Access to Information Review Task Force

Home

Assistant Deputy Ministers Advisory Committee - Highlights of Meetings

February 23, 2001

Introduction:

Information Commissioner:

The Committee meeting began with a presentation from the Honourable John Reid, Canada's Information Commissioner. Mr. Reid introduced his presentation by mentioning his support for the creation of the Task Force as an 'inside' group because many of the issues dealing with reform of the Act emanate from within the Public Service. He talked about the access to information regime, the Access to Information Act, how the system is working, and what challenges he sees for the Access to Information Review Task Force. His presentation can be found at http://www.infocom.gc.ca/speeches/speeches_view_details-e.asp?intspeechId=8.

In the discussion following his presentation, the Commissioner advocated a number of ways to make the handling of access requests easier for departments. Ongoing content analysis of requests should be done by departments to identify information in high demand that should be put proactively in the public domain either by the government or by the private sector for a reasonable price. Advice to ministers on policy or programs should be organized in a way to be severed clearly and easily. In his view, the same could also be done with memoranda to Cabinet. He stressed again the importance of training for program areas, senior managers and Ministers' office staff, and the need for leadership of central agencies in this regard. He acknowledged the difficulty for departments of meeting time limits in some circumstances but indicated he would not favor adding to the time limits. In his opinion, extensions properly applied can meet the need for flexibility in special circumstances.

The Commissioner also offered his perspectives on what he thought was working well:
1. For instance, the major departments are trying to make it work. Three departments have turned around their scores in his report on delays from F's to A's showing a strong capacity for learning. Smaller departments however are having greater difficulty meeting the time limits;

2. The costs to manage access within the public service have stayed relatively stable;

3. Departments do a fairly credible job in responding to the majority of the access requests. Departments do well in the application of exemptions. In 60% to 80% of complaint cases, the Commissioner agrees with them;

4. The government has become more supportive of access as demonstrated by TBS in providing additional funding where needed, for example HRDC to handle the influx of requests in the last year;

5. Overall, the Act is a sturdy piece of legislation; and,

6. The choice of an ombudsman model for the Information Commissioner was the right one because it favours out of court settlement of disputes.
The Commissioner concluded by iterating his interest in being invited to make a similar presentation to the External Advisory Committee once it is operational, and to return to the ADM Advisory Committee when members are deliberating on recommendations.

Consulting and Audit Canada:

Consulting and Audit Canada personnel made a presentation to the Committee members on the approach and assumptions used in the design of the study on 'TBS review of the Costs Associated with Administering the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Legislation' completed in November 1999. This study updating a previous study conducted in 1993-1994, focused on 1998/1999 information and included both direct and indirect costs. Departments representing 88% of all requests to government participated in the study. The study found distinct differences between departments receiving a large volume of requests and those receiving fewer requests. The study also focussed on opportunities to improve the efficiency of processing requests and lowering the cost.

There is no predictable pattern for requests in some organizations. Program areas struggled with the competitive priorities of delivering their regular business, while responding diligently to ATI requests.

When a file is considered sensitive for the Minister, the processing of the request will generate considerably higher costs.

Studies in other jurisdictions have shown that fees have an impact in disciplining demand.

From an efficiency perspective, departments should move from a concept of adhoc provisions of information to a program concept of provisions of information.

The results of this study were complemented by a more recent examination of access costs conducted in DFAIT using 1999/2000 data. The DFAIT study examined a broader base of data in order to delve deeper into the costing information. Both studies covered the cost of all efforts relating directly or indirectly to access but did not capture opportunity costs to government operations. In summary, the DFAIT study confirmed the earlier results in terms of average processing costs and the government total cost estimate to process access requests.

Finally, the consultants cautioned the Committee members as to the benefit of pursuing this analysis further. The information may be very difficult to obtain, and may not alter the results appreciably.

Discussion:

The Chair summarized the findings from the United Kingdom and Ireland for the Committee. The Irish legislation is three years old while the UK's is brand new. They built upon existing components and the experience in other jurisdictions, and tried to select the 'best parts'. In both cases, this legislation provides broader coverage than the Canadian Act. While exemptions at a general level are similar to the Canadian ones, these are organized differently and use different language. Therefore the out comes could be different. Both acts have administrative protections for example against frivolous requests that the Canadian Act does not have. Both also have a Ministerial veto mechanism. An interesting feature of both acts is that the delegation of the decision to disclose is to the OPI managers and not to the ATI coordinators. In the UK, all requests for information will be treated as Freedom of Information requests and will be processed by the OPI.

The Task Force agreed to complete more detailed comparative analysis of the legislation and administration in each of the jurisdictions visited in order to allow for a more informed examination and comparative review. This work is to be shared with Committee members so they can assess the different features in each jurisdiction, and consider the relative merits in a Canadian context.

Committee members also discussed the different stresses on operational vs policy departments in responding to access requests. It was felt that in general, there was more tension with respect to access in policy departments on accounts of the release of ministerial advice. However, tension also exists in some of the operational departments faced with increasing demand of greater complexity while struggling to meet their own particular challenges.

Next Steps/Follow Up:
The next Committee meeting is scheduled for April 6, 2001. It was agreed that the Task Force would:
- Prepare a more detailed comparative analysis of the features in the various jurisdictions examined; and,
- Invite the Information Commissioner to make a presentation to the External Advisory Committee once it is created.

Last Updated: 2001-08-15