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.

Report Cards


Year


Report Card on the Performance of Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Table of Contents

OVERVIEW

CHAPTER 1: The Access Request Process

CHAPTER 2: Deemed Refusals

CHAPTER 3: Resource Profile

CHAPTER 4: Leadership Framework

CHAPTER 5: Information Management Framework

CHAPTER 6: Complaint Profile

CHAPTER 7: Conclusion

List of Recommendations

Report Card Questionnaire

OVERVIEW

As part of the proactive mandate of the Commissioner’s Office, each year a department (or departments) is selected for review and a Report Card is completed. The review is conducted to determine the extent to which the department is meeting its responsibilities under the Access to Information Act.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) administers the Access to Information Actthrough the Departmental Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office. The Departmental ATIP Coordinator has fully-delegated authority from the Head of the institution to make all decisions under the Act. There is further delegation of authority from the Head to certain ATIP Office employees for making some of the administrative decisions under the Act.

A critical component of the administration of the Access to Information Act is the leadership role of the Access to Information (ATI) Coordinator and Senior Management in a department. Senior Management exercises leadership by identifying access to information as a departmental priority and then acting upon this by providing the appropriate resources, technology and policies. Together with the ATI Coordinator, it is important for Senior Management to create a culture of openness and access to departmental information. The ATI Coordinator is the departmental champion of access to information.

This Report Card identified a serious and persistent deemed-refusal situation that the RCMP is just starting to address. The deemed-refusal situation appears to be the result of staffing reductions that left the ATIP Office over a number of years with significantly fewer staff positions than required to process access requests. The situation has deteriorated to the point where three out of every four access requests have been answered beyond the statutory time requirements of the Act. Senior Management of the RCMP recently allocated an additional 20 positions to the ATIP Office.

This Report Card makes a number of recommendations for ATI operations in the RCMP. Of particular note, an essential component in the administrative framework to support the operation of the Access to Information Act is the development of an ATI Operational Plan for the ATIP Office. In addition, an ATI Improvement Plan is urgently needed to guide a dramatic improvement in the deemed-refusal situation. Both Plans would establish priorities, tasks and resources, deliverables, milestones, timeframes and responsibilities to implement the Operational Plan and the Improvement Plan and those recommendations in this Report Card that are accepted by the RCMP. Other recommendations focus on the need to have up-to-date comprehensive documentation in place to promote consistent decision-making by individuals with responsibilities in the operations supporting the Access to Information Act. These individuals require regular ATI training to support the fulfillment of their responsibilities.

This Report Card assigns an overall grade to the department that signifies the extent to which the department is meeting its responsibilities under the Access to Information Act. The grading system is described in Table 1

Table 1: Grading System Used for this Report Card

Overall Grade

Overall ATI Operations

A = Ideal

  • All policies, procedures, operational plan, training plan, staffing in place
  • Evidence of Senior Management support including an ATI Vision
  • Streamlined approval process with authority delegated to ATIP Coordinator
  • 5% or less deemed refusals

B = Substantial

  • Minor deficiencies to the ideal that can easily be rectified
  • 10% or less deemed refusals

C = Borderline

  • Deficiencies to be dealt with

D = Below Standard

  • Major deficiencies to be dealt with

F = Red Alert

  • So many major deficiencies that a significant departmental effort is required to deal with their resolution or many major persistent deficiencies that have not been dealt with over the years

On this grading scale, the RCMP rates an "F" for the first eight months of fiscal year (FY) 2005/2006. Its overall performance is Red Alert.

Background & Glossary of Terms

As part of the proactive mandate of the Commissioner’s Office, each year a department (or departments) is selected for review and a Report Card is completed. The review is conducted to determine the extent to which the department is meeting its responsibilities under the Access to Information Act. The responsibilities and requirements can be set out in the Act or its Regulations such as the timelines required to respond to an access request. Or the responsibilities may emanate from Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat or departmental policies, procedures or other documentation in place to support the access to information process.

Fundamental to the access to information regime are the principles set out in the Purposes section of the Access to Information Act. These principles are:

    • Government information should be available to the public
    • Necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific
    • Decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government.

Previous Report Cards issued since 1999 focused on the deemed refusal of access requests, the situations that may have led to the deemed refusals and recommendations for eventually eliminating the problem. In 2005, the scope of the Report Cards was broadened. The scope of the Report Cards now seeks to capture an extensive array of data and statistical information to determine how an ATI Office and a department are supporting their responsibilities under the Act. Where the Commissioner’s Office identifies activities during the Report Card review that would enhance the access to information process in a department, a recommendation is made in the Report Card.

The RCMP administers the Access to Information Act through the ATIP Office. The Departmental ATIP Coordinator has fully delegated authority from the Head of the institution to make all decisions under the Act. There is further delegation of authority to certain ATIP Office employees for making certain administrative decisions under the Act.

As part of the preparation of this Report Card, the Superintendent was interviewed on February 14, 2006. In addition, 15 access request files completed during FY 2004/2005 and the first eight months of FY 2005/2006 were selected at random for a review on March 15, 2006. The purpose of the file review is to determine if administrative actions taken to process an access request and decisions made about an access request are appropriately documented in the case file.

The Superintendent submitted the Report Card Questionnaire included at the end of this Report Card to the Office of the Information Commissioner. The Questionnaire provides statistical and other information on the administration of the Access to Information Act in the department.

A Glossary of Terms for this Report Card is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Glossary of Terms

Term

Definition

ATI Coordinator (or ATIP Director or Coordinator)

Each institution is required, by Treasury Board policy, to designate an official known as the Access to Information Coordinator. The Access to Information Coordinator is responsible for receiving access requests. Coordinators may also be delegated authority, from the head of the institution, to levy fees, claim extensions, give notices and invoke exemptions. The scope of a Coordinator’s authority varies from institution to institution.

Complaint Findings

The following categories are used by the Office of the Information Commissioner to identify the outcome of a complaint made to the Office under the Access to Information Act:

  • Well-founded Complaints well-founded but not resolved, where the Commissioner sought consent from the requester to pursue the matters in Federal Court.
  • Resolved Well-founded complaints resolved by remedial action satisfactory to the Commissioner.
  • Not Substantiated Complaints considered not to be well founded.
  • Discontinued Complaints discontinued, on request from the complainant, prior to a final resolution of the case.

Deemed Refusal

The Access to Information Act describes a deemed refusal as follows:

10. (3) Where the head of a government institution fails to give access to a record requested under this Act or a part thereof within the time limits set out in this Act, the head of the institution shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have refused to give access.

Term

Definition

Extension

Extensions to the initial 30-day time period to respond to an access request can be made in the following circumstances as described in the Access to Information Act:

9(1) The head of a government institution may extend the time limit set out in section 7 or subsection 8(1) in respect of a request under this Act for a reasonable period of time, having regard to the circumstances, if:

(a) the request is for a large number of records or necessitates a search through a large number of records and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution,

(b) consultations are necessary to comply with the request that cannot reasonably be completed within the original time limit, or

(c) notice of the request is given pursuant to subsection 27(1) by giving notice of the extension and, in the circumstances set out in paragraph (a) or (b), the length of the extension, to the person who made the request within thirty days after the request is received, which notice shall contain a statement that the person has a right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the extension.

Notice of Extension to Information Commissioner

The Access to Information Act requires a notice to the Information Commissioner for extensions taken in excess of thirty days.

OPI

Office of primary interest or the location in a department responsible for the subject matter to which the access request relates.

Term

Definition

Pending

Unfinished requests or complaints:

  • Pending Previous Requests or complaints that were unfinished at the close of the previous fiscal year, and thus carried forward into the reporting period (the fiscal period indicated on the pie chart).
  • Pending at year-end Requests or complaints that are unfinished at the end of the reporting period (the subject fiscal year), which will be carried into the next fiscal period.

Third Party

For purposes of the Access to Information Act, any person, group of persons or organization other than the person that made an access request or a government institution.

Treasury Board Guidelines

The Access to Information Act is based on the premise that the Head of each government institution is responsible for ensuring that their institution complies with the Act, and for making any required decisions. There is also provision for a designated Minister to undertake the government-wide co-ordination of the administration of the Act. The President of the Treasury Board fulfils this role.

One of the statutory responsibilities of the designated Minister is to prepare and distribute to government institutions directives and guidelines concerning the operation of theAccess to Information Act and Regulations.

CHAPTER 1: The Access Request Process

The Access to Information Act provides a processing framework for access requests. Any member of the public who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident can make an access request. The Act provides a department with certain processing timelines and allows for extensions under certain circumstances to the initial 30-day time limit to respond to an access request. A request may be transferred and third parties may be consulted when an access request covers information affecting a third party. When records contain information that is exempt from disclosure or excluded from the Act, a department may deny that information to a requester.

The Client

Requesters are categorized for statistical purposes. Government and departments use the statistics for various analytical purposes including the identification of trends. The number of requesters by category and recent FY time periods for the RCMP are illustrated in Charts 1 and 2.

The RCMP does not flag access requests into any categories such as sensitive or routine.

Request Clarification

The number of access requests that required clarification in FY 2004/2005 was 25 or 3% of the access requests received. In the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, 53 or 8% of the access requests received required clarification. The ATIP Office confirms in writing with the requester the content of a clarified access request some of the time. The only criterion for an access request to require clarification is stated in a letter to the requester as "we fail to understand what you are seeking in terms of records or documentation".

Recommendation 1.1: The ATIP Officers Reference Book be updated to document criteria for clarifying or modifying an access request.

Pages Reviewed

The number of pages reviewed for access requests completed in FY 2004/2005 was 162,625 or an average of 201 pages per request. Of the total number of pages reviewed, 37,994 pages or 23% were disclosed in total or in part to the requester. In the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, 162,132 pages or an average of 356 pages per request were reviewed. Of the total number of pages reviewed, 35,367 or 22% were disclosed in total or in part to the requester.

The ATIP Office also reviews claims by other institutions to exempt records from disclosure for certain exemptions under the Access to Information Act or for records that the RCMP may have an interest in. In FY 2004/2005, the ATIP Office reviewed 47,734 pages. In the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, 22,222 pages were reviewed.

Fees Collected

In FY 2004/2005, the ATIP Office collected $4,170 in fees for processing access requests. In the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, $4,105 were collected.

Although the department does not have a fee waiver policy, 11 fee waivers amounting to $1,600 were granted in FY 2004/2005, and a further four fee waivers amounting to $204.80 were granted in the first eight months of FY 2005/2006.

While it is commendable that the department is waiving fees, without a documented policy, decisions on fee waivers may be made in an arbitrary or inconsistent manner.

Recommendation 1.2: The ATIP Office develop a fee waiver policy for access requests.

Request Disposition

The ATIP Office reported a relatively high number of access requests that were either abandoned by the requester or the Office was unable to process. In FY 2004/2005, the disposition of 23% of the access requests processed was either "abandoned by the requester" or "unable to process". In the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, the percentage increased to 33%. The access requests in the "unable to process" category were access requests where the requested records did not exist. The high number of abandoned access requests may reflect the deemed-refusal situation that exists in the RCMP. Requesters may have simply given up after a response to an access request was delayed for a long period of time. When an access request is to be treated informally, the requester is consulted. There are currently no documented criteria to consider for treating an access request informally. For example, one criterion might be if the records requested were disclosed previously.

Recommendation 1.3: The ATIP Officers Reference Book incorporate criteria to consider for treating an access request informally.

Time to Process Requests

The Access to Information Act allows 30 calendar days without an extension for departments to process an access request. Departments will usually have a request-processing model that allocates a portion of the 30 days to each departmental function that has a role in responding to access requests. An ATIP Office can then analyze the actual time taken by departmental functions against allocated time to determine if, where and/or what improvements might be required when actual time exceeds allocated time.

The RCMP ATIP Office has a request-processing model that is based on 30 calendar days as illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: The RCMP Request Processing Model and Days Taken for the First Eight Months of FY 2005/2006

Processing Model - Stages

Days Allocated

AverageDays Taken

ATI intake

1

not available

OPI search

2

not available

Records review and preparation

27

not available

Legal

not applicable

not applicable

Communications

not applicable

not applicable

Approval or otherwise – OPI

not applicable

not applicable

Approval or otherwise – DMO

not applicable

not applicable

Approval or otherwise - MO

not applicable

not applicable

ATI release

not applicable

not applicable


The ATIP process within the RCMP is centralized. All access requests are received and processed centrally by the ATIP Office. Once the file is processed and a release package ready, on a minimal number of cases, the OPI may be consulted for last minute comments. Consultation with Legal Services occurs infrequently and only when there are legal issues involved with a particular access request. All approvals required under the Access to Information Act have been delegated to personnel within the ATIP Office.

The significant number access requests processed in a deemed-refusal situation has been historically due to a lack of staff positions and recently unfilled staff positions in the ATIP Office. OPIs have generally provided records to the ATIP Office within the required time limit in the RCMP access request-processing model.

Extensions Profile

Subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act provides circumstances when the initial thirty-day response time to an access request may be extended. These circumstances are:

    • The request is for a large number of records or necessitates a search through a large number of records and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution.
    • Consultations are necessary to comply with the request that cannot reasonably be completed within the original time limit.
    • Notice of the request is given pursuant to subsection 27(1) [to a third party who may have an interest in the disclosure of a record or part of a record].

The RCMP ATIP Office rarely sends the notice of the extension to the requester within the initial 30-day response time. This is because the backlog of access requests is so significant that the need for an extension is identified only after the time period to claim an extension has expired. Where an extension under subsection 9(1) of the Act is claimed, the ATIP Office, where required, always sends a copy of the notice to the Office of the Information Commissioner. When it is unlikely that an extended date will be met, the requester is contacted some of the time and will be provided with an expected date for the final response some of the time. The requester, if contacted, will be informed of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner. The RCMP had only 11 time extensions for volume of records for completed access requests in FY 2004/2005, and two extensions for volume of records for the first eight months of FY 2005/2006. These numbers were low because the processing of a significant number of access requests was started after the time limit for claiming an extension.

The statistical information submitted by the RCMP indicated that they did not have a significant number of consultations with another institution or on section 69 of theAccess to Information Act when an extension was claimed. Section 69 of the Act deals with records excluded from coverage of the Act that are confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada. Departments consult with the Privy Council Office to determine whether or not the exclusion applies to records.

The RCMP had a significant number of access requests processed in a deemed-refusal situation where a time extension could have been claimed but was not claimed. In FY 2004/2005, 529 access requests were processed beyond the statutory time limit of 30 days and an extension was not claimed. In the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, a further 121 access requests were answered beyond the 30-day time limit without a claim for a time extension. Many of these access requests were potential candidates for a claim to a time extension, yet the extension was not claimed because the records were not:

  • Reviewed for an extension by the ATIP Office within 30 days of receipt of the access request, or
  • Requested from OPIs by the ATIP Office within 30 days of the receipt of the access request.

Consultations with other departments or governments on these access requests were not reported in the statistics prepared for this Report Card. The file review conducted as part of this Report Card indicated that the RCMP provides excellent turnaround time when consultations are received by the RCMP from other departments.

Section 31 of the Access to Information Act requires that a complaint to the Office of the Information Commissioner must be made within one year of the date of the receipt of the access request. The ATIP Office will notify the requester of this requirement all of the time, where applicable, when an extension will be missed.

The Superintendent of the ATIP Office stated that, even though extensions are missed, the RCMP will make partial releases of information as an access request is processed.

Recommendation 1.4: At intake, the ATIP Office have an experienced analyst review access requests to make an initial determination if the access request is a potential candidate for a time extension as well as institute control measures to ensure that any claim for a time extension is made within the 30-day time limit.

Recommendation 1.5: Where the RCMP consults with or is consulted by a department routinely, they enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to cover each party’s responsibilities in the consultation process including the provision of rationales for claiming exemptions.

Recommendation 1.6: If an extended date will not be met, the ATIP Office should contact the requester to indicate it will be late, provide an expected response date and inform the requester of the right to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Transfer Profile

In FY 2004/2005, five access requests were transferred to other institutions and two of the transfers were made beyond the statutory time limit of 15 days. In the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, 10 requests were transferred to other institutions with all of the transfers occurring beyond 15 days.

Recommendation 1.7: At intake, the ATIP Office have an experienced analyst review access requests to make an initial determination whether or not the access request is a potential candidate for a transfer to another institution, and institute control measures to ensure that any transfer is made within the 15-day time limit for all access requests that are to be transferred to another institution.

Claims for Exemptions

The Superintendent stated that the office generally does not document the rationale for claiming an exemption in the access request file. In his view, this is because, much of the time, the rationale is obvious from the nature of the records or information. The rationale for claiming the exemption is prepared by the ATIP Office – some of the time there may be consultation with an OPI. Although there is no ATIP Office requirement to document and place the rationale for exercising a discretionary exemption on file, the RCMP does release records or parts of records exercising the discretion not to claim a discretionary exemption. The Superintendent stated that, on complex access requests or where many types of exemptions are claimed, the relevant notations on claiming exemptions are included in the access request file.

A random group of 15 completed access request files closed between April 1, 2004, and November 30, 2005, were selected for review. The review indicated generally that:

    • All of the access requests had been answered in a deemed-refusal situation.
    • The rationale for claiming exemptions was not documented where the rationale was not obvious from the information.
    • There were letters to requesters that stated that, even though records were covered under a certain exemption, nonetheless the statutory power of discretion was being exercised and the records were being released.
    • In cases where there was a mandatory exemption, there were letters to requesters indicating that the department took into account an exception that could lead to the disclosure of the information.
    • Consultations sent to other departments took longer than planned.
    • The documentation in files was not consistent and whatever documentation was placed in the file to maintain a record of the actions and decisions appeared to be dependent on the analyst handling the file.

Recommendation 1.8: The ATIP Office institute requirements in the ATIP Officers Reference Book for consistent file documentation to record the actions and decisions taken to process an access requests.

Recommendation 1.9: The ATIP Office include a requirement in the ATIP Officers Reference Book to document the rationale for exercising discretion.

CHAPTER 2: Deemed Refusals

Since Canadians have a right to timely access to information (i.e. 30 days or within extended times under specified conditions), a delayed response is equivalent to a denied response. Parliament articulated this "timeliness" requirement in subsection 10(3) of the Access to Information Act, which states:

Where the Head of a government institution fails to give access to a record requested under this Act or a part thereof within the time limits set out in this Act, the Head of the institution shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have refused to give access.

As a result, the Information Commissioner has adopted the following standard as being the best measure of a department’s compliance with response deadlines: percentage of requests received which end as deemed refusals.

Table 4: Deemed refusals

% of Deemed Refusals

Comment

Grade

0-5%

Ideal compliance

A

5-10%

Substantial compliance

B

10-15%

Borderline compliance

C

15-20%

Below standard compliance

D

More than 20%

Red alert

F

In FY 2004/2005, the department received 1,096 new access requests and carried over 144 access requests from the previous FY for a total of 1,240 access requests. Of the 1,240 access requests, 531 were completed in a deemed-refusal situation, 92 were carried over from the previous FY in a deemed-refusal situation and a further 340 were carried over to the next FY in a deemed-refusal situation. The deemed-refusal ratio for FY 2004/2005 was 1,240:963 or 78% resulting in an "F" on the grading scale.

For the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, the department received 686 new access requests and carried over 430 access requests from the previous FY for a total of 1,116 access requests. By November 30, 2005, of the 1,116 access requests, 121 were completed in a deemed-refusal situation, 340 were carried over from the previous FY in a deemed-refusal situation and a further 420 remained in a deemed-refusal situation at the end of the eight-month period. The deemed-refusal ratio for the first eight months of FY 2005/2006 was 1,116:881 or 79% resulting in an "F" on the grading scale.

The ATIP Director’s view is that the deemed-refusal backlog was and is caused almost exclusively by a lack of staffing for access request processing in the ATIP Office. A further 20 staff positions have been allocated to the ATIP Office and the office is in the process of staffing the positions. The Superintendent stated that, in his view, OPIs are meeting the time requirements for retrieving records and providing the records to the ATIP Office.

The following Charts 3 and 4 illustrate the backlog of access requests in a deemed-refusal situation at the start of each fiscal year.

At the start of 2004/2005, the RCMP had 144 pending access requests with 92 or 64% in a deemed-refusal situation.

For FY 2005/2006, the RCMP started the year with 430 pending requests with 340 or 79% in a deemed-refusal situation.

With 1,096 new access requests received in FY 2004/2005, and 686 new access requests received in the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, a trend of an increasing backlog of access requests in a deemed-refusal situation at the start of the year represents a burden to the ATIP Office. This backlog constitutes a serious problem that must be dealt with to comply with the statutory time requirements of the Access to Information Act.

Recommendation 2.1: The ATIP Office produce a monthly report that provides the Office and Senior Management at the RCMP with information on how well timelines are met when responding to access requests.

Recommendation 2.2: The RCMP should come into ideal compliance with the Act’s deadlines no later than March 31, 2007.

CHAPTER 3: Resource Profile

Employee Profile

The processing of access requests is the responsibility of the ATIP Office under the direction of the ATIP Superintendent. The ATIP Office is also responsible for processing requests under the Privacy Act and conducting Privacy Impact Assessments. The ATIP Office offers training, participates in various working groups, reviews records from other departments claiming certain exemptions and provides policy advice.

The staff of the ATIP Office allocated to ATI and all other activities is comprised of 65 positions — the Superintendent, one inspector, two staff sergeants, eight sergeants, 19 corporals, three constables, 18 advisors and three support staff. Of the 65 positions, only 35 were filled when the Report Card Questionnaire was completed. In addition, there are two contractors, two temporary staff and five support staff working in the ATIP Office. A Business Plan has been approved that will add 22 positions to the ATIP Office.

Budget

The salary budget used for FY 2004/2005 for the ATI access request-processing component of the ATIP Office was $396,486 for 6.1 person years. The salary budget used for 2003/2004 was $355.568 for a utilization of 5.8 person years. The FY 2002/2003 salary budget used was $313,633 for 4.9 person years. Contractors have been used to some extent to make up for staffing vacancies. The following amounts were spent on contractors: FY 2004/2005 $123,500, FY 2003/2004 $76,800.

The ATI operating budget used for FY 2004/2005 was $38,419. The ATI operating budget used for FY 2003/2004 was $34,586. For FY 2002/2003 the ATI operating budget used was $20,447.

The portion of the budget allocated for training in FY 2004/2005 was $12,500 for ATI staff training and $30,000 for departmental ATI training. In FY 2003/2004, $8,500 was allocated for ATI staff training and $13,900 for departmental ATI training. For FY 2002/2003, the amounts respectively were $8,000 and $30,000.

Recommendation 3.1: The ATIP Office consider the use of contractors to provide additional processing resources for the short term as part of the strategy to reduce the deemed-refusal situation.

CHAPTER 4: Leadership Framework

A critical component of the administration of the Access to Information Act is the leadership role of the ATI Coordinator and Senior Management in a department. Senior Management exercises leadership by identifying access to information as a departmental priority and then acting upon this by providing the appropriate resources, technology and policies. Together with the ATI Coordinator, it is important for Senior Management to create a culture of openness and access to departmental information. The ATI Coordinator is the departmental champion of access to information. In this respect, the Coordinator and their staff provide the skilled policy and procedural leadership and training for the access process to work effectively in a department.

The RCMP does not have in place a departmental access to information vision nor an operational plan for the ATIP Office. Each would serve as a basis for planning and operating the ATIP Office. Support of an access to information vision by Senior Management and communication of that vision to departmental employees would demonstrate a commitment to a culture of access to information.

The major reason for the overwhelming backlog of access requests and the deemed-refusal situation at the RCMP ATIP Office was and is a chronic lack of resources needed to process access requests. A Business Plan has been developed and approved by Senior Management to support the addition of 22 staff positions in the ATIP Office.

There is currently no ATI Operational Plan to deal with the day-to-day functions of the ATIP Office. There is also a need for an ATI Improvement Plan to document what measures will be taken to eliminate the deemed-refusal situation at the RCMP. Both plans would provide details on objectives, targets, tasks, deliverables, milestones, timeframes and responsibilities. Uncoordinated efforts are likely not as effective as an integrated group of measures in an ATI Improvement Plan for eliminating the deemed-refusal situation.

One method of organizing to reduce the deemed-refusal situation is to create an ATI team to deal with all access requests in a deemed-refusal situation as of April 1, 2006. All other access requests, including those received after April 1, 2006, would be processed with the objective of meeting the timeframes required by the Access to Information Act. Another ATI team (or individual) could be organized to process access requests that could be fast tracked. As an example, the file review conducted as part of this Report Card included one case where the requester was asking for the same records disclosed in another access request. The access request was not processed (due to a staffing shortage) until after the 30-day time limit for responding had expired although the access request could have been answered in days.

The approaches cited in this Report Card for organizing to process access requests – fast tracking, specific access request backlog attention and assessment at intake to identify candidates for extensions - require an effective ATI intake function with the skills required to assess potential candidates for various access request processing streams.

The ATIP Office maintains an ATIP Officer Reference Book. The Manual does not appear to have been kept up-to-date. With the addition of a significant number of new staff in the ATIP Office, it is particularly important to have the resources available to promote consistent decision making and to serve as a basis for training.

Recommendation 4.1: Senior Management initiate the development of an access to information vision that can be communicated to RCMP employees.

Recommendation 4.2: The ATIP Office develop an ATI Operational Plan to support the departmental access to information vision and the ATI objectives.

Recommendation 4.3: The ATIP Office develop an ATI Improvement Plan to eliminate the deemed-refusal situation.

Recommendation 4.4:The ATIP Office update the ATIP Officer Reference Book.

Although there has been ATI training for both ATI staff and OPI staff, there is currently no published training plan. Training is an important foundation in creating a culture of access to information. As well, each manager and employee, to varying degrees, must be aware of their responsibilities for the management of information and access to same. A Training Plan will allow the ATIP Office to initially focus resources on priority areas where training will have the highest level of return. A training plan will be particularly important to support the skill needs resulting from a significant increase in staffing for new and vacant positions in the ATIP Office.

Recommendation 4.5: The ATIP Office develop and implement an ATI Training Plan.

The ATIP Office has implemented ATIPimage. ATIPimage scans pages retrieved in response to an access request. An ATIP Officer can then review and prepare information on the electronic record for disclosure or non-disclosure.

The ATIP Office uses ATIPflow but that technology, as developed, is not used to its full advantage as a proactive management tool. Generally, the use of ATIPflow is limited to statistical reporting and file control.

Recommendation 4.6: The ATIP Office review its use of ATIPflow to provide proactive management of ATIP administration, including routine reporting to Senior Management.

CHAPTER 5: Information Management Framework

The Access to Information Act relies on records being created or received, indexed and filed in a way that they are readily retrievable. This applies to both paper and electronic records.

The RCMP has implemented the Treasury Board Secretariat Policy on the Management of Government Information. This includes the required records classification schemes, records retention and archiving functions. The same policies are followed by every unit within the RCMP, down to the smallest detachment. In order to ensure consistency, these policies are on the RCMP intranet site and therefore accessible to all employees. The classification schemes and all information relating to record management are updated centrally by the RCMP Policies and Publications Section. In this way, all employees have access to the most current information.

The RCMP has undertaken a number of activities to provide access to information using alternative methods. These activities are seen as providing proactive disclosure of information. The activities to date include the routine disclosure of travel and hospitality expenses, departmental contract information over $10,000 and audits by posting the information periodically on the RCMP Internet site at the following URLs:

http://www.rcmp.ca/corpman/audit_evaluation_e.htm

http://www.rcmp.ca/pd/pd_e.htm

The department is encouraged to investigate what other information might be proactively disclosed.

Recommendation 5.1: The RCMP determine further categories of information that could be disclosed proactively.

CHAPTER 6: Complaint Profile

Complaints—Deemed Refusals

The Office of the Information Commissioner completed the investigation of 96 complaints made against the RCMP under the Access to Information Act in FY 2004/2005. For the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, a further 89 complaint investigations were completed. Charts 5 and 6 illustrate the reasons that the complaints were made by a requester for complaints received for the period.

Of note, the deemed-refusal complaints against the RCMP constituted 56% of the complaint workload for that department at the Office of the Information 
Commissioner in FY 2004/2005. For the first eight months of FY 2005/2006, the percentage increased to 72%. These complaints clearly represent an unnecessary workload both for the RCMP and the Office of the Information Commissioner and are a direct result of the RCMP not meeting its statutory obligations under the Access to Information Act.

Not included in the above are a number of deemed-refusal complaints that the Information Commissioner initiated against the RCMP in FY 2005/2006, part of his new approach to the problem of delay in answering access requests. Further information regarding this new approach is available in the Commissioner’s Annual Report for FY 2005/2006.

CHAPTER 7: Conclusion

This Report Card makes a number of recommendations for ATI operations in the RCMP.

The RCMP has a serious and persistent deemed-refusal situation to contend with. Although the RCMP has approved an additional 22 positions for the ATIP Office and is currently staffing these positions, there are many steps that need to be taken to bring the deemed-refusal situation under control. Of particular note, an essential component in the administrative framework to support the operation of the Access to Information Act is the development of both an ATI Improvement and Operational Plan for the ATIP Office. The Plans would establish priorities, tasks and resources, deliverables, milestones, timeframes and responsibilities to:

  • Deal with the deemed refusal situation that is clearly out of control
  • Manage the day-to-day operations of the ATIP Office
  • Implement those recommendations in this report card that are accepted by the department.

Other recommendations focus on the need to fill gaps in the ATI policies and manual to promote consistent decision-making by individuals with responsibilities in the operations supporting the Access to Information Act. Due to the significant increase in the number of staff in the ATIP Office, an ATI Training Plan should be developed to define the training priorities needed to support the ATI Operational and Improvement Plans.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is a list of recommendation by chapter.

Chapter 1: The Access Request Process

Recommendation 1.1: The ATIP Officers Reference Book be updated to document criteria for clarifying or modifying an access request.

Recommendation 1.2: The ATIP Office develop a fee waiver policy for access requests.

Recommendation 1.3: The ATIP Officers Reference Book incorporate criteria to consider for treating an access request informally.

Recommendation 1.4: At intake, the ATIP Office have an experienced analyst review access requests to make an initial determination if the access request is a potential candidate for a time extension as well as institute control measures to ensure that any claim for a time extension is made within the 30-day time limit.

Recommendation 1.5: Where the RCMP consults with or is consulted by a department routinely, they enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to cover each party’s responsibilities in the consultation process including the provision of rationales for claiming exemptions.

Recommendation 1.6: If an extended date will not be met, the ATIP Office should contact the requester to indicate it will be late, to provide an expected response date and to inform the requester of the right to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Recommendation 1.7: At intake, the ATIP Office have an experienced analyst review access requests to make an initial determination whether or not the access request is a potential candidate for a transfer to another institution, and institute control measures to ensure that any transfer is made within the 15-day time limit for all access requests that are to be transferred to another institution.

Recommendation 1.8: The ATIP Office institute requirements in the ATIP Officers Reference Book for consistent file documentation to record the actions and decisions taken to process an access requests.

Recommendation 1.9: The ATIP Office include a requirement in the ATIP Officers Reference Book to document the rationale for exercising discretion.

Chapter 2: Deemed Refusals

Recommendation 2.1: The ATIP Office produce a monthly report that provides the Office and Senior Management at the RCMP with information on how well timelines are met when responding to access requests.

Recommendation 2.2: The RCMP should come into ideal compliance with the Act’s deadlines no later than March 31, 2007.

Chapter 3: Resource Profile

Recommendation 3.1: The ATIP Office review the use of contractors to provide additional processing resources for the short term as part of the strategy to reduce the deemed refusal situation.

Chapter 4: Leadership Framework

Recommendation 4.1: Senior Management initiate the development of an access to information vision that can be communicated to RCMP employees.

Recommendation 4.2: The ATIP Office develop an ATI Operational Plan to support the departmental access to information vision and the ATI objectives.

Recommendation 4.3: The ATIP Office develop an ATI Improvement Plan to eliminate the deemed-refusal situation.

Recommendation 4.4:The ATIP Office update the ATIP Officer Reference Book.

Recommendation 4.5: The ATIP Office develop and implement an ATI Training Plan.

Recommendation 4.6: The ATIP Office review its use of ATIPflow to provide proactive management of ATIP administration, including routine reporting to Senior Management.

Chapter 5: Information Management Framework

Recommendation 5.1: The RCMP determine further categories of information that could be disclosed proactively.

REPORT CARD QUESTIONNAIRE

1. ACCESS REQUEST PROCESS

1.1 THE CLIENT (REQUESTER)

1.1.1 Client Profile

Source

Number of Requests

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

Media

205

129

Academia

10

5

Business

175

136

Organization

26

26

Public

652

363

Other: Info jobbers (consultant), Political Party

28

27

Total

1096

686

1.1.2 Request Categorization

Does the ATI Office categorize access requests in any manner (for example, sensitive, routine and so on)?

Yes

 

No

X

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

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

       
       
       
       
       
       

1.1.3 Request Clarification

1.1.3.1 Access requests where clarification was sought

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

Number of Requests

25

53


1.1.3.2 Are there documented criteria for seeking clarification?

Yes

X

No

 

If Yes, please provide a copy with the completed questionnaire.

1.1.3.3 If a request is clarified or modified, does the ATI Office confirm, in writing, its understanding of the revised request? (Please provide any guidelines followed in this regard with the completed questionnaire.)

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

x

Rarely

 

Never

 

1.1.4 Client Service

1.1.4.1 Disclosure to Client

Number

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

Pages reviewed

162,625

162,132

Pages disclosed in total or in part

37,994

35,367

Pages for consultation under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and/or (b) and/or notification under (c)

47,734

22,222


1.1.4.2 If a request is almost one year old, does the ATI Office notify the requester about section 31, and the one-year limitation on the right to complain from the time the request is made? (Please attach any written guidelines you follow in this regard.)

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

x

Rarely

 

Never

 

Every requester receives an acknowledgement letter upon receipt of the request. This is followed by a letter for late responses which includes a mention of the right to complain. Our correspondence will be amended to include a statement on the one-year limitation.

1.1.4.3 Fees Collected/Waived

Number/Amount

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

Amount of application fees collected

$4,170.00

$3,770.00

Amount of photocopying fees collected

$19.60

$25.00

Amount of search fees collected

$0.00

$0.0

Amount of preparation fees collected

$0.00

$0.00

Amount of programming fees collected

$0.00

$0.00

Total

$4189.60

$4105.00

Number of fee waivers sought

11

4

Number of fee waivers granted

11

4

Amount of fees waived

$1600.00

$204.80


1.1.4.4 Does the department have a written fee waiver policy?

Yes

 

No

X

** Fee waivers are considered by the department on a case-by-case basis, as per TB Policy.**

1.1.4.5 If the $5.00 application fee is not included with an access request and if the request concerns a matter under the Privacy Act, is the requester consulted on which Act to process the request under?

Always

x

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

 

Never

 

1.1.5 Request Disposition

Disposition of Completed Requests

For the Period

Number of Requests

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

All disclosed

105

52

Disclosed in part

394

208

Nothing disclosed (excluded)

1

1

Nothing disclosed (exempt)

110

29

Transferred

6

10

Unable to process

133

88

Abandoned by applicant

56

64

Treated informally

5

2

Total completed

810

455

Carried forward

430

661

Abandoned by applicant - when an applicant formally withdraws his/her request, or when the requester does not respond to follow-up correspondence.

Unable to process - when no identifiable information (record) exists or a request is made under the wrong legislation. Also used in the case where no other disposition can be accounted for, e.g. Access request received, other federal departments decline the transfer request.

1.1.6 Informal Treatment of Requests

1.1.6.1 If access requests are treated informally, is this done in consultation with the requester?

Always

x

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

 

Never

 

1.1.6.2 Are there documented criteria for treating an access request informally?

Yes

X

No

 

** Case by case depending on info requested and on what informal process is in place. **

If Yes, please provide a copy with the completed questionnaire.

2. REQUEST PROCESSING

2.1 Time to Process Requests

Processing Model - Stages

April 1/04 to Mar. 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

Days Allocated

Average Actual Days

Days Allocated

Average Actual Days

ATI intake

1

n\a

1

n\a

OPI search

2

n\a

2

n\a

Records review and preparation

27

n\a

27

n\a

Legal

0

n\a

0

n\a

Communications

0

n\a

0

n\a

Approval or otherwise – OPI

n/a

n\a

n\a

n\a

Approval or otherwise – DMO

n/a

n\a

n\a

n\a

Approval or otherwise - MO

n/a

n\a

n\a

n\a

ATI release

       

It must be noted that the ATIP process within the RCMP is centralized. All requests are received and processed centrally by the Branch and materials ordered from the OPI and sent for processing. Once the file is processed and a release package ready, the OPI, on a minimal number of cases, may be consulted for last minute comments. Consultation with legal services occur infrequently but only when there are legal issues involved with a particular request. There is no approval or otherwise by either OPI, DMO or MO. The approval rests with the ATIP Branch Coordinator.

1. Extensions Profile

1.2.2.1 When extensions are necessary under subsection 9(1), are notices sent to the requester within 30 days?

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

x

Never

 

Given the volume of requests and resourcing issues, extension notices have been rarely sent.

1.2.2.2 When notice is sent under paragraphs 9 (1)(a) and/or (b) extending the time limit for more than thirty days, how often is a copy of the notice sent to the Office of the Information Commissioner?

Always

X

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

 

Never

 

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

a) The response will be late

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

x

Rarely

 

Never

 

** Try to contact by phone.**

b) Of an expected date for the final response

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

X

Rarely

 

Never

 

**If we know.**

c) Of the right to complain to the Information Commissioner

Always

X

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

 

Never


1.2.2.4 Extensions Under Paragraph 9(1)(a)

Number of Extensions

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

For volume (search for large number of records) 30 days and under

1 est.

0

For volume (search for large number of records) 31 days and over

1 est.

0

For volume (search through large number of records) 30 days and under

4 est.

0

For volume (search through large number of records) 31 days and over

5 est.

2

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

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

x

Never

 

1.2.2.6 Extensions Under Paragraph 9(1)(b)

Number of Extensions

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

For consultation with another institution

2

0

For consultation with domestic government

0

0

For consultation with foreign government

0

0

For consultation with individual

1

0

For consultation for section 69

2

0

1.2.2.7 If a request concerns third-party records and consultations are necessary, are consultations taken under paragraph 9(1)(c)?

Always

x

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

 

Never

 

** We very seldom have this type of file.**

1.2.2.8 If a request concerns third-party records and consultations are necessary, are consultations taken under paragraph 9(1)(b)?

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

 

Never

x

** N/A **

1.2.2.9 Are third-party notices sent as soon as the need for the notice is identified?

Always

x

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

 

Never

 

1.2.2.10 When notice is sent under paragraph 9(1)(c), how often is a copy of the notice sent to the Office of the Information Commissioner?

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

 

Rarely

x

Never

 

**Given only if over 30 days. Very rare that we have that type of request

1.2.2.11 Is the third-party timing process (as set out in section 28) observed?

Yes

 

No

 

** Not aware of recent request on this type of request

If No, please provide comments.

1.2.2.12 Does the ATI Office provide a partial release of the requested records for portions of the request that are not involved in the consultation process under paragraphs 9(1)(b) and/or 9(1)(c)?

Always

 

Almost always

 

Sometimes

X

Rarely

 

Never

 

** Same as above.

1.2.2.13 Notification Under Paragraph 9(1)(c)

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

Number of requests where third party consulted

1

0

Average length of time to receive representations from third parties

25 days

0

Average length of time to make a decision after receipt of representations from third parties

0 days

0

Number of notices under section 27

4

0

Number of notices for which section 27 time frame was not met

0

0

Number of requests for which paragraph 28(1)(b) time frame was not met

0

0

1.2.3 Transfer Profile

Transfers

Number of Transfers

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

Transferred within 15 Days

3

0

Transferred over 15 Days

2

10

Total transferred

5

10

Transfers refused

Not available

Not available

1.3 CLAIMS FOR EXEMPTIONS

Please provide any relevant documentation for the following questions.

Questions

Yes

No

Comments

1.3.1 Is there a rationale on file when an exemption is invoked?

X

 

Exemption(s) are discussed and then approved by NCO.

1.3.2 Is the exemption rationale prepared by the OPIs?

 

X

But may provide background information in order to determine if exemptible.

1.3.3 Is the exemption rationale prepared by ATI?

X

 

See above 1.3.2

1.3.4 Is there a documented exemption challenge function in ATI if the rationale is prepared by OPIs?

   

All exemptions are prepared and approved (applied) by ATI

1.3.5 Is there a documented requirement to place the rationale for exercising a discretionary exemption on file?

 

X

Done as a matter of course

2. DEEMED REFUSALS

Statistics for Analysis of Deemed-Refusal Requests

Part A: Requests carried over from the prior fiscal period.

April 1/04 to

March 31/05

April 1/05 to

Nov. 30/05

1.

Number of requests carried over:

144

430

2.

Requests carried over from the prior fiscal — in a deemed-refusal situation on the first day of the new fiscal:

92

340

Part B: New Requests — Exclude requests included in Part A

April 1/04 to

March 31/05

April 1/05 to

Nov. 30/05

3.

Number of requests received during the fiscal period:

1096

686

4.A

How many were processed withinthe 30-day statutory time limit?

149

28

4.B

How many were processed beyond the 30-day statutory time limit where no extension was claimed?

529

121

4.C

How long after the statutory time limit did it take to respond where no extension was claimed?

 

1-30 days:

153

21

 

31-60 days:

99

17

 

61-90 days:

109

5

 

Over 91 days:

168

78

5.

How many were extended pursuant to section 9?

20

1

6.A

How many were processed withinthe extended time limit?

2

0

6.B

How many exceeded the extended time limit?

0

0

6.C

How long after the expiry of the extended deadline did it take to respond?

 

1-30 days:

0

0

 

31-60 days:

0

0

 

61-90 days:

0

0

 

Over 90 days:

0

0

7.

As of November 30, 2005, how many requests are in a deemed-refusal situation?

420

Part C: Contributing Factors

8.

Use this area to describe any particular aspect about a request or type of request that may impact on the difficulty or time necessary to complete a request:

 
  • Volume
  • Complexity of request
  • Level of expertise of reviewer
  • Loss of employees to other departments
  • Too few reviewers for number of requests

Given the nature of the work of the RCMP including provincial and municipal police duties, the interrelationship with other federal departments which results in RCMP documents being present in many departments, and also the nature of the employee/employer relationship (e.g. few departments would have medical files on their members), the potential number of request-generating circumstances is significant and resources assigned to the branch has not kept pace.

3. RESOURCE PROFILE

3.1 Employee Profile

Please list all ATI Office employees.

Full-time Position

Classification

Number

Years of Experience

1

SUPT.

1

9 mos

1

INSP.

0

 

2

S/SGT.

0

 

8

SGTS.

7

12.43 YRS

19

CPLS.

10

4.25 YRS

3

CSTS.

5

7 MOS

0

LAW-1

1

3 YRS

1

PM-6

0

 

3

PM-5

3

10 YRS

8

PM-4

3

9.66 YRS

6

PM-2

0

 

1

AS-2

1

28.3 YRS

1

CR-4

0

 

0

CR-3

3

1.33 YRS

1

OE-DEO-2

1

18 YRS

Part-time Position

Classification

Number

Years of Experience

 

TCE

2

19.5 YRS

 

CONTRACTORS

2

4 YRS

 

CR-3

5

.8 YRS

*NOTE: 12 employees have less than one year of experience, 6 of whom are analysts.

3.2 Salary Dollar Budget for ATI Office

Fiscal Year

Budget Allocated

Budget Used

FTEs Allocated

FTEs Used

2004/2005

$1,969,428

$396,486.09

25

6.13

2003/2004

$1,855,457

$355,568.40

25

5.80

2002/2003

$1,967,287

$313,633.17

27

4.92

3.3 Operating Budget for ATI Office

Fiscal Year

Budget Allocated

Budget Used

2004/2005

$188,000

$38,419.11

2003/2004

$178,800

$34,586.60

2002/2003

$128,000

$20,447.51

3.4 Breakdown of ATI Office Operating Budget Used or Set Aside for ATI Training or Training Materials

Fiscal Year

ATI Staff Training

Departmental ATI Training

2004/2005

$12,000

$30,000

2003/2004

$8,500

$13,900

2002/2003

$8,000

$30,000

3.5 Breakdown of ATI Office Operating Budget Used or Set Aside for ATI Consultants

Fiscal Year

Budget Allocated

Budget Used

2004/2005

$130,000

$123,500

2003/2004

$100,000

$ 76,800

2002/2003

$ 0

$ 0

4. LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK

Please provide any relevant material with your completed questionnaire to support a "Yes" answer in the table below.

Question

Yes

No

Comments

4.1.1 Is there a documented ATI Vision?

 

X

 

4.1.2 Is there a published ATIP Operational Plan with clearly defined objectives, deliverables, timeframes and responsibilities?

X

 

Balance score cards

4.1.3 Is there a published ATIP Policy and Procedures Manual for departmental staff?

x

   

4.1.4 Is the ATIP Policy and Procedures Manual kept up-to-date through at least a bi-annual review process?

x

   

4.1.5 Are OPIs ATI responsibilities clearly defined through documentation provided to OPIs?

x

   

4.1.6 Is there an internal ATI Office Manual on processing access requests?

x

   

4.1.7 Are there documented criteria for taking extensions under paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b)?

   

We follow TB guide

4.1.8 Is there a Delegation Order?

X

   

4.1.9 Are the ATI roles and responsibilities for those with delegated authority clearly defined?

X

   

4.1.10 Does the approval process require the approval or concurrence of officials who are not holders of delegated authority?

 

X

 

I4.1.11 Is there a published ATIP Training Plan?

 

X

 

4.1.12 Has ATIPflow or similar application been implemented?

x

   

4.1.13 Is ATIPflow used proactively to identify potential problems?

X

 

In limited capacity

4.1.14 Is ATIPflow used to provide at least monthly reports to Senior Management?

X

 

Weekly

4.1.15 Has an audit of the ATI Program been conducted in the last three years?

 

X

 

4.2 Dealing with ATI Problems

Condition

Action Taken

Comment on Progress

Lack of resources

Business plan to add 22 positions

Resources added with more pending, subject to availability of work space

Training

Employees sent on related courses

In house training capability has been added.

Backlog

Creation of a separate backlog unit

As of recently, the # of concluded files exceed the # of requests received.

Limited expertise in processing unit

Assignment of experienced reviewer and system expert

This is about to be implemented with a view to maximize technology and initial request analysis (for extensions, etc).

     

4.3 Solutions to Unanticipated Service Demands between April 1, 2004, and November 30, 2005

Service Demand

Solution

Current situation relates to backlog, has generated other problems

Additional resources which are being added

   
   
   
   
   

5. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

5.1 What activities were planned and what progress was made between April 1, 2004, and November 30, 2005, on providing access to information using alternative methods?

Planned Activity

Action Taken

Comment on Progress

P/A’s

   

Audits

Website

Implemented

Pre-activate disclosure of expenses

Website

Implemented

Contracts > 10,000

Website

Implemented

Informal release of medical

Contacted H.S.O.

Ongoing discussions

Request for criminal records

Criminal records branch

Implemented

     

5.2 What has been accomplished to implement the TBS Policy on the Management of Government Information?

The RCMP is fully compliant with TBS Policy on the Management of Government Information. This includes classification, retention, archiving etc.

The same policies are followed by every unit within the RCMP down to the smallest detachment. In order to ensure consistency, these policies are on the RCMP Intranet and therefore accessible to all employees.

5.3 What approximate percentage of departmental record holdings is covered by a Departmental Retention and Disposition Plan(s) and Records Disposition Authorities?

** Should be **

Departmental Retention and Disposal Plan(s)

100 %

Records Disposal Authority

100%

5.4 Does the department have a classification scheme or schemes for its information?

Yes

X

No

 

If Yes, please provide documentation that explains the classification scheme(s)

*Provided on CD*

5.5 How is the classification scheme(s) maintained for currency and comprehensiveness?

The classification scheme(s) and indeed all information relating to record management are updated centrally by our Policies and Publications Section so that all employees accessing the related information have always access to the most current information.

6. COMPLAINT PROFILE

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

6.1 Complaints by Categories

Category

Number of Complaints

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 1/05 to Nov. 30/05

Refusal to disclose

39

24

Delay (deemed refusal)

54

64

Time extension

0

0

Fees

2

0

Language

0

0

Publication

0

0

Miscellaneous

1

1

Total resolved

96

89

6.2 Complaint Findings

Category

Number of Complaint Findings

April 1/04 to March 31/05

April 5/05 to Nov. 30/05

Resolved

67

77

Not resolved

0

1

Not substantiated

21

9

Discontinued

8

2

Total Findings

96

89