Consultations of the Task Force with other Jurisdictions on their Access to Information Regimes

Manitoba

Access to Information Regime

The Manitoba Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) came into force in 1998, succeeding the 1988 Act which applied to provincial government departments and agencies. In 2000, it was extended to cover local public bodies including educational institutions, hospitals and regional health authorities, and local government bodies. The law does not cover the courts or the offices of members of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly or apply to personal health information, which is covered by The Personal Health Information Act.

The FIPPA is overseen by the Manitoba Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has authority to investigate complaints, review a public body's decision under an access request and provide a report to the complainant and the public body with any recommendations. Public bodies must respond to the Ombudsman citing their acceptance or rejection of any recommendations, but are not bound by them. An individual may appeal a public body’s decision not to provide access to information to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, but only after the Ombudsman has reported on the complaint. A decision of the court is final and binding.

The Act has a detailed list of exemptions that generally mirror those found in other jurisdictions. Of all Canadian jurisdictions, Manitoba has the longest period of protection of Cabinet confidences, at 30 years.

Access requests must normally be responded to within 30 days. A fee can only be charged for access to general information (not an individual’s own personal information) where it will take more than two hours to respond to the request, and the agency has provided a fee estimate in advance. There are copying and mailing costs but there is no application fee. The Act permits refusal of a request if it is repetitive or incomprehensible, if the information has already been provided to the requester or if it is publicly available. The government does not accept electronic requests.

The Government of Manitoba has just initiated a review of the Act.

Manitoba officials believe that compliance with FIPPA is not yet embedded in the day-to-day business of the public service, and that some public servants have a concern that the government cannot afford to give the public good access to information. Freedom of information tasks should be part of the day to day role of public servants, but in fact they have been added on top of other responsibilities when the workload had already been increased by downsizing. Government and Ombudsman’s Office officials believe that many of the problems with the implementation of the Act are tied to resources. However, the Ombudsman’s Office points out that there are also attitudinal issues as suggested by the fact that public bodies tend to look for ways not to provide access rather than look for ways to provide access. The attitudinal issues seem to be cyclical and are sometimes more dominant than at other times.

Officials deplore that there is no effective training of FIPPA compliance officers. No government FIPPA officers are full-time; this function is bundled in with other administrative responsibilities. Some training is provided for ministerial staff.

While there is a good records management system for paper records, electronic records are a problem which is growing significantly. With diminished resources due to downsizing, government officials expect to face growing problems in the future with electronic records management, e-mail and transitory records.

The Ombudsman’s Office officials believe that all refusals to disclose information should be based solely on the possible harm or injury that will result from disclosure and that there should be time limits on all exemptions. Other concerns are the 30-year protection of Cabinet confidences which officials would like to see reduced.

The budget of the Ombudsman comes from an all party committee of the Legislature. The Ombudsman has a public education mandate but there are insufficient resources to carry it out effectively.

There is generally a positive relationship between the government and the Ombudsman. He forewarns departments of his public statements and doesn’t put any surprises in his reports. He doesn’t believe he needs binding powers, preferring persuasion to get people to accept to do the right thing. In his view, having to issue an order would indicate a breakdown in the relationship with government. The Ombudsman has only used his summons power once and believes that while the power to compel is necessary, it should be used very sparingly. He has only had one complaint from a third party in 12 years. The Act provides that someone appearing before the Ombudsman has the right to counsel. Trust is a key element of the relationship between government and the Ombudsman’s office and they believe that building trust is something you have to work at on an ongoing basis.