Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Now I'm going to go to—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, in view of the fact that this session is televised, I just want to make it clear that when the member for Sarnia speaks for her government, it's very important that, as members of Parliament, we understand the difference between “government” and “Parliament”. As members of Parliament, our job is to hold the government to account, regardless of what side of the House we sit. It is extraordinarily important to note that when the member speaks as though she is speaking for the government—our government—she is not a minister and not a parliamentary secretary and therefore remains a member of Parliament whose job is to hold government to account. She is not part of the executive branch, she's not part of the judiciary, but part of the parliamentary branch—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

One speaker, please.

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

—whose job it is to hold the government to account.

So I just caution the members opposite. As a member of Parliament who has been on the backbench when my party was in government, it was very important to me, when there were items that needed to be fixed for people with disabilities, or tobacco, or others, that we were prepared to speak out against....

Our language is very confusing to the people of Canada. I find now that when I have a name tag that says “Government of Canada” beside my name, I actually have to have it corrected.

Every day, we must make it clear to the people of Canada that what we at committee do here, as the House of Commons, is to hold government to account. I would just caution the members opposite not to use that kind of inclusive language that makes it confusing to Canadians whether or not they speak on behalf of the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. Some people might think that Dr. Bennett is being overly technical or playing with words, but there is a very important distinction.

I'm not criticizing anyone here, and we all have to be very careful, but the primary role of a member of Parliament is to hold the executive to account for the legislative and the delegated authorities that have been given to it. A member of Parliament, whether a government member or opposition member, does not speak for government.

The term “our government” or “this government”, I know, involves a fine line, but it really ought not to be used, because the fundamental role of government members of Parliament and opposition members of Parliament is to hold the government to account—and of course the government cannot function if it does not have the confidence of Parliament.

Anyway, I think it's an important point and we just have to be a little more careful in our wording now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, to clarify this, Ms. Davidson is a member of the government side of the House of Commons. She's one of the members who provides the confidence necessary for the government to continue to stand. She is very entitled to refer to this government as her government.

In fact, any Canadian who is not even elected to Parliament can refer to this government as their government, and would be doing so in a manner that is not only true but a truism. If you are a Canadian citizen and you recognize the authority of the Canadian government, then by logical extension, this government is your government.

But beyond all of the obvious logical linkages that would provide for the member to use the language she did, there is a longstanding tradition of free speech that exists in this country and celebrated in this Parliament, which permits her to say whatever she likes.

On this side, and in fact I would say on behalf of this government, we are very proud of the good work she is doing here in this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I agree with you, Mr. Poilievre, that she can use that term. But I do think there is a distinction that the chair has pointed out.

I don't take offence at the word, but I think it's important that the distinction be pointed out and the point be made that there is a fundamental role for all members of Parliament, government and opposition, to carry out.

We're going to go back to Mr. Guimond, pour cinq minutes.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As my colleague Ms. Thi Lac said earlier, it is indeed regrettable to see that situations like this only make voters more disillusioned, more cynical about politics, about the lack of transparency of our institutions, and so forth. That's why it is so unfortunate. We're familiar as well with this government's desire to control information. This is easily a case where we can talk about a causal relation.

I'm a very down-to-earth person. So then I have some specific questions that I hope you can answer for me. Regarding the events that transpired in 2008-2009 and just prior to that time, were any budget cuts implemented? Did you observe an increase in the number of retirements which might account for this situation?

[Gérald Cossette]

Like all federal government departments, since 2003 DFAIT has had to deal with cuts stemming from various federal budgets. These cuts go back to 2003, not just to 2007 or 2008. Departments have had to make do with more limited resources.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

What is the extent of the cuts you have faced since 2003? Could there possibly be a causal relation between these cuts and the especially difficult situation you experienced in 2008-2009?

[Gérald Cossette]

Despite the cuts that have been made since 2003, the budget allocated to the access to information unit has allowed for some growth. In 2004-2005, the budget for access to information totalled $1.2 million, while for the current year, the budget is $8.2 million. Therefore, even when all departmental programs were being cut, the budget for access to information was being increased.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

All right. Thank you.

When a backlog like this occurs, when a number of requests are pending and delays are commonplace, do you put in place any kind of priority system? Are the requests you receive prioritized? Are some requests more important than others, or are they all treated the same way?

[Gérald Cossette]

It's first come, first served. That is order of precedence.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much. That's fairly clear.

Earlier, you stated that there was a chronic shortage of experts. Can you explain to me who these experts are? Do they work in your department or are they outside consultants that you hire?

[Gérald Cossette]

There are two groups of people who process access to information requests. There are the experts who work with Ms. McCulloch who specialize in the Privacy Act. It is increasingly difficult to recruit these persons from within the public service. This problem isn't exclusive to DFAIT. It is something all government departments are experiencing.

The second group consists of individuals who are experts on specific questions.

For example, DFAIT is divided into different units that specialize in geography, in international security or in information. There is a shortage in these areas of persons who specialize in the Access to Information Act and in the Privacy Act. It is hard to recruit people to work in these groups.

The department trains experts on the job.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

You're saying then that you do not call upon the services of outside experts or consultants.

[Gérald Cossette]

Yes, we do use outside consultants. For instance, when there was a backlog to be cleared, we hired nine experts from outside the government to work as government access to information specialists.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

When the backlog occurred in 2008-2009, did you realize what was happening, or was the commissioner responsible for bringing the problem to your attention? Did you notice the problem yourself and did you then try and come up with some tangible solutions?

[Gérald Cossette]

We were already aware of the backlogs because some had occurred in 2009-2010. We were not able to clear them up because the number of requests we received continued to increase every year. That explains in part the lengthy delays in processing certain types of requests.

Very old requests often go unprocessed because we are unable to answer them for various reasons. Often, this leads to the types of delays in processing that people talk about, delays of hundreds of days. This year, we have allocated resources specifically to deal with the backlogs, while focusing at the same time on current requests.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Albrecht for five minutes.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for being here today and for their very informative presentation. You've helped us understand, at least to a small degree, some of the complexities that you deal with, especially when you referred to the national security issues in section 13 and section 15. That's been helpful to me.

The disappointing part for me is that all too often there are innuendoes that somehow there's some ministerial or political interference in these ATIP requests and the responses that are given. If you're stating categorically today that you have never seen evidence of inappropriate ministerial involvement in the release of information, nor has any such involvement been brought to your attention, I think this is really helpful in dispelling some of the myths that are often propagated by political opportunism. Unfortunately, we've seen a couple of examples of that today. I was only going to say one example, but since then we've had a few others.

I want to come back to some statements you made in your report here--the one comment you made about the 78% increase in requests. That's phenomenal. We talk about inflation and having to live within our means. It's hard for me to understand how any department could possibly grapple with an increase of 78%. The Department of the Environment also indicated similar challenges.

On the next page you talk about the fact that you're hiring an increased number of ATIP consultants. I'm wondering, what is your source for these specialists? Are you stealing from other departments, or is there some stream of new consultants that are available to you?

[Gérald Cossette]

In fact, the consultants we hire are former public servants who were specialists in ATIP matters.