Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Madame Thi Lac.

Mr. Siksay for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the folks from Foreign Affairs and International Trade for being here today.

Mr. Cossette, I noticed in the annual report to Parliament, on the administration of the Access to Information Act for 2009-10, which the department tabled with Parliament earlier this year, that it goes to some pains to list the department's key priorities for the year 2009-10, which I guess are the overall department's key priorities. I know it's a very broad department that has lots of work on its agenda. I was curious, in looking through that; I don't see anywhere where compliance with the Access to Information Act or resolving the problems identified by the commissioner appears in that list of key priorities for 2009-10. I know the report goes on to talk about the work that's being done, but it doesn't figure in that list of priorities. Is that an indication that this really doesn't figure anywhere in the broad perspective of what's important to the department?

[Gérald Cossette]

I assume, Mr. Chair, that we're referring to the report on plans and priorities, the RPP?

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

I'm looking at the document on the annual report to Parliament on the administration of the Access to Information Act, and in that it lists the department's key priorities: greater economic opportunities for Canada; United States and the Americas; Afghanistan; asserting Canadian leadership in emerging global governance; transforming the department. Nowhere in that list, that I see, is there a reference to improving the record on complying with the Access to Information Act.

[Gérald Cossette]

You're referring to our policy issues, with the exception of one management issue, which encompasses lots of work that is being done in the department, and that is the transformation side of it. We do not list, in detail, all the basic management priorities a department may have. I think the $2.7 million we just committed to trying to eliminate the backlog and provide the ATIP unit with the capacity it will need in the future to meet the demand is proof that the department is committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to information from our department.

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

Let me come back to that, because I'm still concerned that even though transforming the department is one of the priorities that's listed in that document, when you go through the various things that are listed in that paragraph, compliance with access to information doesn't even seem to make the list of all of the various things in that paragraph.

Does it just not impinge on the consciousness of those people who develop those priorities? Why does it not show up in a list like that for the department's priorities for this year?

[Gérald Cossette]

As I said before, the priorities that are listed there are either of a policy nature—and there's one, management priorities, which refers to the transformation of the department. What we outlined in the presentation, again, I think is a guarantee or proof that the department is committed to making sure that in the long run, Canadians will have access to the information within the time provided by the law.

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

When you were developing the business plan around addressing the concerns around access to information—and I note that you got $2.7 million to work towards that—what did the business plan show that you really needed to do the job? I'm sure you didn't get everything you needed. What was the cost estimate of meeting the requirements of the Access to Information Act and the concerns of the Information Commissioner?

[Gérald Cossette]

Basically there are three components to the business plan. The first component is to provide more or less $1.2 million to address the backlog. When we looked at the backlog in July, we realized we had 200,010 pages of backlog. So we looked at basically what was required to get rid of that backlog over a period of time. The first $1.2 million was allocated toward that task.

The second $1 million is allocated toward creating 10 new positions for ATIP specialists in order to increase the capacity of the department to respond to the growth in demand. Moreover, once the backlog is gone, the $1.2 million, which is now permanent funding, will be transferred to the regular ATIP operation.

And the third component of the business plan is to purchase and implement, basically, a system that will allow for working within the department online so that we can process the files more quickly and easily.

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

Monsieur Cossette, I noticed in the report card section that the commissioner drew attention to the department hiring a consultant, Andrée Delagrave, to make recommendations about how to solve some of these problems. The commissioner said she believed that it was necessary to implement those recommendations. Can you tell us how Andrée Delagrave's recommendations have been implemented and how they relate to what you've presented today, in terms of the work plan, to get to the bottom of compliance?

[Roxanne Dubé]

Actually, we asked for the service of Ms. Delagrave, who is very well known in the field of access to information. Essentially, her role was to look at ways in which we could improve our internal processes and priorities in order to improve our performance.

She looked at our resources from top to bottom. She recommended that the resources be increased and that has already been done, as you see. She also recommended better cooperation between the access to information division and the other areas. So we targeted our ATIP coordinators in all our areas. She recommended that all the department's officers working in access to information receive more training. As you heard in Mr. Cossette's remarks, we have organized more than 300 training sessions. We have also started to set up a tutoring system that will allow people to get more on-going training in access to information.

I would say that we have implemented her four main recommendations. There were others.

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

Thank you, Madam Dubé.

The other question I had also relates to another report. I know that Dr. Bennett was asking questions related to this as well. The Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan recommended that the government.... I'll just quote what was in the report card:

The Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military.

Mr. Cossette, can you tell me how the department has implemented that recommendation or what it has done to address that recommendation of that panel?

[Gérald Cossette]

As you may know, the government releases a report on a regular basis on the activities of the Government of Canada and Afghanistan from the military, diplomatic, and aid standpoints. It focuses on the benchmarks the government established years ago and how, on a quarterly basis, the Government of Canada meets or does not meet those deadlines. Through that report Canadians are informed about our activities in Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Bill, that's it. Thank you very much.

Mr. Poilievre, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you for being here.

I have in front of me the Information Commissioner of Canada's report entitled Out of Time: 2008-2009 Report Cards and Systemic Issues Affecting Access to Information in Canada.

I am going to start on page 33 of the English version. Here is what it says:

The Department is responsible for Canada’s foreign policy and all matters relating to Canada’s external affairs.... The Department’s specific areas of responsibility include international peace and security, global trade and commerce, diplomatic and consular relations, administration of the Foreign Service and Canada’s missions abroad, and development of international law and its application to Canada.

Given that list of specific responsibilities and the sensitive relationships they imply, can you describe the specific access to information challenges in your department that other departments have to a lesser degree, if at all?

[Gérald Cossette]

Currently, I would highlight six components.

One of the main difficulties is globalization. Access to information requests deal with a range of issues and with the relationship between Canada and the United States on a large number of topics. Potentially, they can even get into the disarmament programs that Canada may be financing in some parts of the former Soviet Union.

So the topics can deal more or less with anything in the world. Clearly, those matters have to be reviewed not only by access to information experts, but also by Foreign Affairs' operational experts. That is the first thing.

The second thing is the complexity of the requests. We may be dealing with information that is sometimes provided to us by foreign governments or third parties, which means that several departments are involved. For example, if the topic is protecting the environment internationally, the Department of the Environment has to be consulted, as does the Department of Natural Resources. So it can get complex. No issue deals with one topic in one area only.

The third point is that a number of access to information requests come in when matters become news. So we have to be careful about the information we make public.

Fourth, Foreign Affairs has 171 missions overseas. Depending on the questions that are asked, those missions have to be involved, and so do foreign governments.

The other difficulty organizationally is that, since the officers in our department move around a lot, someone might have handled a file and, when the access to information request comes along two years later, the person has been posted overseas.

Lastly, since 2004, we are looking at an increase of 78%, and, as they say, the department,

is playing a bit of catch-up with demand, given the very significant increase in demand. We haven't matched it with a very significant increase in resources as well.

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

When a country has relations with other countries and tries to maintain friendly diplomatic relations with foreign governments, does that cause problems in terms of managing an access to information system at the same time?

There is an international discussion at the moment about the leak of a large number of documents. The publication of those documents has harmful consequences. In foreign affairs matters, are there different sensitivities that might not exist inside a domestic department?

[Gérald Cossette]

Clearly, in discussions that go on in the course of international diplomacy, those involved expect the comments they make to us to be protected.

Discussions and remarks are often very direct. In order to make sure that our counterparts understand clearly what they are being told, we speak very directly more often than in a roundabout way, though that happens too. So it is understood that those conversations will be protected, which means that the department is somewhat restricted, as we have to ask the third parties, the people with whom we have been speaking, if the conversation may be made public. In Canada, things that may be made public may not be at all acceptable in public in other countries.

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

Given the time I have left, I will stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Cossette, there are some points I'd like you to address.

I have in front of me the minutes of the meeting of this committee held on October 18, 2005, five years and 43 days ago. It basically dealt with an “F” report that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade got from the Information Commissioner. They basically weren't following the law.

I'm going to quote you a few sections, because what I'm reading is almost verbatim what you're saying today. It talks about a plan to overcome the deficiencies:

We believe that the plan that we are now putting into effect will lead to these outcomes in the long term.

Then it goes on later:

As was mentioned above, the workload at the department's ATIP staff is a major factor in our inability to meet the legislative deadlines. [...] The plan proposes adding 15 employees.....

Then it goes on, Mr. Cossette:

Some of these actions include the development of a structured ATIP awareness program to educate departmental employees on their roles and responsibilities, a program that will include senior management, to build a network of knowledgeable officials at every level; implementation of new procedures for the review of documents by the division, which will eliminate most return visits by ATIP staff, and in addition, the ATIP process has been carefully mapped and is being redesigned to increase its effectiveness; purchasing--

And this is important:

--the ATIP image software application, already been in use for a number of years in most departments[...] However, I believe that by approving this action plan, the most senior levels of the department have demonstrated a clear...[etc.]

The results haven't improved any in the past five years. What is the difference between that testimony, which was given by Mr. Michael Calcott, director general of the executive services bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs five years and 43 days ago, and the testimony you're giving here today?

[Gérald Cossette]

Mr. Chairman, there may be the impression that nothing has happened since 2005, but I can confirm to you that in 2005 and 2006, the department was spending a bit more than $2 million on ATIP. For the current fiscal year, the department will be spending $8.2 million to respond to ATIP. So it's not as if the department hasn't tried to increase its capacity since 2004. However, with a growth of 78% over that period of time, we've been playing catch-up.

As soon as we get rid of the backlog—and that has been part of the issue as we have carried this backlog from one year to another—the duration of.... The time it takes to process demands, of course, has increased in response to this backlog.

So by getting rid of the backlog and by building the capacity at 315,000 pages a year, that capacity should be sufficient to respond to the current volume. Moreover, once the backlog is gone, we will have a capacity to increase the ATIP unit by another 10 to 12 analysts to respond to an increase in demand.

If you're telling me that will be sufficient if WikiLeaks leads to thousands of demands in access to the information...it may not be sufficient. The problem we face is that a bit more than 42% of all demands sent to the Department of Foreign Affairs are initiated in other departments. That's a factor we don't control, so we are always in a responsive mode. But with the capacity we're putting in place right now, we hope that in fact we will be ahead of the wave, not behind the wave.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Who in the department is accountable for doing this? Is it you? Obviously, it wasn't Mr. Calcott. Is it you or is it Madame Dubé?

You'll probably be back here next year. I don't think we'll leave it another five years.

So who is accountable for dealing with the problem?

[Gérald Cossette]

As deputy ministers, we are accountable for dealing with the problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

But you're not the deputy minister.

[Gérald Cossette]

I'm the associate deputy minister.