Evidence of meeting #24 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cases.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Madam Chair, I would just implore you that the chair has a responsibility to keep committee members on topic and on topics that are relevant to what has been brought forward. I do again ask the members to--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
You see, this is the problem. When you say “point of order”, you think you have the right to talk. You have to tell me what she has violated.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I'm asking you to rule on relevance as it relates to the question she asked in comparison to the orders of the day.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Yes, but it's not a point of order you're arguing. And she has relevance because she is asking a question of the Information Commissioner, who is the authority. She laid the foundation, and that's fine.
I'm sorry, it's not a point of order, Mr. Warkentin. You are going to--
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Today's relevant topic is pursuant to Standing Order 108(3).
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
We are on the study of the freeze on departmental budget envelopes and government operations. So I just--
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
So I will remember that when Paul Szabo comes to our committee, and when Mr. Lee comes to our committee as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Okay, sure.
It's not a point of order.
Go ahead and continue, Ms. Hall Findlay.
Liberal
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Madam Chair, I am not an expert in terms of ministerial responsibility. I do understand, though, that the way the Access to Information Act is drafted, it does give the responsibility in most departments to the minister as the head of the institution, and under the legislation the minister is the person responsible.
I'll make two points. When, for instance, I issue what we call a section 37 letter under the legislation--this is something I instituted this year--which is the last step in my investigative function and through which I am looking for a final decision from the institution, I am addressing those letters to the ministers. And I have done so in three cases this year.
The second point I'd like to make on that is that as you probably all know, we have now before the Supreme Court of Canada the case that is often referred to as the “PM's agenda case”. I suspect that this case, which is slated to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in October of this year, will also shed some light on the issue of ministerial responsibility with respect to the administration of the Access to Information Act.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon.
You are in a fragile situation. Indeed, we never know how many complaints there will be in a given year. There may be more and there may be fewer. However, even though there may be fewer complaints, they may represent more work, depending on the scope of the complaint. So you are, to some extent, standing on shifting sand.
Your budget must enable the Office of the Information Commissioner to work effectively, meaning, in line with the requests. We know that additional budgets are allocated during the course of the year. I am referring to the infamous (A) and (B) supplementary estimates budgets.
I do not want to lead you onto a slippery slope, but is Treasury Board aware of the situation, does it know how you operate? If you were able to demonstrate that you required more money to respond to the requests, would this still be possible, would there be any openness? Or would this instead be an extremely time-consuming and difficult endeavour?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Over the past two years, the process to obtain additional funding has been extremely well managed by all parties, and this work has been made possible thanks to the funding task force and the supervision of Parliament's officers. The process has worked very well.
When we requested additional funding from Treasury Board, we first of all prepared an historical analysis of the percentage of complaints compared to the percentage of requests for access to information throughout the entire system. We based our request for funding on this historical analysis. As you know, in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, there was a significant increase in the number of complaints filed with the office of the commissioner as a result of the adoption of the Federal Accountability Act. However, this year, we have received approximately 1,600 complaints. This is a significant drop. We will see how things unfold this year.
We really do have a problem at present. We still have an inventory of approximately 2,000 files. That constitutes one of our problems, along with the management of systemic investigations. It is truly the combination of these two factors that make us more vulnerable.
I promised myself, before I turned again to the Treasury Board Secretariat, to really do a detailed analysis of our operations and to see how we could achieve greater efficiencies. I will continue reflecting on this over this summer and I will decide in September if it is necessary to go back to the Treasury Board Secretariat. I need to do this analysis and try to increase our efficiency in order to fulfil our mandate before requesting additional funding. As I said during my presentation, I do understand and have a great deal of respect for the fiscal restraint measures that have been imposed on us. To the extent possible, I will try to undertake a real detailed review of all of the ways to increase our efficiency before requesting additional money.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
You mentioned that you had 116 full-time employees. During a meeting, we talked about the same thing with people from Public Works and Government Services Canada, which is a much bigger and very different institution, but the principle of the elastic band remains the same. If you cannot “deliver the goods”, meaning that you cannot respond to the legitimate requests with 116 full-time employees, we have a major problem.
I have seen that arrangements can be made with other commissioners' offices, but what can you do, share photocopiers, decide who brings the coffee on even days and odd days? Are there examples in other countries that have systems similar to ours? Have you studied this aspect? Are there any countries that have shown that they have been able to make the government more amenable when it comes to the requirements of the information commissioner's office?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
We have neither the research mandate nor the funds inherent in such a research mandate. As a result, I do not have a really detailed knowledge about the way the various international systems operate.
Furthermore, the legislative systems are different. It is therefore at times difficult to draw comparisons internationally. The most interesting comparative data are found nationally. It would be interesting to undertake a study on the differences between those regions where the commissioner is authorized to issue orders and those where the commissioner does not have this power, and determine the impact on the achievement of the mandate. Such a study would tell us a great deal about the effectiveness of the roles of the ombudsman and the commissioner with powers to issue orders in terms of investigation timelines, effectiveness of investigation findings, etc.
In my opinion, such a study has not yet been done, but that would really help us take a look at the effectiveness of the two systems nationally.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
I hope that people are listening and will read the “blues”, and that they will want to help you with this endeavour.
We have already met with Mr. Marleau in order to discuss similar issues. We discussed multiple complaints made by the same individual, and relevance. I do know that some work is being done on this issue, but, at first glance, are the people who do the in-depth work, once the complaint has been accepted, always the same? We need to clear some obstacles in order to allow you to achieve greater effectiveness. Has anything been done in that regard?
Interim Information Commissioner, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
When I became the interim commissioner, last summer, one of the first things I did was to ask the assistant commissioner, who is not here this afternoon, to develop some in-depth knowledge about our case inventory. The point of this exercise was, in fact, to improve our effectiveness.
We have developed various approaches with respect to our requesters, with certain institutions. In a certain number of institutions, one or two specific individuals deal with specific questions, that keep coming back. So we are trying to link this type of case with certain investigators so that they end up getting to know the individual who makes the request and his or her concerns, and to understand the institution.
