ARCHIVED - Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section I: Overview

1.1 Message from the Information Commissioner of Canada

It is with great pleasure that I table before Parliament the Departmental Performance Report of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (Office) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

My first full year in Office has been one of profound change, both in the world of access to information and in the workings of the Office, as well as one of considerable progress. I have sought to set the Office on a new course so it is better equipped to carry out its mandate of investigating complaints and to lay strong foundations to help us achieve our goal of excellence in serving Parliament and Canadians and advocating for openness in government.

On April 1, 2007 a number of new institutions became subject to the Access to Information Act, including the Office, as a result of the passage of the Federal Accountability Act. To meet our new obligations and challenges, we made major changes to the way the Office is structured, the processes we follow, and our complement of employees. We obtained additional funds to allow us to build this organizational capacity and develop our core functions. Among further improvements was the re-evaluation of the report cards process to establish a new approach that will produce a more balanced and comprehensive review of systemic issues.

In addition to delivering on our legal mandate the Office had four priorities as laid out in the 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities:

• Reduce the backlog of investigations and ensure appropriate service standards are met, given increased demand resulting from the passage of the Federal Accountability Act;
• 
  
• Reduce the number of complaints by engaging in departmental reviews (report cards), encouraging training of ATIP professionals, and raising awareness among federal institutions of their obligations under the Access to Information Act;
• 
  
• Establish and administer a capacity to respond to requests under both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and comply with the administrative provisions of those statutes;
• 
  
• Assist the government and Parliament in assessing proposals for reform of the Access to Information Act.
• 
  

The Office achieved all but one of these priorities during the past year.

• Although we did not reduce the backlog of investigations, we established a new strategy and approach that will put us in a much stronger position to deliver on this priority in the coming year;
• 
  
• Despite an increased number of complaints in 2007-2008, we have put continued efforts into improving the overall performance of federal institutions through a renewed report card process as well as contributing to an improved stewardship of the access to information program;
• 
  
• We set up a secretariat and established new processes for handling access to information and privacy requests to meet our obligations under both Acts;
• 
  
• We began work on legislative and administrative reforms towards modernizing the access to information regime and published a reference document to support these initiatives.
• 
  

My principle goal is to ensure the access to information system functions in the best interests of Canadians. My first year was one of considerable progress in building our capacity to serve. I am confident that as we continue to develop the Office’s core functions we will see positive results in achieving all our objectives.

 

                                                                                         

Robert Marleau
Information Commissioner of Canada

1.2 Management Representation Statement

I submit for tabling in Parliament, the 2007–2008 Departmental Performance Report for the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

This document has been prepared based on the reporting principles contained in the Guide for the Preparation of Part III of the 2007–2008 Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports:

• It adheres to the specific reporting requirements outlined in the Treasury Board Secretariat guidance;
• 
  
• It is based on the institution’s Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture;
• 
  
• It presents consistent, comprehensive, balanced and reliable information; 
• 
  
• It provides a basis of accountability for the results achieved with the resources and authorities entrusted to it; and
• 
  
• It reports finances based on approved numbers from the Estimates and the Public Accounts of Canada.
• 
  

Suzanne Legault
Assistant Information Commissioner
Policy, Communications and Operations

1.3 Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture (PAA)

The Office has a single strategic outcome and a single program activity as follows:

Strategic Outcome	Individuals’ rights under the Access to Information Act are safeguarded.
Program Activity 1	Compliance with access to information obligations

1.4 Raison d’Être

The raison d’être of the Office is to ensure that the rights conferred by the Access to Information Act are respected; that complainants, heads of federal institutions and all third parties affected by complaints are given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Information Commissioner; to persuade federal institutions to adopt information practices consistent with the objectives of the Access to Information Act; and to bring appropriate issues of interpretation of the Access to Information Act before the Federal Court. The Office also advocates for greater access to information in Canada and promotes Canadians’ right to access government information.

1.5 Financial and Human Resources

The following two tables present the total financial and human resources that the Office has managed in 2007-2008.

Financial Resources ($000)
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
$9,248	$8,091	$ 7,856
Human Resources (FTEs*)
Planned	Actual	Difference
90	60	30

* Full-Time Equivalent

The difference between the planned and actual human resources was caused by the delay in staffing positions due to a shortage of office space as well as planned resources that were not received. Funds related to the passage of the Federal Accountability Act and the establishment of the internal audit functions will be obtained during fiscal year 2008-2009.

1.6 Performance Status

The Office had four priorities for 2007-2008. The following table summarizes the actual performance of the Office against the priorities and includes a self-assessment of performance status. This table is a high-level presentation and more detailed information on actual performance is provided in Section II – Analysis by Program Activity.

 

Strategic Outcome: Individuals’ rights under the Access to Information Act are safeguarded.
Priorities for 2007-2008	Type	Actual performance	Performance Status
1. Reduce the backlog of investigations and ensure appropriate service standards are met, given increased demand resulting from the passage of the Federal Accountability Act.	Previous	We were unable to reduce the backlog of cases this year since we experienced an 81% increase in the number of complaints received. By year-end, 85% of our investigations were in backlog status according to our service standards. Nevertheless, we improved our average time to close the complaints going from 12.4 months last year to eight months this year, a 36% improvement rate. Moreover, we developed and started implementing an 11-point backlog strategy, including streamlining our complaints-handling process and planning a pilot project for a dedicated intake and early resolution unit.	Not met
2. Reduce the number of complaints by engaging in departmental reviews, encouraging training of ATIP professionals, and raising awareness of federal institutions’ responsibilities and obligations under the ATIA.	Previous	Although the Office experienced an increase in the number of complaints received primarily as a result of the coming into force of the Federal Accountability Act, we have continued to put efforts into improving overall performance of federal institutions against their obligations under the Access to Information Act. Ten report cards (departmental reviews) will be undertaken during the next fiscal year to evaluate the period of 2007-2008 based on a new and more balanced assessment. The Office and the Information Commissioner met with a large number of federal institutions, made presentations to Deputy Ministers to discuss the new "Duty to Assist" provision and made presentations before the ATIP community. We also began discussions with the Canadian School of Public Service and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to develop a curriculum to train public servants in the field of access to information and privacy. We also continued to support the University of Alberta’s Information Access and Protection of Privacy Certificate Program by acting as a member of the program’s Advisory Committee and by enrolling staff in the program.	Partially met1
3. Establish and administer a capacity to respond to requests under both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and to comply with the administrative provisions of those statutes.	New	As of April 1, 2007, the OIC became subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. We have set up an access to information and privacy secretariat to administer both Acts. The secretariat worked on a policy and procedures manual for the administration of access requests. It gave awareness training to employees on their responsibilities and requirements under both Acts. Further, to address the integrity of the complaints process, the Office established adequate safeguards to prevent possible conflict of interest if the Office were to investigate itself. The Commissioner appointed an ad hoc Information Commissioner to handle these complaints independently from the Office.	Successfully met
4. Assist the government and Parliament in assessing proposals for reform of the Access to Information Act	Previous	During 2007–2008, we began work with the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board Secretariat on legislative and administrative initiatives about access to information. As part of the work on the legislative reform, we prepared a reference document that lists the proposals contained in the Open Government Act, draft bill with their sources. A copy of the document is available on our website. (www.infocom.gc.ca/publications/pdf_en/OGA_notes.pdf).	Successfully met

1.7 Factors Affecting Performance in 2007-2008

In 2007-2008, the following external and internal factors influenced how the Office delivered on its ombudsman’s functions as well as the relative priority of the activities carried out during the year.

External Factors

Federal Accountability Act

The impact of the Federal Accountability Act and the resulting amendments to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act has been substantial. During 2007–2008, about 70 institutions, including Crown corporations and their wholly owned subsidiaries, and various foundations and agencies became subject to the ATIA. This represents a 37 percent increase in the number of institutions covered by the Act, and brings the total to more than 250. Among that group of organizations was the Office of the Information Commissioner, which required us to set up an effective access to information and privacy program and to appoint an ad hoc Information Commissioner to respond to access to information complaints about us.

Another major implication of the increase in institutions subject to the Act is that we are managing a larger volume of complaints. As stated previously, the number of complaints increased in 2007-2008 by 81 percent over last year. The fact that the Federal Accountability Act reduced the time period in which requesters could complain to our Office from one year to 60 days also contributed to the number of complaints received during the year. Possible reasons for the increase in the number of complaints that are not specifically related to the Federal Accountability Act may be a renewed interest in the Act arising from the Gomery Commission, an increased number of consultations with other federal institutions and claims for longer extensions.

We provided assistance to the new institutions as they gained experience in administering the Act and the complaint process. We obtained additional funds from Treasury Board to allow us to meet the requirements of the Federal Accountability Act.

Systemic challenges

There are a number of challenges facing the entire access to information system that have direct impacts on the performance of the Office. One of the most significant challenges is a shortage of qualified workforce across the government, which was amplified by the passing of the Federal Accountability Act. Not only does this create a retention problem with our current staff of investigators, it contributes to the difficulty to hire qualified workforce across government. With shortages and less experienced staff in federal institutions, as well as institutions placing the priority on requests and consultations, our investigation of complaints involving them may be delayed, thus having an impact on our ability to conduct investigations in a timely way.

Internal Factors

Backlog

According to the Office’s service standards, the backlog stood at 2,318 at the end of 2007-2008, a significant increase from the previous year. Although the Office closed more complaints this year by comparison to 2006-2007, at year-end, almost 85% of the cases were in backlog status. Despite considerable efforts to reduce this number, the Office received an unprecedented number of complaints which significantly contributed to the state of the backlog. The Office devised a backlog strategy to improve the effectiveness of the complaints-handling process and to ensure timely resolution.

Institutional changes

An important factor that contributed to the performance of the Office in 2007-2008 related to the limited capacity of the Office in terms of funding, staff levels, support tools as well as core administrative functions. We put considerable effort into building organizational capacity and developing our core functions in 2007-2008.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page