Request Disposition

Requests for copies of records can be made informally at CBSA regional offices and/or branches. With consideration taken of the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, and subsection 107(9) of the Customs Act, copies of records can be provided directly by the regional office/branch. The ATIP Division does not track these informal disclosures of records.

The Act allows 30 calendar days (or 21 working 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 Division 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 CBSA access request processing model is based on 21 working days. The ATIP Division was not able to provide reliable statistical information on the time to process requests due to data integrity issues. The statistics in Table 3 show only the days allocated to and used for each stage in the access request processing model.

The processing model consists of the following stages and days allocated to each stage:

In April 2006, CBSA installed a new information system called AccessPro Case Management. The change of systems has resulted in a number of issues with regard to data integrity, and, as such, information on the actual number of days per stage is unreliable. Ongoing system improvements are expected to address this issue and should result in more reliable data in the future. Although the figures may be unreliable, the trend in the processing model is that both OPIs and the ATIP Division are not meeting the days allocated to their respective functions. Part of the delay is caused by unfilled vacancies in the ATIP Division, resulting in new OPIs not being trained in the requirements of the Act.

The ATIP Division has established a backlog task force to work on the backlog of deemed-refusal access requests. Approximately 70% of the backlog of 393 access requests was closed by December 31, 2006.

The ATIP Division does a preliminary sort of access requests to identify those requests that require communications material and to assign the access request to a team. At this point, access requests that appear to be straightforward to respond to could be identified. These requests could then be forwarded to a team responsible for fast tracking this type of access request. The benefits are that these access requests:

• would not be queued in line with more complex requests with the possibility of a deemed refusal occurring;

• could be processed by new ATIP analysts who are being trained in their positions.

Subsection 9(1) of the Act provides circumstances when the initial 30-day response time to an access request may be extended. These circumstances are:

Transfer Profile

In 2005-2006, five access requests were transferred to other institutions. In the first eight months of 2006-2007, 16 access requests were transferred to other institutions. All transfers occurred as required within 15 days of the receipt of the access request.

The ATIP Division generally does not document the rationale for claiming an exemption in the access request file.

A random group of 14 completed access request files closed between April 1, 2005 and November 30, 2006, were reviewed. CBSA uses AccessPro Case Management and AccessPro Redaction. A Case Management Manual was developed last year to detail the procedures for the use of AccessPro. All documents provided by an OPI are scanned and then all severing of exempt information occurs on the electronic copy. Any rationale for claiming exemptions or the exercise of discretion can be made on notes in the case management system. The ATIP Division retains the release package in electronic format after the paper copy is disclosed to the requester.

The review indicated that:

• actions taken to process an access request were recorded;

• decisions were made by those individuals with delegated authority;

• the rationale for claiming exemptions was not documented, although there were exceptions where an analyst had made notes on the rationale;

• in consultation with other departments, the other department rarely indicated the rationale for claiming an exemption;

• there was no documentation to indicate whether or not the department exercised discretion properly in deciding whether to claim a discretionary exemption;

• in cases where there was a mandatory exemption, there was no documentation to indicate that the department took into account exceptions permitting disclosure of the information – for example, paragraphs 13(2), 19(2), 20(2), 20(4), 20(5), and 20(6).

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 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):

In 2005-2006, the department received 670 new access requests and carried over 175 access requests from the previous, for a total of 845 access requests. Of the 845 access requests, 183 were completed in a deemed-refusal situation, 69 were carried over from the previous fiscal year in a deemed-refusal situation, and a further 351 were carried over to the next fiscal year in a deemed-refusal situation. The deemed-refusal ratio for 2005-2006 was 71.4%, resulting in an "F" on the grading scale.

For the first eight months of 2006-2007, the department received 599 new access requests and carried over 443 access requests from the previous fiscal year, for a total of 1,042 access requests. By November 30, 2006, of the 1,042 access requests, 227 were completed in a deemed-refusal situation, 351 were carried over from the previous fiscal year in a deemed-refusal situation, and a further 141 remained in a deemed-refusal situation at the end of the eight-month period. The deemed-refusal ratio for the first eight months of 2006-2007 was 69%, resulting in an "F" on the grading scale.

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 2005-2006, CBSA had 175 pending access requests, with 69 in a deemed-refusal situation.

For 2006-2007, CBSA started the year with 443 pending access requests, with 351 (79%) in a deemed-refusal situation. This backlog constitutes a serious problem that must be dealt with to comply with the time requirements of the Act.

The ATIP Division has instituted a number of reports to the Executive Committee to report on and proactively address the deemed-refusal situation. In addition to the weekly report on access requests that will be completed during the following week, the Committee receives the following reports:

• weekly statistical report covering statistics on requests including number received, closed, time extensions, delayed, and an update on progress with the backlog of 393 deemed-refusal requests in process by the task force;

• overall report on developments in the Division with information on infrastructure, staffing, and the use of consultants.

The processing of access requests is the responsibility of the ATIP Division under the direction of the ATIP Director. The ATIP Division is also responsible for processing requests under the Privacy Act. The ATIP Division:

• offers training;
• participates in various working groups;
• reviews records from other departments for claims for exemptions for CBSA records in their possession;
• provides ATI policy advice.

The ATIP Division is also responsible for:

• the disclosure policy related to the interpretation of the use, access to, and disclosure of information as provided by section 107 of the Customs Act;
• framework advice on the development of written collaborative arrangements that deal with information exchange with other organizations, and legislative and regulatory affairs, and Parliamentary affairs.

The staff of the ATIP Division allocated to ATIP is comprised of 43 approved FTEs (see Employee Profile at Section 3.1 of the Report Card Questionnaire which follows).

As of November 30, 2006, the ATIP Division had a total of 30 full-time and 12 temporary help contractors. The objective is to staff the division with 43 full-time employees in 2007-2008. In addition, the division will have available a contingency for temporary contractors. The department has made a significant commitment to staffing resources to meet its obligations under the Act.

The salary budget for 2005-2006 for the ATIP Division was $451,260 for 9.84 person-years. The ATIP Division was formed in April 2004. For 2004-2005, the Division was part of a larger Directorate and financial data was not allocated to an ATIP responsibility centre.

Contractors have been used by the ATIP Division to assist with access request processing. In 2005-2006, $217,000 was used for contractors.

The ATIP operating budget for 2005-2006 was $172,830.

The portion of the budget allocated for training in 2005-2006 was $5,394 (estimated).

A critical component of the administration of the 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 the staff provide the skilled policy and procedural leadership and training in order for the access process to work effectively in a department.

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

One of the reasons for the backlog of access requests and the deemed-refusal situation at the CBSA ATIP Division was a severe shortage of ATIP positions and infrastructure. In 2005, CBSA engaged a consulting firm to conduct a strategic review of the ATIP operations and develop a strategic investment plan that would ensure CBSA had the necessary structure, tools, and processes to meet its obligations under the ATIP legislation and regulations. CBSA has begun implementing several recommendations from the Strategic Review of ATIP Operations and Development of a Strategic ATIP Investment Plan for the Canada Border Services Agency and will be developing an action plan to implement the remaining recommendations. In addition, a Backlog Task Force was established to deal with the deemed-refusal backlog situation. CBSA made time commitments to the Information Commissioner’s Office for clearing the backlog of deemed-refusal access requests, and these commitments have been exceeded to date.

At the present time, there is no overall plan that sets out the ATI objectives and priorities, and how they will be achieved. An ATI Operational Plan sets out objectives, priorities, tasks and resources, deliverables, milestones, timeframes, and responsibilities. The Plan could also incorporate details on how the remaining recommendations from the Strategic Review of ATIP Operations and Development of a Strategic ATIP Investment Plan for the Canada Border Services Agency will be implemented. The Executive Management Committee of CBSA should monitor the Plan.

There is no published ATI policy and procedures manual, although the ATIP Division is working on a draft manual (known at CBSA as ATIP Policies and Procedures for CBSA Employees). The ATIP Division completed a Case Management Manual for ATIP officers. It is important that the ATIP Policy and Procedures Manual be completed to support training efforts in CBSA and to support the training of new ATIP officers. The ATIP Policy and Procedures Manual will also promote a consistent interpretation by all advisors of the application and requirements of the Act.

The ATIP Division does have training plans for ATIP Division staff that are documented through the development of annual learning plans. A strategic communication plan is being developed to ensure a consistent CBSA understanding of its obligations under the Act. A Policy and Training Unit has been established to develop and implement the training.

The ATIP Division is implementing AccessPro Case Management and AccessPro Redaction. AccessPro Redaction 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 Division has been very innovative in its use of technology to support the operations of the ATIP Division in the processing of access requests. The Division uses and retains electronic copies of records (scans of original paper records) and electronic communications as the standard.

The 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.

CBSA is implementing the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Policy on the Management of Government Information. A consulting company recently completed the Information Management (IM) Capacity Check. IM sessions have been delivered to CBSA staff. CBSA IM Policy and Guidelines were recently posted on the CBSA intranet. CBSA is undertaking a Capacity Assessment to provide a qualitative assessment of CBSA’s ability to implement the Policy on the Management of Government Information.

CBSA has undertaken a number of initiatives to provide access to information using alternative methods. These activities are seen as providing proactive and transparent disclosure of information. The activities to date include the routine disclosure of travel and hospitality expenses, certain contract information for contracts over $10,000, and grants and awards over $25,000, by posting the information periodically on the CBSA Internet site. The information may be viewed at: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/agency/disclosure/menu-e.html. CBSA is also encouraging the use of informal disclosure in ATIP awareness sessions to staff. The department is encouraged to investigate what other information might be proactively disclosed.

The Commissioner’s Office completed the investigation of 24 complaints made against CBSA under the Act in 2005-2006. For the first eight months of 2006-2007, a further 30 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.

The deemed-refusal complaints against CBSA constituted 63% of the complaint workload for CBSA at the Commissioner’s Office in 2005-2006. For the first eight months of 2006-2007, the percentage increased to 90%.

This Report Card makes a number of recommendations for ATI operations in CBSA. Of particular note, an essential component in the administrative framework to support the operation of the Act is the development of an ATI Operational Plan for the ATIP Division. The Plan would establish priorities, tasks and resources, deliverables, milestones, timeframes, and responsibilities to:

• deal with the remaining recommendations to be implemented in the Strategic Review of ATIP Operations and Development of a Strategic ATIP Investment Plan for the Canada Border Services Agency;

• manage the day-to-day operations of the ATIP Division;

• guide CBSA to achieve substantial compliance with the Act’s deadlines;

• implement those recommendations in this Report Card that are accepted by the department.

Other recommendations focus on the need to have an up-to-date infrastructure in place – policies, procedures, and technology – to support the administration of the Act in CBSA and its ATIP Division. Up-to-date comprehensive documentation needs to be in place to promote consistent decision-making by individuals with responsibilities in the operations supporting the Act.

CBSA has made a number of time commitments to the Commissioner’s Office to eliminate the backlog of deemed-refusal access requests. As of November 30, 2006, CBSA had met or exceeded those commitments. The Agency has also implemented many of the recommendations in the Strategic Review of ATIP Operations and Development of a Strategic ATIP Investment Plan for the Canada Border Services Agency including a significant investment in new ATI positions. CBSA is encouraged to continue its progress to fulfill its obligations under the Act.

The following is a list of recommendation by chapter.

There were no recommendations in Chapter 3 of this Report.

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

*subset of the other three categories

Note: In 2005, the CBSA engaged a consulting firm to conduct a strategic review of the ATIP operations and develop a strategic investment plan that would ensure the CBSA had the necessary structure, tools and processes to meet its obligations under the ATIP legislation and regulations. The CBSA has begun implementing several recommendations from the review and will develop an action plan to implement the remaining recommendations. Included in this action plan will be the development and communication of policies and procedures, which will be expedited by engaging the services of a consulting firm. In the interim, OPIs are encouraged to correspond with the ATIP Section if a request is not clear and the ATIP Section then seeks clarification from the requestor.

Note: In August of 2006 the CBSA began hiring additional staff and engaging ATIP consultants with the goal of eliminating the backlog of ATIP requests that were in a deemed refusal situation. As a result of this investment, the large number of pages reviewed and disclosed is reflective of the extra effort made to eliminate the backlog situation in the CBSA.

Note: In fiscal year 2005/2006, CBSA administrative practices were to waive fees for re-production and other fees for late responses. Fees waived were not captured in the information system.

In April of 2006 the CBSA installed a new information system called AccessPro Case Management. The change of systems has resulted in a number of issues with regard to data integrity and as such, information on fees waived is unreliable. Ongoing system improvements are expected to address these issues and should result in more reliable data in the future. In the interim, estimated amounts have been provided.

Note: In 2005, the CBSA engaged a consulting firm to conduct a strategic review of the ATIP operations and develop a strategic investment plan that would ensure the CBSA had the necessary structure, tools and processes to meet its obligations under the ATIP legislation and regulations. The CBSA has begun implementing several recommendations from the review and will develop an action plan to implement the remaining recommendations. Included in this action plan will be the development and communication of policies and procedures. In the interim, the CBSA does not have a written waiver policy but has established an administrative practice of waiving re-production fees for late responses.

*Note: The majority of "unable to process" is for requests where records do not exist.

**Note: In August of 2006 the CBSA began hiring additional staff and engaging ATIP consultants with the goal of eliminating the backlog of ATIP requests that were in a deemed refusal situation. In November of 2006, the CBSA officially established a "Backlog Taskforce" dedicated to the elimination of the backlog which enabled the CBSA – ATIP Division to process a significant number of requests, including determining if requestors were still interested in the information requested. As a result, there has been a parallel increase in the number of requests abandoned as well as the number of requests processed.

***Note: During the period from April 1/06 to November 30/06, there were 2 requests that were sent to the ATIP Division in Headquarters and treated as informal requests. There may have been additional informal requests processed by the branches and/or regions that were not tracked if they were not referred to Headquarters.

Note: In some cases, the requestor informs the CBSA that the request is being abandoned.

Note: Clients and their representatives can approach the CBSA regional offices and/or branches directly to request copies of documents. Often, such requests can be managed locally with due consideration of the Access to Information Act, Privacy Act and section 107(9) of the Customs Act. Informal information requests that are addressed locally by regional offices or branches are not tracked by the ATIP Division in Headquarters and as such, do not form part of this report.

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

1.2 REQUEST PROCESSING