Report 24 - Access to Information Review Task Force

AN ANALYSIS OF FEES FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION REQUESTS

Published: June 2002

Goss Gilroy Inc.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction and Methodology
  1.1 Introduction
  1.2 Methodology
  1.3 Observations on the Data
2.0 Findings
  2.1 Total Fees Payable
  2.2 Total Fees Paid
  2.3 Other Variables of Interest
  2.4 Relationship Between Fees Payable and Other Variables
  2.5 Options for Change
  2.6 Summary of Findings
Appendix A - Current fee structure

1.0 Introduction and Methodology

1.1 Introduction

One of the issues being examined by the Access to Information (ATI) Review Task Force is the fee structure. Currently fees under the ATI legislation are largely based on two factors: time spent on search and preparation of records, and reproduction of media (e.g. paper, microfiche, magnetic tapes, diskettes, etc.). As new media comes into use, the regulations establishing prices for the media become outdated. This study was designed to collect information to inform decisions about fees charged for information requests under the Access to Information legislation.

1.2 Methodology

The ATI Review Task Force obtained information on all ATI requests completed between April 1 2000 and March 31, 2001 from the federal departments and agencies with the largest volumes of ATI requests. Only departments using ATIP Flow were asked to participate to ensure that common information, entered in a consistent manner, could be obtained with a minimal effort by the participating departments and agencies. In total, seven departments, accounting for 12,561 ATI requests were included in this research study. These requests represent 60 percent of the 20,789 ATI requests for the period April 1 2000 to March 31, 2001.

Not all requests were included in the analysis. Any record that did not show any amount paid, which would mean no application fee, was excluded from the analysis. There are several reasons why records would not have any payment, including the request being transferred to another department, handled informally, the information had already been released or the request was cancelled by the applicant.

1.3 Observations on the Data

On review of the data it becomes clear that search time is often not recorded (less than 2% of the requests had any search time recorded). This may be because the search time for a request is less than the five hours which is provided at no charge, or because it is determined early in the process that no fees will be charged, and therefore there is no reason to track the search time. This makes it impossible to assess factors such as “fees payable” with any certainty.

It is also interesting to note that if we deduct the amount of fees waived, as recorded in the system, from the amount of fees payable which we can calculate, the result is an amount which is higher than the amount of fees paid. In other words, there are fees payable which are not waived, but which are nevertheless not collected.

The categorization of requesters is also very imprecise. If the requester does not self-identify, then the receiving institution will categorize the requester according to their sometimes limited knowledge, with ‘public’ as the default category. The large variance in the number of requests made by each category of requester (6,220 by business; 25 by academics) also has an effect on the data, since the statistical impact of one request by an academic is much greater than the statistical impact of one request from business.

Given the lack of rigour of the data, the results of any analysis cannot be considered as exact, but only as the best indicators available.

Next Page

Return to Table of Contents