ARCHIVED - Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section II: Analysis by Program Activity

2.1 Performance in 2007-2008

Program Activity 1: Compliance with access to information obligations

Program Activity Description

The Access to Information Act is the legislative authority for the oversight activities of the Information Commissioner, which are:

• to investigate complaints from individuals and corporations;
• 
  
• to review the performance of government institutions;
• 
  
• to report the results of investigations/reviews and recommendations to complainants, government institutions, and Parliament;
• 
  
• to pursue judicial enforcement; and
• 
  
• to provide advice to Parliament on access to information matters.
• 
  

 

Financial Resources ($000)
Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
$9,248	$8,091	$7,856
Human Resources (FTEs)
Planned	Actual	Difference
90	60	30

 

 

Performance in 2007-2008

The 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities, which is the basis for reporting in this Departmental Performance Report (DPR), included some early performance indicators. Reporting against those early indicators only provides a partial performance story about the Office (Refer to text box opposite).

In response to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Management, Resources and Results Structure Policy, the Office developed a more complete results and performance measurement framework in the fall of 2007 (Refer to the latest Report on Plans and Priorities at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/ipc/ipc06-eng.asp). This framework defines results to be expected from the Office from the perspective of each of our key stakeholders (Parliamentarians, requesters, federal institutions, the Courts, and stakeholders in general including the public); the framework further associates performance indicators to each result. Reporting on the Office’s performance against this new framework will allow for a more comprehensive performance story in the next DPR.

For the purpose of reporting in this year’s DPR, the paragraphs that follow describe the work accomplished in 2007-2008 to deliver on the Program Activity through the main activities of the Office: investigations, departmental reviews (reports cards), reports, judicial review, and provision of advice and advocacy.

Investigations

Complaints from individuals and corporations

We received 2,387 new complaints in 2007-2008, which represents an increase of 1,070 or 81% from last year. Although we completed 9% more investigations this year (1,381 complaint files) than last year (1,268 complaint files), our inventory of active cases at year-end was 2,318 compared with 1,420 last year. As a result of having to manage this larger volume of complaints, 85% of our active cases were in backlog status as not having been completed within our service standards.

We usually complete investigations of administrative complaints in six months to one year, but many investigations of refusal and Cabinet confidence exclusion complaints take more than a year to investigate. Much of the delay is the result of the large backlog, which keeps complaints on hold for a significant period. Our average time to close the 1,381 complaints this year was eight months, a 36% improvement rate over last year’s average of 12.4 months.

Systemic complaints

The Commissioner has in the past launched on his own initiative investigations to address what appear to be widespread problems, such as chronically late responses, improper management of extensions, large backlogs of unanswered requests and administrative practices that may result in requesters receiving slower or less forthcoming answers to access requests than they might otherwise. Individual requesters may also ask us to undertake a systemic investigation, by complaining about the same matter to several federal institutions.

In 2007-2008, we closed all 237 systemic complaints relating to delays that were carried over from the previous year. All these Commissioner-initiated complaints involved one institution that, in its early years of operation, had experienced continuing problems in responding to access requests on time. This year, the Commissioner started to address systemic issues, such as delays, through a more balanced and comprehensive report card process (Refer to paragraph below: Departmental Review – Report Cards).

Backlog reduction plan

The continuing and persistent backlog of investigations that we reported last year did not improve in 2007-2008 despite our considerable efforts to reduce the caseload. The situation was compounded by the 81% increase in the volume of complaints filed with our Office. To address the problem, we developed an 11-point backlog strategy and started implementing many of the actions. For example, to reduce bottlenecks in the management review and approval of cases, we restructured the Complaints Resolution and Compliance Branch by re-profiling the director general position to a second director position and creating a fourth chief position. With two directors in place, each one responsible for two chiefs and their teams of investigative staff, we pushed down delegations for the approval of all administrative cases and some refusal cases to the director level. Chiefs now sign off on abandoned or withdrawn complaints. Additional delegations are planned for the new fiscal year. We placed the priority on our oldest cases and closed 47% (184 of 391) of those that were over two years old. We also retained the services of a contractor to advance our oldest files. We started to monitor the older cases more closely. Although we encountered staff retention problems due to a shortage of qualified workforce, we have been able to staff three vacant positions.

We expended considerable effort examining ways to strengthen and streamline our complaints-handling process with a view to resolving complaints more efficiently and at the earliest opportunity, and making decisions faster and fairly. We reviewed our complaints-handling process and made some initial changes, such as closing complaints of delay/deemed refusal once the institution provided us with a commitment date which we would then monitor. In undertaking our review, we gathered ideas from our staff, administrators of the Act, our provincial counterparts and from a consulting firm with expertise in performance management and program evaluation. One key recommendation that we accepted and started planning for was the establishment of a dedicated intake and early resolution unit that prioritizes complaints according to a clear set of criteria. At year-end, we were in the planning stage to launch the unit early in the new fiscal year as a pilot project and developing the triage process and prioritization criteria. We are reviewing the other recommendations made, including establishing more effective performance targets. A copy of the consulting firm’s report is available on our website (http://www.infocom.gc.ca/publications/2008/pdf/final_report_Jan_29_08-e.pdf).

Review the performance of federal institutions

Before engaging in this year’s Report Cards process, the Office took stock of how the process had gone in the past. As a result, many changes were made to the process for 2007-2008 namely to the review period, the selection of institutions, the scope of review/assessment and reporting.

The new approach to report cards will help produce a more complete picture of the performance of the selected institutions, addressing the timeliness of their responses to access to information requests as well as the completeness and accuracy of those responses. Through this new approach, the Office will also identify concerns that are prevalent throughout the system. On the timeliness front, the Office will not only focus on deemed refusals but will also look at issues causing delays such as consultations, approval process and use of extensions. As well, we will analyse the investigative files related to complaints to assess the degree of completeness and accuracy.²

The result of the reviews will form part of a Special Report to Parliament to be tabled during the Fall 2008.

Report the results of investigations, reviews and recommendations

In addition to providing complainants and federal institutions with the results of investigations and recommendations, the Office tabled its 2007-2008 Annual Report in Parliament, which contains a detailed account of five investigations.

Judicial enforcement

Although most complaints are resolved at the end of the investigative process, the Commissioner participates in each case that raises a significant concern about the proper interpretation of the Access to Information Act, or an important legal principle relevant to its operation.

The Commissioner filed no new application for review in 2007-2008. However, six applications were filed by requesters seeking remedies against the Commissioner and one application was filed by a requester in which the Commissioner was improperly named as a respondent. Over the same period, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court issued sixteen decisions, five of which the Commissioner was either a party to or an intervener. These include decisions about matters such as challenging the Information Commissioner’s powers to issue confidentiality orders during investigations³, census records for aboriginal land claim research⁴, disclosure of portions of a discussion paper to Cabinet⁵, personal information exemption raised by contractors⁶ and the power of the Privacy Commissioner to examine and assess documents asserted to be protected under the solicitor-client privilege during an investigation⁷.

Provision of advice and advocacy

Parliamentarians rely on the Commissioner for objective advice about the access to information implications of legislation, jurisprudence, regulations and policies. In 2007-2008, the Office created a unit to respond effectively and in a timely manner to Parliamentarians’ enquiries and to keep legislators and decision-makers informed about the Office’s views about access to information. The Office published materials on duty to assist as well as a reference guide on the Open Government Act. In addition, the Commissioner and Office representatives appeared a number of times before parliamentary committees.

The OIC provided its unique perspective and expertise to many inter-institutional policy projects in 2007-2008. The OIC is also working with partners to contribute to better stewardship of the access to information system and to promote openness in government. The Office has been actively involved with Treasury Board Secretariat in the renewal of access to information policies and also took part in many policy projects with other Officers of Parliament, provincial and territorial regulators, and federal institutions. One example is the pilot project led by Library and Archives Canada to develop documentation standards for investigative bodies.

As part of Right to Know Week in the fall of 2007, the OIC held a one-day seminar on various aspects of citizens’ right to know, featuring presentations by experts in the field and from the Office on the fundamentals of access to information in Canada and how it can be improved. The Commissioner gave the keynote speech on his approach to fostering openness in government. The two assistant commissioners participated in similar events put on by some of our provincial counterparts.

In addition, the Commissioner and the Office staff made several presentations to a variety of audience on the rights, objectives and challenges associated with access to information.

Link with priorities

This section 2.1 described the Office’s performance in 2007-2008 to deliver on its Program Activity 1. Of the four priorities that Office had set for this fiscal year, which were reported upon in Section 1.6 of this Report, the activities conducted under Program Activity 1 contributed directly to the achievement of the three following priorities (the two other priorities for 2007-2008 were linked more directly to internal management activities discussed in Section IV).

Priorities	Type
Reduce the backlog of investigations and ensure appropriate service standards are met, given increased demand resulting from the passage of the Federal Accountability Act.	Previous
Reduce the number of complaints by engaging in departmental reviews, encouraging training of ATIP professionals, and raising awareness among of federal institutions’ responsibilities and obligations under the ATIA.	Previous
Assist the government and Parliament in assessing proposals for reform of the Access to Information Act	Previous

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page