|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Submissions | |
|
||||
|
Access to Information Review – Consultation Paper
This document is available in Adobe Acrobat (70 KB) format
Table of Contents
Introduction
Accessing governmental information
Why a review now?
Review objective
The intent of this paper
1. Access to Information Context
2. Scope of the Access to Information Act - Institutions
3. Scope of Access to Information Act - Right of access
4. Scope of the Act - Information
5. Access Process
6. Redress Process
ANNEX A
ANNEX B
Access to Information Review Task Force
The Access to Information Review Task Force was established in August 2000 by the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice. Its mandate is to conduct a broad review of the legislative and administrative aspects of access to information. The Task Force is scheduled to report this fall.
Accessing governmental information
Canadians access government information via web sites and 1-800 numbers, as well as through publications and other written materials. Complementing these ways of obtaining information is the Access to Information Act.
The 1983 Act gives Canadians and any person present in Canada a right of access to information under the control of federal institutions - with some specific and limited exceptions such as personal information or information related to national security. The Act established the Information Commissioner as an Ombudsman appointed by Parliament to investigate complaints from people who believe they have been denied their rights under the Act.
The Minister of Justice is responsible for the Access to Information legislation and the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for its administration.
Why a review now?
The Access to Information Act was proclaimed 17 years ago. Since then, Canadian society has changed and so have the aspirations of Canadians and their relationship with their government. The structure and processes of the federal government have changed. There has been a revolution in information technology. We are now firmly in the information age.
Our understanding of government's accountability, participation of Canadians in the public policy debate, government services, and the role of government in disseminating information have evolved as well.
It is time to reassess our expectations of the Access to Information Act.
Review objective
The objective of the review is to suggest ways to bring the Act and its administration up to date by incorporating new insights, and anticipating future developments.
The Task Force is looking at how to modernize access to government information in a way that promotes open and effective government and an informed citizenry in a knowledge society. This must be done in balance with the principles of privacy, ministerial responsibility, respect of Canada's commitments to other governments, and the need for full discussion of issues in the public service and frank advice to Ministers.
The Task Force is gathering data, conducting research, and consulting with individuals, organizations, the federal public service, the provinces, and other countries.
The intent of this paper
This paper is intended to explore possible avenues for reform and encourage public participation in the review process.
The questions posed in this paper underline concerns that have been raised in the past in relation to the Act or conveyed to the Access to Information Review Task Force during the course of its work so far. They are in no way indicative of views on the part of the Task Force.
Performance data is provided in Annex A on access to information.
We welcome your comments on some or all of the issues raised in this discussion paper or on any other issues relevant to access to information.
We welcome your submission or written comments by June 1, 2001. You may send your submission or comments to us by:
The Web : www.atirtf-geai.gc.ca
E-mail: ATIRTF@tbs-sct.gc.ca
Fax: (613) 946-6198
Mail: Access to Information Review Task Force
P.O. Box 1178, Station B
Ottawa, ON K1P 5R2
1. Access to Information Context
In assessing how the Canadian Access to Information framework is working, it is important to look first at the general context in which the Act is administered: the evolution of the environment of government, of citizen expectations, and of the management of government-held information.
| 1.1 | Most jurisdictions acknowledge that their access to
information legislation has resulted in more transparency in government
business and greater communication of government information to the
public, both informally and formally under their Act. Would you say
the 1983 Access to Information Act has had the same kind of impact
in Canada? Has it changed the way Canadians perceive government and
governmental information? What impact has the Access to Information
Act had on you and/or your organization? |
| 1.2 | In your opinion, have citizens' needs and expectations
of their right of access to information held by the government changed
over the last 17 years? If so, in what way? How do you see the needs
and expectations of Canadians evolving in the next 15 years or so?
|
| 1.3 | What type of information does the government hold that
would be of interest to you / your organization / your business in
the future? What method would you prefer to use to access this information? |
| 1.4 | What types of information do you think should be routinely
available from the government without a request under the Access to
Information Act? |
| 1.5 |
A request under the Access to Information Act can be for one page
of records or over a million pages. The access to information legislation
in many countries provides for practical limits on a citizen's right
of access, such as excessive costs to the taxpayers of providing
the information, the undue disruption of governmental operations
or repetitive requests. Do you think that there should be some limits
set in the Canadian legislation? If so which ones? In your view
what should be the criteria? |
| 1.6 |
The 1983 legislation states that
Do you think that this purpose clause is still adequate? |
| 1.7 |
In your view, what changes need to be made in the federal government / the federal public service to further the purpose of the Act and facilitate effective access by Canadians to information? |
2. Scope of the Access to Information Act - Institutions
The list of federal government institutions covered by the Access to Information Act is provided in Schedule 1 to the Act (copy attached at Annex B). With some variations, the legislation in other countries also applies to all government corporations and the administrative records of the courts, Parliament and Parliamentary officers such as the Information Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner.
| 2.1 |
In your view, is the current coverage of institutions under the
Access to Information Act adequate? |
| 2.2 | What criteria should be used to determine whether or not an institution
would be subject to the Act? |
| 2.3 | By what mechanism should institutions be added or removed from the list of those subject to the Act? (For example, legislation would require Parliamentary approval while regulations would require the approval of Cabinet.) |
3. Scope of Access to Information Act - Right of access
| 3.1 | Currently only Canadians and those present in Canada have a right of access under the Act. In a globalized world, does this restriction still make sense? |
4. Scope of the Act - Information
Under the Act, exceptions to the right of access to information must be limited and specific in nature. The table below summarizes the grounds for exempting records from disclosure, and indicates whether the exemption is based on the type of information (class test) or a possible adverse result from disclosure (injury test), as well as whether the information must be exempted by the institution (mandatory exemption) or, the institution has a choice to disclose the information (discretionary exemption).
Some records are totally excluded from the application of the Act, notably published materials and Cabinet confidences.
| Class test | Injury test | |
| Mandatory exemptions |
-Personal information* -Trade secrets of Third Party -Commercial or technical information received in confidence from Third Party -Information received in confidence from other governments -Information protected by other, listed statutes -RCMP provincial or municipal policing |
-Loss or gain to Third Party -Prejudice to competitive position of Third Party * -Interference with contractual negotiations of Third Party * |
| Discretionary exemptions |
-Solicitor-client privilege -Advice or recommendations to government -Information to be published in 90 days -Government negotiation plans -Government management plans -Trade secrets, valuable technical and commercial information of Canada -Information collected by listed investigative bodies |
-Injury to federal-provincial relations -Injury to conduct of international affairs -Injury to defence of Canada or allied states -Injury to economic interests of Canada -Threat to safety of individuals -Prejudice to use of audits or tests -Injury to law enforcement or conduct of lawful investigations -Disclosure that could facilitate commission of criminal offence |
* This information may be disclosed where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest protected by the mandatory exemption
| 4.1 | Do you think that these exemptions / exclusions provide the appropriate
balance between the right to information held by the government and
the necessary exceptions to that right? Do you think the balance between
the mandatory and discretionary exemptions is the right one? Do you
think that any exemptions should be removed or added? |
| 4.2 | The Act provides that certain types of third party information may be disclosed where the public interest as it relates to public health, public safety, or protection of the environment, outweighs the likely injury to the third party. Do you think the Act should provide a public interest override for any other exemption? Should there be a general public interest override instead of specific ones? |
5. Access Process
| 5.1 | Do you think the processes for making and responding
to requests under the Act could be made easier and more effective?
How? |
| 5.2 | Are there ways to reduce the costs of processing access
to information requests? Are there ways to make the process more efficient? |
| 5.3 | Currently all requests are treated the same, whether
the results are for personal use, commercial use or a public interest
use. Should different categories of requests or requesters be treated
differently under the Act? (For example: general public / Members
of Parliament /commercial users / media / non-profit associations
/ professional requesters who resell the information.) If so, what
criteria should be used to distinguish between requesters? And what
different treatment should they receive? |
| 5.4 | Currently there are no limits on the number of requests
that one person or organization can make to any institution at any
time. Should the Act limit the number of requests from a single requester
to be processed at one time? By one institution? Within a year? |
| 5.5 | Currently there is a $5 application fee for every access
request. Additional fees are calculated on the basis of $10 for every
hour of search and preparation over five hours, and the cost of reproduction
of the record. How should the fees for Access to Information requests
be determined? Should the nature of the request, the purpose of the
request, the volume of information sought, the speed with which it
is required, the timeframe for processing the request or other factors
affect the amount of fees charged? |
| 5.6 | Should the handling of access requests under the Act be an entirely open process itself? This could mean public availability of information on the content of information requests, the status and content of responses and the names of requesters. |
6. Redress Process
| 6.1 |
In jurisdictions with similar access to information laws, a range of models to deal with complaints is found, from direct appeal to courts of law or to administrative tribunals, quasi-judicial information commissions, Information Commissioners with order making powers and traditional ombudsman models. The Federal Information Commissioner plays multiple roles in investigating and resolving complaints and promoting access rights. The Commissioner makes recommendations to government institutions on individual cases and systemic issues, and makes regular reports to Parliament. As an Ombudsman he has extensive investigative powers but no power to make binding orders for the disclosure of records. In your view, is this still the best redress model to support access
to information? If not, which one do you suggest? If the current
redress model is the right one, could any improvements be made or
clarification brought to the current powers and responsibilities
of the Information Commissioner? |
| 6.2 | In many countries, institutions are required to provide a fast internal
review mechanism. This mechanism is often successful in resolving
issues before they result in a formal complaint to the Information
Commissioner. Should Canada consider this? |
| 6.3 | Currently the role of the Federal Court is limited to determining whether the government improperly applied the law in a decision to exempt records from disclosure. Should the Court have the authority to start over and decide whether records should be disclosed? Should the Court have the authority to make decisions about fees, time extensions, and other access issues? |
ANNEX A
Access to Information
Disposition of Requests - 1999-2000
| Requests received 1 |
|
19,294
|
| Requests completed(Includes requests brought forward from previous year) |
100.0%
|
|
Disposition of requests completed:
|
40.6%
|
7,491
|
|
33.7%
|
6,234
|
|
0.3%
|
62
|
|
2.8%
|
521
|
|
1.7%
|
306
|
|
2.3%
|
433
|
|
18.6%
|
3,442
|
1. A request can cover one page of information or a million pages of information. Statistics are not kept on size or complexity of requests.
Requesters per category 1999-2000
|
Number
|
%
|
|
| Requests received |
19,294
|
100
|
| Public * |
7,857
|
40.7
|
| Business |
6,167
|
32.0
|
| Media |
2,774
|
14.4
|
| Organizations |
2,291
|
11.9
|
| Academia |
205
|
1.0
|
* It is estimated that about 7% of these requests are from Parliamentarians
Source: Info Source Bulletin, 1999-2000
Ten Institutions Receiving Most Requests - 1999-2000
| Requests received by all institutions |
100.0%
|
19,294
|
| Citizenship and Immigration |
24.5%
|
4,726
|
| National Archives |
11.0%
|
2,114
|
| Health |
7.2%
|
1,389
|
| Human Resources Development |
5.6%
|
1,073
|
| National Defence |
5.5%
|
1,063
|
| Public Works and Government Services |
3.8%
|
737
|
| Royal Canadian Mounted Police |
3.4%
|
661
|
| Immigration and Refugee Board |
3.3%
|
643
|
| Canada Customs and Revenue Agency |
3.1%
|
594
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
2.9%
|
561
|
| Other Departments |
29.7%
|
5,733
|
Time Required to Complete Requests - 1999-2000
| Requests completed |
100.0%
|
18,489
|
| 0 - 30 days |
63.2%
|
11,686
|
| 31 - 60 days |
16.4%
|
3,036
|
| 61 + days |
20.4%
|
3,767
|
The Act provides that the requests must be dealt with within 30 days. This time limit may be extended for a reasonable time if the request is for a large number of records or necessitates search through a large number of records or consultations are necessary.
Exemptions claimed - 1999-2000
| Total exemptions |
100.0%
|
16,155
|
| Section 19 - Personal information |
28.0%
|
4,526
|
| Section 20 - Third party information |
26.0%
|
4,177
|
| Section 21 - Operations of government |
17.6%
|
2,836
|
| Section 16 - Law enforcement and investigations |
6.8%
|
1,106
|
| Section 23 - Solicitor-client privilege |
5.5%
|
889
|
| Section 15 - International affairs and defence |
5.0%
|
801
|
| Section 13 - Information obtained in confidence |
4.6%
|
748
|
| Section 14 - Federal-provincial affairs |
2.3%
|
373
|
| Section 18 - Economic interests of Canada |
2.0%
|
326
|
| Section 24 - Statutory prohibitions |
1.4%
|
224
|
| Section 22 - Testing procedures |
0.3%
|
56
|
| Section 17 - Safety of individuals |
0.3%
|
53
|
| Section 26 - Information to be published |
0.2%
|
40
|
Costs and Fees for Operations - 1999-2000
| Requests completed |
18,489
|
| Cost of operations 1 |
$17,143,480
|
| Cost per request completed |
$927
|
| Fees collected |
$217,832
|
| Fees collected per request completed |
$12
|
| Fees waived |
$165,564
|
| Number of completed requests where fees waived |
8,680
|
1. Departmental salaries and administration costs, including training and consultation.
Disposition of complaints - 1999-2000
|
CATEGORY
|
FINDING
|
TOTAL
|
%
|
|||
| Re-solved | Not Resolved | Not Sub-stantiated | Dis-continued | |||
| Refusal to disclose |
276
|
3
|
222
|
36
|
537
|
35.0
|
| Delay (deemed refusal) |
685
|
-
|
27
|
37
|
749
|
49.0
|
| Time extension |
70
|
-
|
59
|
5
|
134
|
8.8
|
| Fees |
31
|
-
|
16
|
8
|
55
|
3.6
|
| Language |
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
| Publications |
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
| Miscellaneous |
26
|
-
|
26
|
3
|
55
|
3.6
|
| TOTAL |
1088
|
3
|
350
|
89
|
1530
|
100.0
|
|
%
|
71.2
|
0.1
|
22.9
|
5.8
|
100.0
|
|
Source: Annual Report, Information Commissioner 1999-2000
Cost of access to information
A comprehensive review of the cost of administering
the Federal Access to Information Act was conducted in 1999 by Canada
Audit and Consultation on behalf of the Treasury Board Secretariat. The
survey included all departments and agencies subject to the legislation,
as well as the costs of the Information Commissioner Office, central agencies,
legal services units and the Federal Court.
|
1998-99
|
||
|
Direct Costs |
$1,625,000 |
|
| Total Handling Costs |
$16,170,000
|
|
| Complaints Total Direct Costs |
$1,405,000
|
$17,575,000 |
|
Indirect Costs ATIP Unit Overhead Costs |
|
|
| Total ATIP Unit Overhead Costs |
$5,915,000
|
|
|
TBS/Justice/PCO/Federal Court Total Indirect Costs |
$1,455,000
$3,900,000 |
$11,270,000 |
| Total Costs |
$28,845,000
|
|
| Average Cost per Completed Request (14,340 Completed Requests) |
$2,010
|
ANNEX B
COVERED INSTITUTIONS
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
(SCHEDULE I)
Departments and Ministries of State
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Department of Canadian Heritage
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Department of the Environment
Department of Finance
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Department of Health
Department of Human Resources Development
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Department of Industry
Department of Justice
Department of National Defence
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Public Works and Government Services
Department of the Solicitor General
Department of Transport
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of Western Economic Diversification
Other Government Institutions
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Atlantic Pilotage Authority
Bank of Canada
Belledune Port Authority
British Columbia Treaty Commission
Business Development Bank of Canada
Canada Council
Canada Customs & Revenue Agency
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Canada Industrial Relations Board
Canada Information Office
Canada Lands Company Limited
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board
Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women
Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal
Canadian Centre for Management Development
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
Canadian Commercial Corporation
Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board
Canadian Dairy Commission
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Canadian Film Development Corporation
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Canadian Forces
Canadian Forces Grievance Board
Canadian Government Specifications Board
Canadian Grain Commission
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Canadian International Development Agency
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Canadian Museum of Civilization
Canadian Museum of Nature
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Canadian Polar Commission
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Canadian Space Agency
Canadian Tourism Commission
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Canadian Transportation Agency
Copyright Board
Correctional Service of Canada
Defence Construction (1951) Limited
Director of Soldier Settlement
The Director, The Veteran's Land Act
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
Energy Supplies Allocation Board
Ethics Counsellor
Farm Credit Corporation
Federal-Provincial Relations Office
Fisheries Prices Support Board
Fraser River Port Authority
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
Grain Transportation Agency Administrator
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, Ltd.
Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board
Gwich'in Land and Water Board
Halifax Port Authority
Hamilton Port Authority
Immigration and Refugee Board
International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development
Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission
Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada
International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development
International Development Research Centre
The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc.
Laurentian Pilotage Authority
Law Commission of Canada
Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board
Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board
Merchant Seamen Compensation Board
Military Police Complaints Commission
Millennium Bureau of Canada
Montreal Port Authority
Nanaimo Port Authority
National Archives of Canada
The National Battlefields Commission
National Capital Commission
National Capital Commission
National Farm Products Council
National Film Board
National Gallery of Canada
National Library
National Museum of Science and Technology
National Parole Board
National Research Council of Canada
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
North Fraser Port Authority
Northern Pipeline Agency
Northwest Territories Water Board
Office of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs
Office of the Comptroller General
Office of the Co-ordinator, Status of Women
Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
Office of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
Pacific Pilotage Authority
Parks Canada Agency
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board
Pension Appeals Board
Petroleum Compensation Board
Petroleum Monitoring Agency
Port Alberni Port Authority
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration
Prince Rupert Port Authority
Privy Council Office
Public Service Commission
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Québec Port Authority
Regional Development Incentives Board
Royal Canadian Mint
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission
Saguenay Port Authority
Sahtu Land and Water Board
Sahtu Land Use Planning Board
Saint John Port Authority
Security Intelligence Review Committee
Sept-Îles Port Authority
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
St. John's Port Authority
Standards Council of Canada
Statistics Canada
Statute Revision Commission
The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited
The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd.
Thunder Bay Port Authority
Toronto Port Authority
Treasury Board Secretariat
Trois-Rivières Port Authority
Vancouver Port Authority
Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Windsor Port Authority
Yukon Surface Rights Board
Yukon Territory Water Board
