Access to information question

[chief_of_da_fence]

What are the consequences for a member that intentionally doesn't provide the information requested in an ATIP request.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Obstructing right of access

• 
  67.1 (1) No person shall, with intent to deny a right of access under this Part,
  • (a) destroy, mutilate or alter a record;
  • (b) falsify a record or make a false record;
  • (c) conceal a record; or
  • (d) direct, propose, counsel or cause any person in any manner to do anything mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
• Offence and punishment
  
  (2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of
  
  • (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or to both; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to both.

 

[dapaterson]

Is there any case law in this space?

 

[lenaitch]

I would want a little more context or information. Is the record in question in the exclusive custody of the member, or is the member an employee of a section, branch, area, etc. the holds the record? For example, a police officer's notebooks are public records in their exclusive custody. An incident report lies in a filing cabinet that someone is responsible for managing (a tad dated, but you get the idea).

I would also want a 'why'. Is the member simply non-responsive or have they said 'I'm not providing that'?

To be successful under 67.1 that OGBD cited, you would need evidence of both 'intent to deny' and 'concealment' (or destruction or alteration). Simply being a dunderhead, inefficient, overworked, etc. wouldn't rise to to charge-worthy level.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

When has being a dunderhead, inefficient or overworked civil servant ever risen to a charge-worthy level?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In TC, the ATIP Officer would be assigned the request. Send it to the relevant programs and give a timeline for responses. We would do a record search, provide what information fell into the request, highlighting important stuff like personal information, confidential FN consulting material, Cabinet privilege or information from another department. That goes to the ATIP officer for review, then release to the requestor. So I would first ask the ATIP Officer responsible for the request for why something was excluded?

We took ATIP requests very seriously and dealt with them on a regular basis.

 

[dapaterson]

One problem Defence has is that it's Big. Really, really big. And the intake personnel may not have a great deal of organizational knowledge. So relevant parts of the defence enterprise may never be tasked to respond - because an entry level analyst didn't know that an organization had any relevant functions.

 

[Staff Weenie]

Never advisable to deliberately omit something from an ATIP response. Folks aren't idiots - they often know exactly who has what, they just want a copy of it. And, imagine its an email, and everyone else submits their copy - the recipient will see exactly who was on the distribution, and question why they didn't get anything from one recipient. The follow-on would not be something I want to deal with.

I would wonder though, if somebody is bound to provide information that directly opens them to administrative, or disciplinary measures - i.e. are you required to incriminate yourself?

 

[Staff Weenie]

One problem Defence has is that it's Big. Really, really big. And the intake personnel may not have a great deal of organizational knowledge. So relevant parts of the defence enterprise may never be tasked to respond - because an entry level analyst didn't know that an organization had any relevant functions.

I've also had Ministerial Inquiries and ATIP from people who must be very seriously mentally ill - and you have X number of days to provide an answer. I've fired back on a few that there is no possible answer as the question is the ramblings of a very ill individual. I really wish there was some better screening at the point of entry into the system.

 

[dapaterson]

"Justify in writing why you don't have anything to respond to this ATIP" is a personal favorite.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Interference with Access to Information: Part 1

March 11, 2011 Download PDF version

www.oic-ci.gc.ca

And what the OIC thinks about "declining to act on a request" - some, some

Decisions

The Information Commissioner publishes the final reports on her investigations on this website when she deems them to be of value in providing guidance to both institutions and complainants. The Office of the Information Commissioner has established the Decisions Database to enable users to...

www.oic-ci.gc.ca

 

[Staff Weenie]

"Justify in writing why you don't have anything to respond to this ATIP" is a personal favorite.

I've been a smart ass lately and answered a few with 'We have nothing because there was never anything to have.' So far nobody has come back after me yet. I suspect they received a similar answer from almost everybody it was sent to. They should have been narrow-focus ATIP, but the net was cast as wide as possible.

Is it wrong to wonder if some ATIP are created by bad actors from foreign organizations? Perhaps to find information carelessly released, or to tie down our system and frustrate people.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I've been a smart ass lately and answered a few with 'We have nothing because there was never anything to have.' So far nobody has come back after me yet. I suspect they received a similar answer from almost everybody it was sent to. They should have been narrow-focus ATIP, but the net was cast as wide as possible.

Is it wrong to wonder if some ATIP are created by bad actors from foreign organizations? Perhaps to find information carelessly released, or to tie down our system and frustrate people.

I've occasionally thought to ruin someone's day by asking some very specific questions that I know will take a lot of time for them to answer, but I don't dislike anyone enough to bother.

With the ATIPs I've seen from average Canadians I don't think we need foreign organizations involved to ask some really stupid questions. Some of the questions from Parliament are only marginally better.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I've been a smart ass lately and answered a few with 'We have nothing because there was never anything to have.' So far nobody has come back after me yet. I suspect they received a similar answer from almost everybody it was sent to. They should have been narrow-focus ATIP, but the net was cast as wide as possible.

Is it wrong to wonder if some ATIP are created by bad actors from foreign organizations? Perhaps to find information carelessly released, or to tie down our system and frustrate people.

I wondered about that, too…

 

[dapaterson]

The question is whether the number of external bad faith actors seeking information is greater or less than the number of internal bad faith actors trying to suppress information.