Common menu bar links
Breadcrumb Trail
ARCHIVED - Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
1.1 Message from the Information Commissioner of Canada
I am pleased to submit to Parliament the Performance Report of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC) for the period ending March 31, 2007.
The Information Commissioner, an agent of Parliament, is an extension of Parliament. The Commissioner has been given a special trust to oversee the government in its administration of the Access to Information Act.
My term as the 4th Information Commissioner commenced on January 15, 2007.
The coming into force of the Federal Accountability Act has had direct implications for the OIC. The Office invested extensive resources to assist Parliament in considering and implementing access to information provisions of Bill C-2. The new law expands application of the Access to Information Act and makes the Office subject to the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. These new responsibilities and functions will increase the Office’s workload.
For 2006-2007, the OIC had five main priorities:
- Reduce time taken to complete investigations;
- Reduce the number of investigations which are in "backlog" status;
- Reduce the number of incoming complaints by engaging in audits and systemic investigations and by encouraging government to professionalize its access to information workers and educate its management personnel concerning access to information obligations;
- Assist Ministers, Parliamentary Committees, MPs and Senators in understanding and weighing the implications of proposed legislation for the rights contained in the Access to Information Act;
- Assist Parliament in considering and subsequently implementing the Federal Accountability Act’s access to information provisions.
All were met with the exception of the first two listed above. This is in part due to insufficient office space to hire additional resources. We have started implementing in place a backlog reduction plan which will become fully operational in 2007-2008. Additionally, to improve the efficiency of this Office, I have initiated a reorganization of its structure.
I take these results very seriously since our main raison d’être is to ensure that the rights and obligations of complainants under the Access to Information Act are respected; complainants, heads of federal government institutions and all third parties affected by complaints are given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Information Commissioner and investigations are thorough and timely.
Robert Marleau
Information Commissioner of Canada
1.2 Management Representation Statement
I submit for tabling in Parliament, the 2006–2007 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 2006–2007 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 department’s Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture that were approved by the Treasury Board;
- 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 Commissioner
1.3 Program Activity Architecture
The Office of the Information Commissioner’s Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture (PAA) structure that were approved by Treasury Board Secretariat have remained stable in their substance; only minor terminology revisions were made and approved by Treasury Board in May 2007 to comply with Step 1 implementation of the Management Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) Policy.
The raison d’être of the OIC is to ensure that the rights conferred by the Access to Information Act are respected; that complainants, heads of federal government institutions and all third parties affected by complaints are given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Information Commissioner; to persuade federal government 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 Information Commissioner is an ombudsman appointed by Parliament to investigate complaints that the government has denied rights under the Access to Information Act–Canada’s freedom of information legislation. The Act came into force in 1983 and gave Canadians the broad legal right to information recorded in any form and controlled by most federal government institutions. The Act provides government institutions with 30 days to respond to access requests. Extended time may be claimed if there are many records to examine, other government agencies to be consulted, or third parties to be notified. The requester must be notified of these extensions within the initial timeframe.
Of course, access rights are not absolute. They are subject to specific and limited exemptions, balancing freedom of information against individual privacy, commercial confidentiality, national security, and the frank communications needed for effective policy-making. Such exemptions permit government agencies to withhold material, often prompting disputes between applicants and departments. Dissatisfied applicants may turn to the Information Commissioner who investigates applicants’ complaints that:
- They have been denied requested information;
- They have been asked to pay too much for requested information;
- The department’s extension of more than 30 days to provide information is unreasonable;
- The material was not in the official language of choice or the time for translation was unreasonable;
- They have a problem with the Info Source guide or periodic bulletins, which are issued to help the public use the Act; and/or
- They have run into any other problem using the Act.
The Commissioner has strong investigative powers. These are real incentives for government institutions to comply with the Act and respect applicants’ rights.
As an ombudsman, the Commissioner may not order that a complaint be resolved in a particular way. He relies on persuasion to resolve disputes, seeking a Federal Court review only if he finds that an individual has been improperly denied access and a negotiated solution has proved impossible.
1.5 Financial and Human Resources
The following two tables present the total financial and human resources that the OIC has managed in 2006-2007.
|
Financial Resources |
||
|
Planned Spending |
Total Authorities |
Actual Spending |
|
$8,181,000 |
$8,270,000 |
$6,611,000 |
|
Human Resources (Dir. HR to input) |
||
|
Planned |
Actual |
Difference |
|
78 FTEs |
55 FTEs |
23 FTEs |
1.6 Context for OIC Performance in 2006-2007
Plans and Priorities
The 2006-2007 Report on Plans and Priorities stated that the Office’s priorities are set by statute and entail performing classical ombudsman functions with respect to complaints against government institutions about excessive secrecy, cost or delay in responding to access to information requests. These functions are:
- Investigating;
- Seeking resolutions;
- Making recommendations; and
- Reporting results.
These functions relate to ensuring that the Office’s statutory priorities are completed efficiently, effectively and fairly. To address issues of efficiency, effectiveness and fairness, the specific plans and priorities for 2006-2007 were to:
- Reduce time taken to complete investigations;
- Reduce the number of investigations which are in a "backlog" status;
- Reduce the number of incoming complaints by engaging in audits and systemic investigations and by encouraging government to professionalize its access to information workers and educate its management personnel concerning access to information obligations;
- Assist Ministers, Parliamentary Committees, MPs and Senators in understanding and weighing the implications of proposed legislation for the rights contained in the Access to Information Act; and
- Assist Parliament in considering and subsequently implementing the access to information provisions of the Federal Accountability Act.
Internal and External Factors
In 2006-2007, 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
Implications of the Passage of Bill C-2 (The Federal Accountability Act)
The passage of Bill C-2 on December 12, 2006 has had direct implications for the OIC. Firstly, the OIC invested extensive resources in order to assist Parliament in its task of considering the appropriateness of the Bill’s various provisions that relate to access to information (e.g. analysis of legislative proposals, monitoring of legislative process, preparation of materials, appearances before Parliamentary Committees). Secondly, the implementation of the legislation following royal assent has significant implications for the Office. The new law expands the application of the Access to Information Act by rendering more than fifty additional government institutions subject to the Act (including parent Crown Corporations, their wholly-owned subsidiaries and various foundations). This expansion of the Act’s coverage is sure to result in a greater number of complaints which, in turn, result in an increase in the OIC’s workload. As well, new dispositions and exemptions have called on in-depth legal advice, professional training and public communication. Moreover, as the new law subjects the OIC to the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, it is necessary to create new operational functions and facilitate additional training.
The OIC completed a business case and implementation plan to manage these changes and hired an interim Director of Information Services and Knowledge Management in October 2006.
Upcoming reform of the Access to Information Act
In this reporting year, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics insisted, in a report to the House of Commons, that the government come forward with a Bill to comprehensively reform the Act.
The previous Information Commissioner, at the request of the Committee, prepared a draft access reform Bill that offers Parliament and the public a yardstick against which to measure any reforms brought forward by government – the proposed Open Government Act. The new Commissioner also supports the work of Parliament and of the government as they carry out their respective roles. In this regard, the OIC offered its collaborative assistance in 2006-2007 to the Standing Committee, the Minister of Justice and the President of the Treasury Board, with respect to the development of any legislative and administrative initiatives pertaining to the reform of the Access to Information Act.
Increasing reporting demands from Central Agencies
New and expanding policy and reporting requirements from Central Agencies (e.g. Internal Audit, Evaluation, PSEA reports) are particularly demanding on small departments and agencies with limited resources.
Internal Factors
Two important projects have required time and resources from this Office. On the pilot project for the funding of Officers of Parliament, we have been working closely with the House of Commons Advisory Panel. Secondly, we have collaborated with the other Officers of Parliament on providing input to Treasury Board on the review of the internal audit policy as part of Treasury Board Policy Suite Renewal.
This Office took steps to develop an internal audit capacity to comply with the new Policy on Internal Audit and to put in place a plan for coming into compliance with new responsibilities contained in the Federal Accountability Act. Mainly the Office will now be subject to the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act.
Upon implementation of the above named Acts, the OIC will also become subject to the Library and Archives of Canada Act. Arrangements are being made to meet the requirements of the National Librarian and Archivist on the management of information. OIC Personal Information Banks are being registered with the Treasury Board.
As well, the OIC has established a process whereby complaints under the Act against the Information Commissioner can be independently investigated. Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, the Honourable Peter Corey, has agreed to undertake the role.
This past year, insufficient office space has prevented the Office from hiring additional investigation resources whose funding had been approved. This is to be addressed in
2007-2008. Discussions with Public Works and Government Services Canada have taken place during the year to find suitable office space.
Reductions in effectiveness and efficiency of Office operations, (i.e., backlog and delays) were the result of insufficient functional and administrative support, which affected the ability of managers with core access to information responsibility to concentrate on service delivery, through investigative and compliance activities.
1.7 Performance Status of OIC Priorities
The OIC had five ongoing priorities in 2006-2007. The following table summarizes the priorities and expected results, provides high-level information on our actual performance, and includes a self-assessment of performance status using Treasury Board Secretariat’s ratings: not met, successfully met, or exceeded expectations.
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. |
||||
|
Program Activity: Assess, investigate, review, pursue judicial enforcement, and provide advice. |
Planned Spending: $8,181,000 |
Actual Spending: $6,611,000 |
||
|
Priorities for 2006-2007 and Expected Results |
Type |
Actual Performance |
Performance Status |
|
|
Previous |
|
Not Met |
||
|
New |
|
Not Met |
|
|
Ongoing / New |
|
Successfully Met |
|
|
New |
|
Successfully Met |
|
|
New |
|
Successfully Met |
|