General consultation with institutions

Introduction

The following summarizes the results of a consultation with departments and agencies by the Access to Information Review Task Force (The list of contributing departments and agencies is outlined in Appendix I).

Table of Contents

I. Changes in the environment of the public sector that have an impact on ATI
II. Legislative Issues
III. Administrative Issues
IV. Best Practices
Appendix I

Access to Information Review Task Force
Consultation with Institutions

I. Changes in the environment of the public sector that have an impact on ATI

a. What has changed in the public sector?

In recent years the public sector has seen a reduction in human resources, repeated organizational changes which have resulted in less stability and continuity in staff, and growing problems with information management. Globalization and the internationalization of Canadian commerce has resulted in a vastly expanded arena in which to conduct searches for records and to obtain appropriate authorization for their release.

The reduction in human resources and organization changes have combined with new technologies and inadequate training to produce a deterioration in government-wide records management. Managers and employees have been given responsibility for records management without training or support. As a result, records are often difficult to find, or are permanently lost, due to the lack of knowledge of storage standards, the ease of destruction of electronic records, and a lack of knowledge of records retention and disposal schedules.

Problems in records management have been magnified by the increased speed of information creation and transmission, which has meant that public servants are no longer taking the time to ensure the creation of an adequate paper trail to support the decision-making processes. The use of consultants who either have no knowledge of government records management, or who do not provide the government with adequate documentation of their work, has increased in both the specialized and generalist areas.

b. What has changed in the access to information context?

Officials have become increasingly aware of the lack of any private space within which to work, generate and propose ideas and prepare draft material, leading to a question whether the Act may undermine transparency by discouraging officials from committing views to paper and from providing frank advice to the Minister for fear of being misinterpreted when documents are released.

Several departments and agencies have expressed the view that the Information Commissioner has been constantly pushing his interpretation of the Act further and further beyond what they believe was intended, making compliance a moving target. The growing adversarial approach of investigative journalism has lead to increasing resentment of the Act by the public service, and growing distrust of government by the public.

Access seems to have become the preferred method of obtaining information from the government, and the number, size and complexity of requests is generally increasing, leading to a need to consult more partners both internal and external to the government.

Most requests are now received from professional requesters, corporations looking for information about their competitors, journalists or angry, dissatisfied citizens and not the 'average citizen' that many public servants believe the Act was designed for. In one department, the number of business requests has increased by 22% in 6 years, while another department reported a marked increase in requests from the media and political parties, and a slight decrease in requests from the general public.

Program areas express concern about the resource burden ATIP places on operational areas; the problems they face with the 30 day timeframe; the increase in the number of ATIP consultations from other departments; and the large requests which seem to have the objective of finding information for re-sale. There has also been an increase in requests for departmental internal audits. Companies are now routinely using access as a means of challenging the government's contracting procedures, and legal firms are using access as a parallel discovery process. E-mail, the Internet and other new technologies have had a major impact on the creation and management of government records and how files are retrieved and reviewed.

In the past few years, the Information Commissioner has established a higher public profile and in some departments the access role has become more prominent as a result of negative publicity such as being assigned a failing grade by the Information Commissioner. In some departments the profile of the ATI function has risen from the level of records management to a central corporate function involving Communications and the Minister and Deputy Minister's offices, due to the sensitivity of the information sought. The need for knowledge of the Access Act coupled with an understanding of increasingly complex requests and sensitivities within departments has placed a premium on qualified ATI personnel.

The general reduction of resources which has occurred in the last few years, has resulted in a reduction of the resources available in program units to respond to access requests, even though there has been an increase in the number of requests. Some program units resort to hiring temporary help to retrieve and photocopy the requested information. The records offices have also been hit dramatically in downsizing which makes it very difficult to manage departmental information holdings.

Consultations with third parties that reside outside of Canada requires additional time and resources. In one institution, the number of consultation requests increased by 26% in the last fiscal year, and these consultations are expected to continue to increase as a result of growing international activity. Short timeframes may be difficult to meet when there is a need to contact foreign governments or agencies and multilateral bodies.

Top of Page

II. Legislative Issues

Section 3 - Record:

It is believed that improved definitions are required for the terms 'information', 'record', 'transitory record', and 'Ministerial record' covering all information stored electronically, regardless of the media, including databases.

The term 'transitory records' is not well understood. Varying institutional practices respecting record retention has created divergent practice across institutions and concern that problems may arise with 67(1) of the Act. TBS and the National Archives should provide more detailed guidelines on the meaning of the term "transitory" and the obligation to conserve documents.

The connection between the Access to Information Act and the National Archives Act should be maintained since the Access to Information Act does not cover issues such as the retention and disposal of records whereas the National Archives Act does.

Section 4 -'under the control'

There is some question as to whether or not the Act applies to records in a Minister's office, to a Military Judge's notes, and to notes of Presiding officers conducting summary trials. The Act should clearly state what areas are not subject to the Act, or the Act should more clearly define what is covered by the Act. There was general agreement that the phrase "under the control of an institution" does not provide enough clarity. One institution identified a problem with determining the status of shared databases and responsibility for providing access to them.

Section 4 of the Act should explicitly state that there is no obligation to create records in response to a request.

Section 5 - Information about Government Institutions

Info Source should be revised to contain a more comprehensive description of the records under the control of government departments. The instructions from the Treasury Board Secretariat on the format for the description of records need to be more detailed, and a clearer description of the role of the ATIP co-ordinator needs to be developed.

Section 6 - Requests for Access

The Act should specify the date that a request is considered to be received. There should be more clarity with respect to duplicates, drafts and non-relevant portions of documents.

A request should be required to specify a topic, a request for all information in someone's office should not be considered a legitimate request. A request should encompass records over a reasonable time frame, or that the Act could limit the scope of any one request by limiting the amount of time an institution is required to search for relevant records.

There should be a provision in the Act allowing an institution to refuse to process frivolous or vexatious requests, subject to review by the Information Commissioner.

Section 7 - Time Limits:

It was suggested that the 30-day deadline imposed in the statute should be amended to read 30 working days (or longer), since the current 30-day response time usually amounts to less than 22 working days, and that is often not enough time to process a request.

Section 9 - Extensions

Co-ordinators should have the flexibility to prioritize bulk requests from a single requester so that they may be handled consecutively, or to extend timelines more than once if they interfere with the operations of the department or if they have a number of third party consultations.

It was suggested that there should be provision for two extensions in the course of processing a request in some circumstances. For example, when an extension has been applied under 9(1)(a) - "... unreasonably interfere with the operations of the department", once information has been retrieved and identified there should be a possibility for a second extension for consultation purposes, if required.

Another suggestion was the establishment of a system whereby the volume of records and number of consultations or type of consultations would dictate the timeline for a request. Similarly, it was suggested that extensions should be allowed for retrieval of records from abroad or for special circumstances, such document in a war zone, that make the timely search for documents difficult. It was even suggested that the legislation should recognize the occasional need for open-ended extensions where consultations have been initiated that are beyond the ability of individual institutions to finalize.

It was suggested that institutions need more guidance on when they may invoke 9(1)(b) extensions for third party notices, and that section 9(1)(a) should be amended to allow either the number of records or the interference with operations as grounds for extension.

Section 11 - Fees

At the present time, the fee structure is based on the amount of time spent searching for the records, the medium the records are reproduced on and the amount of records provided to the requester. It was noted that the fees are an administrative burden to process and in no way reflect the actual cost of creating the release package for the requester. Several suggestions were made that fees should be based on the actual cost of processing a request, including the cost of reviewing the records, particularly for 'commercial' requesters.

It was noted that the application fee, search fees, reproduction and preparation fees, and computer programming fees, have not kept pace with inflation. The current application fee of $5 is the same as when the Act came into force in 1983, and it was suggested that this fee should be increased to discourage frivolous requests, to better reflect the administrative costs of opening a file, and to encourage the seeking of information through alternative means such as websites.

Fees are presently at levels below what it costs to collect them, which is a disincentive to collection. One recommendation is to increase the initial application fee to $25.00 and to reflect the actual costs involved in processing the request, including salary and the cost of making copies. Another option would be to set an additional fee for regular users (i.e. requesters who submit more than 10 requests a year).

It was suggested that the fee structure should be amended to establish a rate based on the volume of information (e.g.: under 500 pages = $150; 500-2000 pages = $500; etc.) regardless of format (e.g.: electronic or other), and that if requestors choose to review the documents instead of receiving copies, they should still be charged the same fee, as the cost of processing the request is the same.

It was suggested that fees for accessing business information should not be the same as for access requests "for the purpose of assessing government due diligence", or that fees should be different for commercial requesters as opposed to private requesters. It was also suggested that fees should be higher for accessing large blocks of data from databases - since the work required is much more burdensome than accessing large amounts of data related to a specific project.

However, some departments warned that raising fees may not deter voluminous requests that disrupt the operations of the institution. Requesters who are submitting large and complex requests are often lawyers or consultants who act on behalf of clients who are willing to absorb the fees. When commercial interests are at stake, the fees associated with filing an access request are seen as the "cost of doing business."

It was also suggested that the fee waiver criteria should be set out in the Act.

Section 12 - Access to Records

This section should be amended to clarify that records that are already in electronic form can be disclosed electronically, and that the legislation might follow the course taken by the United States that requires federal government departments and agencies subject to its Freedom of Information Act to establish "virtual reading rooms" for electronic records.

Section 13 - Information from Other Governments

Information or documents received in confidence from foreign governments or institutions or multilateral bodies should be exempt from release without the requirement to seek confirmation from the foreign government. Non-Canadian governments and organizations are not subject to the Act, and normally refuse requests to release their information; they cannot be compelled to reply by a specified deadline. Seeking consent from a foreign government can have a chilling effect on the relationship, as most foreign governments provide information and documents on the assumption that these will be kept in confidence.

Section 13(1) should be modified to allow federal government departments to redirect requesters to the provincial and municipal governments that created the records they are seeking.

The level of protection offered by section 13 should not be reduced. A reduction of this protection would stand in the way of our relationships of trust with other countries.

Section 15 - International affairs and defence

It is critical that the Act not be modified in a way that would limit Canada's ability to protect sensitive information related to international affairs and defence. A reduction of this protection would stand in the way of our security relationships with other countries.

Section 16 - Law enforcement and investigations

It should be clarified that this exemption may be applied to information obtained from investigative bodies which is subsequently included in other documents.

The schedule for 16(1)(a) should be reviewed to ensure that all departments and agencies which perform criminal investigations are included, since otherwise they are perceived as the 'weak link' and other investigative bodies are reluctant to share information.

Consideration should be given to including provisions parallel to 15(a), (b) and (c) in section 16 in order to specifically protect information concerning police tactics, weapons and capabilities.

The level of protection offered by section 16 should not be reduced. A reduction of this protection would stand in the way of our law enforcement relationships with other jurisdictions.

Section 17- Safety of Individuals

This section should be expanded to cover threats to individuals' mental and physical health. While it may not be possible to set a specific time limit for the test of potential injury provided by this exemption, including an expression of the importance of the passage of time in the purpose clause would be a good signal that even exemptions such as this are not permanent once the danger is extinguished.

Section 19 - Personal Information

While subsection 19(2) provides that personal information may be disclosed by an institution under certain conditions, the Federal Court has given different interpretations of this subsection. In one case, it was ruled that, where one of the conditions of 19(2) was met, an institution was obliged to disclose, whereas in another case, it was ruled that disclosure was discretionary. The Act should clarify that, notwithstanding one of the conditions for disclosure being met, the decision to disclose personal information remains discretionary.

The definition of personal information contained in the Privacy Act should be amended, to address the complexity of defining an "identifiable individual", to be less ambiguous and to clearly define what is personal information and what is not personal information.

The level of protection offered by section 19 should not be reduced. A reduction of this protection would stand in the way of our relationships of trust with other countries and our partners in development.

There is a need for a mechanism to resolve situations where the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner disagree on issues of personal information.

Section 20 - Third Party Information

The Act should strengthen the protection of information submitted in confidence to the government. Without the ability to assure third-parties and individuals that the information submitted by them will not be released unless the agency determines the release of the information is in the interest of advancing public safety, there will be a chilling effect which will make it much more difficult to gather the information it requires to complete its investigative work and to make the recommendations necessary to create a safer environment.

In order to be able to fulfil its mandate, and in the public interest, it is essential that the government have unrestricted access to information from regulated institutions. Although such a right of access is provided for in its legislation, the willingness of institutions to freely provide confidential information largely depends on the trust they have in the ability of this organization to preserve the confidentiality of that information. In this context, it is felt that the protection of third party confidential information afforded by section 20 of the ATIA might not be sufficient.

The mandate of one institution is to conduct independent investigations and, in some cases, public inquiries into industry accidents requiring a large amount of third-party information. While two classes of information have been identified in Schedule II and can be withheld under s. 24 (statutory prohibition) of the Act neither s. 24 nor s. 20 (third-party information) are sufficient to preserve the confidentiality of all of the information submitted in confidence to the institution which needs to be protected.

At a minimum, the level of protection offered by section 20 should not be reduced. A reduction of this protection would stand in the way of our relationships of trust with our partners in development. It is also important that Canadian exporters be able to protect commercially sensitive information so that they are not disadvantaged in their competition with foreign companies.

This section is difficult to administer given the amount of third-party information obtained from businesses located outside of Canada who may have no knowledge of, or interest in, our legislation. There is a need for effective means to ensure that these foreign companies' rights are upheld while maintaining the ability to determine the applicability of the third party exemption.

While the intent behind s. 20 (third-party information) is sound, defining the nature of the information (i.e. trade secrets, financial, commercial, scientific or technical information) and determining whether or not it has been treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party is almost impossible for a government institution. The mechanics of consulting the third party to determine whether ss. 20(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) are applicable and whether or not the release of the material is injurious to the third party are unwieldy. This is particularly true for an institution which often finds itself in the position of consulting foreign companies which are not conversant with the Canadian legal system.

As a best practice, institutions asking third parties to make representations concerning the potential impact of the release of information on their companies should provide a clear explanation of what factors to consider and what test they must meet, so that the institution can make an informed decision on the application of the exemption. Another good administrative practice is to ask third parties to mark as confidential those documents they have given in confidence and treat consistently in a confidential manner.

The legislation or the regulations should outline the steps to be taken to determine if the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain to, prejudice to the competitive position of or interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party. It was also recommended that a new exemption be created to protect from disclosure for up to two (2) years large blocks of data relating to third party science and technology-based projects.

Under section 13 of the Act, information provided directly by other governments is exempt, but if the same information is provided by federal entities such as Crown corporations that are not subject to the Act, it is not exempt. A provision in section 20 which would allow Crown Corporations an exemption similar to section 13 would solve this disparity.

There is concern about the protection provided for information on critical infrastructure and security vulnerabilities provided to departments by third parties.

There is also concern about ensuring consistency between the provisions of the Access to Information Act and the confidentiality clauses of other legislation, as well as the need to ensure that Canada does not contravene its international obligations as defined in the WTO, TRIPS and NAFTA agreements.

Since some entities which are part of the federal government by virtue of their status as public policy organizations must advise their Ministers and recommend policies to Cabinet, they should be able to exempt advice or recommendations for the Minister. This could either be done directly through the addition of a provision to section 20, or through clarification that section 21 applies to advice from outside the government institution.

Section 21 - Operations of Government

Given the increased amount of work contracted out by the government in recent years and its strategic sensitivity, the provision disallowing the use of the section 21 exemption for consultants' reports should be removed.

Instructions to institutions should clarify that the entire contents of a briefing note prepared for the Minister or Deputy Minister does not necessarily qualify for this exemption because a portion of it references deliberations between officials.

Section 22 - Testing and Audit Procedures

The Act should be clear about when an audit is considered to have been completed.

Section 23 - Solicitor-client privilege

The protection of privileged solicitor/client information should not be reduced. It is essential that the government retain the right to obtain protected legal advice from government lawyers in areas such as our role in the UN, criminal, treaty and environmental law.

The Act should be amended to provide that partial release of privileged documents is not tantamount to waiver on the rest of the document or of other documents dealing with the same subject.

Schedule II:

One institution has a problem with the fact that some of the provisions in their legislation that require the protection of information are reflected in the Schedule for section 24, while others are not. Another institution has a problem with a provision of their legislation which was originally listed on Schedule II, but was later removed. It was suggested that the Young Offenders Act and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act s. 30(1) should be included in Schedule II of the Act.

There should be a review of all of the provisions listed in Schedule II.

Section 25 - Severability

Section 25 of the Act should be amended to allow institutions to sever information that is not relevant to the subject of the request.

Section 26 - Information to be published

The legislation should clarify whether placing information on a Website constitutes "publishing" for the purposes of this section, and it should be amended to reduce the time period from ninety days to sixty for posted material.

Section 28 - Representation of Third Parties

The timelines for notification and receipt of objections of third parties require clarification. Must the objections have been received by the ATIP Office within the 20-day period in order to be taken into consideration? In addition, the 20 day review period permitted under the Act does not take into account the time required for a large volume of documents from one third party or a request covering a large number of third party consultations. There should be a mechanism for extension of this time frame due to the volume of third party records. This section should also require the third party to notify the department if they make an application to the Federal Court to stop the disclosure of their information.

Section 32 - Notice of Intent to Investigate

Notices of the intent to investigate a complaint should be precise, with the nature and the scope of the investigation clearly understood by the applicant and the institution being investigated.

Section 36 - Powers of the Information Commissioner; Investigations; Public Education

The period to make a complaint should be amended to six months following the department's response, so that requesters do not lose their right to complain when departments take longer than one year to process a request.

There should also be a time limit placed on the investigations of the Information Commissioner, subject to limited and specific reasons for time extensions.

The powers of the Information Commissioner and the investigative processes of that office should be reviewed in light of the recent addition of section 67.1 of the Act. The Information Commissioner's investigation procedures should be clear, predictable and consistent, there should be a mechanism for government institutions to challenge the actions of that Office. The Information Commissioner should not have access to solicitor-client privileged documents that were not the object of an access request. The Information Commissioner should be required to publish the findings of his investigations to ensure uniformity of approach across government.

The Act should explicitly provide the Information Commissioner with a public education mandate so that more Canadians are informed about the Act.

Section 69 -Cabinet confidences

There is a general view that the definition of Cabinet confidences requires clarification, and could be more narrowly defined.

Schedule I - Government Institutions covered by Act:

There is a need for consistency in the application of the Act to government organizations.

In order to provide effective advice, information and opinions must be collected from various organizations within a Minister's portfolio, not all of which are subject to the Act.
Crown corporations are considered to be third parties for the purposes of the exemption for commercially sensitive information, however, they complain that they cannot directly invoke other exemptions such as that concerning advice to the Minister.

The Act should cover all federal institutions, including the Office of Information Commissioner, crown corporations, and special operating agencies and should specify whether or not it applies to Ministers' offices. When a function has been devolved from the federal government, the institution should remain covered under the Act. It may be easier to have a Schedule of institutions that are not subject to the Act (instead of the current Schedule of covered institutions).

Top of Page

III. Administrative Issues

a. Information Management

Many of the problems related to the application of the Act stem from the lack of solid leadership, support and training with respect to information management (IM). There is no central institution clearly responsible for information management in the federal government, in the way that there is for the human resources and finance communities.

There is an escalating complexity of issues surrounding information management and the implementation of record keeping regimes according to federal government policies. Those responsible for the definitions of what constitutes a "record", "under the control of an institution" or "personal information" should provide interpretation and train those in the information management community. Those who are responsible for managing data and information should have the appropriate resourcing and tools at their disposal to discharge their responsibilities effectively and efficiently.

Program areas have voiced concerns about the lack of resources, the lack of corporate memory, under-resourcing and poor management of departmental information.

More efficient search and preparation of ATI requests would require that we move away from manual (paper-based) record keeping to a corporate wide, electronic document and records management system where every page is numbered and accounted for. Meta-data repositories and "electronic filing cabinets" are critical to efficient data management in the future.

There is a need for strong central direction to require DMs to implement strong IM programs with metadata standards, shared systems initiatives, and sufficient resource allocation to promote these IM objectives.

b. How ATI requests are processed

In one department, the 30-day response time has been broken down into 5 steps to simplify and streamline the process and to ensure compliance with the legislated 30-day time frame. This department has created a unit responsible solely for receiving the requests, clarifying them when necessary, and obtaining the records from the offices of primary interest (OPIs). Once the documents responsive to a request have been received, the file is sent to a processing unit for review and release according to the Act.

If the legislation is not changed, the receipt of a request or provision of electronic access would be possible only if there was a method for institutions to determine Canadian citizenship or presence in Canada.

The use of common tracking software with consistent processes and language should be encouraged across all federal institutions, and clarification of ATI requests between OPIs and applicants should be encouraged as a best practice to increase applicant satisfaction and produce faster, more effective results.

c. ATI offices and their resources, positions, status, training, tools and support

The training offered by specialists in the area and the training sessions offered by the Treasury Board are very useful and much appreciated, but it is difficult for ATI officers and Co-ordinators to receive the advanced training they need.

There is also a need for increased continuous training of departmental officials to increase their knowledge of their obligations under both Acts, and to assist them in their efforts to respond to requests. (One department has a 33% annual turnover rate of employees). This is usually carried out by the departmental ATIP office, but is often an under-resourced function. Systematic training is key to sustaining compliance with the Act, and to an institution's ability to grow subsequent generations of employees for whom the Act is not an impediment. One department has established internet and intranet sites as informational/developmental tools.

Over the past few years, some departments have substantially increased the budget of the ATIP program, and have implemented processing, management and organizational initiatives to enhance performance which have achieved a compliance level in the range of 84-85%. Given that institutions must weigh the needs of the ATIP program against a wide range of other programs, the Report Card grading system used by the Information Commissioner seems unfair in an era of exponential increases in numbers of requests.

The issues of recruitment and retention of experienced staff must be addressed government wide because there is a general difficulty finding and attracting qualified personnel. This problem is becoming more serious as the federal government is now in competition with the private sector for these individuals (with the implementation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act). Perhaps ATIP should be a certified discipline, in the same order as Financial Officers or Human Resources Specialists. There is also a need to ensure that positions in all government institutions are appropriately classified and that there is expertise available to departments and agencies experiencing a surge in requests.

The location of ATI offices within institutions varies considerably, which may exacerbate the inconsistency of approach across government. At the same time, institutions with independent legal counsel do not have access to the expertise available in the Information Law and Privacy Section of the Department of Justice for assistance in dealing with difficult cases. The result is that the legal advice on the application of the Act is inconsistent across government.

TBS should issue more detailed guidelines and directives. The TB Manual should be updated on a regular basis, and be easy to access and user-friendly.

d. Info Source

Info Source should be modified to be more user friendly.

e. Approach to informal release of information

Information which is routinely released and key institutional documents should be put on the Internet. TB should encourage institutions to release maximum amounts of non-sensitive information, through use of the Internet or by informal release. There should be a standard of public access to certain information respecting government contracts and the bidding process.

Departments should try to handle ATI requests informally as much as possible, and they should refer the applicant to the operational program manager for assistance in describing or defining the subject of their requests.

However, managing both requests under the Act and informal requests can be a challenge. One department encourages requesters to submit informal requests, but notes that it has a legal obligation to meet deadlines for those who have made a formal request. This has a discouraging effect on the informal requesters who have now begun to submit formal requests in order to be treated in a timely manner. Another department noted that it does not have sufficient resources to work as it would wish to with researchers who are making secondary-use of the records it collects in the course of its work.

What would make ATI Work better:

• a less adversarial relationship with the Office of the Information Commissioner and requesters: the present environment discourages co-operation between officials and requesters and the OIC, resulting in a reduction in service for clients.
  
  
• recognition of the impact of the Privacy Act on ATI work: it is important to note the inevitable impact of the dramatic increase in privacy requests on the ability of ATIP offices to respond to ATI requests. In some departments, privacy requests have more than doubled in the last 5 years and are expected to continue to increase.
  
  
• increased resources - both financial and human: many institutions have seen the volume and complexity of requests increase while the resources devoted to access have not increased, or have even decreased

Top of Page

IV. Best Practices in Departments

• Review of records by both the ATIP Unit and the OPI involved. The review by ATIP brings an in-depth knowledge of the legislation to the review process, while the OPI review brings an in-depth knowledge of the subject of the relevant records and potential sensitivities to the review process. Increased communications between the ATIP Office and the program areas encourages improved co-operation within the department and better understanding of program concerns.
  
  
• Use of ATIP Flow software to track requests and prepare reports; a weekly list of requests and their status that is reviewed by the departmental executive committee.
  
  
• Guidelines on the department's Intranet site to assist officials in the review process; and regular formal training sessions on ATIP.
  
  
• Performance standards for the processing of access requests so that objectives may be set, performance measured, and decisions made on staffing, in order to improve overall efficiency and control.
  
  
• Streamlining and simplifying the processing of requests and established a mandatory time frame for OPIs to provide documents in response to requests for information.
  
  
• Creating of a Consultations, Policy and Training Group to remove all non-processing responsibilities from the people processing requests. This group responds to all internal and external enquiries related to ATIP, completes ATIP consultations on requests with other government departments, reviews and recommends changes in ATIP policies and procedures, and is responsible for ATIP awareness and training.
  
  
• Pilot project to examine the feasibility of moving some of the review and decision-making to the regions.
  
  
• Maintaining an inventory of the records that have been disclosed in response to requests. These can be used to respond in whole or in part to subsequent requests, or as research tools in the processing of new requests. One department is using the Internet to post requests which have been answered under the Act. The records associated with them are made readily available without need to refer to the Act, thus reducing the number of formal requests, and allowing resources to be more effectively used in other activities to improve institutional access services to applicants, such as the efficient and effective operation of the departmental reading room required by the Act.
  
  
• Revisions to departmental disclosure approval processes have been instrumental in sustained progress in improving service.
  
  
• Inclusion of departmental ATIP officials in daily and weekly meetings with senior management, has ensured the inclusion of ATI as a continuing element in the conduct of institutional business. Progress realised has been consistently supported by senior management.
  
  
• Weekly reports to senior management.
  
  
• Preliminary review of requested documents with the OPI.
  
  
• Monthly meetings with ATI Sector Liaison officers.
  
  
• Weekly meetings between ATIP, Corporate Secretariat and Communications Branch to ensure that media lines and briefing material are initiated as required in relation to the documents that will be released to the applicant.
  
  
• Full ministerial delegation to the ATIP Co-ordinator.
  
  
• Direct reporting of coordinators to the DM level, or one level removed.
  
  
• Senior manager responsibility for the identification and confirmation of relevant records.
  
  
• Simplification of process.
  
  
• Final approval process takes place 3 days before disclosure.
  
  
• Use of tracking system ATIPflow for case management and statistical analysis.
  
  
• Creating of an Information Management Division that includes traditional records management and library services as well as the agency's ATIP section. This means that the changes necessary to institute good record keeping to ensure efficient search, retrieval and storage of records for ATIP purposes can be handled within one responsibility centre.

Top of Page

Appendix I

DEPARTMENTS PARTICIPATING IN CONSULTATION

Department of National Defence
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Industry Canada
Justice Canada
National Archives
Natural Resources Canada
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
Transportation Safety Board
Treasury Board Secretariat
Public Works and Government Services Canada
CCRA
Privy Council Office
Department of Finance
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Canadian International Development Agency
National Research Council
Solicitor General
Transport Canada

Top of Page

Consultation