Good morning.
Thank you for inviting me to answer your questions on the Main Estimates for the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.
Since taking office as Information Commissioner, I’ve always welcomed the opportunities made available to me to come and speak to you about the office’s activities and the state of access to information as a whole.
For the fiscal year 2023-24, I am pleased to report that my office successfully resolved more complaints than it registered. This helped us make real progress against our backlog of complaints.
Earlier this year, I requested additional temporary funding through the Minister of Justice in order to eliminate my backlog completely. Unfortunately, this request was not granted.
Furthermore, I now find myself in a particularly difficult situation. As we begin a new financial year, I’m facing a structural deficit.
To provide some context, the office received permanent additional funding for 27 investigators in December 2020. Because of the way the Treasury Board Secretariat calculated funding last year for new collective agreements, I did not receive funds to cover salary increases for 27 investigators.
This is a 2% to 3% budget cut, which represents a cut of about $375,000 per year.
For a small organization like mine, this is a significant strain. Every employee plays a vital role, and losing even a few can deeply impact my office's ability to fulfill my mandate. This is one more reason that I will continue to advocate for an independent funding model for my office, as recommended by this committee.
Following last week's budget announcement, I am also concerned that the units responsible for access to information across the federal government could find themselves short of staff due to attrition, if departing employees are not replaced.
Last September, in op-eds published in The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir, I cautioned that leaders must keep in mind that access to information is not a service but a quasi-constitutional right and a legal obligation, and it must be treated as such.
In other words, access units must be afforded the resources that enable them to fulfill what is, I repeat, a legal obligation.
Over the last year, I saw far too many cases where institutions ignored their access to information obligations. In fact, I am now in a situation that wasn’t supposed to happen. At least, that’s what I was told during the 2019 legislative reform.
Before order-making powers were added to the Access to Information Act, I had suggested changes to ensure compliance. I was told that these amendments were unnecessary, as my orders would be legally binding. Institutions had to comply with the orders or challenge them in court. I quickly realized that this was wishful thinking.
Indeed, rather than choosing between complying with my orders or challenging them in court, some institutions are choosing to do neither. By ignoring my orders, these institutions are, in effect, breaking the law.
In real terms, this means that Canadians must wait longer before receiving the information they requested and are entitled to.
Upholding the act is at the heart of my mandate. That is why I was forced to launch my own legal proceedings against institutions that chose to ignore my orders.
So, to date, I’ve initiated four mandamus procedures before the Federal Court in order to ensure that my orders are upheld and a response is finally sent to the applicant.
This expends my resources and those of the institutions who are deploying their own legal services to deal with these cases.
How much is this intransigence costing institutions? I can only guess.
This is not supposed to be necessary, and I am sure that Canadians would agree that it is not something we can afford in the current economic context.
It turns out that a culture of secrecy does not only impact our democracy; it comes at a considerable financial cost.
Thank you.
