Annual Report: 2003-2004

Again, in this reporting year, the office monitored the performance of departments in respecting the response deadlines contained in the Access to Information Act. A positive trend continued in the reduction of the number of delay complaints which access requesters made to the Information Commissioner. Last year, 20.6 percent of complaints related to delays. This year 14.6 percent were delay complaints.

However, when we consider the performance of individual departments in meeting response deadlines, the results are mixed--some do very well, some do very poorly, and many are "somewhere in between".

In this reporting year, a report card or report card updates were completed on twelve government institutions. As in the past, the grade depended on the percentage of access requests received which were not answered within statuary deadlines (i.e. 30 days or any extended period properly claimed). The Act refers to late answers as "deemed refusals". Here is the grading scale which was used:

Using this grading scale, the results achieved by the twelve government institutions reviewed this year (during the period April 1 to November 30, 2003) are set out in Table 1.

As can be seen from Table 2, five government institutions improved their performance over last year, four showed no change and two received lower grades than last year. The institution reviewed for the first time (Industry Canada) received a failing grade. Kudos are due to the Privy Council Office and Correctional Service Canada for jumping from "F's" last year to "A's" this year. However, Citizenship and Immigration and Human Resources Development are of special concern. The former fell from an "A" last year to a "D" this year, whereas the latter institution has not budged from the failing grade it obtained last year.

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and National Defence have plateaud at a grade of "B" over the past two years and should press ahead into ideal compliance category. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has shown the remarkable ability to earn an "A" in each of the past two years; it deserves honourable mention and the respect of Canadians for its determination to respect the legal obligation to provide timely responses.

Table 3 shows how difficult it is to maintain consistently high performance in meeting response times. For example, there should not be such wild fluctuations in results from the Privy Council Office. Industry Canada was graded for the first time this year. It has work to do, and the new Minister of Industry has given personal assurances to the commissioner that her department will solve its poor record of respecting response deadlines. The commissioner’s office will continue to monitor progress in the expectation that there will be a more positive story to report next year.

Of most concern, when we look at the performance since 1998-99, are Citizenship and Immigration (it had only one acceptable grade); Foreign Affairs and International Trade (a poor record, only one grade above a "D"); HRDC (a poor performance in recent years) and Transport Canada (consistently low or failing grades). They will be asked for a detailed work plan to bring themselves to an "A" grade by next year.

The reviews undertaken this year show, again, that there are five main causes of delay in the access system:

• Slow retrieval of records, due to poor records management and staff shortages;
• Poorly managed consultations with third parties and other government institutions;
• Inadequate resources and training;
• Top-heavy approval processes, including too much "hand-wringing" over politically sensitive requests and too frequent holdups in ministers’ offices; and
• Poor communications with requesters to clarify and narrow requests.

Many institutions have solved their delay problems; all institutions know what needs to be done to solve such problems. None of the solutions are inordinately complex or expensive and there is a wealth of practical experience in the system to assist the improvement efforts. The institutions where delays persist simply haven’t demonstrated the institutional will and the management leadership to get the job done.

The complete text of the twelve reviews conducted this year is included in Chapter VII.