OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, March 17, 2003

1535

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.))

1540

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau (Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, and Security and Intelligence Coordinator, Privy Council Office)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Yvon Tarte (Chairperson, Public Service Staff Relations Board)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. David Kinsman (Executive Director, Transportation Safety Board of Canada)

1545

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. David McGuinty (President and Chief Executive Officer, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy)

1550

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon (Secretary, CICS, Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

1555

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. David Kinsman

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. David Kinsman

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. David Kinsman

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. David Kinsman

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. David Kinsman

1600

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. David Kinsman

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. David Kinsman

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. David Kinsman

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Jean Laporte (Director, Corporate Services and Senior Financial Officer, Transportation Safety Board of Canada)

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

1605

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

1610

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. David McGuinty

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

1615

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. David Kinsman

1620

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Yvon Tarte

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. David McGuinty

1625

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

1630

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Yvon Tarte

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Yvon Tarte

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Yvon Tarte

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau

Mr. Paul Szabo

1635

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau

Mr. Paul Szabo

1640

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater (Deputy Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

1650

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

1655

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

1700

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

1705

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

1710

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

1715

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

1720

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

1725

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Julien Delisle (Executive Director, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Julien Delisle

1740

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Julien Delisle

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Julien Delisle

1745

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Julien Delisle

1750

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Julien Delisle

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Julien Delisle

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 014

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the second of two meetings today that the committee is devoting to the supplementary estimates for and of organizations within our own terms of reference, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), the study of supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

Just before we get started, I thought I would make a couple of points for the record. One is that the meetings we're holding today have a dual purpose, I think, from the standpoint of our committee. The first and obviously the most fundamental is that these meetings reflect Parliament's role in approving estimates. I think it's important that committees engage in this process.

We are focusing on the specifics of requests for new funding; dialoguing with officials about your respective jurisdictions for supplementary funds; and we're also--and we saw this, I think, earlier today when the committee was reflecting on its role, which is really occurring through the subcommittee of the estimates process--looking at ways that Parliament actually currently handles estimates. We had some questions this morning that speak to such issues as the rationale behind individual requests for supplementary funding, or about whether or not supplementary estimates are being used for the actual requests that should have in fact been in the main estimates rather than the supplementary estimates, or whether we are being given adequate information as parliamentarians making decisions with respect to authorizing new funds.

So I just want to put that on the table before we begin our meeting to provide a bit of context for the witnesses and also for members of Parliament as we attempt to achieve our objective in drilling down to these supplementary estimates and asking questions that are pertinent to finding out why in fact this request has come through the supplementary estimates.

There often have been comments that supplementary estimates are really used as a way of bolstering main estimates, and that sometimes people circumvent that. I really want to spend some time this afternoon drilling down and getting some really sharp, pertinent questions on the estimates before us this afternoon.

So I would like to welcome the witnesses here. We have individuals from the Privy Council; from the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat; Transportation Safety Board of Canada; National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy; and the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

I would ask you to introduce yourselves. I don't know whether you have a statement to provide the committee, but if you do, if we could move to that I would appreciate it.

¹ (1540)

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau (Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, and Security and Intelligence Coordinator, Privy Council Office): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm accompanied by Madam Ann Marie Sahagian, our ADM corporate, and Mr. Gérard Séguin, our director general of finance. I'm Ron Bilodeau, associate secretary to the cabinet. I'm pleased to be here to meet with you today to discuss the Privy Council's supplementary estimates (B).

These estimates have been reviewed by ministers, and they represent the workload additional to the normal, basic budget of the Privy Council. They are consistent with the financial projections of the Minister of Finance in the October 2002 fall economic update.

[Translation]

The Supplementary Estimates (B) of vote 1 of the Privy Council Office is $328,690. This represents an increase of less than one percent of the Privy Council Office's 2002-2003 estimates of $124 million.

[English]

I would like to briefly summarize the supplementary estimates (B) resource requirements being presented to you. These estimates are for the following items: $522,900 to provide support for the Reference Group of Ministers on Official Languages; $125,000 for resources to undertake a public consultation process, as required under the social union framework agreement, which called for a three-year review; and $55,790 related to an increase in ministerial budgets in the ministers' offices, including the Prime Minister, to compensate for salary increases.

The total increase is $703,690, from which we must deduct the $375,000 that has been transferred to the Department of Finance to support Mr. Manley's function. Mr. Manley was Deputy Prime Minister, and we had the resources to support him, which have been transferred to the Department of Finance.

So the net request before you is $328,690. The largest portion of this budget is allocated to the working group on official languages. That work culminated last week with the Prime Minister's announcement with Mr. Dion and Madam Robillard on an official plan for official languages, which was made public.

Essentially, I would like to thank you, members, for giving us a chance to discuss these issues with you today. Madam Sahagian, Mr. Séguin, and I would be more than pleased to answer any questions.

So we're talking about $328,000 being added to the PCO budget.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you. Anyone else?

Mr. Yvon Tarte (Chairperson, Public Service Staff Relations Board): On behalf of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, I'd just like to say thank you for inviting us today. Pierre Hamel, our general counsel and secretary to the board, is also here.

We have one business line, which is labour relations in the federal public sector, and our caseload is dependent on our clients. So the supplementary estimates request you see here is basically an evaluation we made in August-September last year as to what would be coming our way by way of application grievances, conciliation boards, arbitration boards, under the statue.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Kinsman.

Mr. David Kinsman (Executive Director, Transportation Safety Board of Canada): Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am Dave Kinsman and I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board of Canada, or the TSB as it is commonly referred to. With me today is Mr. Jean Laporte, our Director of Corporate Services.

[English]

I'd be prepared to talk about the business line of the Transportation Safety Board for those who are not familiar, but in the name of time I won't do that. For any members who are not particularly au fait with the TSB, however, I'd be more than happy to give you, in 90 seconds or less, an overview.

[Translation]

The operating budget for the Transportation Safety Board is approximately $21.5 million annually. The supplementary funding of $1.3 million we are looking at today is comprised of two elements. The most significant portion, $1.243 million, is provided to alleviate ongoing resource pressures while the remainder, $111K, is supplementary funding for a specific accident investigation. I will discuss each individually.

¹ (1545)

[English]

Like all other government departments, the TSB must contend with a variety of resource pressures while trying to successfully achieve its primary mandate. For us, avoiding capital rust-out; contending with steadily increasing prices for goods, services, and human resources; greater involvement in litigation; and the increased cost of maintaining the technical knowledge and skills of our employees in a rapidly advancing technological world are but a few of the pressures we face.

Complicating the demand on our base budget has been a concerted internal effort over the past 18 months to undertake a substantial management renewal agenda. In the relatively short period of time since we began our change agenda we've made considerable progress, upon which I would be happy to elaborate.

Of course, most of these initiatives come with a price tag and compete with a resource base that already requires trade-offs and compromises. It is in this light that an ongoing dialogue with Treasury Board Secretariat led to the $1.243 million portion of the supplemental funding.

Our plans for this funding are as follows: capital rust-out avoidance, $661,000; training, $300,000; and other cost increases, $282,000.

[Translation]

The resource base of the TSB is established on the assumption of small or medium effort investigations. From time to time, and for a variety of reasons, the efforts involved in effecting a thorough investigation must be expanded with the resultant impact on costs. The TSB has a standing arrangement with the Treasury Board that for larger investigations, that is to say those whose costs exceed $50K, supplementary funding may be allocated, provided the TSB provides a full justification for the increased costs.

[English]

Such were the circumstances for the investigation of the Lady Duck, an amphibious excursion vehicle that sank in the Ottawa River last June with the loss of four lives. Recovery of the vehicle, the overtime effort placed on finding answers as soon as possible--there were several other similar vehicles operating across Canada during the summer period--professional services for subsequent testing of the vehicle in a controlled environment, and the purchase of materials and supplies specific to this investigation account for the $111,000 in funding sought in this round of supplementary funding.

I'll terminate my remarks there. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I'd like to welcome David McGuinty to the table as well.

Do you have any opening comments you'd like to share with the committee before we go to questions?

Mr. David McGuinty (President and Chief Executive Officer, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy): If I could, Mr. Chairman; I'd appreciate it.

My apologies to members of the committee for being late, and hello to many of the faces we've worked with in the past at the round table. We went to the wrong block and went through a 40-minute security search, so security is working on the Hill.

Mr. Chair, the amount of $252,600 requested in the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy supplementary estimates (B) submission to the Treasury Board represents our allowable carry-forward of unspent funds from the 2001-02 voted appropriation of the national round table.

Our programs operate over a period of two to three years and have a cycle that consists of several stages--programs development; research and extensive consultation that goes on across Canada; preparation of a final report; the communication of the results of that report to Canadians; and of course evaluating program success.

Each program is overseen by multi-stakeholder task forces usually comprised of senior business, environmental, labour, and government representatives, and they report in to the round table's membership appointed by the Prime Minister.

It can be very difficult for the national round table to know for certain in advance the duration of each program's stage. As you know, convening and consulting with human beings is sometimes a circuitous journey. So our progress in our programs can be easily delayed, and program expenses originally planned during a fiscal year may not actually occur until a following fiscal year.

To help the round table address the fact that budget expenses may not occur during a fiscal year because of program delays, we use the allowable carry-forward of unused funds to preserve the budgeted appropriation associated with the delayed expenses until a later fiscal year when the expenses are incurred.

During fiscal year 2001-02, slightly slower progress in certain phases of several of our programs has meant that some planned program spending could not occur during the fiscal year. As a result, the round table deferred 5% of the voted appropriation amount to allow the delayed program spending from 2001-02 to occur during 2002-03.

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

That's all I have to say for the moment, Mr. Chairman. I'm obviously waiting for comments and questions. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. MacKinnon.

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon (Secretary, CICS, Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here with Mr. André McArdle, assistant secretary, and Mr. Ronald Richer, our director of corporate services.

We welcome the opportunity to be before the committee, because we're rather unlike other federal departments and agencies. I was going to give a little précis of what we do, but in view of time, Mr. Chair, if you would allow, we can simply circulate that statement for the benefit of the committee.

I would like to emphasize that we do not convene conferences. We respond as a secretariat to the requests of government departments, federal, provincial, and territorial, for conference services. We respond to decisions taken by government to meet on national or specific issues.

So decisions concerning the location of the meetings, the number in any given year, or the timing and duration are completely beyond our control. It makes for very interesting predictions and budgeting, but these things directly affect the level of our expenditures.

We do not turn down requests to serve conferences that are within our mandate, and the demand for conference services has increased substantially over the years. Our main estimates budget has not. We have had to request supplementary estimates each year.

For the last five years, for example, we have been averaging 100 conferences a year across the country, and our budget has been designed for 90 conferences. When this year finishes, by next week or so, we will have served 114 conferences.

[Translation]

Our Supplementary Estimates for this year amount to $1,337,000 and will be used to cover expenses relating to the increased number of conferences.

[English]

To go into the specific details of why, travel is a big factor, as is translation, and the cost of serving those conferences. The extra amount is very substantial, and we can deal with that.

In closing, I'm proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that 2003 marks our 30th anniversary, and as of today's date we have served a total of 2,435 conferences.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): I'm going to start with the last one first.

It seems to me that your work is very much like that of Parliament's; you generate a whole bunch of words, but do you ever have any measurable results from these conferences? Are provinces getting together? Are we cooperating more on programs?

When I talk to my trucker friends, they say they still have great difficulty going across the borders within Canada. So there doesn't seem to be a great amount of progress in any area. The only thing is, you get together, and you plan for another conference. And of all the supplementaries we have here, I think your request, percentage-wise, is the one of largest.

How do you justify that?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: To answer the first part of your question, we have absolutely nothing to do with the formulation of policy. We are entirely at the service of governments, providing administrative services. So the results of the meetings we can put out on our website, or in the communiqués, as dictated by the chair and by the agreements, but the substance is the responsibility of governments. We are simply administrative.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Ken Epp: Do you manage conferences that involve only the federal government?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: You do the provincial as well?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: We also do provincial conferences, yes. Approximately 40% of our conferences are provincial or territorial.

At the meeting that agreed to this secretariat being created, in May of 1975, it came out of the constitutional process when the secretariat of the constitutional conference, entirely a federal secretariat, had served all those meetings, the officials and ministers meetings, leading up to the Victoria 1971 constitutional conference. Subsequent to that, governments decided that they did not want to disband that secretariat, that there was a very useful function there in supporting the intergovernmental process. Our secretariat was created from that. It was for first ministers meetings and for other meetings that may call for our services.

The Prime Minister of the day was asked by Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick if the annual premiers conference could be supported by the secretariat. The Prime Minister's answer was, yes, we have no problem with that.

So we've continued on that basis.

Mr. Ken Epp: So your job is only to provide the venues and the administrative services for these things. The outcome of those things is entirely out of your hands, right?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: That's correct.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, good. Thank you. That's all I think I want to ask of you. I want to move along. Pardon me, but we have limited time here.

To the Transportation Safety Board, you have to do only with transportation safety across the country--ship, air, rail, road. Is that it?

Mr. David Kinsman: Not road but pipeline.

Mr. Ken Epp: Pipeline but not road?

Mr. David Kinsman: We do not investigate road or highway accidents, no.

Mr. Ken Epp: The provinces are supposed to do that.

Mr. David Kinsman: That's indeed a provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. So the fact that the greatest number of lives lost in this country every year is on our roads is outside of your jurisdiction. You spend all these millions of dollars on the areas where, relatively speaking, even though every event is regrettable, the loss of life is really very small in comparison. Is that accurate?

Mr. David Kinsman: Relatively speaking within Canada, yes. Of the four modes we would look after, obviously the...well, I say “obviously”, but the largest number of fatalities on an annual basis would be in the air modes.

We haven't recorded any mortalities in pipeline accidents for a number of years now. Probably the rail industry would come next, and then the marine industry. The marine industry is actually quite significant, because we do have responsibility for inland shipping and small fishing vessels and so on and so forth. So that's a fairly significant part of our activity.

Mr. Ken Epp: Now, are you going to tell this committee that the additional $1.3 million or $1.4 million you are asking for is absolutely necessary, and without it you cannot function until the end of the year? Is that what you're telling us?

Mr. David Kinsman: We made a case, sir, that with the improvements...and the reason I brought it up in my text was that in trying to create a stronger management framework within the organization there are some moves across the public service that all departments are being encouraged to undertake under the aegis of a program called “modern controllership”.

We believe that would be good for our organization. As I mentioned in my text, these issues, if you're trying to establish a performance measurement program, or if you're trying to establish an internal audit program, all cost money.

From our standpoint, the case we made to the Treasury Board was that within the current funding we had, we could conduct the business we had, but it would be very difficult for us to move forward the agenda on some of these other issues that in the longer term are important to our organization and to the government as a whole.

º (1600)

Mr. Ken Epp: So why would you not then simply put that into the estimates for next year?

Mr. David Kinsman: Indeed, that's where we should be going, and that's part of the process.

To put this particular set of supplementary estimates in context, we had undertaken the notion of this management reform internally in the summer of 2001. The main estimates for 2002-03 had been tabled even before we got into the strategic plan, business plan, for this year. So we were out of whack, admittedly, with the government's fiscal cycle, but within the next year, if we foresee these things, the project requirements or whatever it may be, they should be included in the main estimates.

Mr. Ken Epp: You already have about $1 million forwarded to you by the Treasury Board contingency fund, right?

Mr. David Kinsman: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: So we're looking at approximately $300,000 and more, and if Parliament approves that you have that money, and the other $1 million is approved.

What happens to the million?

Mr. David Kinsman: The million is once again part of the strengthening of the program....

If I may, I'll ask my chief financial officer to give you the details on the dollars.

Mr. Ken Epp: Sure. If he can give a better answer than you, we want to hear it.

Mr. Jean Laporte (Director, Corporate Services and Senior Financial Officer, Transportation Safety Board of Canada): We did not get any money from the contingency fund from Treasury Board this year. In previous years we did, but not this year.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, really.

Then my question is redundant.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): And thank you, your time is up.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Coming back to the intergovernmental conferences, I find it surprising that a 35 percent increase has been allocated for that purpose. I'm well aware that the main budget has not changed for a number of years, but the number of conferences has remained quite stable.

Let's look at the figures. In 2000, there were 105; today we're talking about 114 conferences. What obliges us to allocate a more than 35 percent increase for conferences? With the aid of the table you have given me, I am comparing with other years. What unpredictable factor in the main estimates has led us to such a big difference?

We see that, in general, we arrive at an increase of only $300,000 out of a budget of approximately $200 million, whereas, in your estimates, there is a 35 percent increase out of only $3 million. I find that figure enormous. Do you accept all the requests made to you in this regard?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: If conferences are part of our mandate, we don't have any choice. But we have to take a number of factors into account: transportation, travel and the new system. That system prevents certain trips. We used to be able to insist that our staff travel before Saturday evening, but now we can't reduce travel expenses in that way anymore.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You decide on the place and what's going to be done?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: No, it's the government, the chair or the co-chair...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Perhaps we can do it in Central Canada rather than...

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: It's often in somewhat particular places such as Iqaluit or other regions of the country. In addition, the increase in the number of conferences requires us to have more staff assigned to those events. The demand for translation services has also increased.

º (1605)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The other question should be put to the Chief Electoral Officer, but he's not present, and that's unfortunate. The Privy Council forecasts an allocation of new funding of $12 million. I would like to have an explanation on that subject.

On their own, did the two by-elections that were held cost that amount? Does that involve the new electoral map that is being developed? I would like some clarification on the subject. This is also an increase of approximately 20 percent. The clerk should be asked why no representatives from Elections Canada are here today. That's one of the large amounts I would have liked to ask questions about.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): My understanding, Mr. Lanctôt, is that the vote wasn't referred to this committee. It may have gone to House and procedural affairs. So another committee has the opportunity to deal with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you. I have no further questions.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the presenters.

Mr. Bilodeau, you mentioned in your presentation that the numbers you're requesting in the supplementary estimates have been reviewed by ministers, and limited in the amount of, I think, $320,000. You were just making a statement of fact, were you? Okay.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the process, it's suddenly occurring to me...and I know that your subcommittee is looking at the process of the estimates, but this is a very numeric document. No wonder parliamentarians don't read the darn thing. Even Mr. Bilodeau's description that the $326,000 is net of a transfer from Minister Manley's....

I mean, you have to explain that. It's not clear here. Look at any of these. I know it's not your problem necessarily, but there's a half page in all of these where some narrative description could be put in order to describe what the heck is going on here.

I hope our subcommittee makes some recommendations along those lines, that we just describe in somewhat of a narrative form what pressures are causing these additional resources to be asked for.

To Mr. MacKinnon, the CA in me came out as you were going along. I think you said that your budget normally is built for about 90 conferences a year, and that in this fiscal year coming up it's at 114.

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: That's correct.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a two-part question. I'd like to understand the process within government. For example, if you're in business and you have a budget problem, there's a lot of discussion with the chief financial officer. There's an early warning. There's a discussion on options to consider rather than it being a done deal that you have an overexpenditure.

Following on Mr. Lanctôt's point, your budget request is a 38% increase over what was in the main estimates. And 114 divided by 90 is about a 27% increase in the number of conferences. Now, obviously some conferences cost more.

Is that the kind of question the Treasury Board would have put to you--i.e., are these additional cost pressures explained simply by the number of conferences or...? It's a fairly straightforward question.

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: That is the type of question that would be posed. We have been trying for some time to have our main estimates at a level that matched the demand, and up until now we've been unsuccessful at doing that, perhaps because we needed the facts to show that it wasn't just a one-year increase in the number of conferences but it has been a consistent one, and now going up even more.

At some point, that number of conferences requires more bodies to deal with it. We have built into the request an increase in staff in order to deal with that. So that gives, I think, a bit of a jump in terms of the figures you're mentioning.

º (1610)

Mr. Roy Cullen: But even given the increase in the number of conferences, the costs, I guess, per conference went up. And I guess that can happen as a matter of geography.

You remarked that you don't choose the venues. I'm curious, given your experience in this area, if the government, the ministers, would not ask some advice in the sense that they might say, you know, we're inclined to have it in Iqaluit, or we're inclined to have it in Calgary, but what are the other options? Do they not even come to you to get your advice? Or do they just say--boom--we're having it in Calgary, period?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: We frequently are consulted about the best site or best facility in a particular place. I'd say it's very rare that we would be asked where that meeting should be held, because that is usually quite a political decision.

For instance, with the annual premiers conference, we know there has been a cycle in the past 30 years. It's going to be in Prince Edward Island this year, and unless there's a major change, it will be in Ontario next year, and so on.

So, yes, we are often consulted about where, about what you need in order to put on a major conference like that. We'll give them the information and then they'll seek out the place. What it usually means is that it's going to be in a much larger centre.

Mr. Roy Cullen: So there is some dialogue, but ultimately, like most things, the decision is the minister's. I'm glad or reassured to hear that at least they listen to what you might have to say.

Mr. McGuinty, maybe you could describe the process with the round table. Do you have an early warning system within your budgetary process, your financial management, that starts to tell you that there are pressure on that budget, and that you're not going to be able to work within it? Describe the process from there in terms of a dialogue with Treasury Board. Is there some discussion? Do you look at options in terms of, say, cutting back in another area, or is it just a given that you're going to be going over?

Mr. David McGuinty: Yes, Mr. Cullen, we do look at cutbacks all the time. At the risk of sounding like every other supplicant who appears before you, the round table is constantly required to make hard decisions about what areas it can intervene in and where it can't.

We in fact made a very hard decision this year to go from six or seven core programs down to four for the new fiscal year. There's an internal monitoring process where the executive committee of the round table is brought up to speed every quarter. I personally review the expenditures every month. If we're on a crash-course collision with potential overspending...which is not the case for us this year. We did not overspend. What we're talking about here is carrying forward a 5% allowable amount into the new fiscal year on April 1.

So we're constantly monitoring where we are with our program expenditures, to find out whether we can cut back, be more efficient.

It's also important for committee members to remember that we leverage somewhere between $1.5 million and $1.75 million a year of in-kind and cash contributions from all of those thousands of stakeholders who work with us across the country.

For example, if a vice-president from Noranda Corporation gives us 15 business days, picks up his airfare, hotel, and per diems and works with us on designing new tax measures, we've begun quantifying that to show the extent to which we're able to leverage support from the outside.

Second, in many instances over the last four or five years the round table has been approached by another line department and asked to do something specific, or had a budget reference and received funding to do something specific.

I hope that gives you some insight in terms of how we look at it.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Sure.

That's all, thanks.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Second round, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

I want to ask something of all of you. It wasn't you individually who just sat down and said, “You know, I think I'm going to ask for another $328,000, or another $1.35 million.” You didn't just arbitrarily do that. Obviously people in your organization came to you.

What process do you follow to evaluate whether or not this is a legitimate requirement, one in which you have to proceed? As a supplementary to that, have you ever in your careers said to someone, “No, you can't have it”--or do you expect Parliament to do that, which it never does? Taxpayers keep on getting dinged every year with supplementaries way beyond what they should be.

If you look at the statistics, you'll see on average supplementaries accounting for up to 20% of the total of the expenditures of the government in any year. That's very high.

I mean, I can see you maybe missing by 1% or 2%. Some individual requisitions are in that range. Then we say, well, okay, you're sort of in the ballpark. But if the total comes out to be 20%, there's serious mismanagement involved there, I think.

This could probably take a little while to answer, but perhaps you could each give about a one-minute answer on how you handle that. Have you ever said no?

Whoever wants to start, go ahead.

º (1615)

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Is that going to take up the time of all of the members over on that side?

Mr. Ken Epp: We want good answers, and you can listen to them, too.

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau: Mr. Chair, thank you.

I can only speak for the Privy Council Office and from my previous experience as a deputy minister in a couple of departments. Sometimes additional financial demands are a result of additional workload. There are more clients, more people to serve, or more businesses applying, or more meetings. It depends very much on the activity.

There are some areas in which we have very little discretion if we're going to serve the Canadian public in the way we have been. Costs go up, and there are more people out there. So a number of requests are legitimate, because the client is there and needs an answer.

There are other sets of requests that perhaps are more discretionary. For instance, section heads in departments would like to enhance their business. They'd like to do their business differently. They'd like a bigger office. They'd like a better computer. You have additional discretion in those areas.

I can vouch for the fact that in our department there are a lot more requests put to the clerk than are actually funded. Many are sent back. Madam Sahagian and other colleagues look at them. Some disappear and we never see them again. Others come back when there's a real reason to do them.

So, yes, sir, there are more ideas put forward, and quite a number of them never reach our table. They're handled differently, or they're deferred, and so on.

Have we ever seen some rejected? Yes, in the PCO, I have, and in Energy, Mines and Resources, and federal-provincial affairs. There are demands on us all the time, as officials, to make recommendations to our ministers for more spending for new areas of activity. It's up to us, in our judgment, to prioritize, to make the right decisions, and actually recommend things that make sense in a way that Parliament can approve them.

So I'm answering your question with an unconditional “yes”, maybe not enough insofar as prudent spending is involved, but certainly a yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I'm going to go to Mr. Lanctôt, because I'm not sure that anyone else is going to add anything substantially different.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you're all going to respond by saying that you obviously have been denied at some point, and that you've put forward ideas, and that you have the same pressures. Unless I'm missing something here, I don't see that you're going to be adding anything specifically different. If you feel that you do have something to add that's very different from what's been said, then please go to the microphone.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, the whole issue is, how much is the whole system challenged? That's the essential core of the question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Yes, agreed.

Mr. Kinsman.

Mr. David Kinsman: I was going to add, Mr. Chair, that I think there were two elements to Mr. Epp's question. One is, are you ever refused from the outside, but more fundamentally, do you ever refuse from the inside? I think that was part of the question.

Once again, I would infer from what my colleague Mr. Bilodeau has said, and I can assure you that from our standpoint, a lot of internal “no's” go on before one considers a submission to Treasury Board for supplemental funding.

At the Transportation Safety Board we start off a year with the funding we're given, and other than specific accidents that might happen where we're looking for additional funding, our internal philosophy is, “That's what you have, and that's what we're going to work with.”

I'd be able to point, although not in detail, to somewhere between $3 million and $4 million worth of supplemental demand within the organization where we simply said that's not on for this year. If we make the reallocations within out base budget for next year because those things are more important than some of the things we're doing right now, fine. Or if it's something that's transitory, and we believe we can make a case to the people of Canada, then we'll try to make that case as well.

But certainly from an internal standpoint, it's not “What is it you would like?”, and taking that forward.

º (1620)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like to continue on the same question. If we didn't have a surplus, if we had a balanced budget, would you nevertheless generate one in your department, or in each of your files with the money you had forecast in the estimates, without needing supplementary estimates?

Because that's easy. With all the surpluses, you say to yourself you can hire three or four more employees, or do the conference at a nicer hotel. That's what it looks like. What I mean, and I believe that was the point of the question, is that it's too easy to say that spending increases because costs have risen. As for transportation, perhaps instead of using one particular means of transportation, people could use another, such as the train instead of the plane. I'm sure that each of you would be able to make do with the main estimates alone. Don't you think it's easy to come here with all these surpluses and to say that you accept...?

Mr. Yvon Tarte: Perhaps I could add something. At the Public Service Staff Relations Board, we have lived within our main estimates for a number of years now. But sometimes, at the request of our clients, we have to institute certain proceedings, and we have no discretion. It's not a question of selecting hotels or places to hold grievance or complaint hearing. That's done, for example, at the offices of the Federal Court of Canada virtually across the country. The fees we pay umpires and people who sit on those boards, be they a board of arbitration or a conciliation board, are determined by order. We have no flexibility. The Board's workload depends on our clients.

We administer the Labour Standards Act in the Yukon, the Education Staff Relations Act in the Yukon, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and, for all those statutory regimes, we must offer our clients the proceedings they require. We have no discretion.

So, in the middle of the year, we determine, to the best of our ability, what's on the horizon, but it's not an exact science. That's what leads us, at certain times during certain financial periods, to request additional funding. That doesn't happen every time, but it's necessary if, as was the case here, we undertake to put in place a number of three-person panels in Whitehorse. That isn't done every year, but we thought we had to do it this year for what's called the designation review panels. I won't talk about the technique of the matter, but that's what we were considering.

At that point, it's exceptional, and that's why we've come, but that's definitely not done every year and it depends entirely on the requests of our clientele, which is internal, within the public service, that is to say the employers of the federal public service in the Yukon and Parliament, and which also includes outside unions because grievances and complaints come mainly from unions outside the public service. And we have no freedom to say no. We cannot refuse to hear 12 grievances this year because we have no more funds. We have to send the adjudicators where the grievance is filed, to hear it, to render decisions and so on.

I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's quite simple for you because it takes place in a tribunal. But there are things that take place elsewhere than in a tribunal. In your position, I would have done the same thing as you: jump onto the microphone to answer that question. However, the question would apply to others instead because that doesn't take place in a tribunal. I have no further questions, but the others may want to answer.

Mr. David McGuinty: I could also try to answer you, Mr. Lanctôt.

The situation on the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is different because we had no expense overruns this year, quite the contrary. We didn't spend the budget allocated to us for the fiscal year. Things are increasingly being asked at the table. For example, in the 2001 budget, we were to undertake a major project in the area of contaminated urban sites, without additional funding announced by the Minister of Finance. So, increasingly within our box, we must constantly find the necessary dollars, make a more effective allocation of money, find additional funding outside our agency and negotiate much more aggressively with contractors, who are often experts in their fields.

So I feel that the case of each of the agencies and boards is different. But, simply to clarify matters, I would say that we have not spent too much, but not too little either.

º (1625)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Madam Sgro and then Mr. Szabo, last question.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you.

Mr. MacKinnon, on the 114 conferences that are predicted, from what I understand the ministers or whoever ask you to put on a conference and then you have to figure out how to do it within your own budget. You don't have an opportunity to say, well, we've allocated for 100 conferences this year, and you're 101, folks. We just don't have any money left.

I mean, is that possible?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: In the realm of theory, yes, but practically speaking, no. We limit the level of conference. We serve deputy ministers and above. We simply have no real discretion.

If, for example, it were the first minsters meeting on health that came at the end of the year, and we didn't have any funds left, I don't think too many people would be happy with the fact that we said no because our funds had run out. That's the situation we're in, frankly.

But 114 is not the predicted number of conferences; 114 is what we've served this year.

Ms. Judy Sgro: What you've served already.

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: Yes.

Ms. Judy Sgro: And it continues to grow.

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: Yes.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I understand exactly what you said. I guess I just have a concern that from a deputy minister's perspective.... I mean, you have only so much money. I guess it's just the way I think everything runs: “You know what? I just don't have any more money, Mr. Minister. You have to hand me over the money from your department instead of putting me in the position where I have to accommodate it.”

So I do understand. I just don't think it's the right way.

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: We answer to all governments. I didn't get into the details, but we really do. And the indications we've had from the representatives of the first ministers are that we do not cut off when we can see that our main estimates are going to be exceeded.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I'll tell you, I'd love to run my place that way.

º (1630)

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: Well, yes; we certainly are working within any efficiencies we can, and are always striving for that, but when it comes down to it, if you're budgeting for 90 conferences and you're going to have 100 or 114, you have to come back for more.

All that is assuming that we are doing things efficiently and cost-effectively, and I believe we are.

Ms. Judy Sgro: What's the average cost of the many conferences you put on? Do you know offhand?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: It depends on the level. Once it's into the ministerial level, then we get into a press conference, and the need for those services, for production of a communiqué, and so on. As well, the location is of major importance. But the average deputy ministerial conference would be under $10,000. A ministerial one probably would be closer to between $15,000 and $20,000.

Again, it very much depends. If the chair has chosen to have it in Iqaluit, the costs are going to be really very substantial, and we have no control over that.

Ms. Judy Sgro: How can we fix that? I understand the system; it's just not--

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: Well, you could have them all in Ottawa, or in Toronto, because it's more convenient.

Ms. Judy Sgro: But that's not fair either, in a sense. We have to spread things around, and conferences bring dollars to a local community. It's just that everyone has to live within that budget, and frankly, I don't think it's fair that they ask you to do certain things, and because they are who they are, you have no option but to figure out whether you're going to pull it out of a hat or come back to supplementary estimates to get the money. At any rate, you figure out....

Well, I know what to do, but I'm not sure you want to do it. But we'll see where it goes from that perspective.

Do the provinces and your other partners share in the costs of the conferences?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: Yes, they do, under a formula worked out early in the existence of the secretariat. The previous secretariat had been entirely federal. At the time, in 1973, the provinces were interested in contributing, and they have. Even Manitoba, which started out saying, no, the federal government should pay it all, now pays, although there are several governments that do not pay their full contribution. So the money then comes out of the federal fisc. It's a cost-recovery process.

Ms. Judy Sgro: So all of the conferences are done at the request of first ministers, deputy ministers, and so on.

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: That's correct.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Do you ever get any multi-level requests for conferences--municipal, provincial, and federal?

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: Municipal affairs ministers, I guess, but essentially we're looking to the participation of federal or provincial ministers. There are some conferences where there may be other delegates, but substantially it has to be federal, provincial, or territorial in order to--

Ms. Judy Sgro: But you wouldn't turn down some municipal dollars.

Mr. Stuart MacKinnon: If it were almost entirely municipal, we would....

I don't think it would be within our mandate at the present time.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Do I still have some time?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Do you have another question?

Ms. Judy Sgro: We always get the short end of the stick on this side of the House, so I'm glad...we're generous to my colleagues here.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, give her one more minute.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Actually, I'm going to give Mr. Szabo the balance of the time.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Exactly. I don't want to take away from Mr. Szabo's time. Paul wants to ask some questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Would you like to take another minute, Judy? Whenever Mr. Epp allows me to give an extra minute to someone on this side of the table, I take it. So you go ahead.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Okay, as long as it's not taking away from Mr. Szabo.

To the Public Service Staff Relations Board, what is your success rate? I look at $5.7 million. I understand the rationale and the reason for it, but how do you do in terms of success? That's a lot of money. How are you doing in solving all of these problems?

Mr. Yvon Tarte: How does one gauge a success rate in what is basically a litigious process? You have unions fighting employers, so how do you gauge your success rate in that regard? We do put out in our annual reports a very telling table that deals with judicial review of our decisions. Very few of our decisions are overturned.

In that regard I guess we are successful, but given the need to bring more harmony to labour relations, we have instituted in the last three years a very complete mediation program that brings the parties to the table prior to a hearing. We've been able to resolve probably 65% of cases in a facilitated environment.

I think that in itself is a great indicator of success.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Could you send me a copy of the report that you put out?

Mr. Yvon Tarte: Sure. I can send you our annual report.

As well, we did a pilot project when we first started mediation, because our clients were not too keen on mediation. They wanted to fight it out in court, duke it out, and that's fine. We kind of imposed it, even though our legislation does not authorize it, although the new legislation would do so; we asked outside consultants, three law professors, to look at and study the program. I can send you that analysis as well. It's quite good.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Tarte, can I ask you to send it to the clerk?

Mr. Yvon Tarte: Yes, I will.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Great.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bilodeau, I have no doubt that amongst your colleagues is a wealth of knowledge and experience and expertise on working with and developing your expenditure programs.

I wonder if there's anyone on the panel who can recall any time in the last decade that Parliament has reduced anybody's estimates.

Mr. Ken Epp: We tried, and you voted against us, Paul.

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau: I have no specific recollection of any such event in the areas I've been in, sir.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I think it's probably time we should, Mr. Chairman, simply because the optics of that are not good. I don't know how you feel, but I don't think it's good for the relationship between those who have worked so hard to develop their programs and the parliamentarians. Because there must be some cases in which we'd like to see something....

You know what happens--and this is more a commentary, Mr. Chairman--when business in general has good times; it tends to builds up its budgets. Then when we get an economic downturn we get that rationalization, and people are laid off. You don't see that in government as much, except when you have a major program review. Now, we've tried to have this....

I would have thought that we should see in the trend lines that some years there is a higher demand for specific reasons. What I'm getting at, and maybe you can help me, is whether there's anything within the culture that adopts the principles of determining that we are improving productivity, getting better value for money, or supporting an initiative that has been adopted by Parliament as a theme in terms of having to do something.

Are these kinds of things built into the process you go through in terms of developing your expenditure programs?

º (1635)

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau: Perhaps not sufficiently, but as my colleague mentioned, with the approach of modern controllership, the front end of that is delegate more to managers, and let them decide, but there's a back end to that, which is better auditing, better review, and better accountability.

The president of the Treasury Board has brought that forward and reports on that periodically. Is there enough challenge inside departments? I think the members are concerned about that.

It's the duty of controllers and assistant deputy ministers charged with finance to challenge new initiatives, to ask if they're properly costed, to ask if they're relevant, to ask if they are or are not required inside departments. And if we pass the hurdle inside the departments, then we go before Treasury Board and before Parliament.

So it's a judgment, sir. If you look at business, they do have a result measurement. They have a profit line. They perhaps have criteria that allow them to match, better than the public sector, the results with the investments they make. In the public sector, we have other ways of measuring results.

If you ask for my personal opinion, I think we could improve on the way in which we do our internal challenge. I think the program review was an unprecedented look at the entire government and major cuts, major reallocations, and spending went down considerably.

Do we have to have such a monumental exercise or could we not build into our operating procedures? And you saw the Minister of Finance in his budget talk about reallocation, talk about continuous examination. The challenge is to develop the methods to do that efficiently and to ask ourselves, before we come to you, should we come to you at all, or should we not live within our budget?

Now, sometimes there are simply more clients, more meetings. It's a judgment. Sometimes there's less choice. Sometimes there is considerable choice.

So it's up to both officials and ministers to come to the right conclusion on the priorities.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Now, if I may, Mr. Cullen basically identified that with the information that's available to us, chances are we're at a disadvantage to be able to really get down to, say, the micro issues--which I don't think we should be doing, quite frankly. But in terms of what we do get, do you believe we could do a better job, or be perceived to be doing a better job, if we had information other than what we're getting now?

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau: As members of Parliament and representatives of the public, I think you have a right to the information. If it is not displayed in a way that you find useful, or it is not displayed in a way that is sufficiently clear or detailed, I think we'd welcome your views on that.

If a board of directors in a company is given at an annual meeting, or at any meeting, information to make decisions on investments, they have a right to the information; similarly for your committee and committees in general.

We have a tradition of preparing our estimates and our supplementary estimates in a certain way. I think this has been reviewed over the years by Parliament, but it hasn't changed a lot.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Sir, it would appear that what's been happening in our reviews--and committee reviews have been very few over the years--is that basically here are our numbers, and here are the items that generally make up the majority of the changes. As a chartered accountant as well, in doing my audit I would want to look at exceptions. I would rather know what you did that didn't work, and why it didn't work. Or what has worked? It's kind of variance reporting, the exceptional things, so that I can put my focus into what's working, what's not working.

I'd like to see that departments would say, “You know what? We didn't do as good a job, or we didn't hit our targets, or we didn't get the value for money.” I never hear that.

If we're ever going to get to that point, what do we have to do to improve the process so that Mr. Valeri's subcommittee, when we start talking about the whole estimates process, can find out what it is possible to do so that we are not in fact bumping heads but yet we agree upon a process that will get us a more constructive process of a review of the estimates?

º (1640)

Mr. Ronald Bilodeau: I think if you had in front of you information on the anticipated results from the investments the government is making rather than just a statement of the resources being sought, that would be a beginning. In other words, if a new program is being doubled, what will it achieve--more clients, better service, higher levels of service?

Results measurement and accountability, part of the vocabulary of Treasury Board more and more now, doesn't seem to be quite reflected yet in the documentation you have before you. In sessions like these, we try to answer the questions for you, but if the documentation were perhaps more complete...along the lines of a private sector board. I think when a CEO goes in and asks a private sector board for $10 million, or new share issue or whatever, the case has to be made fully on the results.

We only find out when it doesn't function, when it becomes an issue in the media or in the press. We have some examples, which I won't quote here. But it shouldn't be only at that level that we discuss results. We should discuss results as we make the investments. What really is going to be the activity generated, and why are we doing it?

As I read the documentation, perhaps there could be more provided on that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you very much, Monsieur Bilodeau.

I think you all have helped contribute to this debate in a very effective manner. Thank you very much.

I would like to suspend for one minute while we bring forward our next set of witnesses.

º (1640)

º (1645)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Order. I would like to resume our session, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), the study of supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

We have with us, from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, Mr. Leadbeater.

Any opening statement or remarks?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater (Deputy Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada): I would appreciate that, Mr. Chair, just one or two brief words.

My name is Alan Leadbeater. I'm the Deputy Information Commissioner. I am accompanied by Mr. Dan Dupuis, the director general of investigations and reviews for the Office of the Information Commissioner, and Ms. Ruth McEwan, the director general of corporate services.

We're at your disposal to answer questions concerning the supplementary estimates (B) for 2002-03 with respect to vote 40 for the Office of the Information Commissioner. As you know, it's one department--the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners--but they are separated under two votes.

The supplementary estimates cover unanticipated operating costs totalling $311,000 and increase the previously approved estimates of $4,387,188 to the amount of $4,698,188.

We are at your disposal to answer any questions you may have, to the best of our ability.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: The first question is obvious: Why do you have additional costs that you couldn't anticipate?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I guess what you're saying is, why did we not foresee these expenditures and cover them by cuts or reallocation from elsewhere?

There are two things I might say. We are, as you know, a small agency of an officer of Parliament, and we are driven by complaints that come in the door. We are required by law to respond to the complaints we receive, and we have no discretion to refuse to receive funds.

Within that small budget, therefore, we have very limited capacity to reallocate and readjust and cancel expenditures the way some larger departments can do.

In addition to that, we had faced a couple of entirely unanticipated expenditures in the past year, one of which involved the cessation of the sharing of corporate services with the Privacy Commissioner, which we had done for the previous 19 years since the inception of the act, as a cost-reducing measure. That change imposed on the Office of the Information Commissioner one-time additional costs of $394,784, and ongoing additional costs of $324,726 annually.

We were successful in obtaining some relief from the board for that by way of a transfer from the Privacy Commissioner's vote to ours, but not with respect to one-time costs.

So it's the fact that we had to readjust to this from internal sources that accounts for our inability to meet from existing sources the incoming caseload that I spoke about earlier.

Mr. Ken Epp: Your caseloads have gone up substantially?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Our caseloads have changed in nature, in this way. We had, as you may know from reading the commissioner's annual reports for years, about a 50% caseload of delay complaints versus 50% of exemption, or what I call “secrecy” complaints. We are now changing that profile to have approximately 80% of the secrecy complaints versus 20% delays. And the 20% delays were a lot easier to investigate.

So the complexity of our caseload has changed dramatically, and hence has boosted our workload.

Mr. Ken Epp: Most of these are out of the PCO, aren't they.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: No, I wouldn't say that. The complaints vary.

I may in fact have some numbers here. I will just check to see how many complaints against the PCO there were last year.

There was a total of 26 complaints last year, out of a grand total of approximately.... I think we completed investigations of 1,500 complaints.

But you're correct, some of the more difficult ones tend to be closer to central agency policy areas.

º (1650)

Mr. Ken Epp: Now, from a straight efficiency point of view, in a way your office and the privacy office are sort of the opposite sides of a teeter-totter, aren't they--giving balance, giving people information they're entitled to, but at the same time protecting the privacy of those people who are entitled to it.

Why did you have a falling out, and had to separate? Why the divorce? Did you go for counselling, the whole thing?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: You're right, there was a partial divorce in the sense that the Privacy Commissioner decided he does not wish to share corporate services. There has not been a legal divorce for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act. The decision to do that was the Privacy Commissioner's. I think you'll have that office as a witness, and they can better explain the reasons.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Well, we'll hear from them next.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Do you know what your first question is to the Privacy Commissioner?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, they have notice, don't they. They'll be working on it.

I suppose the last question I would have is that you clearly want us, as Parliament, to approve this $311,000 that you want altogether. New appropriation: what is that...? Oh, my goodness, my math isn't very good. What is it, around 1%, or a little less than 1%?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Yes, less than 1%.

Mr. Ken Epp: So you feel okay about having missed your total target by a little less than 1%. That's not too bad, is it?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: This is the first time in the history of the office that we've blown our budget, so to speak. We don't feel good about it, but we're very satisfied that we have a good explanation.

To that end, I would like to tell you how we're going to spend that money, but I've been told by the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board that it's a cabinet confidence for me to reveal the details of what the Treasury Board approved us to spend this money on.

Mr. Ken Epp: Ah, now you've got our interest.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I know the Information Commissioner feels it is unacceptable that a parliamentary committee cannot know why funds are being requested. That goes to the heart of the democratic process, I think. But he also, because of his role as the guardian of a lot of secrets of government.... When there's a dispute, we get the secrets; we look at them. And we've taken the position that we can't substitute our judgment for that of the government's in these issues without either an order from this committee or an order from a court.

So I don't really have much choice but to defer to the direction of the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board to refuse to give this committee details of how we're going to spend this money.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to go in camera and find out that information.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I'd just like some clarification. Under vote 40, there's a request for $311,000.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: That's right.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Now, if Mr. Epp is asking you to describe to the committee how that $311,000 is going to be allocated or used, you're suggesting you're not capable of doing that?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: As you know, the Treasury Board, when it approved this money, approved it for specific purposes. There are four, I think, particular reasons that we've been given the money, earmarked, which I and the Information Commissioner want to give this committee, to tell this committee. I think they're innocuous. They're not sensitive, and they're very justifiable. But the Treasury Board has been adamant with us, in writing and otherwise, as has the Privy Council Office, that it would be a breach of cabinet confidence to tell the committee that, because the government has not chosen to tell the committee that in these documents.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Have you already received $311,000 through contingency?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Through the supplementary estimates (B) process, yes. Nobody has transferred the money to us at this point.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, if you'll notice, I messed up earlier, asking one of the witnesses whether they had the million. I just had the wrong page here on my sheet, because another one did get it that way, from the contingency fund from the Treasury Board.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: We have not received any--

Mr. Ken Epp: There is not an asterisk here that says they have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm really....

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Cullen, it's your time now, but if you want to follow up....

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I would like to follow up, because I was going to ask that very question.

In the $251,000, what is that buying you?

º (1655)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I think that's a very legitimate question that I have been instructed by officials of Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office not to answer.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Well, I agree with your view that this is not appropriate.

Now, let me ask a follow-on question. Given that March 31 is the year end, and it's March 17, if the Parliament of Canada said that the $311,000 in additional expenditure requested was not approved, what would that mean to you? What would that do to you? I mean, you only have 12 more days.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Put on the cuffs!

No, I don't want to be glib, or to be flip, but there are some conditions, too, under which this money has been given to us that I want to tell this committee and similarly have been instructed not to tell this committee. So some conditions that affect what's going to happen next year are not reflected in these documents.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Leadbeater, you've indicated that you have been instructed by a letter?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I have e-mail traffic, yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Can you table that with the committee?

Ms. Judy Sgro: Let's not get him into trouble.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: If the committee asks me to, I can, yes.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I'd just like to pursue that. I mean, this has always puzzled me; it's now March 17, and this is for the year end of March 31, 2003. You're seeking another $311,000 for the fiscal year that will end in a week or two, right?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Yes.

Mr. Roy Cullen: So a couple of weeks. And presumably you've already spent it, or committed it.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Absolutely.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Absolutely. So if the Parliament of Canada said we don't approve it, what in heck is the consequence? I don't understand. What are we doing? It's somewhat of an academic exercise.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: There are options, of course--i.e., simply claw back options from next year's budget. That is, we would simply start next year $311,000 in the hole. That's the more traditional way of doing it.

Mr. Roy Cullen: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that our not being able to access that information is not appropriate. As members of Parliament, surely we have the right to know what we're being asked to approve in additional appropriation.

I'm wondering if there is an opportunity to caucus amongst yourselves and maybe...and not to usurp your role, Mr. Chairman, but to say that if you could communicate to Treasury Board that this committee is quite insistent that we find out more about what it is you're requesting in this $311,000.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I'd have to say this. You are the first, today, to suggest that you are unable to convey to this committee what the supplementary moneys are going to be used for. The discussion earlier today in the committee was that we weren't getting enough information. I think people sitting where you are sitting went to some length to explain what they were going to use this money for. I just find it very puzzling that you are unable to convey to this committee what you're going to do with $311,000.

I have a bunch of hands going up here, and I just want to maintain control here.

I'm not usurping your time, Judy, but I know that Mr. Szabo's hand was up, and then Ken, and then you.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Maybe just for our education, Mr. Leadbeater, somewhere are there rules binding cabinet secrecy, etc., that are long-standing and that specifically relate to these matters--for instance, national security and so on? Can you tell us whether these are items that clearly are in the family of things that we would understand that you should not, or should not be able to, disclose, such as a matter of national security or other state secrets?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: No, there is no national security aspect to the items on which we have this approved expenditure.

Mr. Paul Szabo: So there are no extraordinary or understood....

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: The explanation I've been given is that under the Canada Evidence Act and the Access to Information Act, a Treasury Board decision is considered a cabinet decision. Cabinet decisions are subject to cabinet confidence except to the extent to which their contents are disclosed by the government. And what the government has disclosed to you is contained in this document.

In our office, not having done this process before--we've never blown our budget before--I went to ask, “Well, what can I tell the committee? I would like to know ahead of time what I can tell the committee.” I fully intended to table the Treasury Board decision here and to tell you what we've been approved to spend it on. I was told absolutely not, that this would reveal a cabinet confidence.

» (1700)

Mr. Paul Szabo: But doesn't that apply to everything anybody asks for? Obviously they went to Treasury Board and asked for approval, and Treasury Board said yea or nay on certain items. But their decision on whatever the items obviously would qualify as a cabinet decision. So then nobody could do anything for us.

How are your things different from everybody else's that were approved?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I'm not sure how much detail was in part III of the estimates for the others.

I can tell you, for example, that we spent $60,000 on personnel services. I can tell you that because that's here. And I can tell you what that was for, because that is not part of the Treasury Board decision. But when the Treasury Board specifically gives me $251,000 earmarked for specific things, under specific circumstances, that I would like to tell this committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Judy, and then Ken.

Ms. Judy Sgro: For all of the departments that come before us, this is a format. This is a template. This is exactly the way everything gets presented to us. So as we're exploring today, looking at and questioning this, we'd like more information. Telling us that somebody is going to spend $251,000 on professional and special services--is it enough?

We've been asking, as we've been going through this process, with Mr. Valeri's subcommittee, how we make the system better. We just didn't get into the detail on a lot of these things.

As the head of the department, if I were to ask you what $251,000 is, you're saying to us that you've had specific direction that you are not to give out more information than what's in this document. Is that correct?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: That's correct. But you could, if you wish, ask the president of the Treasury Board or the Clerk of the Privy Council. They have the ability to waive this privilege, I don't.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Okay. But moving on to Mr. Szabo's point about these being basic questions that would be asked in any committee that was reviewing anybody's budget, currently you don't go before any committee at all with your budget requests, do you?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Yes, we do. We go before the justice committee.

Ms. Judy Sgro: If they asked you the details of the $251,000, for instance, would you be able to give it to them?

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: No, under the instructions I've been given, I could not give this detail to anyone outside government. It's a cabinet confidence.

Ms. Judy Sgro: So I can only assume that this would be the same answer from all of those departments that we've been looking at. We just hadn't asked them specifically.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I would make the point that we in our office don't agree with this interpretation. We don't believe it's appropriate that in these circumstances this be withheld, or that it is a cabinet confidence, but we feel that it would be impertinent to the point of unacceptability for the commissioner simply to say, “Well, since I disagree, here it all is.”

Now, perhaps some other departments have done that. They just take that risk. The Information Commissioner might risk never getting access to these secrets again in the course of his duties.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Members, we've sort of gone out of our cycle for a second, because everybody wanted to get in here. So I have Mr. Epp, and then we'll get back on cycle and go to Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Leadbeater, this raises a very important issue for me. One of the problems we have had is getting information from the PMO, and a lot of the information from there and from the PCO, which is relevant to our work as parliamentarians, is hidden from us. And then, if that's not done, we appeal to your office.

Now, in the event that you are totally beholden, with blind and total obedience, to that office, then, if an opposition member asks for something from PMO and they tell you that you can't give it, you would have to obey that, just as you have to obey this instruction in this particular case in this committee.

I think you're running the risk of minimizing the importance and the actual legislative power your office has.

» (1705)

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Could I suggest there might be another way of looking at it? And that is, because we are not in this forum disclosing this, Privy Council Office and others are more confident, when we go to investigate, about giving us all the documents, everything. Then there's a process under our act if we take issue; we go to court and have a judge decide. So I don't think the fact that I'm very reluctant here to simply say, “Privy Council Office be damned, I'm full speed ahead”....

I think that's because we are very mindful of our need to be independent and thorough in our investigations.

Mr. Ken Epp: That's a fair comment. I accept that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we should, as a committee, simply give notice to the Privy Council that we're going to decline this particular appropriation unless we get more information, and let them....

Well, this is justice.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I think as a committee we can talk about our approach to this. You know, the flags have been raised.

In terms of the actual approval of this particular vote, I don't think it's possible. I don't want to speak on behalf of the committee, but I don't see how we can approve this vote without getting some clarification on what some answers are here.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I believe that, before refusing, we should write. The committee should write directly to the Privy Council to obtain the information they don't want to give out. We should also write to the Minister of Justice because that's the responsibility of the Department of Justice. So both should be asked to provide the information.

If we don't have the information within a brief period of time, we will refuse to grant the appropriations. I believe that's what the committee should do to have at least a chance of knowing the reasons. If the expenditures have already been made, we can also ask the question. We must have the information. If we don't have the information, we simply request rejection.

I'm going to take my time, if that's possible. In my opinion, what you've just done today removes an enormous amount of credibility from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada with regard to the Access to Information Act. When we worked on a matter with Minister Coderre, we obtained some of the information I requested under the Access to Information Act, but not all of it. As if by chance, some two months later, I received other information. We are supposed to receive the information we request, and I didn't get it. It's as though you had an order not to give me the documents and that you subsequently received another order to provide them. That's what happened in this particular matter.

Now you're telling us that you can't provide the information because someone else, to whom you don't report at all, has told you to keep it secret. You're losing all credibility, as a result of which we're going to monitor your Office's work even more closely because we as parliamentarians, and all Canadians, have a right to check and have access to information. Our committee wanted to look at the Access to Information Act. We already have information and we want more. The section 16 exception or things like that are often invoked as a reason to say no to us because it might cause problems for private enterprise and so on.

But already some things are not right, and we can't even obtain the bills. We can't even find the contracts. We can't even do our work anymore because it's the exception that's going to apply here. There will have to be an enormous change in the Act because what you're telling us today is bewildering.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I understand the frustration very well, but, according to the Access to Information Act, it's not the Information Commissioner who must provide access to information; the departments have the power and the right to do so. It's up to the Information Commissioner to investigate complaints against the departments, and, if he thinks there's a problem, any kind of problem, it's up to him to go before the Federal Court of Canada and to file an application for review of the departments' decisions.

It is not entirely correct to say that this is a matter of credibility for the Information Commissioner because it's not the Information Commissioner who has the right to grant access to information. He is an ombudsman. He simply makes recommendations.

» (1710)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's as though you were telling me that the Auditor General can't provide information because the Privy Council told her not to do so. If it told the Auditor General the same thing, what do you think would happen? She would lose all credibility. She's supposed to provide the information if she's found it, if she's done her work. She's an ombudsman, and that's what you are. If the ombudsman can't even provide the information, there's a problem.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Yes, but the Commissioner is prohibited under the Access to Information Act to disclose information that the government wants to protect. That's in the Access to Information Act. It's not up to us to decide; we can only make recommendations.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, did you want me to table this e-mail correspondence?

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'd take his word.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I think the committee is going to call upon the proper officials to speak directly to what you've said here today before we do anything with respect to the votes allocated to the Information Commissioner.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Thank you, and I'd encourage you to do that with the president of the Treasury Board and the Clerk of the Privy Council.

With regard to the option I heard you talk about, simply denying us the necessary funds--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): “Deferring” would have been the word.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: --that we think we need, I would hope that the solution to this decision of the government--that is, to tell me not to tell you information--is not to punish our office for that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): No, but by the same token, if Parliament is being asked to approve something, then Parliament's entitled to the information that's associated with what we're being asked to approve.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I absolutely agree. And if you order me to tell you, I'll tell you. I need an order, that's all.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Are we planning on voting this afternoon, Mr. Chairman? Weren't we supposed to vote on a few? Then why do we not decide that we're not going to vote on any of them until we get some answers?

At least, that's the motion I'd like to put on the table.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Vote on the rest and leave this one.

Ms. Judy Sgro: I don't want to penalize anybody in particular. I just think the whole issue....

I think we're trying to get the department to understand that we're trying to do what we're asked do as parliamentarians, and we're running into issues here. Let's just get some questions answered.

I don't want to go back and review every part of that, but the issue is, we need more information here to really do our job.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): So we can isolate this vote.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Yes, if you want to isolate this one, but what's the difference if we just decide we're not going to vote on any of them until we get...?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Just before we get into a general discussion on what the committee is going to do, are there further questions for Mr. Leadbeater?

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I have a question and a comment.

I think the Treasury Board Secretariat and the PCO have put you in a very difficult position. You're the information czar. You're supposed to be promoting the fair exchange of information, and yet you come to this committee of elected people and you're not able to. It must put you in a very difficult spot.

So certainly most of us, or all of us here, don't want to penalize you, but by the same token, I think you understand our right as parliamentarians.

For me to come to this meeting and look at the page....I can read the page. So when you tell me that you've been advised that you cannot indicate anything other than what is written on the page, and if we can't probe into these questions, that means your coming here today is, with respect, a total waste of time.

So I'm hoping that some sanity prevails. I don't think anyone wants to penalize you for being very candid in what you've said, but as parliamentarians, for us to say that we approve or would recommend that Parliament approve these additional resources when we don't really know what they're for would be an affront to Canadian citizenry.

That's my little speech. Hopefully we can have some sanity on this before we get back to it again.

» (1715)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give you a notice of motion. I'm going to move at the next meeting of this committee, it being within the 24-hour time limit that's required for notice of motions, that we ask Mr. Leadbeater and his people here to give us the answers to the questions we've asked so that we can make a valid decision.

That's just a notice of motion, which is all I can do at this stage.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I don't know; in terms of the rules, I think there's a consensus within the committee that we proceed that way. Why could we not, instead of a notice of motion, if the committee agrees, just say that this is the will of the committee?

Ms. Judy Sgro: If you have unanimous consent.

Mr. Ken Epp: I don't know if you can do that. The reason they brought in this rule is so that when you have certain members of the committee present and others absent you can't suddenly bring in a motion that might upset everybody else on the committee. I'm speaking here from your side of the table; I think that's why it was done.

So I wouldn't want to disrespect that if it was a decision of the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Szabo and then Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, this is a little bit new. It's the first time this has occurred. There are some unknowns. I think we probably have to inform ourselves a little further with regard to Treasury Board's explanation as well as PCO's explanation. We then might be in a better position to--

Mr. Ken Epp: My notice of motion gives that time.

Mr. Paul Szabo: And that can always be there, but I think we should inform ourselves before we move too much further so that we're absolutely certain that our actions are appropriate.

So I would recommend that.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I believe we should first look at the committee's power. After we know what our authority is, we will write the letter. If we have the power to order the witness to provide us with the information, we won't do it immediately, but we'll write--I hope we all agree to write a letter--to ask that the questions we ask be answered. If that's not done within 48 hours, for example, we'll ask the Commissioner to come back, and, if he doesn't come back, we'll know we have the power to compel him to answer us all the same.

So, first, we have to get an opinion. That's why I asked the clerk what authority we had. Is the committee entitled to order him to give us the information? We'll know. We don't want to use our extreme power immediately. We're kindly asking the officials or whomever at the Privy Council or the Prime Minister's Office, to allow him to come and testify before the committee. He will receive the letter and will tell us that we can do so, or, if he says he can't do it, we'll write in the letter that we will use our extreme powers.

I believe that's the way to do things.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to belabour the point, but there are just a couple of things I'd like to put out here from my perspective.

One, I certainly wouldn't be interested in names--for instance, names of contracts. Under the privacy rules, you couldn't do that anyway. But I would like to know, roughly, what that bought in terms of the functional areas of review and the types of contracts, etc.

Two, if there are matters of national security--and I think you've indicated there aren't--or any very sensitive issues, would it be possible to do this in camera? That might be an option if they're very touchy, sensitive matters.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: There is nothing touchy or sensitive. It is very innocuous information, and I am at a loss to understand...[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I tell you, it's getting really hot in here.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): We're frying the wires.

I think what I'm seeing and hearing is essentially consensus around what Monsieur Lanctôt has suggested, and that is that the clerk would draft a letter outlining the powers of the committee to the respected officials who are involved in this, getting them back before this committee to respond to the questions we might have so that we can, I think, defer the vote on this particular request until we get further information, and have the fullness of information so that we can do so in an effective manner.

At the same time, Mr. Epp's notice of motion is on the table. He's free to prepare that motion and present it to the committee as well.

Do we have agreement with that?

» (1720)

Mr. Roy Cullen: Just one clarification in terms of the timeframe. It is somewhat of an academic exercise in any case, so--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Well, I guess that's--

Mr. Roy Cullen: I'm not saying we drop it, but is there any imperative that we deal with this in a matter of days or...?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): It is quite imperative, in fact, because there's a possibility that our so-called deadline would be either Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday of this week, which means that if we draft this letter and it gets to them tomorrow--

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We have to know what the committee's authority is. Before writing the letter, we have to know whether we have the power to do it. We have to have a legal opinion.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Agreed. The clerk is actually doing that now.

The other option is that if the clerk does ascertain that we have that type of authority, we could also call Treasury Board, Privy Council back before us tomorrow, and then call yourselves back to the table. I guess it would have to be later tomorrow if in fact we want to be prepared to table something in the House on Wednesday.

Not knowing what our deadlines are--that's the difficulty here. We don't really know the last allotted days.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Can we find out?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Tomorrow they're dealing with Bill C-13.

Ms. Judy Sgro: There was to be one tomorrow.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): There was to be an allotted day tomorrow, but it's been pulled. It's now Bill C-13. So it's shifted things.

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's no earlier than Thursday.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay. So if it's no earlier than Thursday, this is the process that I think we all want to follow.

As Mr. Lanctôt described, the clerk will confirm the powers we have.

Second, we will be drafting a letter to the respective officials requesting the information, or the release of the information.

Third, we will be calling you back before us to give us that information.

Fourth, we will deal with your particular vote.

The alternative to that would be finding out and confirming the powers we have; not writing a letter but inviting Treasury Board and Privy Council and whoever else we may deem to be appropriate to come before the committee tomorrow; bringing you back; and then dealing with the vote.

My fear is that if we do a letter, it's going to get caught up in the process somewhere and we won't get a response to it as quickly as if the clerk perhaps put calls in to the appropriate department and officials requesting that they come before the committee.

Yes.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Can I make a suggestion?

As I understand the process, it might work this way. If, after drafting your letter and reviewing the questions you wish to put me, you write to me and indicate that it is the wish of this committee that this happen, with a copy to the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board, then it's up to the Clerk of the Privy Council to arrive with a certificate preventing me from doing so here at the appointed hour. If I arrive here and the Clerk of the Privy Council doesn't have a certificate preventing me, I give the information.

Under the Canada Evidence Act, that's the process the clerk has before a court or any body with the power to compel production, to simply assert cabinet confidence.

If the clerk wishes to do so, he will. If not, I will just proceed with my evidence.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I just want to make something clear, at least from my perspective.

I personally am not interested in a document, per se; I'm interested in information on what's going into this, on what that is buying. So if you're able to articulate that from notes or other documents, that's fine. I personally don't need to see a document. We generally don't need that. We just need information.

So if the document itself is causing some concern, that's fine by me, but I think we want the information on what that money is going to be spent on, or what it has been spent on, roughly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: If I may, Mr. Chair, I think what Mr. Leadbeater is indicating is that he is free to give us that information verbally only if there isn't an overt move to prevent him from doing so if the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board have received notice that this is what's going to happen.

» (1725)

Mr. Roy Cullen: No, I understand that, Ken, but my concern was that a piece a paper, we don't need; we need the information.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Judy, and then I'd like to dismiss the witnesses, if that's okay.

Ms. Judy Sgro: This really has nothing to do with the $251,000; it's a result of the work we've done all day and the lack of information. That has always been the way they've delivered the service, so....

Because this is the template, and this is the way they do it, and the way they probably do things around here, it's just “This is the way we do it.” They don't give any more information because that's just the “way we do it” around here. You don't start giving them the little bits of details of $251,000.

For us, all day we've been going here, and you just happen to be the poor guy who ended up at the end of the table at the end of the day, when we've been learning a new way and asking how we do our job better. You happened to be there when we decided to ask a simple question.

So from my end, I want to know, just generally, what do you spend it on? That's a normal question you would ask anybody.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: I assumed that would that be your question.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Exactly.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: That's why I was preparing myself to answer it.

Ms. Judy Sgro: It may strictly be because that's the format, and that's the way they're used to doing things.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Last comment on this issue, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I just want to make sure we're clear, at least in my own mind.

The estimates are always in this kind of format, which is a bunch of numbers and not much else. But if a minister comes to a committee on main estimates, you can ask the minister anything you want, and that information will be forthcoming, or from officials. So this is new, as far as I'm concerned. I don't pretend to have been around here for 40 years, but just basic information being withheld is new to me, anyway.

Mr. J. Alan Leadbeater: Well, ministers have the right to waive confidence. It's their right to tell the committee whatever it wants...and through their officials to do the same. We as officers of Parliament have no minister. We report to the House through the Speaker.

I have no minister I can go to and ask, “Will you waive this cabinet confidence for me?” I have to rely on the Privy Council Office for that function, and at this point, they have not been willing to do so.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, understood.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I'd like to thank you for coming before us. I have no doubt you will be back before us in very short order. Thank you.

I'd like to again suspend for one minute as we bring in our next set of witnesses.

» (1730)

» (1735)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Order. I'd like to resume our session this afternoon and welcome Art Lamarche.

[Translation]

Mr. Julien Delisle (Executive Director, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada): No, my name is Julien Delisle.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Ah, Julien, I'm sorry. Welcome to the committee.

You were probably sitting in the back there while we had our exchange with our previous witness.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Absolutely.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Do you have an opening statement or anything you'd like to say before commencing questions?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Just very briefly, the Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski, sends his regrets. He would have loved to have been here today to answer your questions, but he had a long-standing engagement in Fredericton, New Brunswick, at the request of a member of the Senate.

[Translation]

I'm very pleased to appear before you today to answer your questions on the Supplementary Estimates.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a question. You're asking for $287,858 in additional money. That's what your number is here. And it says, for “Personnel information”, $2,000--I have no clue what that information is--and for “Professional and special services”, $158,000.

I'd like to know, what are you going to spend it on?

Mr. Julien Delisle: For us, two things. One is legal services. This year, the events surrounding 9/11 have had an impact on our legal services budget. As well, with the implementation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, there's been additional pressure on our legal services budget.

There is also, I should say, with respect to that budget, a long-standing agreement between the office and Treasury Board with respect to legal services specifically, because it's very difficult for a small agency such as ours to predict and budget at the beginning of a fiscal year what will be required in terms of defending the legislation or defending privacy issues generally.

In the past, I had always been put in the very difficult position of having to find budgets mid-year in order to pay for legal services. So we had agreed with Treasury Board that we would have a specific budget, which for us now is $225,000. If we went beyond that budget, Treasury Board had always agreed that they would fund those additional costs. The deal that we made with Treasury Board from a prudent fiscal perspective was to not relocate or reallocate those funds for any other purpose. If we didn't use the money, we would simply let it lapse.

So this year, again, because of those pressures, as I've said, we have had to ask for additional dollars.

The other initiative that caused us to ask for more dollars was the implementation of the privacy impact assessment policy by Treasury Board last May. Of course, that had never been reflected in our main estimates, and it did cause us to spend dollars in terms of hiring staff to do those tasks associated with the privacy impact assessment.

So Treasury Board agreed to give us some funds to do that, which accounts for all of those personnel figures. The $128,000 is simply to hire staff to help us do that with a view to reviewing those budgets in the upcoming fiscal year, because in 2004 we will have to reassess our budgets generally with respect to our mandate under the PIPED Act.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Just for my own curiosity, have you received any directive whatsoever from the PMO, the PCO, or the Treasury Board on what you can answer here today, and what you can't?

Mr. Julien Delisle: None whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the Privacy Commissioner called me this afternoon and specifically asked me to be as detailed as you wanted me to be with respect to these appropriations.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

So primarily, then, what you're saying is that your professional and special services involve mostly the hiring of legal staff. Do you do that on contract or do you hire staff who are semi-permanent or permanent?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Let me clarify that. We have legal services, with five lawyers on staff, but there is always a requirement to go...because I don't think it would be prudent to have specialized legal services within our organization. I actually think it's more prudent, when you have to buy those services for specific needs....

For example, if you have a requirement for advice on a constitutional matter, it wouldn't be reasonable to have a constitutional expert on staff. That would be tremendously expensive. So of course, like most agencies, we simply buy that service when we need it.

Mr. Ken Epp: How do you choose the firms that provide you with that service?

Mr. Julien Delisle: We usually go to a standing list, go that route. We've done a lot of work with Nelligan Power, and I can tell you why. We had a case a few years ago with Canada Post Corporation. All of the other law firms in the city were on retainer to Canada Post. Nelligan Power was the only one that wasn't, so we hired them.

Mr. Ken Epp: There was almost a legal obligation there.

Mr. Julien Delisle: There you go.

Mr. Ken Epp: Finally, when we're dealing with billions here, this is almost petty, but I'm still curious; what would be the meaning of spending $2,000 on “information”? What is that?

Mr. Julien Delisle: To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what that means. When we went to Treasury Board we had asked for dollars to hire people, and we also asked for some additional operating capital associated with that. I mean, if you're going to hire people, you need to buy pencils and computers and that kind of thing. And we had asked for a little bit more than that; we had asked for some $20,000 or so in order to accommodate that. For some reason they cut it back to $2,000. God only knows why; you'd have to ask them.

Mr. Ken Epp: So you're going to buy basic pencils and erasers and forget the computers, then.

Mr. Julien Delisle: That's essentially it.

Mr. Ken Epp: Manual computers with a hand-crank on the side.

Mr. Chairman, I think that's all I have for now, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'm coming back to the $158,000 amount. Is that for a specific purpose?

Mr. Julien Delisle: No, the Treasury Board policy requires that, in the case of major initiatives, in information technology, for example, which have an impact on people's privacy, the departments conducted an analysis of that impact. Under the policy, the Commissioner's Office must necessarily be consulted, and the Commissioner prepares a brief which is added to the documents that are filed with the Treasury Board by the agencies or departments in question. So we have hired people to do that specific work.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's for personnel.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Yes, but we requested much more money, money that was not allocated to us for this year because we're starting a study to determine what budgets will be associated with that program next year. I'm currently in talks with the Treasury Board to establish a reasonable budget for next year.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: In the case of professional services, you're telling us that these are specific mandates given to lawyers.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Precisely, for this year only.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: How many mandates are given to the lawyers? It's not just one mandate, is it?

Mr. Julien Delisle: No. There are four mandates.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: All right. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So that $128,000 is all lawyers' fees?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Yes. The $158,000 is specifically for legal services--that is, for two components of legal services, one for litigation purposes and the other for purposes of obtaining legal opinions with respect to certain issues.

For example, the CCRA has engaged in an initiative known as API/PNR, the advance passenger information/passenger name record. That agency will be creating a database of all people travelling into Canada from abroad. We believe that may be a violation of the Privacy Act, and it also may be a violation of the charter, because 98% of the information contained in that database will be about law-abiding Canadians who will never have any contact whatsoever with the criminal justice system.

So there is some concern on the part of the Privacy Commissioner that this may violate the constitutional rights of Canadians, and in that regard we sought the advice of constitutional experts.

» (1740)

Ms. Judy Sgro: Given the fact that, again, there's such limited information here, what else does your department do?

Mr. Julien Delisle: The Privacy Commissioner's mandate is twofold. He has a mandate under the Privacy Act to deal with complaints received from the Canadian public about their rights under the Privacy Act, specifically with regard to access to personal information in federal government records and also the management of their information--in other words, the use, the retention, and the disclosure by government agencies of their information.

As well, the commissioner has a mandate under the Privacy Act to conduct audits for compliance with this legislation with government agencies and departments.

He also has, under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, a similar mandate with respect to taking complaints; with respect to doing audits with regard to federal works undertakings and businesses; and also with respect to any personal information that is transmitted across borders, whether international or provincial, for consideration.

Under that statute he has an additional mandate to conduct research activities and to do communication and public education activities as well.

Ms. Judy Sgro: And how many people work in the department?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Our present complement is approximately 105. It's always in a little bit of a state of flux, but it's 105 to 108 people. I think presently we have actually 103 people engaged.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Delisle, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was established when?

Mr. Julien Delisle: In 1983.

Mr. Roy Cullen: And your initial budget was how much, do you recall?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I joined the office in 1985. When I became concerned with budget issues, which would have been in the late eighties and early nineties, I would say our budget was probably--I'd have to check to give you an exact answer--in the vicinity of $2 million or something like that.

Mr. Roy Cullen: You're just guessing, I suppose, but if you were to chart the budget of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner from then until now, it would go like that, right? It would be a steep line, or a relatively steep line, or certainly a growing trend in terms of your budget?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Let me just say, the Privacy Commissioner has often said publicly that privacy may very well be the defining issue of this decade. And I can tell you, in the previous decade, privacy was on a huge growth curve as an issue.

When I started in the privacy business, and I told people that I worked for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, they thought somehow I was a CSIS agent. People didn't understand what privacy was all about. Today, as you know, privacy is on the front page of newspapers daily. I think people understand what the issue is. But throughout that period, I can tell you, our workload probably increased 10% to 15% every year to the point where, in the mid-nineties, during the program review process where government departments and agencies were asked to give up resources for purposes of deficit fighting, our office did not have to do that. It was recognized that we were on a growth curve.

Notwithstanding that, in the late nineties it was recognized by Treasury Board that our program was seriously underfunded. We got to a point in the late nineties when our whole operating budget was in the area of about $100,000. We conducted at that time what was called an “A base” review. This was a review that we conducted, along with Treasury Board Secretariat, to study every dollar spent and allocated to our office with the view of re-establishing appropriate budgets. That was done in the 1999-2000 fiscal year, I believe.

» (1745)

Mr. Roy Cullen: In terms of the percentage of your work where you're responding to complaints versus proactive work, are you only responding to complaints or do you take on certain initiatives in your own right?

Mr. Julien Delisle: No, we do more than that. I would say a substantial part of our business and certainly greater than half of our resources are dedicated to our investigation...and our compliance branch.

Mr. Roy Cullen: These are based on complaints?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Yes, we take complaints from the public. We do around 1,500 a year. We also do reviews and audits of information management systems. We do that on a proactive basis.

You may recall the Golden West shredding incident a few years ago. Our office was instrumental in bringing that to light. It had to do with the disposal of information by federal government departments and agencies.

We also have basic legal services and a small communications group, and that's pretty much it. And a small research--

Mr. Roy Cullen: The reason I was asking, before I run out of time, is that in terms of the mix you have of full-time staff versus contracted staff, I guess you bring in lawyers with specific expertise on certain issues, but are you monitoring the mix of full-time staff versus contracted services? As you grow, surely it makes more sense over time to bring in another full-time lawyer. It might be more cost-effective.

Mr. Julien Delisle: Well, we're always looking at ways to be more cost-effective, but I would tell you that for the most part, our staff is made up of indeterminate employees, more than 90%. So we've had a very stable workforce in that regard. It is our practice to do so; whenever we can, we bring people in on an indeterminate basis. We have very few casual or term employees.

With respect to such things as legal services and communications, it is, of course, a decision we have to make on an ongoing basis, but with respect to things like getting advice on the constitutionality of certain programs and issues, to us it makes more sense to buy that from a large law firm that has a good, solid research capacity and a reputation to deal with constitutional issues. That only makes sense.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Sure.

Good, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be on this committee, sir.

When the government comes up with a particular bill or legislation with regard to privacy aspects--for example, with the airline passenger list--do they come to you before they dream this up, to ask you for your advice, or do they do it and then come and talk to you?

Mr. Julien Delisle: For the most part there's consultation, although we have to be mindful of the cabinet process. Since the Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament, and as such doesn't participate in that full government process in the creation of legislation, we're not usually privy to that. But the departments, for the most part, will come to us prior to the tabling of legislation to discuss various aspects with regard to privacy and their initiatives.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, I worked for the airline industry for 18 years. When a flight left, we pulled out the PNL--the passenger name list--and put it in an envelope. That went into the safe, and that was it. The only person who could access that information was a police officer with a special request or a warrant.

How is it going to work now? How is the government, or anyone else, going to have access to those lists? For example, a plane leaves Frankfurt and comes to Toronto with 380 people on board. How would the government access the information? Walk the committee through how that would actually work.

Mr. Julien Delisle: I would love to be able to do that, but I think the question should more appropriately be put to CCRA. They're the ones who are putting in place the infrastructure that will allow that to happen. I'd be remiss if I misled you in any way. I mean, I understand it in very general terms, but I don't have access to all the details with regard to the initiative.

All I can tell you is that they're putting in place some kind of informatics infrastructure that will allow them to capture the information in a database, by computer.

» (1750)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, that's with airline travel. For people on a cruise ship, for example, going from New York to Halifax, will CCRA have access to the names of those people on the ship?

Mr. Julien Delisle: My understanding--and again, I caution you, you'd have to ask CCRA--is that the API/PNR initiative only applies at this point in time to people coming into Canada through airports. It does not yet apply to other forms of transportation. However, I think CCRA has indicated its intention to extend the API/PNR program to all of those other areas of transportation that lead into Canada.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Sir, you had stated to the committee that, in your opinion, this may be unconstitutional. Has any other country, for example, the German government or any other government, raised any concerns with the Canadian government about this process?

Mr. Julien Delisle: I really don't have an answer to that question. I really don't know.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Do other countries have privacy commissioners like ours?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Yes, most European countries have data protection commissioners, but they apply differently. They don't necessarily have the authorities our Privacy Commissioner has. Some deal only with paper records, for example.

So, yes, there are commissioners in other countries.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Is there interaction between our Privacy Commissioner and privacy commissioners of other countries to share ideas, to see how things can be improved?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Yes. The commissioner usually attends a yearly meeting, an international data protectors conference. The Privacy Commissioner traditionally attends that conference to share ideas and issues with other commissioners. I'm sure this particular issue with respect to API/PNR will be discussed at probably the next forum of the data protectors.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just to put you on the hot seat, if you were making the budget, and if you could write yourself a cheque for the department, what would it be?

Mr. Julien Delisle: Oh, I think the budgets we have are woefully inadequate. There are so many transactions in the commercial world and in the public sector with respect to personal information. I would like to see us do more work on the proactive side, do more audits, and work faster. It would be great if we could have more investigators to bring our turnaround times down.

You're asking me to write the cheque? I would at least double our budgets.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Double the budgets. Right on. Hear, hear.

An hon. member: Is that your motion?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's my motion. He's a good guy.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Any further questions?

Thank you very much for coming before us. We appreciate it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You're not in trouble, are you?

Mr. Julien Delisle: No; thanks a million.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): To the committee, traditionally, at the end of the review of estimates and supplementary estimates, as in this case, the committee would vote on the estimates themselves. Given that we have a situation with vote 40 in (B), I think the consensus was clear that the committee would want to defer that vote to further in the week, pending further information that we are in the process of requesting, I might suggest to the committee that we defer all the votes to Wednesday, which would give us Tuesday to deal with the issue. Since we are meeting Tuesday and Wednesday anyway, we could then dispose with the votes on these supplementary estimates on Wednesday.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Great.

The meeting is adjourned.