Source: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/pblctn/ccssnfrmtnprvcct/2014-2015/2014-2015ccssnfrmtnct-eng.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-22 04:31:54
Document Index: 409610905

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 20', 'art 20750', 'art 11', 'art 14', 'art 9', 'art 14', 'art 5']

NEB - Annual Report Pursuant to Access to Information Act - 1 April 2014 - 31 March 2015
Annual Report Pursuant to Access to Information Act – 1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015
Annual Report Pursuant to Access to Information – 1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015 [PDF 412 KB]
ISSN 1926-3759
Description of institution structure
Highlights and Accomplishments for 2014-2015
Description of Education and Training Activities
New or revised policies and guidelines
The Access to Information Act (Act) gives the Canadian public a right to access information contained in federal government records, subject to certain specific and limited exceptions.
In accordance with section 72 of the Act, the head of every federal institution is required to submit an Annual Report to Parliament on the administration of the Act following the close of each fiscal year. The Annual Reports are then tabled in Parliament pursuant to section 72 of the Act. This report describes how the National Energy Board (NEB or Board) fulfilled its access to information responsibilities during the fiscal year 2014-2015.
Activities relating to the Access to Information Act during the reporting period were the responsibility of the Secretary of the Board, who had been designated by the Chair and CEO of the Board as the Coordinator. Organizationally, the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) team resides within the Office of the Secretary and Regulatory Services Team.
The Chair and CEO has overall responsibility for ensuring that the Board’s policies, procedures and practices are compliant with the application and administration of the Access to Information Act. The National Energy Board has procedures in place to process all formal and informal access to information requests. These requests are processed by the Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator who has the authority to access all records held by the Board. The ATIP Office works closely with Information and Document Services and Senior Management across the organization.
The ATIP Office is comprised of two permanent full-time Officers and one senior Officer on assignment from another department of the Board. The Executive Support Advisor oversees this team. In addition, the Board hired a contractor in the first half of the year to assist part-time in the processing of ATIP requests. Taking into account the contractor, the delegated authority and the Executive Support Advisor who work part-time on Access to Information, Privacy, and Parliamentary Enquiries, there are 4 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in the Board’s ATIP Office.
In addition to providing legal advice and guidance to the ATIP Office on all issues related to the application of the Act, the Board’s Legal Services, in general, assist the offices of primary interest within the Board and the ATIP Office in the delivery of their program and activities having an Access to Information Act component.
The ATIP Office is responsible for the coordination and implementation of policies, guidelines and procedures to ensure the organization’s compliance with the Access to Information Act. The office also provides the following services to the organization:
Promoting awareness of the Access to Information Act within the organization
Processing and managing access to information requests and complaints
Responding to access-related matters in the Management Accountability Framework
Processing consultations received from other institutions
Providing advice and guidance to employees and senior officials on access related matters
Coordinating updates to the Info Source publications
Developing internal procedures
Participating in forums for the ATIP community, such as the Treasury Board Secretariat ATIP Community meetings and working groups
The number of formal requests declined by 30% to 68 requests this year. However, the number of pages processed increased by 55%, reflecting an increase in complexity of requests. Considered together, workload in 2014-2015 was slightly higher than the workload experienced in 2013-2014. The number of access to information requests received and pages processed are demonstrated by the following charts:
The NEB was able to respond to 88% of all access to information requests in 2015-16. The NEB finished clearing its backlog of requests and strives to keep up with the high level of requests.
The NEB has continued to improve the way in which it responds to Access to Information Act requests, with a maturing focus on improving timeliness, efficiency and accuracy. Some of the highlights are as follows:
The NEB concluded the year with 82 percent of requests completed within statutory deadlines;
The NEB has remained committed to on-time performance in the face of increasing complexity and the continued high volume of requests and consultations received from other institutions;
Training sessions, focusing exclusively on the Access to Information Act and the NEB’s procedures for processing requests, are held annually for new staff, or more frequently as required;
All institution specific classes of records relating to the NEB’s information holdings were included in updates in Info Source and self-published on the Board’s website;
The Board implemented the procedural documents that were posted and communicated last year, including those that form part of the Privacy Management Framework;
The Senior ATIP Officer developed and delivered a presentation to various parts of the NEB, raising awareness and providing an overview of the ATIP process; and
The NEB furthered its transparency initiative to proactively post additional information on its compliance and enforcement activities with the goal of providing all relevant information in a manner that is clear and accessible.
Access to Information Act Designation Replacement Order
The Chair and CEO of the National Energy Board (the Board), pursuant to Section 73 of the Access to Information Act (the Act) hereby replaces the Access to Information Act Designation Replacement Order made on the 1st day of April 2011, at the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta by the following text.
The Chair and CEO of the Board, pursuant to Section 73 of the Access to Information ActNote 1 hereby designates the person holding the position of Secretary of the Board exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Chair and CEO as head of a government institution under the Act.
Name of institution:National Energy Board
Received during reporting period 68
Closed during reporting period 56
Carried over to next reporting period 19
Business (Private Sector) 16
All disclosed 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8
Disclosed in part 3 8 9 6 2 3 1 32
No records exist 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 14
Request abandoned 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
13(1)(a) 0 16(2) 3 18(a) 0 20.1 0
13(1)(c) 0 16(2)(b) 7 18(c) 0 20.4 0
13(1)(d) 0 16(2)(c) 0 18(d) 0 21(1)(a) 15
13(1)(e) 0 16(3) 0 18.1(1)(a) 0 21(1)(b) 12
14 0 16.1(1)(a) 0 18.1(1)(b) 21(1)(c) 2
15(1) 0 16.1(1)(d) 0 19(1) 32 22.1(1) 0
15(1) – I.A.Table Note a 0 16.2(1) 0 20(1)(a) 1 23 13
15(1) – Def.Table Note a 0 16.3 0 20(1)(b) 3 24(1) 3
15(1) – S.A.Table Note a 0 16.4(1)(a) 0 20(1)(b.1) 0 26 0
16(1)(a)(i) 0 16.4(1)(b) 0 20(1)(c) 2
16(1)(a)(ii) 0 16.5 0 20(1)(d) 1
16(1)(a)(iii) 0 17 1
68(a) 4 69(1) 0 69(1)(g) re (a) 1
2.4 Format of infotableCellUnderlinermation released
All disclosed 7 1 0
Disclosed in part 20 12 0
All disclosed 41 41 8
Disclosed in part 20750 11678 32
Request abandoned 51 16 2
All disclosed 8 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 11 376 12 2411 1 957 8 7934 0 0
Request abandoned 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All disclosed 0 0 1 0 1
Disclosed in part 14 0 11 3 28
181 to 365 days 0 1 0
More than 365 days 1 0 0
Disclosed in part 9 0 5 6
Request abandoned 0 0 0 1
30 days or less 4 0 4 1
31 to 60 days 2 0 1 6
61 to 120 days 4 0 0 0
Application 48 $240 8 $40
Received during reporting period 48 739 0 0
Closed during the reporting period 45 667 0 0
Pending at the end of the reporting period 3 72 0 0
Disclose entirely 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 29
Disclose in part 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 15
1 to 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salaries $238,774
Goods and Services $33,145
Full-time employees 2.62
Consultants and agency personnel 0.07
1.1	Number of requests
During the reporting period, the Board received 68 requests under the Access to Information Act compared to 97 in the previous reporting period. Seven requests were outstanding from the previous reporting period. Of these 75 requests, 56 were completed and 19 were carried forward to the next year (of which 14 were received in March, 2015).
1.2	Sources of requests
Of the 68 requests received, the largest number of new requests came from the media sector with a total of 24. Seventeen requests were from the public and 16 were from the business sector. The Board received seven requests from Organizations and four from Academia.
1.3	Informal requests
Informal requests (previously recorded as “treated informally”) are those where the information requested can be processed and provided without citing the Access to Information Act but keeping within the spirit of the legislation. A request for a copy of a release package from a previously completed request listed on the NEB’s Completed Access to Information Requests web page is a common example of a requested handled informally. The five dollar application fee is not required. The requester need also agree to informal treatment as the recourse of filing a complaint is not available.
There were 26 cases of informal requests processed in 2014-2015, compared to 29 that were treated informally last year. Of these informal requests, 23 were completed in 1 – 15 days and three were completed in 16 – 30 days. Of the 26 informal requests, 19 requests sought only to be provided with one or more copies of release packages previously released in response to formal requests.
2.1	Disposition and completion time
Of the 56 requests closed during the reporting period, the Board disclosed all documents in eight cases; in 32 cases, documents were disclosed in part; in 14 cases, no records existed. Two requests were abandoned by the applicant.
All eight of the requests in which all documents were disclosed were completed in 16 – 30 days.
Of the 32 requests disclosed in part, three were completed in 1 – 15 days, eight were completed in 16 – 30 days, nine were completed in 31 – 60 days, six were completed in 61 – 120 days, two were completed in 121 – 180 days, three were completed in 181 – 365 days, and one was completed in more than 365 days.
There were no requests where all of the information was either exempted excluded. Nor were there any requests where the request was transferred, or where the response was to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.
For the requests where the Board had no records, four of the 14 requests were completed in less than 15 days and 10 were completed in 16 – 30 days.
In the two cases where requests were abandoned by the applicant, one was abandoned in less than 15 days, and one was abandoned in 31 – 60 days.
2.2	Exemptions
The following exemptions were invoked during the processing of Access to Information requests during this period:
Information that could facilitate the commission of an offence:
16(1)(c) was invoked in one request
16(2) was used in three requests
16(2)(b) was invoked in seven requests
Safety of individuals:
17 was invoked in one request
19(1) was invoked for 32 requests
20(1)(a) was used in one request
20(1)(b) was used in three requests
20(1)(c) was invoked in two requests
20(1)(d) was invoked in one request
21(1)(a) was invoked for 15 requests
21(1)(b) was invoked in 12 requests
21(1)(c) was used in two requests
21(1)(d) was used in one requests
23 was invoked for 13 requests
The Access to Information Act does not apply to published material, material available to the public for purchase or for public reference (section 68). Nor does it apply to confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council, with some exemptions (section 69). Requests containing proposed exclusions under section 69 require consultation with the Privy Council Office. There were four requests completed during the reporting period in which exclusions were applied pursuant to section 68(a) of the Act, and one request with exclusions under section 69(1)(g) re (a).
Of the eight requests that were disclosed in their entirety, the requesters received paper copies of the information in seven cases and one request was released in electronic format.
Of the 32 requests that were disclosed in part, the requesters received paper copies of the information in 20 cases and 12 requests were released in electronic format.
The number of pages processed means the number of pages that were analyzed to determine whether the information can be disclosed, exempted or excluded. It does not reflect the number of pages that were examined to determine relevancy. A partially disclosed page would be counted as a page disclosed.
In the eight cases where all documents were disclosed, the NEB processed and disclosed 41 pages. In the 32 cases where documents were disclosed in part, the NEB processed 20,750 pages and disclosed 11,678 pages. In the two requests that were abandoned, the NEB processed 51 pages and disclosed 16 pages.
In the 21 instances where less than 100 pages were processed, the NEB disclosed 433 pages. Where 101-500 pages were processed, the NEB disclosed 2,411 pages for those 12 requests. In response to one request where 501-1000 pages were processed, the NEB disclosed 957 pages. Eight requests required the processing of 1001 – 5000 pages and, in those cases, 7,934 pages were disclosed.
In certain cases, there were factors that increased the complexity of requests. In 15 cases, consultations were required, and legal advice was sought on 12 requests completed during the reporting period. Other complexities identified throughout the reporting period included three requests where the NEB did not agree with the objections raised by third parties, and released the information in question.
Requests are considered to fall into a deemed refusal status when they have not been answered within the deadlines (either the original 30-day period or within an extended period).
The Board met statutory deadlines for 82% of the requests closed during the reporting period. There were 10 requests that the Board did not close within the statutory (original or extended) deadline. The reason for not meeting the deadline in seven of those cases was due to workload, in one instance external consultation was the reason, and in another case internal consultation was the reason for not meeting the statutory deadline. There was one request that the Board did not close within the statutory deadline for other reasons.
Where no extension was taken, the Board exceeded the deadline for one request by more than 365 days.
In the nine cases when the NEB responded past the deadline where an extension was taken, two were completed 1 – 15 days past the deadline, three were completed 16 – 30 days past the deadline, three were completed 61 – 120 days past the deadline, and one was completed 181 – 365 days past the deadline.
No translations were required to respond to 2014-2015 access requests.
Legal extensions were most frequently invoked to provide time to search through voluminous records and to conduct third party notifications. No extensions were required where all records were disclosed.
Where records were partially disclosed, nine extensions were taken under 9(1)(a), five extensions were taken under 9(1)(b) and six extensions were taken under 9(1)(c).
In the case where no records existed relevant to the request, the extension was taken under 9(1)(a). In the case where the request was abandoned, the extension was taken under 9(1)(c).
In 10 cases where an extension was taken under 9(1)(a), four requests required an extension of 30 days or less, two requests required an extension of 31 – 60 days, and four requests required an extension of 61 to 120 days.
In five cases where an extension was taken under 9(1)(b), four required an extension of 30 days or less and one required an extension of 31 – 60 days.
In seven cases where an extension was taken under 9(1)(c), one required an extension of 30 days or less and six required an extension of 31 – 60 days.
Over the reporting period, the Board collected $240 in application fees for 48 requests. The Board waived or refunded $40 in application fees for eight requests. Fees were waived primarily in the cases where requests were abandoned or no records were found to exist.
The interdepartmental nature of information in many records under the control of the National Energy Board continues to necessitate external consultations. For the purposes of Part 5 of this report, other government institutions are defined as other institutions subject to the Access to Information Act. Other organizations include the governments of the provinces, territories and municipalities and of other countries.
5.1	Consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions and organizations
During the reporting period, the Board received 48 consultations from other government institutions resulting in the requirement to review 739 pages.
Three consultations received from other government institutions remained pending at the end of the reporting period, requiring 72 pages to review.
Consultation volumes are a factor in the NEB’s workload, as their processing within the ATIP Office can require a substantial amount of resources.
5.2	Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions
In the 29 cases where the NEB recommended that the records be disclosed entirely, the consultation request was completed in 1-15 days for 28 consultations and one consultation required 16 – 30 days to complete. In the 15 cases where the Board recommended that the records be partially disclosed, 14 consultation requests were completed in 1-15 days, and one in 16 – 30 days. In the one case where the Board recommended that the documents be entirely excluded, the consultation was completed in less than 15 days.
5.3	Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other organizations
The NEB did not receive consultations from other organizations.
The Board did not seek any consultations on the application of section 69 of the Access to Information Act and therefore did not send any documents to the Cabinet Confidences Section of the Privy Council Office.
The Office of the Information Commissioner notified the NEB of one complaint in 2014-15 (Section 32 column) for which the NEB subsequently responded to (Section 35 column).
The Information Commissioner provided a report for one complaint that had been pending from 2013-14 (Section 37 column). In it, the complainant alleged that the NEB failed to provide all records responsive to the request, but the Information Commissioner determined that the complaint was not well founded. There are eight complaints from previous years that remain pending a decision by the Information Commissioner.
The NEB had no complaints for which the requester, the Information Commissioner, nor a third party had applied to the Federal Court during the reporting period for a review of the Institution’s decision.
9.1	Costs
Costs are only to include those related to the administration of the Access to Information Act incurred by the ATIP Office that has authority to respond to formal access to information requests. Costs do not include those that were incurred by other areas of the institution, including Offices of Primary Interest and Legal Services. The total cost for resources related to the Access to Information Act over the reporting period was $271,919.
The total amount paid for salaries of employees working in the ATIP Office on activities related to the administration of the Access to Information Act was $238,774.
The Board spent $33,145 on goods and services related to the administration of the Access to Information Act. Of that amount $14,516 was spent on professional services contracts and $18,629 was spent on other goods and services.
9.2	Human Resources
Over the reporting period, the NEB’s four full-time employees (three Officers and the Executive Support Advisor) dedicated the equivalent of 2.62 person years to Access to Information activities and one consultant dedicated the equivalent of 0.07 of a person year to Access to Information activities.
ATIP staff particpated in the contracted training delivered by Yvon Gauthier Info-Training. One ATIP officer new to the NEB attended an “ATIP for all NEB employees” session, and two ATIP Office staff attended both the “ATIP for Designated Staff only” session and the “ATIP – Focus on Privacy” session. The consultant also met informally with ATIP staff while here, and provided advice and guidance as needed throughout the year.
A summary of important court decisions from the past year on access and privacy issues.
The NEB did not roll out any additional policies, procedures, or guidelines directly related to access to information during 2014-2015, focusing rather on the effectiveness of our processes. The NEB complies with the Directive on the Administration of the Access to Information Act and all other related Treasury Board Secretariat policies, guidelines, and procedures.
During the reporting period, the ATIP Office provided support and advice in the enhancement of the NEB’s proactive posting on the NEB website of information on its compliance and enforcement activities, which has the goal of providing all relevant information related to its compliance and enforcement actions in a manner that is clear and accessible. The information posted regarding compliance and enforcement activities include:
In addition, a couple new sources of information were published this past year. The complete Notice of Violation under the Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (NEB) is now posted once the 30-day review period has expired, and the NEB is now providing an Interactive Incident Map which can be filtered to depict incidents by type, province and year, or one may download a spreadsheet of the incident data. These additions and enhancements to information provided demonstrate the NEB’s commitment to transparency and public access to data.
VIII. Duty to Assist
We continue to make every effort to fulfill our duty to assist requesters. Here are some examples of how we put this duty into action in 2013−2014:
Where requested records were publically available and therefore excluded, we provided requesters with a copy of the publically available information.
IX. Enhancing Support and Sustaining Compliance
The NEB continues to improve the timeliness, efficiency and accuracy of responses to ATIP requests. The ATIP Office uses a database to track the process of completing requests and sends out weekly reports listing those requests outstanding. The ATIP Office staff meets weekly with the Secretary of the Board as the ATIP Coordinator, along with legal counsel and other senior management, to monitor and direct the progression of the requests. The Chair and CEO, and the Chief Operating Officer are kept apprised of the time to process ATIP requests as appropriate. If requests to correct personal information were received, they would be monitored with the same system.
Cleared the backlog of requests from previous years that were not yet closed;
Improved its proactive disclosures to increase information available to the public, thereby reducing the need to file formal access to information requests;
Improved negotiations with requesters to more clearly understand the requests, clarify scope and provide requesters with the information they seek;