Annual Report: 2003-2004

10. On-Line Access to Databases

Background

Shortly after the Access to Information Act came into force in 1983, the government adopted an electronic tracking system for access requests. Known as CAIR (Coordination of Access to Information Requests), the system was developed for the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) and maintained by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). All institutions subject to the Act upload to the system information about requests submitted under the Access Act. This allows TBS and the Privy Council Office (the main clients of CAIR) to monitor requests, ensure consistency of responses, and facilitate consultations among institutions.

When individuals seek access to CAIR, they are unable to do so on-line. Rather, they are asked to make an access request, pay the associated fees, wait at least 30 days--usually longer--and accept a paper printout or diskette in severed form. One regular requester, an academic with an interest in using CAIR to facilitate his research into the workings of the federal access regime, became upset about the inability to obtain on-line access to CAIR and complained to the Information Commissioner.

Legal Issues

Does the government have the right to refuse on-line access to CAIR? The TBS’ view was that it need only give a paper or electronic copy of the content of CAIR, but not real-time access to the system. In support of this view, TBS referred to subsection 12(1) which requires that a person who is given access must "…be given an opportunity to examine the record or part thereof or be given a copy thereof." TBS argued that this provision authorizes it to make snapshot copies of the CAIR database in response to an access request.

TBS also took the position that, if CAIR was made available on-line, it should only permit public access to closed requests, not new or active requests. No provision of law was cited to justify this limitation.

For his part, the requester referred to subsections 4(1) and 4(3) arguing that they afford a right of access to records as they exist at the time of the request. Only if the record does not exist do institutions have the right to create a record derived from an electronic database.

The commissioner made the following observations:

1. CAIR is technically capable, at virtually no cost, of being open to public, online access;
2. CAIR does not contain the names of access requesters or other personal information. On-line access poses no threat to privacy;
3. As a working tool, it is mandatory that CAIR be available to public servants in both official languages. Thus, there is no additional incremental cost to produce CAIR in both official languages for the purposes of on-line, public access, a requirement of the Official Languages Act.
4. In the current process, access is given to the paper or electronic copy of both closed and open/active access requests.

Taking into account these factors, as well as subsections 4(1) and 4(3) of the Act and the purpose of the Act in section 2, the commissioner concluded that the complaint was well-founded. He recommended that CAIR be made available to public, on-line access.

The commissioner also took note of the new government’s announced intention to become more pro-active about information disclosure and to increase on-line access to government records. The President of Treasury Board has already issued directions requiring on-line access to the travel and hospitality expense claims of senior officials. He also announced the intention to put information about grants, contributions and contracts on-line. In these circumstances, where CAIR contains non-sensitive information and no incremental cost to go on-line, the commissioner urged TBS--quite apart from the legalities--to use this case to show tangible leadership to the rest of government with respect to pro-active information disclosure.

At the time of this writing, TBS had not agreed to follow the commissioner’s recommendation.

Lessons Learned

When government institutions find themselves creating records from a database in response to an access request, they should ask whether or not on-line or real-time access to the database would be desirable and feasible. There is no reason, in law or policy, for forcing individuals to make repeated access requests for access to information which is an electronic database to which public, on-line access can readily be given.

Cumulative Index of Case Summaries from 1994-2002 is listed in the Information Commissioner’s 2001-2002 Annual Report at pages 59-74.

Index of Case Summaries for 2002-2003 is listed in the Information Commissioner’s 2002-2003 Annual Report at page 79.