Report 22 - Access to Information Review Task Force

ACCESS TO INFORMATION REVIEW SURVEY OF ATI UNITS

Published: June 2002

Yvon Gauthier Inc.

Table of Contents

1. Background
2. Methodology
3. Findings

• To examine the profile of the users of the legislation
• To note the criteria which Access coordinators believe could
  identify frivolous, vexatious or abusive requests
• Awareness of the existence and comprehension of the objectives
  and requirements of the Access to Information Act on the part of
  federal public servants
• To identify the steps involved in the processing of access requests
• To identify the factors that affect the complexity of access requests
• To assess the ATI staff’s position within the institutions

ANNEX 1 – Questionnaire
ANNEX 2 - To compare the profiles of the users of the legislation
ANNEX 3 - To note the criteria which Access coordinators believe could identify frivolous, vexatious or abusive requests
ANNEX 4 - Awareness of the existence and comprehension of the objectives and requirements of the Access to Information Act on the part of federal public servants
ANNEX 5 - To identify the steps involved in the processing of access requests
ANNEX 6 - To identify the factors that affect the complexity of access requests
ANNEX 7 - To assess the ATI staff’s position within the institutions

Background

The Access to Information Review Task Force (hereafter the “Task Force”) contracted the services of Yvon Gauthier Info-Training to conduct a collection of information regarding several issues it was studying from members of the Access to Information (ATI) community in order to elaborate on data that is already available.

Methodology

At the outset of this project, the Task Force identified six areas to which they sought to obtain some additional information from various federal institutions. The six areas of interest are noted below:

1. A profile of the users of the legislation:

The Task Force wanted to better understand the profile of requesters, and whether that profile varied across departments. The data collected included the following; the proportion of access requests made by each category of requester, how often each category uses the Act to request access to information, and the number of records involved in the access requests submitted by each category.

2. The factors Access Coordinators thought could indicate frivolous and vexatious or abusive requests:

The Task Force was looking for the criteria that Access Coordinators might think would be appropriate to use to determine whether a request was frivolous, vexatious and/or abusive, if such a provision was added to the Act, and some practical examples of requests they thought met the criteria. The Coordinators were also asked to explain why they had identified these criteria.

3. Awareness of the existence and comprehension of the objectives and requirements of the Access to Information Act on the part of federal public servants:

The Task force wanted information on how public servants learn about the Access to Information Act, and the profile of access issues within departments. Questions were formulated to assess the mechanisms in place within the representative sample, to inform their managers and employees of the existence and the requirements of the legislation. The questions also sought to identify the level of importance given to the Access to Information Act by the institution's Senior Management Committee and the frequency with which ATI issues are included in institution's Senior Management Committee Agendas.

4. Mapping of the access to information process:

The Task Force wanted to know more about the processing of requests within departments. In order to describe the different methods employed by various federal institutions, questions were formulated to identify the steps involved in the processing of routine and complex access requests. Particular attention was given to the steps and principal actors involved in the approval process as well as the typical time lines allowed for the approval of access requests. Given that certain administrative tools and resources may be employed in the management of ATI files, the ATI coordinators were asked to identify the tools and resources where utilized and their contribution.

5. Measuring the complexity of an access to information request:

The Task Force wanted information on the factors that Co-ordinators felt could differentiate regular requests from complex requests. Questions were developed to identify those factors.

6. Access to Information Coordinators' and Analysts' Positions and Career Path:

The Task Force wanted more information on the position and profile of ATI staff within their departments and their careers in government. Questions were asked to collect information about the following aspects of the ATI Coordinators' and the ATI Analysts positions:

• Their professional origin and their typical career path;
• Their position, title and job classification and level;
• The location of the ATI office within the organization (how many steps separate them from the most senior level);
• Their access to Senior Management, (ease and frequency);
• Their delegation of authority and how it is actually exercised;
• Other information as specifically required by the Task Force.

In order to conduct our fact finding mission, a random selection of large, medium, and small departments and agencies were chosen as a representative sample. The following departments participated:

Canadian International Development Agency
Solicitor General of Canada
Transport Canada
Human Resources and Development Canada
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
National Defense
Department of Finance
Correctional Services
Department of Justice
National Archives

The ATI coordinators were contacted by phone and asked if they would be willing to take the time to answer a series of question developed to seek further information on the six areas identified by the ATI Review Task Force. Those institutions that were successfully contacted and who agreed to partake in this exercise were sent a copy of the questionnaire. Their responses were in some cases obtained in subsequent telephone interviews with departmental and agency representatives or were provided in writing. The answers were reviewed by the project manager, and when necessary, subsequent inquiries where made in order to clarify certain information. For ease of reference and comparison, the answers provided by each of the respondents was collated into six tables (see Annex 2 to 7) representing the six areas identified by the Task Force.

Findings

1. A profile of the users of the legislation – ANNEX 2

The purpose of section one of the questionnaire (ANNEX 2) was to prepare a profile of the categories of requesters in responding institutions. When available the percentage of requests received in each category, the approximate volume of records treated for each category, the number of requesters in each category as well as the number of complaints received were provided.

The information received demonstrated that the profile of requesters varies considerably among institutions. For example, in 1999 the media made 10% of requests across government, however they ranged from 0.5% in one institution to 44% in another. Such a large difference in the client base could have a significant impact on the development of strategies to provide information through other means.

The respondents were in most cases unable to provide all the information sought in section one of the questionnaire because information such as the number of pages processed in response to requests are not always kept. Other than the information about complaints provided in the annual reports, none of the departments kept statistics on how many requests were the subject of complaints or the number of requesters that complained.

2. The factors that Access Coordinators believe could identify frivolous and vexatious or abusive requests – ANNEX 3

In contrast to most other jurisdictions, the Access to Information Act does not contain a provision for frivolous and vexatious requests. The Task Force has noted, however, that this is a concept that is often raised in discussions about the Act. The purpose of section two of the questionnaire (ANNEX 3) was to identify the factors that Access Coordinators believe could identify frivolous, vexatious or abusive requests and to provide a short explanation. Half of the Access Coordinators who responded to the questionnaire noted that since there was no legal provision for frivolous, vexatious or abusive requests, they were not in any position to identify relevant factors, and that all requests were, and would continue to be, processed.

The remaining Access Coordinators interviewed identified situations or criteria that, in their opinion, would be likely to make a request frivolous, vexatious or abusive if there were such provisions in the Act. The criteria put forth by several coordinators concerned requests that are made to hinder or paralyze government operations by continuously making requests for large volumes of records that have previously been provided to the requester. One coordinator identified a situation where frequent requesters consistently fail to pay photocopy fees and fail to review the records once the complete file had been processed. Another coordinator identified a similar situation where a request took a year to process, yet the requester viewed the first release package and never came back to see the rest of the information.

Requests that were unintelligible, such as requests for information on aliens from another planet, was also noted as a criterion for identifying a request as frivolous, vexatious or abusive. Requesters who believe that the government is monitoring them, are well known in one department for repeatedly requesting the same documents about themselves. Some of these requests are made pursuant to the Privacy Act, however they often lead to numerous subsequent ATI requests involving the same correspondence.

One institution noted that the intent of the requester would have to be vexatious or abusive, as opposed to the institution believing that the request itself was vexatious or abusive.

In general, the shared definition of a frivolous or vexatious request was when the requester shows no interest in the information that results from the request, however in most cases this can only be assessed post facto.

A common view was that vexatious and frivolous requests are rare, but have a big impact on how ATI is perceived in the public service. A more common problem seems to be burdensome requests “unreasonably” diverting the resources (financial and human) of the institution.

Return to Table of Contents

Next Page