|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
Executive Director Directeur exécutif Place du Centre 03 June 2002 The Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C. Honourable Minister: In accordance with subsection 72(1) of the Access to Information Act and subsection 72(1) of the Privacy Act, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is pleased to submit to Parliament this report on activities relating to the application of these two Acts for the period 01 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.
Sincerely, David Kinsman
1.0 Acces to Information
1.1 IntroductionPursuant to section 72 of the Access to Information Act and section 72 of the Privacy Act, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) is pleased to table in Parliament this report on activities relating to the application of these two Acts. The report covers the period from 01April2001 to 31March 2002. The TSB's administration of its Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) activities is in accordance with the government's stated principles that government information should be available to the public with only specific and limited exceptions. Furthermore, the TSB treats personal information in compliance with the code of fair information practice expressed in the Privacy Act.
1.2 Delegation of AuthorityAs required by the legislation, a delegation of authority is in place. For the purpose of the Access to Information Act, the Executive Director is the "head of the institution," as defined in section 3 of the Act. As of 13 December 2001, the Director General, Information Strategies and Analysis Directorate, has been delegated powers by the Executive Director deemed appropriate for the effective administration of the programs.
1.3 Formal RequestsFifty-seven requests were received under the Access to Information Act. Only one request has been carried forward to the next fiscal year. Sixty-one requests were completed during the reporting period. Of these, records were fully disclosed to 12 applicants. Records pertaining to 41 requests were released with some portions exempted under paragraphs 13(1)(a) and (c); 16(1)(a) and (c)(iii); 20(1)(a), (b) and (c); 21(1)(a) and (b); subsections 16(3) and 19(1); and section 24 of the Act. The TSB was unable to process 4 requests, 3 were abandoned by the applicant, 1 was transferred to another federal department, and 1 was exempt from any disclosure under subsection 19(1). Most requests (35) came from business or legal firms representing clients who are affected by or involved in transportation occurrences. Sixteen requests were received from media sources. Three requests were received from members of the public. Two requests were received from other organizations. The distribution of requesters has remained steady over the past few years. The ATIP Division received an increase of 6 formal requests from fiscal year 2000-2001. Of the requests received in reporting period 2001-2002, 27 were for records pertaining to aviation occurrences, 7 for rail occurrences, and 4 for marine occurrences. The remaining requests comprised other related records held under the control of the TSB. Under normal circumstances, all requests are processed within the 30-day time limit as required by the legislation. Of the 61 requests processed during the reporting period, 37 were completed within the 30days. Five were granted extensions for 31 days or more: 3 extensions were for third-party consultations and 2 were required to perform a search for the records. Fourteen other requests were granted 30-day extensions. Of these 14, 8 were extended for consultations with other government agencies, 5 were extended for searches, and 1 was extended for consultation with a third party. During this reporting period, the ATIP Division was involved in the search, preparation, and review of 13109 pages of information and the reproduction and release of 8379 pages of information, 527 reprints of photographs, 4 videotapes, and 3 CD-ROMs of digital photographs. The average time taken to process a request during the 2001-2002 reporting period increased to 39.5calendar days from 32.5 calendar days last year. This increase is due in part to the 6 additional requests and to the granting of 10 more time extensions, 5 of which were for 31 days or over. Fifty-six of the 61 requests were completed on time. It should be noted that in June 2001, the ATIP Division installed the ATIPimage software application developed by MPRSYS Inc. that scans documents retrieved for ATIP requests and allows the user to sever the information by performing online redaction. ATIPimage is designed to integrate with MPRSYS's ATIPflow case management system, which this office installed in January 2001.
1.4 Negotiation and Consultation
Consultations were undertaken in accordance with the statutory provisions set out in sections 27 and 28 of the Act. Of the four third-party consultations undertaken, one agreed to a full release, one refused the disclosure of information in its entirety, and two responses were not received.
When requests are made under the Act for access to witness statements taken during the course of an occurrence investigation, the ATIP Division exercises its discretion, where possible, to contact those individuals, pursuant to paragraph 19(2)(a), to determine whether they voluntarily consent to the disclosure of personal information. During this reporting period, the TSB contacted 28 witnesses. Only 3 agreed to a full disclosure of their personal information, and only 2 agreed to a partial release. Many of the individuals contacted did not reply (they are under no obligation to do so) and their statements were not released.
1.5 FeesIn accordance with the ATIP-TSB fee policy that was implemented on 01 January 2001, the TSB collected $1,718.20 in application-and-reproduction fees. The TSB maintains the right to waive fees. The decision to reduce or waive fees is made on a case-by-case basis according to the criteria outlined in the ATIP fees policy. As per most departments, the TSB waives the requirement for a requester to pay fees, other than the application fee, if the amount payable is less than $25.00.
1.6 Informal RequestsDuring the reporting period, 212 requests were received and over 6400 pages of information were sent to requesters. The number of informal requests declined by 307 from the last reporting year. This decline reflects a change in the way the TSB processes publication requests. The Communications Division took on this function last fiscal year and now responds to all requests for TSB publications and encourages TSB clients to access information via the Communications Division rather than through a formal ATIP request. Many TSB publications are also available on the TSB Web site, including the multimodal investigation reports (01 January 1995 to present), safety studies, statistical reports, communiqués, investigation updates, etc. The TSB receives an average of 472 daily visits to its Web site http://www.tsb.gc.ca.. The TSB Communications Division responds to the requests for information that it receives through the Web site (1396 requests this year). The figures for informal requests do not include requests that other administrative units responded to, whether in the Information Strategies and Analysis Directorate or in the Investigation Operations Directorate and its regional offices. The Macroanalysis Division responded to 638 requests for transportation occurrence database information and often checked with ATIP staff to ensure that privileged information was not inadvertently released.
1.7 Complaints and InvestigationsFour complaints were filed during the 2001-2002 reporting period. The first complaint filed with the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) pertained to the TSB's refusal to disclose the air traffic control (ATC) transcripts relating to an aviation occurrence investigated by the TSB. The TSB investigation was ongoing when the request was received. The TSB withheld the records in their entirety pursuant to subsections 16(1) and 19(1) of the Act. The OIC dealt with three issues surrounding this complaint. First, the OIC reviewed the use of paragraph 16(1)(c) of the Act and did not agree that the release of these records would prejudice or be injurious to the ongoing investigation. Second, it considered the application of subsection 19(1) of the Act, and thirdly, it wanted to determine whether any "personal information" contained in the records may be disclosed pursuant to subsection 19(2). For guidance, the OIC referred to its findings in the Ormiston v. TSB (15February 1999) and Walsh v. TSB (24 November 2000). The OIC considered the complaint well-founded and recommended that the transcript be disclosed in its entirety to the applicant. The TSB gave serious thought to the arguments raised by the OIC, but the Board believed that the transcript consisted of personal information as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act and withheld the records according to subsection 19(1) of the Act. The second complaint filed with the OIC concerned the TSB's refusal to disclose the audiotapes of witness interviews on a marine occurrence investigated by the TSB. The tapes were withheld pursuant to subsection 19(1) of the Act. The OIC, during its investigation, informed the TSB of the relationship between the applicant and the witnesses. The applicant was the witnesses' solicitor; however, this information was not indicated on the original request. The applicant further stated that he was present when the audiotapes were recorded. The ATIP Division reviewed the tapes and confirmed the applicant's presence. A copy of the tapes was made and disclosed to the applicant in its entirety, and the complaint was deemed resolved by the OIC. The following two complaints were received mid-March. The OIC's investigations into these matters are ongoing. The third complaint filed with the OIC addressed the TSB's exemptions invoked pursuant to subsections 16(1) and 19(1) of the Act in a request for a complete copy of the investigation file on the December 1999 aviation occurrence in the Republic of Maldives. The Maldivian government investigated the accident, and the TSB had an accredited representative present at the investigation. Although some information was withheld as per the exemptions in question, more than 700 pages of records held under the control of the TSB were released to the applicant. The fourth complaint filed with the OIC also pertained to the exemptions applied by the TSB in response to a request regarding another foreign occurrence. The applicant asked for a complete copy of an aviation occurrence file investigated by the Mexican government. The accident occurred in Toluca, Mexico, in March 2000, and the TSB had an accredited representative on site. TSB authorities verbally consulted with the Mexican government. The Mexican government indicated that it does not release records (including the findings of its investigation) to the public or any foreign government under any circumstances. The records were withheld pursuant to paragraph 13(1)(a) of the Act. Two other complaints, which were filed in the 1999-2000 reporting year, were carried forward to this reporting period. Both of these complaints are now deemed well-founded by the OIC. The complaints concern the denial of access to air traffic control (ATC) recordings and transcripts that were withheld pursuant to subsection 19 (1). The first complaint concerned the TSB's decision to withhold the flight service station (FSS) tape and transcript relating to an August 1999 midair collision of two small aircraft in Penticton, British Columbia. In that case, the Board maintained that these records contain personal information. As part of the resolution process, the TSB sought the consent of the people whose voices and words are captured on the recordings and transcripts to release their personal information, pursuant to paragraph 19(2)(a) of the Act. Two of the people refused to disclose this personal information. The applicant was therefore provided with only a partial transcript and audiotape of the FSS communications but was not satisfied with this partial release. The Information Commissioner maintained that the information being requested did not qualify for exemption under subsection 19(1), so the OIC sought additional representations. The Board submitted additional representations reinforcing its application of 19(1), and the results of the OIC investigation have since been reported to the complainant. The other complaint involved the denial of the ATC audio communications involving a Fokker F28 runway overrun in St. John's, Newfoundland, in August 1999. As a precautionary measure, the TSB had initially obtained, but ultimately did not use, Nav Canada's original ATC recording. Because the TSB did not have the required equipment to play back Nav Canada's Philips Logger tape, the OIC made arrangements with Nav Canada to listen to it at one of Nav Canada's facilities. The OIC determined that the recording was not relevant to the accident and gave the complainant a general description of the tape's contents. The complainant decided not to pursue the matter further. However, during its investigation, the OIC discovered the existence of another tape (audiocassette) of the same accident, also under TSB control. Because this tape was considered relevant to the complainant's original request, the contents of the recording were reviewed under the Act, and the exemption under 19(1) was upheld by the TSB. The OIC requested further representations because it did not support the TSB's application. The Board maintained its position that the information is subject to exemption under subsection 19(1) and advised the OIC accordingly.
1.8 Appeals to the Federal CourtNo application for review by the Federal Court was made during this fiscal year. The OIC had applied on 16 March 2001 to the Federal Court for review of the Clarenville complaint (Federal Court No. T-465-01). The court case was stalled as a result of a Nav Canada application for standing in that case, standing to which the Information Commissioner was opposed. Nav Canada was named a respondent party in the TSB's case with the OIC, and the Information Commissioner appealed that ruling. That appeal has precluded the TSB's case being heard. The Federal Court of Appeal has subsequently heard and dismissed the OIC's appeal.
1.9 Training and EducationThe ATIP Coordinator and ATIP Officers attended various workshops organized by Treasury Board throughout the fiscal year. The ATIP Division provided an internal half-day training session on privacy guidelines and governing principles for staff who were part of the Multi-Modal Working Group on the Writing of Daily Notifications. The daily notifications are occurrence/incident updates produced from TSB safety databases representing each mode (marine, pipeline, rail, air) and are automatically disseminated daily by the TSB to stakeholders, organizations in the industry, members of the public, etc. The ATIP Division also provided advice on transportation data occurrence fields that can be shared with Transport Canada or the public, with and without ATIP review before release, to the TSB Government On-line team.
1.10 Statistics Required by Treasury BoardThe statistics required by Treasury Board are found in Appendix A.
2.0 Privacy
2.1 Requests for Personal InformationSix formal requests for personal information were received and completed during this reporting period. Of these, records were fully disclosed to one applicant. The TSB was unable to process the other five requests because the relevant records did not exist. All six requests were processed within the 30-day time limit as required by the legislation. The TSB's policy of openness allows for the disclosure of information to individuals without necessarily requiring that they invoke the Privacy Act. Personnel officers and support staff handle this kind of request as part of their routine duties. The TSB remains vigilant in meeting requirements under the Act to protect personal information under its control. This is achieved by ensuring that employees are cognizant of their responsibility to protect the personal information they handle in the course of their duties and by respecting the code of fair information practice enshrined in the legislation.
2.2 Delegation of AuthorityAs required by the legislation, a delegation of authority is in place. For the purpose of the Privacy Act, the "head of the institution" as defined in s. 3 of the Act is the Executive Director. As of 13 December 2001, the Director General, Information Strategies and Analysis Directorate, has been delegated powers by the Executive Director deemed appropriate for the effective administration of the programs and to ensure that the TSB meets all of its obligations fairly and consistently.
2.3 Complaints and InvestigationsNo complaints were received during this reporting period.
2.4 TrainingATIP staff receives on-the-job training on an ongoing basis. ATIP staff attend the Canadian Access and Privacy Association (CAPA) workshop every year. Formal training on the Privacy Act is planned for all TSB staff next fiscal year. The training will also include the introduction of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
2.5 Statistics Required by Treasury BoardThe statistics required by Treasury Board are found in Appendix B.
Appendix B: Report on the Privacy Act
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I | Requests under the Privacy Act | ||
| Received during reporting period | 6 | ||
| Outstanding from previous period | — | ||
| TOTAL | 6 | ||
| Completed during reporting period | 6 | ||
| Carried forward | — | ||
| TOTAL | 6 | ||
| II | Disposition of requests completed | ||
| All disclosed | 1 | ||
| Disclosed in part | — | ||
| Nothing disclosed (excluded) | — | ||
| Nothing disclosed (exempt) | — | ||
| Unable to process | 5 | ||
| Abandoned by applicant | — | ||
| Treated informally | — | ||
| Transferred | — | ||
| TOTAL | 6 | ||
| III | Exemptions invoked | ||
| 18(2) | — | ||
| 19(1)(a) | — | ||
| 19(1)(b) | — | ||
| 19(1)(c) | — | ||
| 19(1)(d) | — | ||
| 20 | — | ||
| 21 | — | ||
| 22(1)(a) | — | ||
| 22(1)(b) | — | ||
| 22(1)(c) | — | ||
| 22(2) | — | ||
| 23(a) | — | ||
| 23(b) | — | ||
| 24 | — | ||
| 25 | — | ||
| 26 | — | ||
| 27 | — | ||
| 28 | — | ||
| IV | Exclusions cited | ||
| [69(1)(a)-(b) and 70(1)(a)-(f)] | — | ||
| V | Completion time | ||
| ≤30 days | 6 | ||
| 31 to 60 days | — | ||
| 61 to 120 days | — | ||
| ≥121 days | — | ||
| VI | Extensions | ||
| ≤30 days | ≥31 days | ||
| Interference with operations | — | — | |
| Consultation | — | — | |
| Translation | — | — | |
| VII | Translations | ||
| Translations requested | — | ||
| Translations prepared | — | ||
| English to French | — | ||
| French to English | — | ||
| VIII | Method of Access | ||
| Copies given | — | ||
| Examination | 1 | ||
| Copies and examination | — | ||
| TOTAL | 1 | ||
| IX | Corrections and Notations | ||
| Corrections requested | — | ||
| Corrections made | — | ||
| Notations attached | — | ||
| X | Costs | ||
| Financial (all reasons) | |||
| Salary | $130,610 | ||
| Administration (O and M) | $ 1,000 | ||
| TOTAL | $131,610 | ||
| FTE utilization (all reasons) | |||
| FTE (decimal format) | 2.5 | ||
|
|
|
||||||
Print View
