ARCHIVED - Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section II: Analysis by Program Activity

2.1 OIC Performance in 2006-2007

The OIC has a single strategic outcome and only one program activity, which is supported by internal services as follows:

Strategic Outcome	Individuals’ rights under the Access to Information Act are safeguarded
Program Activity 1	Assess, investigate, review, pursue judicial enforcement and provide advice

Refer to Section 4.1 for a description of the internal services achievements.

Program Activity 1 - Assess, investigate, review, pursue judicial enforcement and provide advice

Program Activity Description

The formally approved description of the OIC’s only program activity is: assess, investigate, review, pursue judicial enforcement and provide advice.

Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
$8,181,000	$8,270,000	$6,611,000
Planned FTEs1	Actual FTEs	Difference in FTEs
78	55 FTEs	23 FTEs

Performance in 2006-2007

The OIC has assessed, investigated, reviewed, pursued judicial enforcement, and provided advice in accordance with its mandate. Work accomplished in 2006-2007 is described in this section. Additional information can be found in the Commissioner’s 2006-2007 annual report located on the OIC website (www.infocom.gc.ca).

The program activity objectives are as follows:

1. To ensure that the rights and obligations of complainants under the Access to Information Act are respected; complainants, heads of federal government institutions and all third parties affected by complaints are given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Information Commissioner and investigations are thorough and timely;
2. To persuade federal government institutions to adopt information practices in keeping with the Access to Information Act; and
3. To bring appropriate issues of interpretation of the Access to Information Act before the Federal Court.

Investigations

Performance Indicators	Expected Results
Number of complaints received and resolved	Complaints are conducted thoroughly and in a timely manner in accordance with established service standards

Complaints From the Public

The OIC received 1,257 complaints from the public (down 9% from last year) which means that, out of over 25,000 access requests processed government-wide, less than 6% generated complaints.

The OIC completed the investigation of 1,267 complaints with an average turnaround of 12.39 months, well beyond service standards. However, 72% of these completed investigations were for complaints in backlog status and their lengthy duration are strongly reflected in this average.

Backlog Reduction Plan

Of the 1,417 complaints from individuals that will be carried over to next year, 1,052 are considered to be in "backlog" status because they were not completed within service standards. Last year, of the 1,45427 investigations carried forward, 1,298 were in "backlog" status. The Office, thus, was able this year to halt the growth of the backlog and reduce it by 246 investigations.

While the Office has had some success this year in starting to reduce its backlog of incomplete investigations, it was not able to fully implement its backlog reduction plan, for which additional investigators were approved in January 2006, for fiscal years 2006-2007 to

2009-2010. The main reason for the setback was a delay, outside the Commissioner’s control, in securing the office accommodation necessary to house the new investigators.

The backlog reduction plan will be fully implemented when the additional accommodation space becomes available in 2007-2008. The Commissioner remains confident that, by March 31, 2010, there will be no backlog of investigations, and incoming complaints will be investigated in a timely manner.

Systemic Complaints

Despite the best efforts of the Office with its constrained resources, headway in reducing the backlog of complaints it has received over the past few years has been limited, particularly where Commissioner-initiated complaints have been launched to address and report on systemic or recurring compliance issues. In 2006-2007, the Information Commissioner initiated 393 complaints against one government institution in which a serious and persistent delay situation existed. Each of these complaints related to an individual access requests that the institution had not answered within the statutory deadline.  With these new complaints and the 423 carried over from the previous year, the Office resolved and reported on 579 self-initiated complaints in 2006-2007. 

Enquiries

OIC received and responded to 1,085 general enquiries - 627 by phone and 458 in writing - from a variety of sources, including other government agencies, the media, and the public, during 2006-2007.

Departmental Reviews (Report Cards)

Performance Indicator	Expected Result
Report Cards	Institutions are reviewed for their compliance with the Act and any problem areas relating to compliance are identified and reported upon.

The OIC conducted 17 report card reviews in 2006-2007: nine (9) institutions received a grade of A or B, three (3) received a grade of D, and the remaining five (5) institutions were graded with an F.

By conducting these reviews, OIC raises more senior level awareness of institutional responsibilities under the Access to Information Act. As a result, nine institutions showed improved performance over previous reviews.

The expanded report card process collects and assesses data from selected government institutions on a host of performance-related variables. These expanded report card investigations allow the Commissioner to obtain early identification of problem areas, such as: abuse of time extensions, inflation of fees, failure to document reasons for exemptions, overuse of exemptions, poor records management, failure to exploit opportunities for pro-active and information disclosure, political interference, and insufficient resources and/or training.

Parliament finds value in these reviews as well. Last year, the Standing Committee on Access, Privacy and Ethics called for the appearance of representatives from five institutions who received failing grades, seeking an explanation for the institution’s poor performance and a description of the institution’s plan to rectify the situation.

Summary of Workload

 

	April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006	April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007
Complaints from the Public Pending from previous year Opened during the year Completed during the year Pending at year-end	1,365 1,381 1,319 1,427	1,427 1,257 1,267 1,417
Commissioner-Initiated Systemic Complaints Pending from previous year Opened during the year Completed during the year Pending at year-end	0 760 337 423	423 393 579 237
Report Cards Full review Follow-up review	4 12	3 14

Judicial Review

Performance Indicator	Expected Result
Number of cases brought before the Courts	Number of cases brought before the Courts is less than one percent

Judicial Enforcement

Legal Services provides legal advice and legal assistance to the Information Commissioner during the investigative process of any complaint. Most complaints are resolved at the end of the investigative process. However, should the Commissioner fail to resolve a dispute between a complainant and a government institution a judicial process may follow.

Where the Information Commissioner concludes that a complaint is well founded and makes formal recommendation that is not followed by a government institution, the Commissioner’s policy is to bring the matter before the Federal Court of Canada and seek to obtain an Order to compel the government institution to disclose the records at issue.

No new applications for review were filed by the Information Commissioner in this reporting year. Six applications for review were filed by dissatisfied requesters. Third parties opposing disclosure filed 15 applications and one application was initiated against the Information Commissioner by the Crown. As well, this year, with respect to access litigation, the Federal Court of Canada issued nine decisions (the Commissioner was a party in one of these cases: Information Commissioner v. Environment Canada T-555-05), the Federal Court of Appeal issued 11 decisions (the Commissioner was a party in two of these cases: Executive Director of the Canadian Accident Investigation Safety Board et al, v. Information Commissioner, A-165-05 and A-304-05), and the Supreme Court of Canada issued two decisions (the Commissioner was an intervener in these two cases: Attorney General of Canada v. H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd., 30417 and Minister of Justice v. Sheldon Blank, 30553). The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in Court files A-165-05 and A-304-05 (the Commissioner was the respondent in this leave application Executive Director of the Canadian Accident Investigation Safety Board v. Information Commissioner, 31528).

Additional Activities to Support the OIC Mandate

Provision of Advice

Officials of the Office of the Information Commissioner appeared eight times before Parliamentary Committees with respect to matters relating to the implications of the right of access on proposed legislation which included advice provided regarding the Federal Accountability Act. These appearances occurred as follows: on May 18, 2006 before the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2; on May 31, June 19, October 2 and November 6, 2006 with respect to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics regarding the reform of the Access to Information Act; on June 21, 2006, before the Standing Committee on Banking, Trade & Commerce regarding the review of Proceeds of crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act; lastly, on September 20 and December 5, 2006, before the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on Bill C-2.

Promotional Activities

In addition to its core activities to assess, investigate, review, pursue judicial enforcement and provide advice, the OIC also invests in promotional activities to further enhance compliance with the Access to Information Act through building awareness of information access rights and support for the certification of information access professionals.

Right to Know Week

An international movement began in Bulgaria in 2002 when a group of openness-in-government advocates from three dozen countries formed a coalition known as the "Freedom of Information Advocates Network" and declared the "September 28^th" date as an international day for the promotion of the individual right of access to information and open transparent governance. The day, or week, is celebrated around the world in many of the more than 70 countries that have right to know statutes.

For the first time in 2006, events were held across Canada to recognize "Right to Know Day". It was the information commissioners in all Canadian jurisdictions who took the lead in "kicking off" Canada’s first Right to Know celebrations. Their goal was to help Canadians be more aware of the existence of the right of access in Canada and to better appreciate how essential this right is to a healthy democracy. Right to Know Week 2006 in Canada was a good start; there is comforting evidence that the various events across the country attracted considerable public attention and enthusiasm for making this an annual event. For a brief description of various events throughout Canada, visit the www.righttoknow.ca website.

In 2006, the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada co-sponsored with the Canadian Newspaper Association a forum in Ottawa on September 25 and 26. Among the speakers and panelists for the two-day event titled "Access to Information: Managing Change & Reform" were Ian E. Wilson, Librarian and Archivist of Canada, Stephen Owen and Pat Martin, Members of Parliament, David McKie and James Bronskill, journalists, Maher Arar, principal figure of the O’Connor Inquiry, to name a few.

University of Alberta IAPP Certificate Program

In 2006-2007 the OIC continued its tangible support for Canada’s only university-based, comprehensive, on-line, post-secondary level education program for access and privacy administrators. Located in the Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, this award-winning course of study, begun in 2000, is known as the Information Access and Protection of Privacy (IAPP) Certificate Program. Courses are offered in English and French.

The OIC has been investing financial and intellectual capital in the program since 2003 to facilitate the development of new courses and to enable course materials to be developed in the French language. Since the fall of 2004 and up to March 31, 2007, one of the Office’s legal counsel was loaned to the University of Alberta to serve as manager of the IAPP Certificate Program and as an Assistant Adjunct Professor.

The collaboration continues: new OIC investigators will continue to be required to have, or obtain, IAPP certification, and the Commissioner has encouraged the President of the Treasury Board to ensure that federal ATIP administrators have access to the kind of education which the University of Alberta IAPP certificate program provides.

Recognition for the Profession of ATIP Administrator

There is a system-wide problem in recruiting and retaining qualified ATIP officers at the federal, provincial and municipal levels in Canada. Without the proper human resources to examine complaints made by parties who consider their rights under the Access to Information Act not having been respected, the Act for Canada’s freedom of information cannot be enforced.

In 2006-2007, the OIC, along with the University of Alberta and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, supported two of Canada’s associations of access and privacy administrators (i.e., the Canadian Access and Privacy Association – CAPA, and the Canadian Association of Professional Access and Privacy Administrators – CAPAPA) who came together to spearhead an initiative to develop core competencies and a certification process for the new profession.

As well, an advisory working group of nine recognized access to information and privacy rights experts from across Canada was formed. The first phase of the initiative is complete: a set of professional competencies, or standards, were developed and approved by the working group of experts (Refer to OIC website for a description of the standards and how interested parties may learn more and provide comment). The second phase of the project, to develop a professional certification and governance process is ongoing, with a target date of completion by November 30, 2007. The OIC will encourage the Treasury Board of Canada to take a leadership role in professionalizing the federal ATIP workforce.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page