioner. It grades various departments within the Government of Canada on their compliance with the Access to Information Act.

The report identifies a number of systemic problems within various departments that are basically failing Canadians in providing timely information in accordance with the legislation, that is, the laws of this nation. The report card identifies other departments that, through leadership, are able to provide timely access, all in accordance with the legislation.

According to the report, the reasons for this failure include lack of leadership, inappropriate use of time extensions, time-consuming consultations, insufficient resources, deficiencies in record management, and problems with the delegation process.

The Information Commissioner graded all 24 federal departments. Five departments, unfortunately, received a rating of 1 of 5, or an F grade. One of those was Environment Canada. The other departments or agencies were Natural Resources Canada, CIDA, Correctional Services Canada, and Canadian Heritage.

However, there was another category worse than an F. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade received a rating of 0 out of 5, or, as the Information Commissioner reported, a red alert rating.

The committee considers these findings extremely serious. They go to the very heart of the rule of law and the ability of Parliament and the Canadian people to hold the executive to account.

As a result, we have decided to call you to appear, representing your department.

We're pleased to have you. The floor is now yours, Mr. Cossette, for your opening comments.

[Gérald Cossette, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

As Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, I am pleased to appear before you today. I understand that my department was invited to come before you today as a result of the Information Commissioner's ratings as part of her special report to Parliament in April 2010 entitled Out of Time: 2008-2009 Report Cards and Systemic Issues Affecting Access to Information in Canada.

I welcome the opportunity to provide additional information, as well as my department's progress report, in response to recommendations made by the Information Commissioner.

At the outset, I would like to assure this committee that in accordance with the principles of openness, accountability, and transparency, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is committed to respecting applicants' rights under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

As the Information Commissioner has reported, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade faces unique challenges associated with internal and external consultations related to Canada's national security and international relations. DFAIT acts as a central agency in reviewing implications for international relations under sections 13 and 15 of the Access to Information Act. Other government departments must consult DFAIT prior to releasing records that affect international affairs.

In 2008-09, 42% of the overall access to information and privacy (ATIP) workload at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade consisted of consultations from other government departments.

The Information Commissioner acknowledged that DFAIT was “severely hampered by its overwhelming workload”.

She also noted our growing complexity of requests and related consultations as well as the challenge of a rotational workforce.

Over a four-year span from 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, there was a steady annual increase in requests for access and consultations under both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, for a total increase of 78%. Since then, there continues to be an array of very sensitive and challenging ATIP requests.

With the chronic shortage of ATIP specialists in the federal government, the ATIP demands surpass the available experienced resources. Despite this, the Information Commissioner acknowledged that DFAIT was able to process almost 1,000 more ATIP requests in 2008-2009 than the year before, as well as make a number of process improvements.

For example, improvements since 2008 include:

Firs there is a streamlined, single gateway ATIP-tasking process across the department, which has established just over 100 dedicated ATIP liaison officers in all branches and bureaus of the department. These liaison officers also receive continuous ATIP training to ensure ongoing compliance.

Second, there is a department-wide ATIP awareness program to ensure that officials across the department understand their roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis ATIP. It includes customized ATIP exemption training for subject matter experts. In 2010 alone, the ATIP office, and that includes the officials at Passport Canada, delivered just over 300 separate ATIP-related training sessions.

Third, monthly ATIP performance reports to senior management have improved overall departmental understanding and commitment to ATIP compliance. The program areas respond, on average, to almost 90% of all ATIP requests on time, that is, within five working days.

Fourth, our ATIP professional development program is addressing recruitment and retention issues. This program has been very popular and is clearly demonstrating its benefits, given the number of well-trained, productive, and committed ATIP analysts we have.

Lastly, the ATIP office revamped its internal guidelines for the processing of requests and, more recently, introduced ATIP processing service standards to ensure that more attention is being paid to legislative due dates.

However, the reality remains that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had been carrying forward from year to year a growing backlog of ATIP requests that are beyond the legislative time frames. This was something not only of concern to the Information Commissioner but of great concern to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade as well.

As such, I am pleased to inform you that in June 2010, the department reallocated $2.7 million of additional ATIP funding. This injection of new funding will, among other things, permit the department to clear the backlog of ATIP files by summer 2011 and to build additional permanent capacity to meet expected demands.

Experienced ATIP consultants were hired in July 2010 to work on the backlog project, and real progress is being seen. So far, the backlog team alone has closed 135 late ATIP files and has cleared 95,000 pages. In addition, 10 new full-time positions were recently created in the ATIP division and are in the process of being staffed.

These efforts, among many others, have shown some key overall ATIP improvements so far in fiscal year 2010-11. For example, the number of late files for those new requests received since April 1, 2010, has dropped to approximately 5%. Our turnaround time to respond to consultations from other institutions has gone from 110 days to an average of under 60 days. These improvements are encouraging.

I might add that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade follows Treasury Board Secretariat best practices in its administration of the acts. For example, the director of the ATIP office has full authority delegated by the head of the institution for the administration of the acts. The director's position is two positions removed from the deputy head in the organizational structure.

The department has sound practices for the processing of all access to information requests. A collaborative approach exists between the ATIP office, the offices of the heads and deputy heads of the institution, Communications, Parliamentary Affairs and program officials.

I can assure the members of the committee that the procedures followed by my department do not allow for any political engagement in the redaction of documents. I can state categorically that I have never seen evidence of inappropriate ministerial involvement in the release of information nor has any such involvement been brought to my attention.

I can assure the members of the committee that the procedures followed by my department do not allow for any political engagement in the redaction of documents. I can state categorically that I have never seen evidence of inappropriate ministerial involvement in the release of information, nor has any such involvement been brought to my attention.

As a final remark, I would like to reiterate that DFAIT is very committed to responding to access to information requests and is assisting all applicants to exercise their rights under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

I'm happy to take any questions or comments that committee members may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Cossette.

We're now going to start the first round, for seven minutes each. I'm going to go to Dr. Bennett first.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thanks very much.

Congratulations on the fact that it looks as though you're finally winning a little bit. It sounded like bailing a big leaky boat with a thimble for a while.

Your remarks about a chronic shortage of ATIP specialists in the federal government and about ATIP demands surpassing the available experience resources are worrying. You're saying that you've now put some resources, some additional money, in. That means that up until then, other things seem to have been more important than access to information, because it didn't have the appropriate resources.

Will your department be undergoing a strategic review?

[Gérald Cossette]

It depends what period we're talking about. If you're talking about the period from 2005 to now, the department has been going through a series of cuts, not only strategic review but other cuts.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Going forward from now, when your departments are being asked to cut 5% and to cap salaries, how will you protect these gains you've made, and can you give this committee any assurance that there will be no cuts made in this area?

[Gérald Cossette]

There will be no cuts made to this area. The $2.7 million was found this summer through internal reallocation, and that money is being permanently dedicated to the processing of ATIP requests.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

So do you feel now that you are fully staffed?

[Gérald Cossette]

Our capacity for the processing of files right now is around 240,000 pages a year. That's the current capacity. With the increase of ten new ATIP analysts, we should be able to process 315,000 pages a year, which should be sufficient, unless there is a very significant spike in demand that is unforeseen at this moment.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

In the report card, the Information Commissioner was pretty clear that DFAIT should be taking a much more proactive approach to sharing information, and that obviously Afghanistan has taken the attention. What are you doing now in a proactive way such that if 100 Canadians asked the same question, if it were available and up and online, your workload would be seriously reduced?

[Gérald Cossette]

We are doing three things right now.

We have built a team of 12 people who will spend all their time getting rid of the backlog, which we accumulated over several years. That's the first component.

The second component is that we will staff the full complement of the 52 FTEs we have for the ATIP division. As I said, with that number of people, we should be able to process 315,000 pages a year.

With regard to the third component of the plan, it's to try to move as quickly as possible from a paper-based process to an electronic-based process. There are, basically, software and tools available on the market now that we could use, and we will build on that as we move forward.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Is there a plan, or would it take a big change in government policy, to put the requests up online as you receive them, and the answers, so that Canadians would know what someone else has already asked, rather than having to wait, if they have an interest in that same area?

[Monique McCulloch, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

I'd be happy to respond to that.

Currently, the Treasury Board Secretariat is working with the ATIP community, including me, to have a more proactive approach and to make available on the departmental Internet sites a summary of requests being made under ATIP legislation. My office is currently, and has been for many years, routinely providing access informally to previously released records. We would never require an applicant to come back and go through the formal process to obtain the same records that were previously released.

The initiative that is under way right now with the Treasury Board is to make available those summaries of requests and to be more transparent in terms of the types of requests that are being submitted to the department so that interested parties can simply obtain copies informally.

There's no immediate plan to put all the records--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

The word “copies”, I guess, worries me. Previously released documents, I guess most people feel, should now be up online and should be digital and searchable.

[Monique McCulloch]

Yes, absolutely, and no one would disagree with that, except that there is quite an issue with the translation costs. Anything published on a Government of Canada website must be in both official languages, and therefore, all of our release packages would have to be sent for translation, which would be a huge burden and cost to the Government of Canada.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

How are you going to solve that in terms of moving to open government?

[Monique McCulloch]

Right now, as I say--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I mean, does it require a change in policy so that things could be up online in their original language?

[Monique McCulloch]

It would definitely be a change in policy, and it would be from the centre. Of course, DFAIT--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

What if someone asked to have it translated, if the request came in one language? For example, if the request came in French and was answered in French....

[Monique McCulloch]

The right of access and the right to have something translated is normally exercised through a formal request under ATIP legislation. There would be, at this time, no legal obligation to provide a translation of the thousands of records that are published online.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

But when you provide the copies, as you say, of something that had been pre-released....

[Monique McCulloch]

It is in the language in which it originated.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

That's right, so it's a separate stringency. You are allowed to send out copies in just one language, but you're not allowed to post it in just one language. Is that right?

[Monique McCulloch]

It's when you're publishing to a larger mass. When the Government of Canada posts information online, it is required. Government of Canada policy is to have it in both official languages. That is the issue right now with the open government issue.