2012-2013 Departmental Performance Report

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Original signed by

The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, PC, QC, MP
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Suzanne Legault
Information Commissioner of Canada

Table of Contents

Message from the Commissioner

Suzanne Legault - Information CommissionerI am pleased to present the Office of the Information Commissioner’s Departmental Performance Report for 2012–2013.

This report looks back on a year of challenges. Notable among them was that I began to see—in the form of a growing number of complaints—the effects of deteriorating performance by institutions across government in how they are handling access to information requests.

Access is one of the tools that make citizen engagement in government and the public policy process possible. When institutions falter in their service to requesters, it is more than just an inconvenience to those individuals and organizations; ultimately, it is the health of Canadian democracy that is at stake.

Access is also a legislated responsibility: the Access to Information Act is the law of the land. As such, the government has a legal obligation to properly resource the access function, so institutions can provide timely responses to requesters and my office can efficiently and effectively investigate complaints.

A 50 percent jump in complaints in the first quarter of 2013–2014 alone suggests that budgetary restraint across government is having anything but a salutary effect on access. Compounding this situation is the fact that my office is also being adversely affected by cuts, amounting to nearly 11 percent of my budget by 2014–2015. Together, these put the integrity of the federal access to information system and my program at serious risk.

In my three years as Commissioner, my office has significantly improved how it carries out its oversight role. Through intensive performance management measures, I have taken a further big step towards ensuring my team is performing at the highest levels. However, any further gains in productivity will likely be insufficient to keep ahead of the increase in complaints. In light of the current limitations in the Access to Information Act, only an infusion of resources to allow me to hire more investigators will ensure I can meet the demand.

As I look ahead to 2013–2014, the fourth year of my mandate, I recommit my efforts to making a difference in the way and the extent to which Canadians have access to public sector information. By offering exemplary service to complainants, and developing and offering our expertise to build a modern access to information system, my office will continue to the best of its ability to help Canadians act on their democratic right to government information.

Section I: Organizational Overview

Raison d’être

The Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada (OIC) ensures that federal institutions respect the rights conferred by the Access to Information Act. Protecting and advancing the right of access to public sector information ultimately enhances the transparency and accountability of the federal government.

Responsibilities

The OIC is an independent public body set up in 1983 under the Access to Information Act. Our primary responsibility is to conduct efficient, fair and confidential investigations into complaints about federal institutions’ handling of access to information requests. We strive to maximize compliance with the Act while fostering disclosure of public sector information using the full range of tools, activities and powers at the Commissioner’s disposal.

We primarily use mediation and persuasion to resolve complaints. In doing so, we give complainants, heads of institutions and all third parties affected by complaints a reasonable opportunity to make representations. We encourage institutions to disclose information as a matter of course and to respect Canadians’ rights to request and receive information, in the name of transparency and accountability. We bring cases to the Federal Court to ensure that the Act is properly applied and interpreted, with a view to maximizing disclosure of information.

We also support the Information Commissioner in her advisory role to Parliament and parliamentary committees on all matters pertaining to access to information. We actively make the case for greater freedom of information in Canada through targeted initiatives such as Right to Know Week , and ongoing dialogue with Canadians, Parliament and federal institutions.

The following diagram shows the OIC’s organizational structure.

OIC’s organizational structure

View Text Version

This organizational chart shows the titles of the three senior officials at the Office of the Information Commissioner who report to the Information Commissioner: General Counsel and Director, Legal Services; Assistant Commissioner, Complaints Resolution and Compliance; and Director General, Corporate Services. Each title is enclosed in a box and these are displayed in a row below the box for the Information Commissioner above. The boxes are connected by single lines.

Legal Services represents the Commissioner in court and provides legal advice on investigations, legislative issues and administrative matters. It closely monitors the range of cases having a potential impact on our mandate and on access to information in general. Legal Services also assists investigators by providing them with up-to-date and customized reference tools and training on the evolving case law.

The Complaints Resolution and Compliance Branch investigates individual complaints about the processing of access requests, conducts dispute resolution activities and makes formal recommendations to institutions, as required. It also assesses institutions’ compliance with their obligations under the Act, and carries out systemic investigations and analysis.

Corporate Services provides strategic and corporate leadership for planning and reporting, communications, human resources and financial management, security and administrative services, internal audit, as well as information management and technology. It conducts external relations with a wide range of stakeholders, notably Parliament, governments and representatives of the media. It also manages our access to information and privacy function.

Strategic Outcome and Program Alignment Architecture

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Strategic outcome: Safeguarding individuals’ rights under the Access to Information Act
Program: Compliance with access to information obligations
Internal services

Organizational Priorities

Our organizational priorities flow from three key result areas, as set out in our 2011–2014 strategic plan: a leading access to information regime, exemplary service delivery to Canadians and an exceptional workplace. In 2012–2013, we used these key result areas to set goals for the year and measure our results against them.

Priority Type Program
1. Exemplary service delivery to Canadians Previously committed to Compliance with access to information obligations
Summary of progress
We met this priority by closing more files in 2012–2013 than we received and than we completed in 2011–2012. This meant we reduced our inventory of complaints for the fourth year in a row (and by 28.6 percent overall in that time). We were also able to improve our turnaround times for the complaints we closed. For example, we reduced our overall turnaround time for complaints closed by 52 days to 380 and the median turnaround time from the date files are assigned to an investigator to 86 days from 91 the year before.
2. Timeliness of responses to access requests Previously committed to Compliance with access to information obligations
Summary of progress
We met this priority by tabling two comprehensive reports on the timeliness of institutions’ responses to access to information requests and other aspects of their compliance with the Access to Information Act. These reports completed our three-year plan to identify and assess the causes of delay in the access system. Our systemic investigations into the delays in the access process and interference with responding to requests continued.
3. Expertise for a modern access to information regime Previously committed to Compliance with access to information obligations
Summary of progress
We launched an open dialogue with Canadians about modernizing the Access to Information Act, seeking feedback on a variety of issues, including the coverage of the Act, limits to the right of access, and a possible awareness and education mandate for the Commissioner. This input, together with the in-depth knowledge gained from our investigations and 30 years’ experience with the Act, will allow us to provide our unique and fully formed view on how the Act should be amended at this juncture and the benefits such changes would bring to transparency and accountability in the federal sphere. We will issue our reform proposals to Parliament in the fall of 2013.
4. An exceptional workplace Previously committed to Internal services
Summary of progress
We emphasized the importance of a strong and healthy workplace to our being able to achieve excellence in our work and meet our strategic outcome. As part of our talent management program, we vigorously pursued performance management and evaluation to ensure all our staff can reach their full potential, and offered a variety of training. We upgraded many information technology infrastructure components and introduced a wide range of new information management tools to ensure we are working smarter in a modern workplace.
5. Governance Previously committed to Internal services
Summary of progress
We continued to seek new and better ways to do business and ensure sound governance and stewardship of our resources. Our move to Shared Services in April 2012 for the provision of human resources services has resulted in significant improvement in the delivery of this crucial corporate function. We also worked with this organization throughout the year to implement the follow-up actions we took as a result of a Public Service Commission audit of our staffing practices.

Risk Analysis

Risk Risk response strategy Related program Related organizational priorities
Changing complaints picture: that a continued increase in complaints received could stretch our investigative resources, possibly resulting in a growing inventory of complaints and slower completion times, which could lead to increased litigation and could ultimately have a negative impact on requesters’ rights (emerging risk at the time of our 2012–2013 Report on Plans and Priorities [RPP]).
  • Targeted key groups of complaints (by institution, issue or complexity, for example)
  • Carried out vigilant monitoring of files to keep them on track
  • Fostered collaboration with institutions to ensure smoother and faster progress of files
  • Continued to fine-tune investigative processes
  • Compliance with access to information obligations
Exemplary service delivery to Canadians
Human resources and knowledge management: that we would not have sufficient human resources to deliver our program, that our investigative team would be further challenged by retirements and other demographic factors, and that our internal services function would be challenged to fully comply with various policy and other requirements (identified in 2012–2013 RPP).
  • Maximized size of investigative team within overall staff complement
  • Developed comprehensive performance management program with clear productivity targets
  • Hired casual employees to supplement investigative team
  • Provided training to investigators
  • Improved information management and information technology systems to facilitate investigations
  • Engaged outside experts for short periods to supplement in-house legal and internal services capacity
  • Developed additional internal controls to compensate for lack of depth in some Corporate Services areas
  • Compliance with access to information obligations
  • Internal services
All
Financial resources: that recent and substantial budget cuts would jeopardize our ability to deliver our program (identified in 2012–2013 RPP)
  • Made cost-efficient hiring decisions, employing casual employees, when possible, since this has proven to be a less expensive approach than hiring consultants
  • Sought shared services opportunities
  • Vigilantly monitored budgets and spending
  • Compliance with access to information obligations
  • Internal services
All

A well-functioning access system is predicated on there being up-to-date legislation, sound administration and robust oversight, with all players having sufficient resources to fulfill their respective mandates. In the absence of this foundation, Canadians’ right to access government information is jeopardized.

We received 9-percent more complaints in 2012–2013 than we did the year before. We also saw the number of new administrative complaints increase by 42 percent from 2011–2012. This is, in our view, a sign of clear deterioration in the access to information system, indicating that institutions are having difficulty meeting even their basic obligations under the Access to Information Act, and suggesting that financial restraint is having a negative impact on access.

The growing volume of work is compounding the challenges we, ourselves, face, due to recent budgetary measures. The operating budget freeze introduced with Budget 2010 and the significant and successive cuts under Budget 2012 will have diminished our financial resources. Since we were already operating with little budgetary flexibility (our year-end lapse of funds has been less than 5 percent for the past four years), these cuts have removed any financial manoeuvrability we once had, including being able to hire more investigators to keep up with the increase in complaints.

In combination, these factors have serious repercussions for our ability to safeguard individuals’ rights under the Access to Information Act. The risk responses we pursued as a consequence, however, were appropriate, since they ensured that we devoted the maximum resources we could to our investigation function and provided corporate support to that function to the fullest extent possible. As a result, we ably met three of our five performance targets and made substantial progress on a fourth (see “Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned,” below, for full details).

Other risks identified in our 2012–2013 Report on Plans and Priorities

Litigation: Although we had augmented our legal section in 2011–2012, we were concerned that anticipated litigation would stretch our in-house legal team. This is an ongoing risk, our response to which would be shaped by our mission to defend and protect the public’s access to government information.

Information management/information technology (IM/IT): We upgraded components associated with our infrastructure under our multi-year IM/IT plan and introduced a wide range of information management tools. The former assist with efficiency, cost-savings and security, while the latter support our legal and investigation functions.

Accountability and policy compliance: In 2012–2013, we concentrated on operationalizing key controls pertaining to human resources management. For example, we engaged Shared Services (Public Works and Government Services Canada) to provide the complete range of human resources services.

Summary of Performance

Total Financial Resources ($ thousands)

Total Budgetary Expenditures
(Main Estimates)
2012–13
Planned
Spending
2012–13
Total Authorities
(available for use)
2012–13
Actual Spending
(authorities used)
2012–13
Difference
(Planned vs. Actual Spending)
11,708 11,708 12,844 12,293 551

Human Resources (Full-Time Equivalents [FTEs])

Planned 2012–13 Actual 2012–13 Difference 2012–13
106 89 17

The planned number of FTEs dates from our 2012–2013 Report on Plans and Priorities. This document was released prior to Budget 2012. The 16-percent difference in our actual FTEs reflects a variety of factors, including the impact of certain staffing decisions associated with Work Force Adjustment.

Performance Summary Table ($ thousands)

Strategic outcome: Individuals’ rights under the Access to Information Act are safeguarded

Program Total
Budgetary
Expenditures
(Main Estimates 2012–13)
Planned Spending Total Authorities (available for use) 2012–13 Actual Spending
(authorities used)
Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes
2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2012–2013 2011–2012 2010–2011
Compliance with access to information obligations 8,174 8,174 9,166 8,624 9,505 9,180 8,757 8,724 Government Affairs: A transparent, accountable and responsive federal government
Internal services 3,534 3,534 5,364 2,576 3,339 3,113 3,891 3,889
Total 11,708 11,708 14,530 11,200 12,844 12,293 12,648 12,613

For complete details on our performance, see “Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned,” below.

Expenditure Profile

Departmental Spending Trend

The decrease in expenditures from 2011–2012 to 2012–2013 is primarily the result of expenditures related to severance payment settlements made in 2011–2012 under newly signed collective agreements.

We lapsed $551,000 in 2012–2013, 4 percent of our Total Authority. The lapse is primarily due to the financial uncertainty associated with the relocation of our offices in 2013–2014, as mandated by Public Works and Government Services Canada, and the impact of certain staffing decisions associated with Work Force Adjustment. To assist in the repayment of the $2.6-million loan we received to pay for the fit-up costs of the new office space over 15 years, we needed to carry forward as much funding as possible into 2013–2014.

Spending Trend

View Text Version

This chart shows the Office of the Information Commissioner’s (OIC) actual spending for 2010–2011, 2011–2012 and 2012–2013, and planned spending for 2013–2014, 2014–2015 and 2015–2016.

In 2010–2011, the OIC’s actual spending was $12,613,000. In 2011–2012, the OIC’s actual spending was $12,648,000. In 2012–2013, the OIC’s actual spending was $11,284,000.

In 2013–2014, the OIC plans to spend $14,530,000. In 2014–2015, the OIC plans to spend $11,218,000. In 2015–2016, the OIC plans to spend $11,218,000.

We plan to spend a total of $14.5 million in 2013–2014. Of this total, $11.9 million will be dedicated to program work and internal services. The remaining $2.6 million is the loan to cover the move.

Planned spending for 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 will be lower than 2012–2013 actual expenditures, primarily due to the $543,000 budget reduction required by Budget 2012 and not counting the $2.6 million for the move.

Estimates by Vote

For information on the Office of the Information Commissioner’s organizational Votes and/or statutory expenditures, please see the Public Accounts of Canada 2013 (Volume II) (under the Department of Justice Canada). An electronic version of the Public Accounts 2013 is available on the Public Works and Government Services Canada website.

Section II: Analysis of Programs by Strategic Outcome

Strategic Outcome

We have a single strategic outcome: safeguarding individuals’ rights under the Access to Information Act. All the work we did under our program (Compliance with access to information obligations) and through internal services contributed to achieving that outcome.

Program

Compliance with access to information obligations

The Access to Information Act is the statutory authority for the oversight activities of the Information Commissioner of Canada: to investigate complaints on how federal institutions handle access to information requests; to review the performance of federal institutions in complying with legislative requirements; to report results of investigations/reviews and recommendations to complainants, federal institutions and Parliament; to pursue judicial enforcement; and to provide advice to Parliament on access to information matters.

Financial Resources ($ thousands)

Total Budgetary Expenditures
(Main Estimates) 2012–13
Planned Spending
2012–13
Total Authorities
(available for use)
2012–13
Actual Spending
(authorities used)
2012–13
Difference
2012–13
8,174 8,174 9,505 9,180 325

Human Resources (FTEs)

Planned
2012–13
Actual
2012–13
Difference
2012–13
75 64 11

Performance Results

This table lists our expected results, performance indicators and targets, as described in our 2012–2013 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Expected Results Performance Indicators Targets Actual results
Canadians receive timely resolution of complaints about how federal institutions process access to information requests. Percentage of (i) administrative cases and (ii) priority cases completed with set timelines (i) Administrative cases: 85 percent closed in 90 days
(ii) Priority cases: 75 percent completed within six months (by 2014–2015)
(i) 70 percent (ii) 24 percent
Institutions meet their obligations under the Access to Information Act and adopt measures to address institutional and systemic issues affecting access to information. Percentage of recommendations from (i) investigations of complaints and (ii) report cards and systemic investigations that are adopted (i) Investigation of complaints: 95 percent of recommendations are adopted
(ii) Report cards and systemic investigations: 80 percent of recommendations are adopted
(i) 99 percent (ii) 91 percent
Parliament receives timely, clear and relevant information and advice about the access implications of legislation, jurisprudence, regulations and policies. Percentage of access-relevant parliamentary committee reports, transcripts, Hansards that refer to OIC’s perspectives and advice 85 percent of relevant parliamentary documents refer to the OIC 100 percent

Performance Analysis and Lessons Learned

Our success in closing 70 percent of our administrative complaints within 90 days from the date we assign them to an investigator reflects our diligent work to ensure Canadians receive timely resolution of complaints. This is a significant improvement in performance over the previous year, when we closed 48 percent of administrative complaints within 90 days from date of assignment.Footnote 1

The goal we have set of closing 75 percent of priority complaints in six months is ambitious but one we are determined to meet. We are seeking the optimal resource model for these investigations and working to better communicate our priorities to institutions, in order that we may work together to move these files forward quickly. In addition, we are continuing to streamline our processes whenever possible, have re-assessed how we define priority cases and have added early resolution complaints to the group of files we expect to close within six months.

These efforts are beginning to pay off. For example, in the first quarter of the new fiscal year, our closure rate for priority/early resolution files was 74 percent in six months from date of assignment and 43 percent from date registered, compared to 24 percent and 8 percent, respectively, for all of 2012–2013.

Overall, we continue to strive to maximize the performance and productivity of our investigative team. Of particular note, we stepped up our performance management program for investigators. We refined our performance management framework, developed a mandatory list of competencies for our investigators and set individual targets for the number of files they must close over the year.

A significant challenge remains in 2013–2014 and beyond, however: ensuring we have enough investigators, particularly as the number of complaints continues to grow. Currently, we do not have enough staff to begin to work on files as soon as we receive them. This is clearly shown in the difference between our closure rate for administrative complaints when we measure from the date we assign files to an investigator (70 percent in six months) and when we measure from the date we register the complaints (49 percent). For refusal files (those involving the application of exemptions, for example), there is a gap of about seven months between when we register complaints and when we are able to assign them to an investigator.

With limitations in the Access to Information Act that hinder our efficiency in some regards, only a significant influx in resources—such that we have enough investigators that we can assign cases immediately upon receipt—will allow us to make the significant improvements in performance in 2013–2014 that we achieved this year.

As part of our oversight role, we monitor institutions’ compliance with the Access to Information Act in a number of ways. In 2012–2013, we issued recommendations to heads of institutions for 12 complaints we could not otherwise resolve. This equals less than one percent of the complaints we closed, amply demonstrating our success in resolving complaints through mediation.

Similarly, we issued 104 recommendations to 20 institutions in 2012–2013, resulting from two multi-institution investigations into the timeliness of their responses to access requests. Institutions disagreed with only 9 of the recommendations, or 9 percent of the total. We then recommended that institutions report on their progress implementing our recommendations in their annual reports to Parliament on access to information operations. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat subsequently made this a mandatory reporting requirement.

The Information Commissioner appears before parliamentary committees to provide information and advice to Parliament on access to information and related issues. For example, in May 2012, the Government responded to the February 2012 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on an access to information dispute and court actions concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Government noted that it would “study the various proposals advanced by the Committee regarding a possible amendment to section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act, taking into account the various international models presented by the Information Commissioner.” The Commissioner was also regularly cited during debates in the House of Commons on the issue of parliamentary privilege in the fall of 2012.

Internal services

Internal Services are groups of related activities and resources that are administered to support the needs of programs and other corporate obligations of an organization. These activities and services are management and oversight; human resources; financial management; information management and technology; communications; access to information and privacy; material and acquisition services; travel and other administrative services; and internal audit. Internal Services include only those activities and resources that apply across an organization and not those provided specifically to a program.

Financial Resources ($ thousands)

Total Budgetary Expenditures
(Main Estimates) 2012–13
Planned Spending
2012–13
Total Authorities
(available for use)
2012–13
Actual Spending
(authorities used)
2012–13
Difference
2012–13
3,534 3,534 3,339 3,113 226

Human Resources (FTEs)

Planned
2012–13
Actual
2012–13
Difference
2012–13
31 25 6

Corporate Services operated at its minimum size during 2012–2013, a deliberate choice we made so that we could dedicate more resources to the program. Nonetheless, we were able to provide sound governance and prudent stewardship of our resources, lapsing only 4 percent of our budget and receiving another unmodified audit from the Office of the Auditor General for 2012–2013. Among other activities, we developed a new integrated human resources plan, to be launched in 2013–2014. A significant challenge for Corporate Services was planning our anticipated move to new offices in the fall of 2013. This planning is well in hand.

Section III: Supplementary Information

Financial Statements Highlights

Condensed Statement of Operations and Departmental Net Financial Position

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Condensed Statement of Operations and Departmental Net Financial Position (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended March 31, 2013
( $ thousands )
  2012–13
Planned
Results*
2012–13
Actual
2011–12
Actual
$ Change
(2012–13
Planned vs. Actual)
$ Change
(2012–13
Actual vs.
2011–12
Actual)
Total expenses 13,272 13,976 13,694 704 (282)
Total revenues
Net cost of operations before government funding and transfers 13,272 13,976 13,694 704 (282)
Departmental net financial position (287) (187) (442) 91 (255)

The following chart illustrates the breakdown of our expenses in 2012–2013.

Expense Breakdown

View Text Version

This pie chart shows the breakdown of expenses for the Office of the Information Commissioner during 2012–2013. Starting at the top right, the first section shows that 13.7 percent of expenses ($1,916,722) were for professional and special services. The next shows that 7.3 percent ($1,016,393) were for accommodation. The third section shows that 2.6 percent ($363,939) were for amortization. The next section shows that 3.7 percent were for expenses in a variety of categories: transportation and communication ($143,684), equipment ($47,635), rentals ($121,048), information ($108, 887), utilities, materials and supplies ($46,795), repairs and maintenance ($12,000) and other ($41,705). The final section shows that 72.7 percent of expenses ($10,156,947) were for salaries and employee benefits.

Of our expenditures in 2012–2013, 73 percent were salaries and employee benefits, demonstrating the labour-intensive nature of our organization and work. In light of the high proportion of these costs, any reduction in our funding will have a large impact on our labour force, since our operating costs are minimal and cannot absorb these reductions. The next largest expenditure was for professional and special services (14 percent) followed by accommodation costs (7 percent). All other expenditures accounted for 6 percent of expense spending.

Condensed Statement of Financial Position

Office of the Information Commissioner
Condensed Statement of Financial Position (Unaudited)
As at March 31, 2013
( $ thousands )
  2012–13 2011–12 $ Change
Total net liabilities 1,992 2,202 (210)
Total net financial assets 919 633 286
Departmental net debt 1,073 1,569 (496)
Total non-financial assets 886 1,127 (241)
Departmental net financial position (187) (442) 255

The following charts illustrate the breakdown of our assets and liabilities in 2012–2013.

Assets by Type

View Text Version

This pie chart shows the various types of assets the Office of the Information Commissioner had in 2012–2013. Starting at the top left, the first section shows that 48.6 percent of assets ($876,893) were amounts due from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The next shows that 2.3 percent ($41,600) were accounts receivable and advances. The third section shows that 3 percent ($54,112) were prepaid expenses. The final section shows that 46.1 percent ($831,761) were tangible capital assets.

Our total assets for 2012–2013 were $1.8 million. The largest percentage of assets (49 percent) was made up of amounts due from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Tangible Capital Assets comprised 46 percent of assets, with the balance in accounts receivable (primarily from other government departments) and prepaid expenses.

The total asset amount for 2012–2013 represents a decrease of $43,000 (2.4 percent) from 2011–2012. The main reason for the decrease in assets was a combination of a large increase in amounts due from the Consolidated Revenue Fund with a decrease in tangible capital assets as a result of amortization and few acquisitions.

Liabilities by Type

View Text Version

This pie chart shows the various types of liabilities the Office of the Information Commissioner had in 2012–2013. Starting at the top right, the first section shows that 28.6 percent of liabilities ($570,707) were accounts payable. The next shows that 18.5 percent ($368,178) were accrued employee salaries. The third section shows that 15.2 percent ($302,523) were vacation pay and compensatory leave. The final section shows that 37.7 percent ($750,221) were employee future benefits.

Our total liabilities in 2012–2013 were $2 million, made up of four items: employee future benefits (liability for severance pay) of $750,000 (38 percent of total liabilities); accounts payable of $571,000 (29 percent)—primarily made up of money we owe to outside suppliers; liability for vacation pay and compensatory leave of $302,000 (15 percent), and accrued employee salaries of $368,000 (18 percent). The $2 million in total liabilities represents a reduction of $210,000 (9.5 percent) from 2011–2012. The major cause for this reduction was the decrease of $368,000 in employee future benefits, resulting from payments of approximately $408,000 in severance benefits during the year. There was also a reduction of $131,000 in vacation and compensatory leave, since more of this was paid out in 2012–2013.

Financial Statements

Our websitecontains our most recent audited financial statements, Statement of Management Responsibility Including Internal Control over Financial Reporting, and the corresponding annex on the development and assessment of our system of internal controls.

Supplementary Information Tables

The following electronic supplementary information tables can be found on our website:

  • Internal Audits and Evaluations
  • User Fees and Regulatory Charges
  • Response to Parliamentary Committees and External Audits.

Tax Expenditures and Evaluations Report

The tax system can be used to achieve public policy objectives through the application of special measures such as low tax rates, exemptions, deductions, deferrals and credits. The Department of Finance publishes cost estimates and projections for these measures annually in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication. The tax measures presented in the Tax Expenditures and Evaluations publication are the sole responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

Section IV: Other Items of Interest

Organizational Contact Information

Layla Michaud
Director General, Corporate Services
Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
7th Floor, Place de Ville, Tower B
112 Kent Street
Ottawa ON K1A 1H3

Tel.: 613-995-2864
Fax: 613-995-1501
Email: layla.michaud@oic-ci.gc.ca
Website: www.oic-ci.gc.ca

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Traditionally, we have measured our performance against our targets in terms of closure rates from the date we register complaints. However, measuring from date of assignment gives a more accurate picture, in light of our current staff complement, of the service requesters can expect to receive once an investigator begins working on a file.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Date modified:
Submit a complaint