|
|
Document
|
|
P-229
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
Appeal 890270
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Human Resources Secretariat/Management Board of Cabinet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
O R D E R This appeal was received pursuant to subsection 50(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 , as amended (the " Act "), which gives a person who made a request for access to a record under subsection 24(1) the right to appeal any decision of a head under the Act to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The facts of this case and the procedures employed in making this Order are as follows: 1. The requester wrote to the Human Resources Secretariat/Management Board of Cabinet (the "institution") seeking access to: 1. (a) For each ministry, listed by ministry, a listing of the services received from the non-government sector - profit and not-for-profit, through contract, for 1988 and 1989. (b) For each ministry, the number of contracts undertaken in 1988 and 1989. (c) For each ministry, median dollar value and the total dollar value of the contracts undertaken in 1988 and 1989. 2. (a) For each ministry, a listing of the reasons that services, programs, activities and work are contracted. (b) For each ministry, how long have services, programs, activities and work been contracted? (c) For each ministry, if the ministry were required to pay wages, benefits and pension contributions comparable to those required by the collective agreement in respect of these contracts (as is the intent of applications under either The Crown Transfers Act or The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act ) what would be the costs to the ministry's vendors? - legal - administrative - salaries - benefits - pension contributions - other (d) For each ministry, what other implications might ensue under these circumstances? (e) What alternative delivery mechanisms would each ministry consider/undertake? (f) Would each ministry continue to contract for these services, programs, activities and work? (g) What is each ministry's contracting/contracting-out methodology? 3. (a) For each ministry, what are the ministry's future plans for receiving services, programs, activities, and work from the non-government sector - profit or not-for-profit through contract? For what type or kind of services, programs, activities and work? (b) For each ministry, the approximate number of contracts the ministry plans to undertake in the next three years. (c) For each ministry, what is the approximate dollar value of these contracts? (d) For each ministry, what problems, if any, are foreseen by the ministry? 2. The Acting Deputy Minister for the institution wrote to the requester advising that access to the requested record was refused pursuant to subsection 12(1) and subsections 18(1)(f) and (g) of the Act . 3. The requester appealed the institution's decision, and notice of the appeal was given to the institution and the appellant. 4. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Appeals Officer assigned to the case requested a copy of the record at issue and a clarification of the institution's position on disclosure so that mediation efforts might be attempted. Subsequently, the institution forwarded to the Appeals Officer a number of documents which were identified as a sample of the record at issue. 5. After reviewing the sample, the Appeals Officer indicated to the institution that she still required clarification of the institution's position with regard to the denial of access to the record and a copy of all pages of the record at issue. 6. On November 24, 1989, as neither a copy of the record nor clarification of the institution's position was received, notice that an inquiry was being conducted to review the decision of the head was sent to the institution and the appellant. In accordance with the usual practice, the Notice of Inquiry was accompanied by a report prepared by the Appeals Officer. This report is intended to assist the parties in making their representations concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The Appeals Officer's Report outlines the facts of the appeal and sets out questions which paraphrase those sections of the Act which appear to the Appeals Officer, or any of the parties, to be relevant to the appeal. The report also indicates that the parties, in making their representations, need not limit themselves to the questions set out in the report. 7. As the Appeals Officer had not received a copy of the entire record at issue in this matter, the Appeals Officer's Report contained a request for a copy of the record and clarification of the institution's position. 8. Representations were received from the appellant and the institution. The appellant also indicated that she wished to rely on representations made in her letter of appeal. 9. In its representations, the institution indicated that it was no longer relying on subsection 12(1) of the Act . In addition to relying on subsections 18(1)(f) and (g), the institution stated that it was now also relying on subsections 18(1)(c) and (d) of the Act . The institution further stated that it was prepared to release information to the appellant which responded to sections 1, 2(a) and (b) of the appellant's request. A copy of the record as identified by the institution was enclosed with the representations. 10. After receiving the record, the Appeals Officer asked the institution to complete an index which would identify information which had been released to the appellant, information which had been severed from the record and the subsections of the Act on which the institution was relying to exempt information from disclosure. 11. As the institution had claimed additional exemptions in its representations and did not appear to have forwarded the complete record, the Appeals Officer requested further representations from the institution. Similarly, the appellant was given the opportunity to make further representations, once she had received a copy of the record as identified and severed by the institution. 12. I have considered the representations of both parties in reaching my decision in this appeal. PURPOSES OF THE ACT/BURDEN OF PROOF: The purposes of the Act as outlined in subsections 1(a) and (b) are as follows: (a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that, (i) information should be available to the public, (ii) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific, and (iii) decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government; and (b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by institutions and to provide individuals with a right of access to that information. Further, section 53 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that a record, or a part thereof, falls within one of the specified exemptions in the Act lies with the head of the institution. BACKGROUND: The institution represents the government as employer in labour negotiations with the government's unionized employees. Among the issues that arise in negotiations is the contracting out to the private sector of work formerly or presently performed by public servants or of work that the government intends to undertake (i.e., a new program) which has not yet been performed by governmen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
FIPPA
-
18(1)(c)
-
18(1)(d)
-
18(1)(f)
-
18(1)(g)
-
25(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Tom Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
May 06, 1991
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|