Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Questionnaires

Year


2007-2008

QUESTIONNAIRES

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Report Card Questionnaire

2007-2008

May 14 2008


A. ACCESS TO INFORMATION REQUESTS PROCESS

1. Profile of Requester

Source Number of requests
Media 113
Academia 2
Business 217
Organization 44
Public 210
Other 0
Total 586

2. Request Categorization

2.1 – Are requests categorized in any manner (i.e., sensitive, routine, etc.)?

Yes X No  

If Yes, please list and define the categories and if possible indicate the number of access requests in each category.

Category Definition of Category Number of requests
2007-2008
Routine Regular requests 348
Interesting Requests that are sensitive and/or of interest to the Deputy Minister and/or Minister’s offices 232
High Profile Requests that are highly sensitive and may require the preparation of communication material 6

2.2– If yes, who makes the determination of the category?

The Offices of Primary Interest (OPIs), representatives from the offices of the Deputy Minister and Minister, the Communications Sector and the ATIP Directorate.

2.3– If yes, is there a specific process related to this categorization? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

All access to information requests are considered routine when first received. The Office of the Primary Interest (OPI) is responsible for identifying and notifying the ATIP Directorate, within 24 hours of receipt of the tasking message, if they deem the request to be "Interesting." Additionally, categorization is made at the ATIP weekly meeting consisting of representatives from offices of the Deputy Minister and Minister, the Communications Sector, the Information and Litigation support Office (ILO), and the ATIP Directorate. If no records exist for an Interesting or Interesting High Profile request, it is returned to the Routine category.

Additional information provided to the OIC on August 8, 2008:  Interesting request means the information requested is sensitive or of interest to the offices of the Deputy Minister and Minister.  High Profile request means the information requested is highly sensitive and media lines may be required.  Once a request is identified as 'interesting' or 'interesting high profile', a copy of the release package is provided to the offices of the Deputy Minister and Minister for their information 5-7 days prior to disclosure.  For the High Profile requests, another copy is also provided to the Communications Sector. In 2008-2009, very few requests (approx 1.5%) were made late because of the Interesting Requests Process.  See also info provided in response to questions 2, 2.2, 2.3, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.



3. Client Service 

3.1 – On average, how much time does it take your institution to make a final decision on an ATI request under theAct? i.e. What is the total amount of time taken between the receipt of the ATI request and the final decision on disclosure of requested information?

On average, it takes 126 days between the receipt of an ATI request and the final decision on disclosure of requested information.

3.2 – Disclosure to Requester    
Number of requests received during the reporting period (April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008) 586
Number of requests completed during the reporting period (April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008) 700
Pages reviewed 431,980
Pages disclosed in total 11,429
Pages disclosed in part 120,123

3.3 – Disposition of Completed Requests for the Period Number of requests
All disclosed 87
Disclosed in part
1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-99%

The computer system cannot generate this data, but 390 files were disclosed in part
Nothing disclosed (excluded) 5
Nothing disclosed (exempt) 23
No relevant record exists 97
Transferred 22
Unable to process 0
Abandoned by requester 75
Treated informally 1
Total completed 700
Carried forward 149

Additional information provided to the OIC on September 11, 2008:

Number of pages reviewed in 2005-2006: 295,421

Number of pages reviewed in 2006-2007: 329,691

3.4 – Transfers Profile  
Transferred within 15 days 22
Transferred after 15 days 0
Total transferred 22
Transfers refused 0

3.5 – Consultations    
Received:  
Number of consultations received 276
Number of pages to review 24,801
(This question is to be answered by the Privy Council Office (PCO) only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to Cabinet confidences (Please, consult with PCO Legislation and House Planning) (s. 69)  
(This question is to be answered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to International affairs, defence and national security (s. 15)  
(This question is to be answered by Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police only) Number of consultations received from other federal institutions related to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16)  
For completed requests only, average time spent to review pages received for all consultations 23.49 days
Sent:  
Number of consultations sent 949
Number of pages sent for review The computer system cannot generate this data
Number of consultations sent to PCO Legislation and House Planning related to Cabinet confidences (s. 69) 75
Number of consultations sent to any institutions related to International affairs, defence and national security (s. 15) 23
Number of consultations sent to any institution related to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16) 23
For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to all consultations sent 40 days
For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to Cabinet confidences (s. 69) 78 days
For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to defence and national security (s. 15) 28 days
For completed requests only, average time to receive responses to consultations sent in relation to law enforcement and penal institutions (s. 16) 18.46 days

3.6 – Of the total number of access to information requests received during the reporting period, what percentage of these requests required your institution to consult (under paragraph 9(1)(b)) with other federal institutions)?

38.9%



3.7 – Does your institution have in place a policy, a practice or another instrument, such as a protocol (written or not, please specify), to address how consultations received from another institution or sent to another institution or to a third party, are processed?

Yes X No  

When a consultation is received from another institution, an Access Consultation (AC) file is opened in the case management system. The date requested for a response is entered as the due date of the file. The file is then assigned to an officer who will task the appropriate OPI(s) to review the documents and provide disclosure recommendations. If there is no recommended exemption, the ATIP Director or the ATIP Manager sends and email response to the institution indicating that we have no objections to the disclosure of the records. If we have objections to the disclosure of the records, in whole or in part, we send a letter with a copy of the documents highlighting our recommendations. For the procedures related to consultations sent to other departments or third parties, please see Appendix A.

3.8 – Priority: Are consultations processed on a priority basis?

Yes X No  

Consultations from other institutions are processed as soon as they are received. On average, it takes 25 days between the receipt of an ATI consultation and our response to the other institution. Consultations to other institutions and third parties are sent as soon as the need is identified, preferably before the first 30 days have lapsed.

4. Time to Process Requests

4.1 Processing Model - Stages
Days Allocated Average Actual Days
Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) intake 1-2 1-2
OPI search 10 8.56
Records review Not available Not available
Records preparation Not available Not available
Legal No specific procedure in place 7.86
Communications Not applicable Not applicable
Approval or otherwise – ATIP 4 See Note 1 5.83
Approval or otherwise – OPI 5 See Note 2 7.31
Approval or otherwise – DMO See 4.2 below See 4.2 below
Approval or otherwise - MO See 4.2 below See 4.2 below
ATIP release 30 + time extension 126

Note 1 – 2 days are allocated to the Chief for quality control and 2 days are allocated to the ATIP Director or ATIP Manager to approve the response.

Note 2 - On an exceptional basis (ex. fraud cases), we will ask the OPI to review the proposed response package before proceeding with the disclosure of information requested.

4.2 – Other than the stages identified in 4.1, does your institution have in place other approval or review processes for requests that are categorized in a special manner as in A.2 above? If yes, please list them.
 

Stage name Days allocated Average actual days
1. Interesting Requests 5 days for DMO & MO  
1.1 DMO Review   3.5
1.2 MO Review   2.6
2. Interesting High Profile Requests 7 days for DMO & MO  
2.1 DMO Review   6.0
2.2 MO Review   5.4
3. Sponsorship and other particular Interesting and High Profile Requests Total of 5-7 days for OPI, DMO & MO  
3.1 OPI Review   Not Available
3.2 DMO Review   In 1.1 & 2.1 above
3.3 MO Review   In 1.2 & 2.2 above



4.3 – If other approval or review processes in place, for each stage, please explain in as much detail as possible the rationale for, and purpose of this additional approval or review stage.

To ensure senior management is aware of information to be disclosed in response to requests deemed Interesting or High Profile.

4.4 – Please indicate whether this additional approval or review stage applies (1) to a specific type or category of requests, (2) systematically to all access requests or (3) on a case-by-case basis.

Occasionally to a specific type or category, such as requests related to Sponsorship during the Sponsorship Scandal. Not systematically. Primarily on a case-by-case basis.

4.5 – Please indicate whether the roles and responsibilities of this approval or review stage are clearly established in a decision or a policy.

No.

4.6 – In your opinion, has this other stage resulted in any increase in the delay to release the requested information?

Always   Almost always   Sometimes   Rarely X Never  

60.6% of the Interesting and High Profile requests were reviewed by senior management within the 5-7 days allowed. 52.9% of the Interesting and High Profile requests were completed on time. It should be noted, however, that many of the Interesting and High Profile requests were already in a deemed refusal status by the time they were provided to senior management for their review. As a result, very few requests were made late by the Interesting Requests Process (approx. 1.5% of the total requests processed).

5. Extensions Profile

5.1 – When an extension is taken under section 9, do you document on the file a rationale to justify the decision to invoke an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

ATIP Officers may indicate in the case management system the reason(s) for the extension and/or factor(s) taken into considerations.



5.2 – Following an extension, if it is unlikely that the extended date will be met, does the ATIP Office contact the requester to indicate:

a) The response will be late

Always   Almost always   Sometimes   Rarely X Never  

b) Of an expected date for the final response

Always   Almost always   Sometimes   Rarely X Never  

c) Of the right to complain to the Information Commissioner

Always   Almost always   Sometimes X Rarely   Never  

5.3 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer provided under 5.2 a), b) and c)

a) The requestor is indirectly informed that the complete response will be late when an interim response is issued on or after the due date. b) The requestor is informed of an expected date for the final response when a commitment has been made as a result of a delay or time extension complaint. In some cases, the requestor is informed an approximate date for the final response, if the requestor is following-up on the status of his/her file. c) The requestor is informed writing of his/her right of complaint to the Information Commissioner at various stages throughout the processing of a request. For requests that due or already late, the requestor would be informed in writing in following cases: - interim response(s) provided; - difficult negotiations with the third party (s.28); - third party requested a review by the Federal Court (s.44).

Additional information provided to the OIC on August 5, 2008: An interim response is when a portion of the total records have been reviewed and approved for release under the Act, and are released in advance of the remaining documentation.


5.4 – Extensions under Paragraph 9(1)(a) – Large volume of records and Interference with the operations of the federal institution

  2005-2006
Number of days
 For volume (search “for” large number of records)
< 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
25 *        
For volume (search “through” large number of records)            

* According to our 2005-2006 Statistical Report, 27 requests were extended for 31 days or over

  2006-2007
Number of days
 For volume (search “for” large number of records)
< 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
17 *        
For volume (search “through” large number of records)            

* According to our 2006-2007 Statistical Report, 19 requests were extended for 31 days or over



  2007-2008
Number of days
 For volume (search “for” large number of records)
< 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
27 *        
For volume (search “through” large number of records)            

* According to our 2007-2008 Statistical Report, 24 requests were extended for 31 days or over 



5.5 – How do you determine the length of an extension taken under paragraph 9(1)(a) (“large number of records”)? What is the decision process used to determine the length of an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

The length of an extension taken under paragraph 9(1)(a) is based on an estimate of the time required for search and/or the volume of records. The OPIs are responsible for informing the ATIP Directorate, as quickly as possible if it is determined that the retrieval process would interfere with their operations. The ATIP Directorate will take necessary time extension and notify the requester. If the extension is more than 30 days, the Information Commissioner will also be notified of the time extension.

5.6 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(a) (large number of records) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that your institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Case Management System: The system indicates the requests that are “Due Today” and “Due This Week” Officer Reports: Officers are encouraged to print off various reports from the tracking system to help them organize and prioritize their work. Files Coming Due Report: On a weekly basis, the Files Coming Due report is provided to staff listing the files that are due within the month. One-on-One meetings: On a regular basis, Teams Leaders meet individually with their staff to discuss caseload, progress on files, etc.  Team Leaders meeting: On a weekly basis, the Managers and Team Leaders meet to discuss the requests that are coming due and any actions required to ensure the deadlines are met, i.e. team work, overtime, prioritization, reallocation of files.

5.7 – Extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) – Consultations

  2005-2006
Number of days
  < 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
For consultation with another federal institution 13 *        
For consultation with foreign government            
For consultation with domestic government            
For consultation with aboriginal government            
For consultation with individual            
For consultation for section 69            

* According to our 2005-2006 Statistical Report, 235 requests were extended for 31 days or over

  2006-2007
Number of days
  < 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
For consultation with another federal institution 18 *        
For consultation with foreign government            
For consultation with domestic government            
For consultation with aboriginal government            
For consultation with individual            
For consultation for section 69            

* According to our 2006-2007 Statistical Report, 226 requests were extended for 31 days or over



  2007-2008
Number of days
  < 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
For consultation with another federal institution 15 *        
For consultation with foreign government            
For consultation with domestic government            
For consultation with aboriginal government            
For consultation with individual            
For consultation for section 69            

* According to our 2007-2008 Statistical Report, 214 requests were extended for 31 days or over

5.8 – If consultations are taken under paragraph 9(1)(b),are these sent out as soon as the need has been identified?

Always   Almost always X Sometimes   Rarely   Never  

5.9 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Consultations are sent out as soon as the need has been identified, preferably before the first 30 days have lapsed. In some cases, consultations may be sent out after the first 30 days have lapsed due to high volume of records and/or number of organizations to be consulted. However, the consultations are to be sent as soon as possible.

5.10 – How do you determine the length of an extension taken under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations)? What is the decision process used to determine the length of an extension? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

The length of an extension taken under 9(1)(b) is determined by various factors such as the volume of records and the number and type of organizations to be consulted.



5.11 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations) are taken, are there any circumstances where for certain consultations, a certain amount of time is always taken by the federal institution to which the consultation is sent? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

PCO, Legislation and House Planning (s.69): 90 days or more based on the volume of the records to be sent to PCO.

5.12 – When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(b) (consultations) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that your institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Two (2) days before the response from the consulted organization is due, officers are to follow-up with a phone call to ensure that the response will be sent by the requested due date. Overdue Consultation Report: On a weekly basis, the Overdue Consultation report is provided to staff listing the consultations to third parties or other departments that are outstanding. Officers are to follow-up with the consulted organizations. See also information provided in 5.6 above.

5.13 – Extensions under Paragraph 9(1)(c) – Notices to third parties



  2005-2006
Number of requests where third party was consulted 323
Length of extension taken
< 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
1 *        
Average length of time to receive representations from third parties 27.88 days
Average length of time to make a decision after receipt of response / representations from third parties Unable to track
Number of notices under section 27 872
Number of notices for which section 27 time frame was not met 362
Number of requests for which paragraph 28(1)(b) time frame was not met Unable to track A total of 265 s.28 notices were sent to third parties

* According to our 2005-2006 Statistical Report, 258 requests were extended for 31 days or over

  2006-2007
Number of requests where third party was consulted 327
Length of extension taken
< 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
0 *        
Average length of time to receive representations from third parties 26.51 days
Average length of time to make a decision after receipt of response / representations from third parties Unable to track
Number of notices under section 27 653
Number of notices for which section 27 time frame was not met 289
Number of requests for which paragraph 28(1)(b) time frame was not met Unable to track A total of 182 s.28 notices were sent to third parties

* According to our 2006-2007 Statistical Report, 308 requests were extended for 31 days or over

  2007-2008
Number of requests where third party consulted 191
Length of extension taken
< 30 30-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180
1 *        
Average length of time to receive representations from third parties 26.74 days
Average length of time to make a decision after receipt of response / representations from third parties Unable to track
Number of notices under section 27 449
Number of notices for which section 27 time frame was not met 142
Number of requests for which paragraph 28(1)(b) time frame was not met Unable to track A total of 104 s.28 notices were sent to third parties

* According to our 2007-2008 Statistical Report, 265 requests were extended for 31 days or over

5.14 – Are third party notices sentto third parties pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(c) and subsection 27(1) sent out before thirty days have lapsed?

Always   Almost always X Sometimes   Rarely   Never  

5.15 – If you have not checked “Always”, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Consultations are sent out as soon as the need has been identified, preferably before the first 30 days have lapsed. In some cases, consultations may be sent out after the first 30 days have lapsed due to high volume of records and/or number of third parties to be consulted. However, the consultations are to be sent as soon as possible and process completed within the time extended under paragraph 9(1)(a) or (b).

5.16 –Are notices sent assoon as the need for the notice is identified?

Always   Almost always X Sometimes   Rarely   Never  

5.17 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

See information provided in 5.15 above.

5.18 – When an extension is invoked under paragraph 9(1)(c) for third party notification, how often does the institution meet the statutory timelines? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

Always   Almost always   Sometimes   Rarely   Never  

The computer system cannot generate this data.

5.19– When extensions under paragraph 9(1)(c) (notices to third party) are taken, are there any actions, practices or processes that the federal institution has implemented to ensure that the time limits to extension requests are met or delays are minimized? Please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

A follow-up phone call to the third parties to ensure the consultation package has been received and another call to obtain representations if not received within the 20 days of the receipt of the notice. Officer Reports: Officers are encouraged to print off various reports from the tracking system to help them organize their day and week. Files Coming Due Report: On a weekly basis, the Files Coming Due report is provided to staff listing the files that are due within the month. Overdue Consultation Report: On a weekly basis, the Overdue Consultation report is provided to staff listing the consultations to third parties or other departments that are outstanding. Officers are to follow up with the consulted organizations. See also information provided in 5.6 above.

5.20 – When extensions are taken under paragraphs 9(1)(b) and / or 9(1)(c) – consultations – does the ATIP Office provide a partial release of the requested records for portions of the request that are not involved in the consultation process?

Always   Almost always   Sometimes X Rarely   Never  

5.21 – If necessary, please provide any relevant information to support the answer.

The ATIP Directorate may provide partial response(s) if due date cannot be met. Additional information provided to the OIC on August 5, 2008: In some cases, all of the relevant records are subject to consultation and, therefore, an interim response cannot be made. Interim responses are made to maintain client satisfaction : when the due date cannot be met; for very voluminous requests with a long time extension; when there is a time extension complaint and the OIC investigator is pushing for interim release; when the requestor is requesting interim release.

6. Claims for discretionary exemptions 

6.1 – When a discretionary exemption is claimed, is a rationale prepared to support the decision to exempt information?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

Justifications/representations received from OPIs and organizations consulted are taken into consideration and used as rationale to support the final decision made.

6.2 – When a discretionary exemption is claimed, is it exercised in the context of jurisprudence and practice?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information for this question.


6.3 – Is there a documented requirement to prepare a rationale when a decision is made to claim a discretionary exemption?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

OPIs and organizations consulted are requested to provide justifications/ representations for the recommended exemptions.

6.4 – Is the discretionary exemption rationale prepared by the OPIs and/or the ATIP Office?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

OPIs and organizations consulted are requested to provide justifications/ representations for the recommended exemptions and these are used as rationale to support the final decision made.

6.5 – Is there a documented discretionary exemption challenge function in ATIP Office if the rationale is prepared by OPIs?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

Recommended exemptions are not automatically applied by ATIP Directorate. The OPI recommendations are taken into consideration and reviewed based on the applicability of the exemption provisions, TBS policies and guidelines, case precedents, legal opinion, past complaints, and previous PWGSC ATIP release decisions.


7. Claims for mandatory exemptions

7.1 – When a mandatory exemption is claimed, is a rationale prepared to support the decision to exempt information?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

See information provided in 7.2 below.

7.2 – When a mandatory exemption is claimed, is it exercised in the context of jurisprudence and practice?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information for this question.

S.19 – Personal information: Applied in the context of office practice which is based on Supreme Court decision analysis in Dagg vs. Finance, and legal opinions. In some cases, individuals may be consulted to obtain their consent; in many cases, research will be done to see if personal info is publicly available; in few cases, the public override interest in disclosure will be considered before applying the exemption. S.20 – Third party information: Based on third party representations and applied in the context of office practice, confidentiality and injury tests identified in TBS guidelines and jurisprudence; court precedents; and results of past complaints. S.24(1) re s.30 of the Defence Production Act – Business information: Based on OPI recommendations and third party representations, and applied in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Siemens vs. PWGSC. S.24(1) re s.241 of the Income Tax Act and s.235 of the Excise Tax Act – Business Number and GST number are exempted in the context of office practice which is based on an MOU between PWGSC and CRA and advice received from CRA. S.24(1) re sections 45 and 49 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act – Based on representations received from the departmental Legal Services and consultation with the CITT ATIP Office.

7.3 – Is there a documented requirement to prepare a rationale when a decision is made to claim a mandatory exemption?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

OPIs and organizations consulted are requested to provide justifications/ representations for the recommended exemptions and these are used as rational to support the final decision made.

7.4 – Is the mandatory exemption rationale prepared by the OPIs and / or the ATIP Office?

Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

OPIs and organizations consulted are requested to provide justifications/ representations for the recommended exemptions and these are used as rationale to support the final decision made.



Yes No
X  

Please provide any relevant information and documentation for this question.

See information provided in 6.5 above. The most challenged recommendations/representations are in relation to mandatory exemption provision under section 20 (see information provided in 5.13 above re number of s.28 notices sent over the past three FYs).

B. DEEMED-REFUSAL REQUESTS

Part I: Requests carried over from the 2006-2007 fiscal period.
1. Number of requests carried over: 263
2. Requests carried over from the previous fiscal period — in a deemed-refusal situation on the first day of the new fiscal period: 86
Part II: New Requests — Exclude requests included in Part I.
3. Number of requests received during the 2007-2008 fiscal period: 586
4.A How many were processed within the statutory 30-day time limit? 350
4.B How many were processed beyond the statutory 30-day time limitwhere no extension was claimed? 17
5. How many were extended pursuant to section 9? 281
5.A How many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(a)? 24
5.B How many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(b)? 228
5.C How many were extended pursuant to paragraph 9(1)(c)? 140
6.A How many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5) 96
6.B How many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5) 68
7.A How many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.A) the computer system cannot generate this data
7.B How many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.A) the computer system cannot generate this data
8.A How many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.B) the computer system cannot generate this data
8.B How many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.B) the computer system cannot generate this data
9.A How many were processed within the extended time limit? (re Row 5.C) the computer system cannot generate this data
9.B How many exceeded the extended time limit? (re Row 5.C) the computer system cannot generate this data
Part II: New Requests — Exclude requests included in Part I.
10 As of March 31, 2008, how many requests were in a deemed-refusal situation? 21


C. RESOURCE PROFILE

1. Employee Profile

Please list all ATIP Office employees.

Full-time Position Classification Number Years of Experience
Director (90%) EX-01 1 13
Manager (90%) PM_06 2 4 to 10
Chief, ATIP Operations (90%) PM-05 2 2 to 4
Chief – Privacy & Policy (0%) PM-05 1 4
Chief – Special Projects and Administration (75%) PM-05 1 8
Senior ATIP officer (100%) PM-04 1 5
ATIP Officer (95%) PM_03 3 1.5 to 6
ATIP Officer - Special Projects and IT Security (75%) PM_03 1 4
Junior ATIP Officer (90%) PM-02 2 1.75
Junior ATIP Officer – Privacy & Policy (85%) PM-02 1 2
ATIP Clerk * CR-04 1 8
Part-time Position Classification Number Years of Experience
       
       
       
Consultants Hired to process ATI requests Classification    
Senior ATIP Consultants PM-04 equivalent 8 4 to 25
       

2. Salary Dollar Budget for ATIP Office for ATIA activities

Fiscal Year Budget Allocated Budget Used FTEs Allocated FTEs Used
2007-2008 $1,430,550 $1,472,558 22 23.8
2006-2007 $1,125,644 $1,198,544 22 19.51
2005-2006 $1,177,660 $1,224.693 22 20.45

3. Operating Budget for ATIP Office for ATIA activities

Fiscal Year Budget Allocated Budget Used
2007/2008 $916,047 $786,228
2006/2007 $1,219,662 $1,005,853
2005/2006 $847,462 $1,214,073

4. Breakdown of ATIP Office Operating Budget Used or Set Aside for ATI Training or Training Materials

Fiscal Year ATI Staff Training Departmental ATI Training
2007/2008 $37,069  
2006/2007 $18,900  
2005/2006 $27,000  

5. Breakdown of ATIP Office Operating Budget Used or Set Aside for ATI Consultants

Fiscal Year Budget Allocated Budget Used
2007/2008 $162,250 $430,153 *
2006/2007 $474,526 $461,516
2005/2006 $446,000 $437,623

* This also includes costs for ATIP consultants and ATIP clerks hired under the Temporary Help Services (ATIP consultants and ATIP clerks).



D. LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK

1. – Is the ATIP Coordinator responsible exclusively for the administration of the ATIP Office?

Yes X No  

2. – If No, please list other responsibilities of the ATIP Coordinator.


3. – When requests processing stages, other than those listed in section A.4 of this questionnaire, are in place, who has the designated authority to make decisions on the disclosure or refusal to disclose information under theAccess to Information Act(s. 73)?

See enclosed delegation order signed by the Minister

E. SPECIFICS FOR 2007-2008

In this section, the institution is asked to provide details relating to the information provided in response to the questionnaire:

1. – Please describe the most significant issues that affected your institution's ability to (i) respond to access to information requests as quickly as possible and/or (ii) provide requesters with as much of the information requested as possible.

Backlog of late requests, high workload, employee turnover. Government-wide shortage of experienced professionals and consequent high demand and training requirements, and the ATIP CD Security Issue.

Additional information provided to the OIC on August 5, 2008: The ATIP CD Security Issue relates to the potential inadvertent disclosure of information between April 2006 and August 2007 due to a procedural error in the ATIP Directorate with the creation of release packages in electronic format.  Between September 2007 and January 2008, staff of the ATIP Directorate was offlined to work on the matter.  


2. – For the issues identified in the response to Q. 1 above, were they foreseeable? Please explain.

Most of the issues identified above were foreseeable for FY 2007-2008 because they existed or were predicted in previous years, except for the ATIP CD Security Issue.


F. BEST PRACTICES

3. – Please describe any best practices developed / undertaken by your institution to improve your delivery of the access to information program. If possible, please indicate how successful these practices have been.

Delegation of Authority: Delegation of authority to the ATIP Managers and the ATIP Chiefs increased efficiencies and allowed the ATIP Directorate to meet legislative requirements to release information in a timely manner.

Additional information provided to the OIC on August 5, 2008: The revision of the Delegation of Authority enabled a risk-managed approach to the release of records, so that the final approval stage does not rely on a single individual.  In addition to the ATIP Director, the two Managers, Risk and Quality Management have full delegated authority granted by the Minister to approve the release packages. 

Additional Manager (PM-06): A second ATIP Manager divided the workload and increased efficiencies allowing the ATIP Directorate to meet legislative requirements to release information in a timely manner. Training Team: One team devoted to new arrivals and junior ATIP officers allowed for their smooth integration and transition into the office by learning the ATIP Directorate’s procedures. 

ATIP Development Program: The program is an effective tool to recruit individuals from outside and within the Public Service, and train them in ATIP officer positions from the PM-01 to the PM-04 level. Upcoming changes to the program will enable all ATIP officers at all levels to participate, ensuring a consistent and steady development of PWGSC ATIP Directorate staff.

Additional information provided to the OIC on August 5, 2008: Whereas the current version of the ATIP Development program only allows for two post-secondary candidates per year, the 'upcoming changes' will allow existing ATIP Officers of the ATIP Directorate to be integrated the ATIP Development Program at their current level.  A copy of the revised program will be provided once approved.

ATIP Improvement Plan: An aggressive ATIP Improvement Plan was initiated in November 2007 to address performance. The Plan includes the following strategies, which will continue over the next two years: Reduction of backlog of late requests. A total of 129 late requests were closed between January and March 2008. This was a critical factor in order to position the department to achieve an “A” grade in 2008-2009; Increase human resource and organizational capacity; Improve performance monitoring and productivity; Upgrade IT infrastructure; and Improve workplace environment Key success factors of the Improvement Plan include: Senior Management commitment and support Departmental-wide engagement Aggressive and clear targets Organizational structure realignment Optimization of release process Caseload review with applicants ATIP workload prioritization, team work and overtime The plan has also been successful in obtaining additional funding.

(Additional information provided on August 5 ,2008: High level plan exists. Strategies include : ‘zero tolerance’ policy for the OPI Document Retrieval and the Interesting Requests Process; delegation of authority to chiefs and senior officers with respect to certain administrative functions; regular performance monitoring reports; revision of departmental ATIP policies and procedures. Under 'improve performance monitoring and productivity', Statistical reports will be used to regularly measure the timeline performance of our OPIs, our officer review, our ATIP Chief review, and the final review process, as well as administrative level reporting, such as average time to scan documents, etc.) 

ATIP Consultants: Consultants are used to compensate for insufficient staff capacity, and a very successful way in helping us maintain the quality and timeliness of our services.

Regular Administrative Reporting and Weekly Meetings: weekly reports advising staff and senior management of the workflow in the office. Very successful in keeping the ATIP Directorate aware of its status, and any upcoming hurdles with sufficient to time to plan a resolution. Files Coming Due Report: On a weekly basis, the Files Coming Due report is provided to staff listing the files that are due within the month. Overdue consultation report: On a weekly basis, the Overdue consultation report is provided to staff listing the consultations to third parties or other departments that are outstanding. Officers are to follow up with the consulted organizations. Officer Reports: Officers are encouraged to print off various reports from the tracking system to help them organize and prioritize their work.

ATI Weekly report: Every Thursday a report is provided to senior management indicating the Interesting and High Profile requests that may be released in the following week, as well as those that have been given to senior management for review.

Team Leaders meeting: On a weekly basis, the team leaders meet to discuss the files coming due and any actions required to ensure the deadlines are met, i.e. team work, overtime, prioritization, reallocation of files. One-on-One meetings: On a regular basis, Teams Leaders meet individually with their staff to discuss caseload, progress on files, etc.

G. COMPLAINT PROFILE

Data supplied by the Office of the Information Commissioner on complaints made to its Office and the resolution of those complaints.  

See Individual Report Card.