Access to Information: Making it Work for Canadians

Report of the Access to Information Review Task Force

Data at a Glance

• In 2000-2001, federal institutions received 20,789 requests. In the last five years, from 1995-96 to 2000-01, requests have increased by 64 per cent.
  

• Until 1998-1999 there was a relatively steady increase in the number of requests received by federal institutions, and a corresponding increase in costs of the system. There was a significant jump in the number of requests in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 followed by a significant increase in costs. For many years the number of ATI staff [in person-years (PYs)] reported by institutions followed the steady increase in volume, but this has fallen behind the increase in volume of requests over the last two years. Since 1985-1986 there has been very little change in the percentage of requests carried forward annually, indicating that there has not been a serious build-up of backlog.
  
  
• Over one-half of all requests (52 per cent in 2000-2001) are made to five government institutions: Citizenship and Immigration Canada; National Archives; Health Canada; Human Resources Development Canada; and the Department of National Defence.
  
  
• While the identity of requesters is protected, statistics are kept on the broad affiliations or categories of users. The data indicates that, in 2000- 2001, businesses made more use of the Act than any other group (40.9 per cent), followed by the general public (31.5 per cent), organizations (16 per cent), the media (10.8 per cent) and academics (0.8 per cent). While usually included in the general public category, requests from Parliamentarians are estimated to be 10 per cent of all requests.
  
  
• A limited number of requesters generate the majority of requests: based on data for 1998-99, 35 per cent of requesters make more than one request per year and 11 per cent make more than seven requests.
  
  
• In 2000-2001, full disclosure was granted in 37.5 per cent of the requests, partial disclosure in 35.6 per cent of the requests. Another 1.9 per cent resulted in the informal disclosure of information to the requesters. No information was disclosed as a result of applying exemptions in 3 per cent of the requests, and in 0.3 per cent as a result of applying exclusions. 20.4 per cent of the requests could not be processed because there was insufficient information, records did not exist or the request was abandoned by the applicant.
  
  
• The vast majority of requests are small, with 80 per cent resulting in the release of fewer than 100 pages. A few, about 1 per cent, are very large, resulting in the release of more than 1,000 pages.⁴
  
  
• The largest request received at this point was to the Department of Foreign Affairs for 1.2 million documents.
  
  
• Less than 10 per cent of requests result in complaints to the Information Commissioner. In 2000-2001, 1,337 complaints were investigated by the Investigation Commissioner. Only two were not resolved to his satisfaction and are now before the Federal Court.
  
  
• Investigations by the Information Commissioner took, on average, 5.4 months in 2000-2001; the length and the costs of investigations are increasing (both for the Office of the Information Commissioner and government institutions).
  
  
• Delays (missing either the original 30-day time limit, or an extension permitted by the Act) represented the single largest source of complaints (43 per cent in 2000-2001), followed by complaints about refusals to disclose information (40 per cent) and about the length of extensions to the time limit for responses (11 per cent).⁵
  
  
• In 60 to 80 per cent of the complaints, the Information Commissioner agreed with the application of exemptions by government institutions. Reasons for complaints (2000–2001)
  
  

• While the overall number of delays and delay complaints has increased, the average number of hours it takes to respond to an individual request (including the time to resolve related complaints) has decreased slightly from 40 hours, in 1993-94, to 38 hours in 1998-99.
  
  
• The total costs (direct and indirect) for the access to information program, including the Office of the Information Commissioner’s costs, were estimated at $28,845,000 in 1999. Between 1993-94, and 1998-99, they rose at an average rate of 7 per cent per year. The increased costs are due to the growth in demand while the per unit cost has remained stable or even declined slightly, due to greater efficiency in processing.
  
  
• Search costs have declined significantly (by about 30 per cent) since 1994 and could come down some more with better records management. However, these savings were offset by a 64 per cent increase in the costs of administrative and other activities – for example, contact with requesters, tracking requests, review – and a 104 per cent increase in the cost of responding to complaints.
  
  
• Fees are waived or not collected for about two-thirds of requests. Fees recovered account for approximately 1.8 per cent of the direct costs of administering the access program.⁶

Return to Table of Contents

OurWork

The Government of Canada created the Task Force to review all aspects of the federal access to information regime and to make recommendations as to how it might be improved.

The Task Force was composed of public servants with a range of backgrounds and experience from various federal institutions (list of members at Annex 6). It was guided by two advisory committees: one of individuals from outside of government representing a broad range of relevant experience and interests, the External Advisory Committee; and one of senior government officials, the Advisory Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers (Annex 7).

Our challenge, as we saw it, was to provide well-researched, principled and pragmatic recommendations to the government on how to modernize the access to information regime in ways that promote open, effective and accountable government, an informed citizenry, and the public interest.

To meet this challenge, we reviewed previous comments and proposals for reform, commissioned research and consulted with external stakeholders, as well as with other jurisdictions and within the government:

• We first reviewed previous reports and analyses, including the government’s 1977 Green Paper on Legislation on Public Access to Government Documents (the Green Paper); the 1987 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General reviewing the Act (the Parliamentary Committee) and the Government’s response; annual reports published by successive Information Commissioners (particularly the suggestions for reform made by the Information Commissioner in his 2000-2001 report); analyses of access issues in other provinces and countries; the comments and reports of Members of Parliament and Private Members’ bills; and academic commentaries on access issues in general and on the Canadian regime in particular.
  
  
• To obtain the views of Canadians who use the Act, third parties who provide information to the government, and the public generally, we posted on our Web site a consultation paper setting out the key issues as we saw them from our analysis of previous proposals and a literature review. In response, we received submissions which included recommendations on virtually all aspects of the Act and its administration. In addition, five formal roundtable consultations were held with key stakeholders, including journalists, librarians, archivists, historians, academics, businesses and business associations, public interest groups and unions.⁷ We also held a number of informal meetings with various stakeholders and associations. Taken together, these consultations gave us a much better understanding of the frustrations, concerns and expectations of users and other stakeholders.
  
  
• We held a range of consultations within the public service. We wanted to understand the particular challenges of specific communities, for example those dealing with international or scientific information. Through discussion groups with rank and file public servants and with managers, we tried to understand the perceptions of the people who create, manage and release the information. In addition, we consulted A with the access officials who manage the access to information process within federal institutions to benefit from their experience, their unique knowledge of the system, and their thoughtful views about improving it.
  
  
• In addition to benefiting from the detailed analyses and recommendations in reports published by the Information Commissioner and his predecessors, we discussed options for reform with representatives of his office.
  
  
• We compared the provisions of the Canadian law with similar legislation in other jurisdictions, paying particular attention to recent legislation or amendments. We also met with government officials, those providing the oversight function, academics and various stakeholders in six Canadian provinces, and in Australia, Ireland, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. We benefited greatly from their insights and advice. These consultations helped to shape our perspective on the Canadian regime and provided us with a wealth of ideas and best practices to emulate. We compared our system with other jurisdictions to draw on their most effective provisions and practices, but also to question ours wherever they were significantly different. It was, however, always clear to us that our Act had to be tailored to the specific needs of Canadian society, and to work within the context of our institutions, our political culture, and the structure of our public service.
  
  
• To deepen our understanding of the issues and identify potential solutions, we commissioned 29 research reports on a range of access-related issues.
  
  

To make our work and our process transparent and accessible, we established a Web site and posted on it the results of our research and consultations, the submissions we received and summaries of the advice provided by our advisory committees. We believe this information provides the most comprehensive picture ever assembled of access to information at the federal level in Canada. This background information is contained on the CD-ROM accompanying our report.

Finally, after observing that there is a general lack of knowledge and understanding of the Act and its administration, both inside and outside the public service, we decided that our report would not only make recommendations for reform but also inform our readers about access to information. For example, we have highlighted a number of best practices that we believe should be implemented across government. (They are identified by a check mark in our text.) We hope our report provides a comprehensive body of work that can be used by decision-makers and others now, and in the future.

Next Page

Return to Table of Contents

⁴Goss Gilroy Inc., An Analysis of Fees for Access to Information Requests, Research Report 23.

⁵As this report was going to print, the Annual Report of the Information Commissioner for 2001-2002, was released on June 6, 2002. It indicates a decrease in the number of complaints, in spite of an increase in the overall number of requests to government institutions. In 2001-2002, 1,232 investigations were completed, of which 28.2 per cent were about delay; 6.2% about time extension; and 5.5% about fees.

⁶Supra, note 2, by comparison, fees recovered by U.S. federal agencies, in 2000, accounted for 2.8 per cent of total agency costs.

⁷Public Policy Forum, Report on Consultations to Review the Access to Information Act and its Implementation, August 2001.