June 12, 2002

KEY POINTS FROM THE REPORT

ACCESS TO INFORMATION: MAKING IT WORK FOR CANADIANS

• The report contains 139 recommendations to modernize access to information. It addresses access to information reform in an integrated way that includes legislative, administrative and cultural issues.
• The recommendations are based on comprehensive research and analysis, including consultation with stakeholder groups, the public service, other jurisdictions in Canada and abroad, as well as the public.
• The report is available on our Web site: http://www.atirtf-geai.gc.ca/
• Printed copies will be available the week of June 19 and can be ordered from our office until June 28, 2002, at (613) 946-6185.

General:

• there is no magic solution to the shortcomings of the system. Progress will best be achieved through an integrated strategy comprising modernization of the Act, enhanced practices, skills and systems, and moving toward a culture of access in government;
  
• after 20 years, the Act is still not well understood, either by the general public, by requesters, by third parties who supply information to government, or even by the public service. There is a pressing need for more education about access to information;
  
• the performance of the federal access to information regime is largely similar to that in other jurisdictions in Canada and abroad. The challenges and issues are strikingly the same: timeliness of responses, problems in information management, transparency of new service delivery public bodies, managing growth in demand, resourcing of the access program, effective oversight and resolution of disputes, and creating and maintaining support for access to information both at the political level and throughout the public service;
  
• the principles contained in the Act are still valid and relevant – presumption of a right of access; exceptions that are limited and specific; independent review of decisions; and the Act complements other ways of providing government information – but they need to be better communicated and understood;
  
• overall, the Act is basically sound in concept, structure and balance. However, there is a need to modernize some provisions – to clarify some others - and to address gaps;
  
• the costs of administering the Act are around $30 million annually, or less than $1 per Canadian per year. This is a modest cost, in light of the significant public policy objectives pursued by the Act: accountability and transparency of government, ethical and careful behaviour on the part of public officials, participation of Canadians in the development of public policy, and a better informed and more competitive society.

Scope of the Act:

• the scope of the Act is generally more restricted than comparable legislation in other countries and Canadian provinces. There should be legislated criteria for making consistent and principled decisions on which institutions should be covered by the Act. The application of these criteria should extend coverage to a significantly wider range of federal institutions;
  
• the Act should cover Parliament and the offices of the Auditor General, the Access to Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Official Languages Commissioner.

Cabinet Confidences:

• Cabinet confidences should be subject to a mandatory exemption under the Act rather than excluded from its application. In addition, the length of the protection for Cabinet confidences should be reduced to 15 years. Decisions on Cabinet confidences should be reviewable by the Federal Court as recommended by the 1986 Parliamentary Committee. The definition should be narrowed to focus on protecting the deliberations of Cabinet. The format of Cabinet papers should be amended to allow for release of background information after 5 years at the latest.

Information Commissioner:

• the Office of the Information Commissioner needs to be equipped with the mandate, tools and resources to fulfil its role of oversight in the future. The mandate of that office should be expanded to explicitly include public education, advice to government, mediation of disputes and assessment of institutional practices on access to information. The investigation process should be better communicated and should incorporate procedural fairness safeguards. In the medium term, the government should consider making the Information Commissioner an order-making body, at least in the medium term.

ATI Process:

• there is a need to make the process of formal access to information requests work better for both requesters and for institutions, ensuring that Canadians get access to disclosable information in a simple, timely and effective way. Institutions should be able to disregard frivolous and vexatious requests if the Information Commissioner agrees. There should be a duty for institutions to assist requesters in making their requests;
  
• at every stage of the access process – from the receipt of requests to complaint investigations – there is an overwhelming need for more rigorous processes, clearer and more widely understood rules, and greater consistency in outcomes, both for requesters and for government institutions.

Fees:

• fees are not a cost-recovery mechanism and should never be an obstacle to legitimate requests. They are meant to act as an incentive to focus requests and as a safeguard for the sustainability of the system. These objectives would be better met with a fee structure that differentiates between commercial requests and general requests, and provides a mechanism to manage the exceptional costs of very large requests. Most requesters should receive a response to a non-commercial request without paying any additional fees beyond a $10 application fee. Requests made by the general public for their own use, academics, the media, Parliamentarians and not-for-profit organizations should be considered as non-commercial. The 1983 fee rate should be indexed and criteria be developed for waivers of fees.

Information Management:

• there cannot be better access to information without better information management. There is an urgent need for leadership and government-wide action in this area.

Increased Availability of Information:

• the formal process under the Act cannot meet all the needs of Canadians for government information, nor was it ever intended to. There is a need for a comprehensive strategy to provide information to Canadians through a variety of methods outside the Act, such as proactive dissemination, informal release, and bulk review and release of historical documents.

Public Service Culture:

• there is a need for better awareness, training, support, incentives and accountability for access to information and information management in the public service. The principles of access to information need to be integrated into the core values of the public service and embedded in its routines.

Data Collection and Parliamentary Oversight:

• improving access to information, both within institutions and across government, requires more careful monitoring and enhanced data reporting. There should be more regular reviews of the Act and its implementation, as well as informed and sustained oversight by Parliament.