Questions and Answers

Complaints

We have indeed experienced a decline in the number of complaints registered in 2023-2024 (54% decrease compared to the previous year).
We are using this opportunity to refocus our efforts to tackle the many challenging files remaining in our inventory.
We continue to make steady progress against our inventory (24 % decrease compared to the previous year).
The decrease in registered complaints is mainly due to that fact that my office is now receiving fewer complaints against Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
- We do not yet have a clear understanding of why.

I requested this temporary funding to eliminate a persistent backlog that resulted from a sustained increase in new complaints over multiple years.
Because so many access to information requests are related to contemporary/current issues, it is critical that investigations into such time-sensitive complaints be completed as soon as possible.
The requested funding would have been used to hire temporary resources, respecting the objective of the government to limit the growth of the public sector.

My orders are binding. An institution is required to comply with the order, unless it applies to the Federal Court for review. In these cases, it is unfortunate that I had to resort to the mechanism of mandamus.
The first ever mandamus I filed was against Trans Mountain Corporation.
This type of process to compel compliance should not be necessary.
One file with DND was discontinued as they finally complied with my order. The two others are still ongoing. I will not comment any further as these issues are before the courts.
If the mandamus mechanism is the only means of achieving the desired outcome, I will continue to pursue the same approach to compel compliance with my orders.
This situation expends my resources and those of institutions that are deploying their own legal services to deal with these cases.
I am sure that Canadians would agree that it is not something we can afford in the current economic context.

The Office of the Information Commissioner generally does not track institutions’ compliance with orders.
Non-compliance is a concern as orders are legally binding.
So far, I have filed four applications for mandamus before the Federal Court against two different institutions.
Upholding the Act is at the heart of my mandate. That’s why I decided to launch these legal actions.

This option could be studied by parliamentarians.
The new Official Languages Act provides for such penalties.
At the very least, the obligation to respect their obligations under the Access to Information Act should be part of public servants’ work objectives, including senior officials.

As ATIP teams continue to struggle to meet their obligations, legislative change has been put on the back burner.
The government’s focus is now on administrative improvements. If this is the case, I ask:
- What progress has been made on a declassification program to relieve pressure on the system?
- How much closer are we to providing clients of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada with the information they are seeking by means other than through the access system?
- Where are we in providing all public servants on mandatory training regarding their obligations under the Access to Information Act?
- Why are adequate tools not widely accessible to ATIP units^Footnote¹?
The government’s efforts have not been sufficient. We need greater efficiency and tangible results.

The access system has deteriorated to the point where it no longer serves its intended purpose.
If the Government cares about the state of our democracy, it will implement changes to fix the system.
As I have said multiple times already, the Government needs to recognize that access to information is vital for our democracy. The system is failing, and urgent action is needed to fix it.
If access to information is the oxygen of democracy, our democracy is gasping for air.

Culture change – the best legislation will never work if government leaders do not commit to making access a priority with clear objectives, resources, training, and innovation, including in Information Management.
Legislative change – a strong legislative framework is the foundation of a strong access to information system.
Investment – in the necessary resources, tools and technology to support modernizing the system.

Without access to information held by government institutions, citizens cannot actively participate in society or make informed decisions.
This information belongs to them.
The lack of access hampers their ability to engage meaningfully with the democratic process and hold their government accountable.

When the Act was amended in 2019, I pointed out that the amendments were a step in the right direction, but that further changes would be necessary.
In my opinion, priority should be given to the following changes:
- broaden the application of the Access to Information Act to include the offices of the Prime Minister and ministers;
- subject Cabinet confidences to the Act;
- limit the application of certain exemptions, such as section 21, which relates to advice and recommendations and add a public interest override provision.

My office has no authority to investigate criminal offences under the Access to Information Act.
There are two such offences: section 67, which prohibits the obstruction of investigations, and section 67.1, which prohibits destroying, altering, falsifying or concealing records with the intent of denying a right of access.
While I may not investigate the intent behind the destruction of records, I may investigate the destruction itself as a refusal to grant access.
I can only disclose information to the Attorney General if, in my opinion, there is evidence of a possible commission of an offence by a director, officer or employee of a government institution (Subsection 63(2) of the Act).
Such information was disclosed to the Attorney General by my office in the past in six occasions. I am not aware of any prosecution that happened as a result of my office’s referral.
I recommend that you contact the Attorney General’s office directly for more information.