Information Commissioner’s appearance before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
April 18, 2024
Ottawa, ON
(Check against delivery)
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to answer questions about my office’s main estimates.
Since I first took on the duties of Information Commissioner, I have always looked forward to the opportunity to speak to you about my operations and the state of access to information in general.
For the fiscal year 2023-2024, I am pleased to report that my office successfully resolved more complaints than it registered. This is mainly due to the fact that we have experienced a decrease in the number of complaints submitted compared to the previous two record-breaking years.
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.
In addition, I am now faced with a particularly challenging situation. As we begin a new fiscal year, I find myself dealing with a structural deficit.
To provide a brief explanation, my office received additional permanent funding for 27 investigators in December 2020.
Because of the way the Treasury Board Secretariat has calculated funding for last year’s new collective agreements, I did not receive money to cover raises for these 27 investigators.
This represents a 2 to 3 percent budget reduction, amounting to approximately 375,000 dollars annually.
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 why I will continue to advocate for an independent funding model for my office, as recommended by this committee.
Following this 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 government leaders must keep in mind that access to information is not a service.
It is a quasi-constitutional right and a legal obligation and it must be treated as such.
In concrete terms, this means that ATIP units must be resourced in a manner that enables them to carry out what is ─ I repeat ─ a legal obligation.
In the last year, I have observed too many instances of institutions ignoring their obligations when it comes to access to information.
In fact, I currently find myself in the scenario I was assured would not occur when the legislation changed in 2019.
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 my orders, or else challenge them in court.
I quickly realized 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 concrete terms, this means additional delays for Canadians to receive the information they requested and are entitled to.
Upholding the Act is at the heart of my mandate. This is why I have been forced to launch my own legal action against institutions that have decided to ignore my orders.
As a result, I have now initiated four mandamus proceedings before the Court to compel compliance with my orders; thereby ensuring that a response is ultimately provided to the requesters.
This expends my resources and those of institutions that 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, but comes at a considerable financial cost.
Thank you.