Information & Ethics Committee on May 6th, 2014

[Chantal Bernier]

Daniel, do you want to take this?

[Daniel Nadeau, Director General and Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Certainly.

Of the $24 million in budgets that we have in the main estimates for 2014-15, about two-thirds of that is for salary of our personnel. We have about 181 FTEs in our organization. The remainder is other operating funds. A small portion of that, approximately $500,000, covers contribution programs, mainly for research-associated activities.

Out of this funding of $24 million, we have almost half dedicated to our compliance activities. These are our investigations, both on the Privacy Act side and on the PIPEDA side, as well as our PIAs, privacy impact assessments, and some of our audits, things of that sort—any activities, whether they be legal activities or technological activities, that support that function. That's almost half of our organization.

As well, we have about 12% to 15% dedicated for our research and policy development activities, which are an integral part of the organization, as well as our public outreach activities.

Finally, the remainder—so about a quarter of those resources—is dedicated to internal services that support all of these programs.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you.

I have one more question for you, Ms. Bernier. Further down in your statement, again under reduced resources, you say this: “While we were not mandated to make reductions under the Plan, in the spirit of collegiality, our Office answered the call to adhere to its intent.”

Can you explain that statement, please?

[Chantal Bernier]

Well, indeed we were not obligated. We felt that we should be good corporate citizens and therefore offer to participate in any way to address the fiscal pressures that the entire Government of Canada was identifying.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

What do you mean by “not obligated”?

[Chantal Bernier]

It's in the sense that we were not forced. We did not receive a formal request saying “You need to produce that amount of reduction”. We were not forced, we were invited to. We were not forced, but we felt that it was our moral duty to do so.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

So it was somewhat voluntary; even though you were invited, you still voluntarily went ahead and went forward with those reductions.

[Chantal Bernier]

Exactly.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you.

That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer.

That concludes the round of questioning for this panel of witnesses. We thank them for their presentations today and for being with us here, and ask them, please, to excuse themselves so that the next panel can join us.

Thank you very much for being here, Madam Bernier and Madam Shepherd.

I'll suspend the meeting briefly while we change panels.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen. We'll reconvene our meeting.

We'll welcome our next panel, two distinguished officers of Parliament.

From the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, we have Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson.

Welcome, Ms. Dawson.

From the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, we don't have the commissioner herself but we welcome representatives Emily McCarthy and Layla Michaud.

We'll do the same as we did with the first two representatives in our first panel. We'll invite five- or ten-minute opening remarks, and there will be time for one full round of questioning.

I advise members that we're going to conclude a few minutes early so that we can do the votes on the estimates and return them to Parliament after having been voted on at the committee. As well, we'd like time to deal with a motion by Mr. Scott Andrews. I would perhaps ask people to be very concise with their questioning to keep to the prescribed limit of the questions.

Having said that, we will go in order that appears on the agenda. We will invite Ms. Mary Dawson, the Ethics Commissioner, to please make her opening remarks.

Welcome, Ms. Dawson.

[Mary Dawson, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner]

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today as it studies the main estimates for our office for the financial year 2014-2015.

With me today is Denise Benoit, Director of Corporate Management.

I will briefly describe the office's organization and operations and I will then talk about our financial needs for the current financial year and some related considerations.

In support of my mandate to administer the Conflict of Interest Act for public office holders and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, I have organized my office into five divisions.

Reflecting our primary goal of helping public office holders and members meet their obligations under the act and the code through education and guidance, advisory and compliance is the largest division, accounting for about one third of my staff. This group provides confidential advice to our stakeholders. It reviews their confidential reports, maintains internal records of this information, and administers a system of public disclosure.

In keeping with my emphasis on education and advice as the best way to achieve compliance, the policy, research, and communications division coordinates education and outreach activities. It also contributes to policy development, compiles research, conducts public communications and media relations, and coordinates our dealings with Parliament and external organizations.

While the major focus of my office is on prevention, we also investigate possible contraventions of the act and the code. Our reports and investigations division leads our investigations and coordinates the preparation of our annual reports.

Legal services also plays a critical role in our investigations, and provides strategic legal advice to all facets of our work.

Our corporate management division oversees the development and implementation of internal management policies and the delivery of services and advice on human resources, finance, information technology, information management, and the management of our office facilities. It also administers our shared services agreements with other organizations.

Finally, my own small team in the commissioner's office provides general administrative and logistical support for the office.

There are 49 positions in my office. Although staff turnover remains low, four positions are currently vacant as a result of employee departures. Before staffing these positions, we're assessing operational requirements.

For the first five years after my office was created in July 2007, we maintained an operating budget that remained unchanged at $7.1 million. I considered that would be sufficient once my office was fully operational, although we have never had to spend the full amount. We have implemented measures to reduce expenditures, such as using e-mail rather than regular mail to communicate with our stakeholders; using webcasts to participate in conferences, thereby reducing travel costs; and centralizing certain purchases and functions.

In 2013-14 we decided not to immediately fill positions that became vacant during the year, and eliminated one position in the corporate management division. We have also reduced the amount set aside as a reserve to cover unexpected situations.

Some of those efficiencies were identified in a spending review that I initiated in 2012-13. As a result of that review, I was able to proactively offer an overall budget reduction of 1.4% for the last fiscal year.

This year I've offered a further reduction of 1.4%, as I expect my office to be able to fund its operations with a budget of just $6.9 million in 2014-15. This amount is sufficient to discharge my mandate in its current form, although any changes resulting from the current reviews of the act and the code could have resource implications for my office.

My office is an entity of Parliament that is not subject to most Treasury Board policies and guidelines, or to most legislation governing the administration of the public service. Nevertheless, we have worked to establish and maintain an internal management framework based on the principles of sound resource management followed in the public service.

Over the past fiscal year, for example, we have formalized practices already adopted by the office through the development and implementation of internal directives related to expenditure management, including travel, conference, and hospitality expenses, and the use of acquisition cards.

My office continues to rely on the expertise of other entities of Parliament, as well as Public Works and Government Services Canada, for the delivery of shared services. We have agreements with the House of Commons for technology and security, with the Library of Parliament for accounts payable and external reporting, and with PWGSC for compensation. These arrangements provide greater efficiency and one more level of scrutiny in the management of resources.

In the past fiscal year, we have had our internal controls for expenditure management assessed by the Library of Parliament. I'm pleased to report that we've had very positive results. I'm also pleased to report that, for the third year, the annual financial statements for my office were audited independently, and we again received a positive opinion.

We continue to follow good management practices in other areas of our operations as well. Building on our strong policy framework in the area of human resources, we implemented over the last year policies and guidelines to address occupational health and safety, disability management and the duty to accommodate, and management of specific forms of leave. We recently introduced our new directive on performance management, which is consistent with the approach being taken in the public service. We are also in the process of developing competency profiles for all positions.

In May 2013 my office contracted with an external company to carry out an employee satisfaction survey. We achieved a response rate of 98%, and overall survey results suggest that employees are generally satisfied. We have acted to address concerns that were raised regarding opportunities for advancement within the office, employee empowerment, and the establishment of a conflict resolution mechanism. We have nearly finalized the development of a performance measurement strategy to demonstrate the effectiveness of my office in fulfilling its mandate.

We recently reviewed and updated the strategic plan for my office, identifying priorities and projects going forward. Our strategic priorities for 2014-15 include addressing any changes arising from the reviews of the act and the code, updating the public registries, completing an internal practice manual, implementing our performance measurement strategy, continuing to identify opportunities for cost savings, and succession planning.

My thanks once again to the committee for inviting me to discuss our main estimates. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dawson. We appreciate your remarks.

Next, on behalf of the Information Commissioner, and representing the Office of the Information Commissioner, is Emily McCarthy.

[Emily McCarthy, Assistant Commissioner, Complaints Resolution and Compliance, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to discuss the operations of the Office of the Information Commissioner and to outline some of our key priorities for the year ahead.

I am Emily McCarthy, Assistant Information Commissioner. I am accompanied by Layla Michaud, the office's Director General of Corporate Services. The Commissioner sends her regrets that she is unable to appear today.

This year the Office of the Information Commissioner's budget to support its program activities is $11.2 million, which represents a decrease of $3.3 million from the last fiscal year. This reduction reflects a one-time $2.6-million loan received last year for the relocation of the office to Gatineau, the associated loan repayments for 2014-15, and the sunsetting of a five-year IM/IT strategy.

The Office of the Information Commissioner employs 93 full-time equivalents, 70 in program and 23 in various corporate service functions.

Over the last three years, the focus of the commissioner has been on the realization of the key priorities set out in her strategic plan, which comes to an end this year. One of these key priorities is to provide exemplary service to Canadians. This priority relates to our core business, which is to investigate institutions' handling of access to information requests.

Over the last three years, our investigators have completed more than 4,700 investigations. We have improved how quickly investigators respond to complainants and have gotten additional information released whenever possible. We have also implemented a strategic approach to managing our caseload.

Looking ahead to the current year, we will complete the remaining commitments identified in the office's strategic plan. For example, we will continue to improve our investigations of complex refusal complaints. This will involve setting clear steps and timelines for the investigative process. This will allow us to closely monitor ongoing investigations to further improve timeliness. We will also be introducing, on a pilot basis, a process which will seek to rapidly resolve or clarify complaints. These enhancements will strengthen the process and make it more efficient.

The commissioner will also issue a comprehensive report in which she will make recommendations for the modernization of the Access to Information Act. The focus will be on suggestions for reforms that respond to factors that have had a profound effect on access to information since the act became law in 1983 such as technological developments. These suggestions will be based on the commissioner's unique perspective as the first level of independent oversight.

Finally, we will fully implement the new integrated human resources plan. The cornerstone of this plan is excellence. This year, the commissioner will develop a new strategic plan to see the office through to the end of her term in 2017. This will be done in consultation with employees and other stakeholders.

As you will see in the office's report on plans and priorities, everyone at the Office of the Information Commissioner is working to meet demanding performance targets: to complete 85% of administrative cases within 90 days and 75% of priority or early resolution cases within six months. However, a key element of risk to the office remains our limited financial resources. The commissioner has said in previous appearances that the office has no financial and organizational flexibility. She has raised concerns that this will impact on her ability to deliver on her mandate.

Over the past four fiscal years, the office's budget has been impacted by nearly 9% due to cuts and other measures. In addition to this, we will need to review our planned expenditures in light of the two-year operational spending freeze announced in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, which will take effect this fiscal year.

At the same time, our workload is growing. Last year we received 2,081 new complaints, an increase of 30% over the previous year. As of March 31, we had 2,089 complaints in our inventory, having closed 1,789 during the past year. This closure rate is 10% higher than the previous year and 20% higher than 2011-12. However, due to the increase in new complaints, our inventory grew for the first time in five years. Given this workload and the office's limited resources, there is now, on average, a six-month gap between the time a complaint is registered and the time it is assigned to an investigator.

Under these circumstances, the commissioner is concerned about her continued ability to deliver on her mandate, which would jeopardize the rights conferred by the act. The commissioner, however, has clearly indicated that she is resolved to continue. She has an ambitious agenda for this year. And she has a dedicated group of employees who continue to make every effort to serve Canadians to their best of their ability.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much, Ms. McCarthy.

I'm sure there are many questions, so we'll begin right away with the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, Charmaine Borg.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to share my time with Mr. Ravignat, given that we will not have many question periods today.

I would like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to appear before us and provide us with their testimony, despite their very busy schedules.

My first question goes to the people from the Office of the Information Commissioner.

Ms. McCarthy, in your report dealing with PIN messages, you said that there is a major hole in the act that allows the government not to document those messages. Specifically, PIN messages would be saved only for three days. Clearly, that creates a gap in terms of the duty to document certain issues.

Does that situation pose a problem for your investigations and for obtaining documents in connection with scandals or the issues that you have to resolve? What is your opinion of the change in the regulations on those PINs?

[Emily McCarthy]

Thank you for your question. I will first talk about the duty to document the decisions.

The commissioner clearly requested an amendment to the Access to Information Act that would make a requirement to document decisions. She finds that important.

In terms of PIN messages, I believe that the Treasury Board now treats them like emails. They are kept for 30 days instead of 72 hours. That has been changed. That was a draft policy that came up during the investigation. Right now, they are treated in the same way.

Let me end by saying a few words about our capacity to investigate. We have difficulty investigating complaints when someone thinks that documents may have not been processed by the institution and that the communication that took place either by email or PIN has not been kept.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

I will share the rest of my time with Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I don't think it would be an understatement to talk about a crisis in the access to information system today. I think there are so many Canadians who are frustrated, whether it be journalists trying to get information...and when they do get information, it seems like ministerial confidentiality or cabinet confidentiality is used in an excessive way.

So I'm not surprised to hear that you're getting more cases of complaints, and I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of those complaints increased exponentially in the last few years, which makes it even more illogical to be cutting your office. It seems that you would need more. I also point out that you've been reduced a little bit more than some of the others, which is of concern to me, in certain areas, which seem particularly strategic.

I have a question related to political interference in the access to information system. Recently we saw that this occurred; there are some staff who got involved, and it puts you in a particularly difficult situation. We think that it's completely unacceptable.

Now, is the fact that you're getting less funding do you think associated to this kind of willingness to kind of pull the rug from under the access to information system—basically cut its legs at the kneecaps?

[Emily McCarthy]

I'll ask Madame Michaud to respond to that.

[Layla Michaud, Director General, Corporate Services Branch, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada]

I will just talk about the issue of funding. We are talking about a 9% cut to the budget. I will quickly provide you with the breakdown of that.

With budget 2012, there was an impact of approximately $500,000. Prior to that, in 2010, we had to absorb increases to salaries to the tune of another $350,000. We also have to pay off the loan of $2.6 million for our relocation, which is about $200,000 a year. For us, that is the equivalent of 9%.

As a result, we have very little financial flexibility. We have no choice but to investigate all the complaints received by the office of the commissioner. Right now, there is a six-month wait before complaints can be forwarded to one of our investigators.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

How are you going to manage if you are not able to hire people to conduct the investigations?

[Emily McCarthy]

We are looking at our internal processes. We are trying to find the most efficient solutions possible. We have a triage and prioritization system.

This fall, we are going to make recommendations on reforming the legislation, hoping that some of our recommendations will help make the access to information system more efficient.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Have you felt you were more targeted than other commissioners by the office of the President of the Treasury Board?

[Emily McCarthy]

I think cuts were asked across the system; the agents of Parliament volunteered to participate in those cuts. The commissioner had written to the minister to explain that her budget was already under strain. I think that's the status.

We've expressed in the past...in a past appearance of the commissioner, that she did not believe her budget was sufficient to accomplish her mandate as it stands.