Consultation with Access to Information Coordinators, March 19, 2001

The purpose of this consultation with Access to Information (ATI) Coordinators was to deliberate on nine specific topics that had been identified by the Task Force during the October 19, 2000 meeting with the same group. These topics were: Delegation, Accountability, Internal Review, Reporting/Statistics, Training and Awareness Raising, Learning Networks, Access Process - Using Technology to Improve Service, and Proactive Routine Release of Information. These discussions are outlined in sections A to H below. Finally, participants were asked to identify the elements that would characterize a good access system, which are listed in section I. This synopsis highlights the main points made in discussions at each of the roundtables and during the plenary sessions.

Participating Institutions (43)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Bank of Canada
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Canadian Heritage
Canadian International Development Agency
Canadian Radio and Television Commission
Canadian Security and Intelligence Service
Canadian Space Agency
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Communications Research Centre
Correctional Services Canada
Department of Finance Canada
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Department of Justice Canada
Environment Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Health Canada
Human Resources Development Canada
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Industry Canada
National Archives of Canada
National Capital Commission
National Defence
National Library of Canada
National Parole Board
National Research Council
Natural Resources Canada
Office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
Privy Council Office
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Solicitor General Canada
Statistics Canada
Status of Women Canada
Transport Canada
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Veterans Affairs Canada

A) Delegation

The Task Force, in its review of other jurisdictions, discovered that the delegation of responsibilities for access to information varies significantly, as it does to some degree within our own government institutions. In Canada, the delegation can range from a departmental ATI Coordinator, or an equivalent officer, being delegated full powers and responsibilities to having various types of decisions delegated to different levels within the chain of command of the institution.

In Ireland, decisions on Freedom of Information are made by delegated first-line managers (known as "decision-makers"). In the U.K., it is expected that most officers and first-line managers will make decisions concerning disclosure or withholding of any record. Access Coordinators are expected to provide a centre of expertise and their role is one of advisor to decision-makers. In this structure the accountability for decision-making lies squarely with program and policy managers throughout the institution, and not in the equivalent ATI shops.

Participants were asked to identify the advantages and disadvantages of broad delegation.

Advantages

• Dispersed delegation may lead to quicker, more efficient decisions on disclosure and possibly better service to the public.
• Stronger collaboration may occur between departmental ATI Offices and program/policy areas.
• More awareness may result on the part of program areas of ATI who may then seek out more education and advanced training in this area.
• There is likely to be more awareness of and interest in improved records management on the part of program areas.
• Reinforcement may occur of the delegation and authority that already exists with program areas for the routine release of information through parallel, informal channels.
• Better understanding may develop of the implications of information releases on the part of the program areas.
• Potentially, more information could be disclosed by the government in the long-term, assuming a change in culture toward one of more openness.
• An adjusted role could emerge for the Information Commissioner to place more emphasis on negotiation and problem-solving.

Disadvantages

• The lack of a single point for coordination and control of requests in an institution may lead to increased inconsistency in disclosures and diminished quality in management of requests and responses, and consequent delays. The government could be perceived as no longer taking its ATI obligations seriously.
• Without further awareness and training throughout the public service, a higher level of mistakes might occur, resulting in a more cautious approach toward release of information.
• The lack of a central point for accountability may result in more difficult statistics gathering and reporting to Parliament on ATI by departments.
• A central authority would have a broader view of the department and a better understanding of the impact of releasing sensitive information, such as Cabinet confidences. For some particular exemptions, it is more advantageous to have the delegation at a higher level, for example, where the Head of the Institution is required to make the decision.
• Under decentralization, additional resources may be required to manage the requests in each operational area, leading to further investments in ATI resources government - wide. With conflicting priorities in program areas and without adequate resources, there is a danger that ATI will be given a lower priority than program issues. Furthermore, resentment may arise on the part of first-line managers toward ATI because of a perception of resources being diverted away from the program.
• The possibility may arise of blurred or overlapping accountabilities (who would be accountable for timelines? reporting to Parliament? dealing with requesters?).
• There may be more difficulty in guaranteeing and safeguarding the anonymity of requesters and thus preventing perceptions of bias in the processing of requests.
• Decentralizaton would require changes in legislation to simplify the exemptions (fewer exemptions, drafted in clearer language) and clearer, simpler policy guidelines, reporting requirements and more and better tools to assist decision-makers.

Top of Page

B) Accountability

In the course of a previous consultation with the ATI Coordinators (October 19, 2000), the Task Force heard a variety of suggestions on ways to enhance accountability for the ATI function within institutions. The suggestion most often heard is that ATI, and possibly information management, is included in the accountability accords of senior management and the performance appraisals of other public servants. Another suggestion has been to recommend regular reports on ATI matters to the senior management committee of each institution, including a requirement to report on contentious cases and missed deadlines. It has also been suggested that senior management in the institution must make it clear that responding to requests for information is an intrinsic part of the work of the institution, not an add-on, and monitor poor performance on ATI requests by program areas.

• Participants were asked to discuss the implications of linking ATI and Information Management (IM) functions with performance management. The following points outline this discussion:
• Linking ATI and IM functions with performance appraisals would provide more concrete steps toward a quicker culture change and "championship" by senior managers of both ATI and informal access.
• Greater acceptance and awareness of both ATI and informal access methods as a regular part of conducting government business may be encouraged on the part of government managers and employees.
• Enhanced recognition for the ATI Office as a centre of advice and expertise may result as well as appreciation of the role of ATI Coordinators.
• Improved senior management support, possibly leading to allocation of more resources and tools to ATI Offices, may result due to better understanding of the needs of the program at senior levels.
• Participants also felt that consideration should be given to other essential aspects of linking ATI and IM to performance accords and performance appraisals, e.g., resource levels, training, awareness.

Top of Page

C) Internal Review

Australia, Ireland and the U.K. all have provisions in their legislation for an internal review of any departmental decision before the requester can take a complaint to the next level of redress. The U.S. also has internal reviews, but this is an administrative practice, not a legislated requirement. No Canadian jurisdiction has internal review mechanism.

Generally speaking, an internal review is conducted in other jurisdictions by someone at a higher level in the organization, but not in direct line within the hierarchy of the individual who made the original disclosure decision. In addition, in cases where the original disclosure decision has been made by the Minister, there is no possibility for an internal review within the organization.

The jurisdictions view internal review as a positive mechanism diminishing the number of complaints to the independent reviewer and providing a significant feedback loop and learning opportunity for the institutions.

Participants were asked to comment on the merits and pitfalls of an internal review mechanism, and how this would affect the resulting decision and relationship with the requester. The following are the key points of the discussion:

· An internal review could encourage requesters to come back to the department for resolution of simple procedural issues such as delays and fees, a positive feature.

· Currently, less-experienced requesters may not know how a request has been processed or considered and may be reluctant to question the ATIP Office due to lack of trust. Internal review may offer a neutral mechanism to help explain things. However, internal review may not satisfy the requesters who distrust the organization in general.

• An important merit of internal review would be the opportunity to highlight systemic issues for management attention and correction, such as chronic delays.
• An internal complaint process would take some of the burden off the Office of the Information Commissioner when there is a satisfactory outcome for the requester. On the other hand, the Information Commissioner may perceive internal review as an attempt to diminish the authority of his office.
• The internal review process would require clear jurisdiction and authority to overturn the original decision, and senior managers may be reluctant to challenge a decision made by a colleague.
• ATI Coordinators may feel second-guessed and de-valued by an internal review mechanism. (Participants felt they give each request their "best shot" with the original release.)
• In smaller agencies where the ATIP Coordinator reports directly to the Head or Assistant Head of the Institution, it could be difficult to identify someone to conduct the internal review who is at a high enough level and is not in the direct line of the hierarchy where the original decision was made.
• An internal review mechanism could be more inclusive of the regional view, a positive feature.
• Internal review would most likely need a huge culture change but could also contribute to a positive cultural change.
• In general, participants felt internal review is unlikely to be viewed by requesters as truly independent and would probably not reduce the number of formal complaints.

Top of Page

D) Reporting/Statistics

In its internal and external consultations, the Task Force has noticed a common thread that the data collected on ATI does not provide a complete and meaningful picture of the evolving reality of access to information nor does the existing data inform much about issues and problem points in the system. In short, it does not tell the whole story nor is it very helpful to support ongoing improvement in the system.

Participants were asked to discuss what data needs to be captured to tell the real story, how much effort would be required to obtain this data and whether the information should be communicated to the public. The following points outline this discussion:

• Participants generally felt that the current statistics should be augmented to reflect the actual resources spent on responding to ATI requests, for example, the time spent by the program areas in review of documents, the time spent by the communications office in drafting media lines, the cost of obtaining legal advice or of consulting third parties or other government institutions. It was felt that even though the cost of voluminous consultations can be very high, it is not necessarily reflected in the current data.
• A comprehensive picture of the activities of the ATIP Office is required to demonstrate more clearly what these offices do, for example, consulting with senior management and legal advisors, giving a heads-up to communications for the preparation of media lines, resolving complaints, negotiating and handling informal releases, conducting consultations with other institutions and third parties and providing training and awareness in their institutions. Capturing these will help the ATIP Office account for the time spent on the full range of its ATI activities, not just on processing requests.
• The number of pages reviewed for requests, as well as the number of pages reviewed for incoming consultations, would give a more accurate picture of workload in the ATIP Office than simply counting the number of requests.
• Reporting on complementary and parallel methods of providing information outside the Act by each institution would give a more accurate picture of the large volume of government information that is publicly released.
• Participants said that it would be useful to have reports on the sections of the Act that were the subject of formal complaints and the Information Commissioner's findings on these complaints to indicate specific problem areas.
• Participants felt that consistency is required in the statistics captured by departments on formal complaints with those captured by the Office of the Information Commissioner. The categories of complaints need to be simplified and standardized between the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Treasury Board Secretariat.
• A definition of complex requests would be useful, as would statistics on the number of complex requests handled by an institution.
• Having comprehensive statistical data would allow for the better management of work schedules. For example, being able to discern peaks and valleys in the workload through the capture of tracking information would be helpful in managing the process. Several participants noted that the ATIPFlow software currently in use in a number of institutions has an effective management reporting function.
• Some participants noted that "crisis events" are presently not reported on but would give a truer indication of the pressures in the ATIP Office.
• Participants expressed that it would be helpful to capture and report on the legitimate reasons for delays.
• It was suggested that a pilot project be undertaken with volunteer departments to design and test any new statistics gathering system prior to its being introduced as a requirement.
• It was generally felt that ATIP Offices need to be properly resourced for undertaking more comprehensive reporting and that many are not.

Top of Page

E) Training and Awareness Raising

During the October 19, 2000 consultation with the ATI Coordinators, training and awareness on access to information for managers and staff were also identified as key to improving attitudes and performance on access.

Participants were asked to discuss the best ways to provide training for all managers. They were also asked for suggestions on how to raise awareness and foster a culture in the federal Public Service that would be responsive to the principles of access to information and underscore that providing information to the public is an intrinsic and valued part of its role. The following points outline the suggestions of participants.

• Participants generally agreed that strong willingness to support the value of government information and the right of the public to access it, needs to be expressed starting at the highest level, from the Clerk of the Privy Council through Deputy Heads in all departments.
• Open lines of communication from the bottom-up as well as top-down are needed.
• It was suggested that proactive courtesy calls from the ATIP Coordinator to all senior managers, including ADMs and DMs, would maintain awareness of access issues within the department, highlighting positive issues as well as problem cases.
• Participants recommended that ATIP Coordinators ask to be included in management meetings, departmental forums and workshops to highlight access issues.
• It was agreed that general ATIP training needs to be provided to all employees, supplemented by electronic tools, fact sheets and handbooks available to all employees through ATIP Intranet sites within departments. More detailed training would be beneficial for key, selected individuals such as the ATIP liaison agents in the operational sectors. User-friendly training tools and aids can be developed centrally, as well as continuous reminders of access principles, and disseminated government-wide.
• Participants suggested that ATIP training needs be adapted to different levels of interest, to the business needs and business lines of the organization, and be integrated into management development training both within individual institutions and in course modules offered government-wide.
• The concept of accountability to the public at large, motivated by a citizen-centred focus, should be part of the orientation of all new employees, as should a visit to the departmental ATIP Office. The benefits of openness and transparency need to be emphasized in training for all public servants.
• Access to government information in general, could be placed within a broader context of service to the public, and framed as part of a set of values and a vision for public servants. Looking at access requesters as "clients" of the department and changing the language can help bring about a change in culture.
• It was suggested that an "ATIP Day" be held annually within each government institution to build curiosity and interest.

Top of Page

F) Learning Networks

"Learning networks" for the purposes of ATIP are used quite successfully in some jurisdictions, such as in Ireland or Alberta, as a competence-building mechanism for the ATI community. The purpose of these networks is to provide community members, who have common interests, with a forum to share best practices and lessons learned, identify and resolve common issues, and use technology as a tool to support and enable collaborative learning and networking. Learning networks are mechanisms to develop and maintain knowledge, skills and contacts and confront new ideas and issues in a collaborative manner, to learn with and from one another, and ensure the transmission of corporate memory and knowledge.

Participants were asked to discuss the concept of learning networks for the ATIP community and the role that Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Justice Canada could play in facilitating training and development of ATI officers. The following points outline this discussion.

• Participants commented that regular updates on all aspects of ATI, including jurisprudence, legal interpretations, policy changes, new guidelines, latest findings from the Office of the Commissioner, etc. would be helpful. These could be provided by the lead organizations, the Department of Justice Canada (DOJ), Treasury Board Secretariat and the Information Commissioner's Office.
• It was generally agreed that the ATI training, lunch and learn sessions and conferences provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat over the past couple of years have been well received and should continue.
• It was suggested that the use of a "case study methodology" could help in moving the government toward a more uniform interpretation of the Act on issues where consensus is difficult. This could also be done through mechanisms such as a "technical day" for the ATIP community.
• A centralized ATIP Web site, or a "one-stop-shop", for the latest information on Federal Court cases and other ATI information that could set a precedent could be a helpful tool. In addition, a redesigned, Web-based CAIR system can help identify requests that are common to several institutions.
• It was generally recognized that a learning network should be established and maintained centrally. It was recognized that more resources are needed by the Treasury Board Secretariat to become a Centre for Excellence and provide the needed support to the ATIP community.
• Participants felt that certification of ATIP practitioners should be examined, using the HR community as an example.
• Participants also felt that further sharing of best practices, tools, courses, etc. should be encouraged within the ATIP community. Sub-networks could be established among departments with common interests, working together. As well, networks with other juridictions, such as provinces, would be helpful in sharing experiences.

Top of Page

G) Access Process - Using Technology to Improve Service

When the ATIA was passed 19 years ago, the world was still primarily paper-based and the process for making and responding to requests was a manual one. Over the intervening period there have been many advances in the use of technology for creation, storage and transmission of information. The advent of the Internet has led to a radical rethinking of service and the government has responded with the Government-On-Line initiative. Some departments have begun to explore opportunities to use technology to improve service related to ATI. However, this work is sporadic and departments have different priorities. There needs to be a more concerted effort across government.

Participants were asked to discuss where they see the greatest opportunities to use technology to improve the service provided to ATI clients and to identify the initiatives that are underway in departments at this time. They were further asked what are the barriers to greater implementation of the technology to improve service and how could the Treasury Board Secretariat promote the use of technology to improve service. The following points outline this discussion:

• At this time, only a few departments are receiving requests electronically, and accept payments by credit card. Comments were made as to the expense of providing this service.
• Although some departments are still managing ATI in a paper-based fashion, advanced software solutions, such as ATIPFlow, are used by a number of department for processing and tracking ATI requests.
• A participant commented that applicants' need to be "present in Canada" may be an impediment regarding processing ATI requests electronically.
• Although scanning and imaging software is used by several departments for processing documents under ATI, this technology has proven to be cumbersome for handling large numbers of pages.
• The need was identified for solutions to a variety of diverse issues pertaining to managing Internet reading rooms, for example, what type of information can be moved to a web site, how long to keep it there, what to do with it after its removal from the web site, translation requirements, copyright issues, among others.
• It was noted that some departments post on their web sites lists of completed ATI requests, as well as synopsis of responses. Copies of the actual documents released are typically available informally from the ATI Office or from the departmental library.
• At this point all departments respond in a conventional fashion (in writing) although some are beginning to use e-mail to send responses to clients with whom they have a previously established relationship.
• Several participants would like to see the electronic transfer of files to headquarters from regions or other countries.
• The need for electronic documents management systems (EDMS) or electronic records management applications (ERMA) was identified, along with the need for tighter links between ATIP Offices and IM groups in departments.
• Participants felt that, once an electronic document management system is in place, it will be easier to process ATI requests electronically instead of scanning paper documents.
• It was recommended that some elements be added to an electronic records system at the front end to identify the documents that are "open" and accessible without restriction.
• Concern was expressed about the variety of software programs in use by departments that are not compatible at this time. The need to adopt systems that can easily interface with one another was stressed.
• Many questions around technology need to be answered, e.g., how long will electronic information last and how secure is electronic access? Access issues arise with other media as well, for example, how to sever an audio CD? A centre for technical expertise would be helpful for advice on how to deal with electronic and other non-print media.
• Presently, it is felt that it is easier to have all records in paper format rather than half paper and half electronic (with the exception of specific database queries, which are better handled electronically).
• The existing technology and tools need to be better publicized and exploited, for example, the National Library's bibliographic database to check if requested information has been published.
• Electronic access issues need to be addressed now rather than later, with better cooperation and coordination among departments.
• With increasing use of the Internet by Canadians, clients now have higher expectations to receive comprehensive responses more quickly from government.

Top of Page

H) Proactive Routine Release of Information

Although the ATIA is an important piece of legislation for protecting the right of Canadians to access government information, it is not, and should not be, the primary mechanism for making information available. Many have advocated that institutions do a content analysis of the information frequently requested under the Act and find ways to provide this information through routine channels set up to deliver that information on a regular basis.

Participants were asked to discuss what information is now only available from their institution under ATI, which could be routinely made available to Canadians, and what tools, processes and support would be required to make this happen. They were also asked what would be the impact of a more proactive release on the nature and volume of Access requests in the future, on the relationship with requesters, and on the attitude of management. The following points outline this discussion.

• One participant commented on an institution' plans to establish a project to reduce ATI requests significantly by placing a list of contracts worth more than $5000, on a monthly basis, in the departmental library for public consultation.
• Suggestions were made to post on all departmental web sites information of general public interest. This could include information on Grants and Contributions, calls for proposals, call-ups against standing offers, service contracts, opinion polls, audit and program evaluation reports, internal manuals, contact lists, etc.
• One department places in their library a list of released records (these are not placed on the web site because the information is too voluminous to scan).
• Comments were also heard on how high-profile issues and media interest can fluctuate quickly. In some departments, regular meetings take place between the ATI Coordinator, Communications and senior management to exchange information on what's "hot". Doing so allows the department to be both proactive and ready to respond to ATI requests.
• Some participants felt that information released pro-actively is good as a service to the public but is not likely to reduce the amount of formal ATI requests because requesters will still want all the detail on certain issues, and these requests may in fact be more complex and more sensitive or more focused and specific. Proactive release may in fact lead to an increase in formal ATI requests, as more information may lead to more questions.
• Whether there is an increase or decrease in formal ATI requests as a result of increased proactive dissemination, participants noted, will depend very much on the nature of a department's or agency's business, and whether the information released proactively is believed to be accurate and/or complete.

Top of Page

I) Characteristics of a Good Access System

Participants were asked to discuss the most significant characteristics that would make a good, new ATI system that would assure Canadians appropriate access in a timely manner to accurate, trustworthy government information.

According to the participants, a good, new access regime would:

• Allow for better collaboration within the system, i.e., within departments, among departments, between departments and central agencies, and with the Office of the Information Commissioner, and would facilitate better consistency government-wide in the interpretation of the Act and in the application of exemptions.
• Include a formal standard ATIP course for new ATIP analysts as well as clear and regularly updated regulations and policy guidelines that reflect new interpretations and precedents.
• Allow for more flexible time limits by providing more legitimate reasons for extensions and using working days, not calendar days.
• Include updated regulations for fees, reflecting realistically the cost of processing documents electronically and the actual resources used in doing the work, including review time expended in the ATIP Office and in the program areas, and consultation time.
• Have a separate fee structure for commercial requesters and clear standards for section 67.1 infractions across government.
• Limit requests to specific documents and not broad subject areas ("fishing expeditions").
• Ensure quality assurance and/or an audit system not only for compliance with timelines but also for quality in the application of exemptions.
• Encourage a mediation role for the Information Commissioner and allow for the publishing of findings by that office. Would also include time limits for investigations.
• Provide clearer, more modern definitions for:
  • "published"
  • "under the control of"
  • "in the public interest".
• Recognize ATI as an operational priority by senior management and allow for a strong ATI Champion to emphasize the importance of openness and disclosure.
• Recognize the role of the ATI Coordinator and possibly enshrine it in the Act.
• Standardize across departments the classification levels and competencies for the ATIP community.
• Provide for adequate resources for departmental ATI Offices and program areas to process ATI requests.
• Allocate more resources toTBS and the Department of Justice to support the ATI community.
• Strengthen TBS responsibilities and leadership for information management and access.
• Improve Info Source to help requesters find information in departments, especially information already available through departmental web sites.
• Establish learning networks within and between departments.
• Foster the sharing of best practices among government departments and ensure coordinating mechanisms at a central point within the Treasury Board Secretariat.
• Clearly position ATI within a cohesive government information strategy and a Government-on-Line strategy.

Consultation