The complainant alleged that the extension of time Library and Archives Canada (LAC) took under subsection 9(1) of the Access to Information Act to respond to an access request is unreasonable. The request was for Royal Canadian Mounted Police records on Communist Party of Canada activity and activists in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, from 1970 to 1984.The allegation falls under paragraph 30(1)(c) of the Act.
LAC claimed an extension under paragraph 9(1)(a) for 80 days and 730 days under paragraph 9(1)(b). The Commissioner found the latter extension, which LAC took to consult the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) on 4,985 pages of records, to be unreasonable. LAC could not show it had made a serious effort to assess how long the extension should be, relying instead on CSIS’s estimate of two (2) years as the time it would need to review the records and provide its recommendations on disclosure.
The Commissioner also found that there has been a significant disclosure of Canadian intelligence surveillance of Communist activities and affiliations throughout the 1970s and that the records are now approximately 50 years old. This led the Commissioner to question, as she had in her 2022 report on her systemic investigation into LAC’s consultation practices and other matters, LAC’s position that it must consult institutions on all security and intelligence-related records—thus, jeopardizing LAC’s ability to provide timely access.
Since the Commissioner concluded that the 810-day extension of time was unreasonable, and because LAC had not responded to the access request by the time the 80-day extension expired, the Commissioner ordered that LAC provide a complete response to the request no later than 60 business days following the date of her final report.
She also recommended that LAC include in its next semi-annual report on its progress addressing issues raised in the systemic investigation specific updates on improved timelines for consultations with other institutions.
LAC gave notice to the Commissioner that it would not be implementing the order but indicated that it would include an update on consultation timelines in its next progress report.
The complaint is well founded.