Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search


Review of Government of Canada Institutions’ Disclosures of Information Under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act in 2022: Backgrounder

Review of Government of Canada Institutions’ Disclosures of Information Under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act in 2022


Backgrounder

Backgrounder

ISSN: 2817-7525

This report presents findings and recommendations made in NSIRA’s annual review of disclosures of information under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act (SCIDA)It was tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Public Safety, as required under subsection 39(2) of the NSIRA Act, on November 1st, 2023.

The SCIDA provides an explicit, stand-alone authority to disclose information between Government of Canada institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that undermine its security. Its stated purpose is to encourage and facilitate such disclosures.

This report provides an overview of the SCIDA’s use in 2022. In doing so, it:

  • documents the volume and nature of information disclosures made under the SCIDA;
  • assesses compliance with the SCIDA; and
  • highlights patterns in the SCIDA’s use across Government of Canada institutions and over time.

The report contains six recommendations designed to increase standardization across the Government of Canada in a manner that is consistent with institutions’ demonstrated best practices and the SCIDA’s guiding principles.

Share this page
Date Modified:

Annual Report on the Privacy Act 2023-24

Date of Publishing:

Introduction

The Privacy Act (PA) gives individuals the right of access to information about themselves that is under the control of a government institution, subject to certain specific and limited exemptions and exclusions. The PA also protects the privacy of individuals by giving them substantial control over the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information, and by preventing others from having access to that information. 

Section 72 of the PA requires the head of each government institution to prepare an annual report on the administration of the PA within the institution that is to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. 

This report to Parliament, which is prepared and tabled pursuant to section 72 of the PA, describes the activities of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat in administering the PA during the period of April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024 (the reporting period).  

If you require more information or wish to make a request under the PA or the Access to Information Act, please direct your inquiries to the following:

Access to Information and Privacy Office 
National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat 
P.O. Box 2430, Station “D” 
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5W5  
Email: ATIP@nsira-ossnr.gc.ca

Who We Are

Established in July 2019, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) is an independent agency that reports to Parliament and conducts investigations and reviews of the federal government’s national security and intelligence activities.  

The NSIRA Secretariat (the Secretariat) assists NSIRA in fulfilling its mandate. The Secretariat headed by an Executive Director, is designated as the government institution for the purposes of administering the PA and the Access to Information Act.

Mandate

The Secretariat supports NSIRA in its dual mandate to conduct reviews and investigations in relation to Canada’s national security or intelligence activities.

Reviews

NSIRA’s review mandate is broad, as outlined in subsection 8(1) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act (NSIRA Act). This mandate includes reviewing the activities of both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), as well as the national security or intelligence-related activities of any other federal department or agency. This includes, but is not limited to, the national security or intelligence activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), Global Affairs Canada (GAC), and the Department of Justice. Further, NSIRA may review any national security or intelligence matter that a Minister of the Crown refers to NSIRA.  

NSIRA’s reviews assess whether Canada’s national security and intelligence activities comply with relevant laws, policies, and ministerial directions, as well as whether they are reasonable and necessary. In conducting its reviews, NSIRA can make any findings or recommendations it considers appropriate.

Investigations

NSIRA is also responsible for investigating national security or intelligence-related complaints from members of the public. As outlined in paragraph 8(1)(d) of the NSIRA Act, NSIRA has the mandate to investigate complaints about:  

  • any activity of CSIS or of CSE;
  • decisions to deny or revoke certain federal government security clearances; 
  • any complaint referred under subsection 45.53(4.1) or 45.67(2.1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act
  • reports made under section 19 of the Citizenship Act; and 
  • matters referred under section 45 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Access to Information and Privacy Office – Organizational Structure

The Secretariat’s ATIP Office is accountable for the development and implementation of effective policies, guidelines, systems, and procedures to ensure that the Secretariat meets its responsibilities under the PA and the Access to Information Act.  

For the reporting period, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office consisted of: 

  • 1 full-time Access to Information Consultant;  
  • 1 part-time Privacy Consultant;  
  • 1 full-time ATIP Coordinator, who managed the Secretariat’s ATIP Office, and fulfilled the normal duties as Manager of Administrative Services for the Secretariat and NSIRA Members; and 
  • the Secretariat’s Senior Counsel, Internal Services as well as Senior General Counsel supported the ATIP office when required. 

The Secretariat’s ATIP Office is responsible for the following: 

  • monitoring compliance with ATIP legislation and relevant procedures and policies; 
  • processing requests under both the PA and the Access to Information Act;  
  • developing and maintaining policies, procedures, and guidelines to ensure that the Secretariat respects the PA and the Access to Information Act;  
  • maintaining Personal Information Banks and conducting privacy impact assessments; 
  • preparing annual reports to Parliament and other statutory reports, as well as other material that might be required by central agencies; and 
  • representing the Secretariat in dealings with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), the information and privacy commissioners, and other government departments and agencies in matters pertaining to the PA and the Access to Information Act.  

During the reporting period, the Secretariat was a party to a service agreement under section 73.1 of the PA in which the Secretariat received administrative support from the Privy Council Office related to the tabling of the annual report in Parliament. The Secretariat was also a party to a service agreement under section 71.1 of the PA in which the Secretariat received ATIP Online services from TBS.  

To assist the Secretariat’s ATIP Office in meeting its overall legislative obligations, the Secretariat relied on a collaborative internal group of subject matter experts from all divisions.

Delegation Order

As the Head of the Secretariat, the Executive Director is responsible for the administration of the PA within the institution. Pursuant to section 73 of the PA, the Executive Director has delegated the ATIP Manager and ATIP Officer,  as well as individuals acting in these positions, to perform certain and specific powers, duties, and functions for the administration of the PA. These positions have limited delegation of authority under the PA and the Access to Information Act, in accordance with the delegation of authority instrument approved by the Executive Director in August 2022. The Delegation Order can be found in Appendix A (page 9).

Performance 2023-2024

Performance in Processing Privacy Requests

In addition to 5 requests that were outstanding from the previous reporting periods, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office received 22 formal requests during the current reporting period, bringing the total number of formal request to 27. Of these, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office closed 25 requests and processed approximately 4843 pages during the reporting period. 2 requests were carried over to the following reporting period.

Statistical Reports for 2023-2024

The Secretariat’s 2023-2024 Statistical Report on the PA and Supplemental ATIP Statistical Report for 2023-2024 were both previously validated by TBS.

Extensions and Completion Time of Closed Requests

During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office invoked extensions while processing 2 formal requests: 1 extension was completed within of 16 to 30 days, and 1 request was taken to seek an internal consultation. Both did not require extensions to consult with third parties. 

Of the requests completed during the reporting period: 

  • 1 request, or 4% of the requests completed, was disclosed in its entirety. This request was completed within 16 to 30 days; 
  • 1 request, or 4% of the requests completed, was disclosed in part. This request was completed within 121  to 180  days; 
  • 16 requests, or 64% of the requests completed, resulted in no records. 1 request was completed within 0 to 15 days, 6 requests were completed within 16 to 30 days, 6 requests were completed within 31 to 60 days, and 3 requests were completed within 61 to 120 days; 
  • 1 request, or 4% of the requests completed, was abandoned and completed; and 
  • 6 requests, or 24% of the requests completed, were neither confirmed nor denied. 

The Secretariat’s responses to many requests required an intensive review of complex records, including extensive internal and external consultations. During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s on-time response rate decreased to 56% from 58.3% in the 2022-2023 reporting period due to a significant increase in the number of pages processed for formal requests.

Consultations 

During the reporting period, no privacy consultations were received. 

Complaints and Investigations 

Subsection 29(1) of the PA describes how the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) receives and investigates complaints from individuals regarding the processing of requests under the PA. During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office received 16 complaints, 2 of which were related to Access requests. 

In addition, 1 privacy breach-related investigation initiated by the Privacy Commissioner in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 continued during the reporting period and remained active on March 31, 2024.

Training and Awareness

The Secretariat took a customized approach to training subject matter experts on their legislative requirements, roles, and responsibilities. The Secretariat’s ATIP Office encouraged employees to take the ATIP training courses offered by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS). New employees were required to complete an online training session entitled Fundamentals of Access to Information and Privacy within six months of joining the Secretariat and in January 2024, an internal ATIP training session was held. 

To ensure in-depth training is taken by employees of the NSIRA Secretariat who have functional or delegated responsibility for the administration of the PA and Privacy Regulations, the Senior Counsel, Internal Services participated in the 2023 Canadian Privacy Symposium offered by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. In addition, the ATIP Manager attended the 2023 Canadian Access and Privacy Association Conference as well as the 26th Annual Vancouver International Privacy & Security Summit.

Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures 

During the reporting period, the Secretariat implemented several initiatives to assist the Secretariat’s ATIP Office to operate more efficiently. For example, the Secretariat revised its Privacy Breach Plan and Procures Manual, revised its Privacy Protocol Template, and established a Privacy Risk Register. 

Initiatives and Projects to Improve Privacy 

During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s Information Technology division continued to develop an ATIP software tool for the Secretariat’s classified and unclassified systems.  

Summary of Key Issues and Actions Taken on Complaints 

The Secretariat meaningfully engaged with the OPC on all 16 active investigations during the reporting period and disclosed additional records in 1 of the 2 Access related complaints.   

Material Privacy Breaches 

During the reporting period, no material privacy breaches occurred.  

Privacy Impact Assessments 

During the reporting period, the Secretariat completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of its investigations-related activities, which was shared with TBS and the OPC. In addition, the Secretariat made further revisions to its PIA on the creation of NSIRA in response to feedback received from TBS and continued to engage with TBS on PIB registration.  

Public Interest Disclosures 

During the reporting period, no public interest disclosures occurred. 

Monitoring Compliance 

Legislative deadlines for access requests were strictly monitored by using several Microsoft Lists trackers. The ATIP Manager organized ad hoc meetings to discuss request-related activities (such as whether internal consultations were necessary), determine deadlines, and ensure that all division members were informed of the status of requests. At bi-weekly team meetings with the Senior General Counsel and Senior Counsel, Internal Services, the ATIP Manager raised and discussed compliance with legislative and policy obligations. The Executive Director was also briefed on all ATIP compliance issues.  

For contracts issued during the reporting period, the Secretariat included a Standard Procurement Clause on the Handling of Personal Information or a Supplemental General Condition on Personal Information from Public Services and Procurement Canada’s Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions Manual.

Appendices

Appendix A: Delegation Order

Access to Information Act Designation Order

The Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pursuant to section 95 of the Access to Information Act, hereby designates the persons holding the positions or acting in these positions, set out in the schedule hereto to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency as the head of a government institution under the section of the Access to Information Act set out in the schedule opposite each position.

Privacy Act Designation Order

The Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pursuant to section 73 of the Privacy Act*, hereby designates the persons holding the positions or acting in these positions, set out in the schedule hereto to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency as the head of a government institution under the section of the Privacy Act set out in the schedule opposite each position.

Appendix B: 2023–2024 Statistical Report on the Privacy Act

Name of institution: National Security and Intelligence Review Agency

Reporting period: 2022-04-01 – 2023-03-31

Section 1: Request Under the Access to Information Act

1.1 Number of Requests
  Number of Requests
Received during reporting period 22
Outstanding from previous reporting period 5
Outstanding from more than one reporting period 0
Total 27
Closed during reporting period 25
Carried over to next reporting period 2
Carried over within legislated timeline 2
Carried over beyond legislated timeline 0
1.2 Channels of requests
Source Number of Requests
Online 22
E-mail 0
Mail 0
In person 0
Phone 0
Fax 0
Total 22

Section 2: Informal requests

2.1 Number of informal requests
  Number of Requests
Received during reporting period 1
Outstanding from previous reporting periods 0
Outstanding from more than one reporting period 0
Total 1
Closed during reporting period 0
Carried over to next reporting period 1
2.2 Channels of informal requests
Source Number of Requests
Online 0
E-Mail 1
Mail 0
In person 0
Phone 0
Fax 0
Total 1
2.3 Completion time of informal requests
Completion Time
1 to 15 days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More than 365 Days Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.4 Pages released informally
Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 3: Requests Closed During the Reporting Period

3.1 Disposition and completion time
Disposition of Requests Completion Time
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
All disclosed 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No records exist 1 6 6 3 0 0 0 16
Request abandoned 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 6
Total 2 11 7 3 2 0 0 25
3.2 Exemptions
Section Numbers of Requests
18(2) 0
19(1)(a) 0
19(1)(b) 0
19(1)(c) 0
19(1)(d) 0
19(1)(e) 0
19(1)(f) 0
20 0
21 0
22(1)(a)(i) 0
22(1)(a)(ii) 0
22(1)(a)(iii) 0
22(1)(b) 0
22(1)(c) 0
22(2) 0
22.1 0
22.2 0
22.3 0
22.4 0
23(a) 0
23(b) 0
24(a) 0
24(b) 0
25 0
26 1
27 1
27.1 0
28 0
3.3 Exclusions
Section Numbers of Requests
69(1)(a) 0
69(1)(b) 0
69.1 0
70(1) 0
70(1)(a) 0
70(1(b) 0
70(1)(c) 0
70(1)(d) 0
70(1)(e) 0
70(1)(f) 0
70.1 0
3.4 Format of information released
Paper Electronic Other
E-record Data set Video Audio
0 2 0 0 0 0
3.5 Complexity
3.5.1 Relevant pages processed and disclosed for paper and e-record formats
Number of Pages Processed Number of Pages Disclosed Number of Requests
4843 4843 9
3.5.2 Relevant pages processed per request disposition for paper and e-record formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
All disclosed 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4843 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 4843 0 0
3.5.3 Relevant minutes processed and disclosed for audio formats
Number of Minutes Processed Number of Minutes Disclosed Number of Requests
0 0 0
3.5.4 Relevant minutes processed per request disposition for audio formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 60 Minutes Processed 60 – 120 Minutes Processed More than 120 Minutes Processed
Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5.5 Relevant minutes processed and disclosed for video formats
Number of Minutes Processed Number of Minutes Disclosed Number of Requests
0 0 0
3.5.6 Relevant minutes processed per request disposition for video formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 60 Minutes Processed 60 – 120 Minutes Processed More than 120 Minutes Processed
Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5.7 Other complexities
Disposition Consultation Required Assessment of Fees Legal Advice Sought Other Total
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 1 0 0 1
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 1 0 0 1
3.6 Closed requests
3.6.1 Requests closed within legislated timelines
  Requests closed within legislated timelines
Number of requests closed within legislated timelines 14
Percentage of requests closed within legislated timelines (%) 56
3.7 Deemed refusals
3.7.1 Reasons for not meeting legislated timelines
Number of Requests Closed Past the Legislated Timelines Principal Reason
Interference with Operations/Workload External Consultation Internal Consultation Other
11 10 0 1 0
3.7.2 Requests closed beyond legislated timelines (including any extension taken)
Number of Days Past Legislated Timelines Number of Requests Past Legislated Timeline Where No Extension Was Taken Number of Requests Past Legislated Timeline Where an Extension Was Taken Total
1 to 15 Days 4 0 4
16 to 30 Days 2 0 2
31 to 60 Days 2 0 2
61 to 120 Days 1 1 2
121 to 180 Days 0 1 1
181 to 365 Days 0 0 0
More than 365 Days 0 0 0
Total 9 2 11
3.8 Requests for translation
Translation Requests Accepted Refused Total
English to French 0 0 0
French to English 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0

Section 4: Disclosures Under Subsections 8(2) and 8(5)

Paragraph 8(2)(e) Paragraph 8(2)(m) Subsection 8(5) Total
0 0 0 0

Section 5: Requests for Correction of Personal Information and Notations

Disposition for Correction Requests Received Number
Notations attached 0
Requests for correction accepted 0
Total 0

Section 6: Extensions

6.1 Reasons for extensions and disposition of requests
Number of requests where an extension was taken 15(a)(i) Interference with operations 9(1)(b) Consultation 9(1)(b) Consultation
Further review required to determine exemptions Large volume of pages Large volume of requests Documents are difficult to obtain Cabinet Confidence Section (Section 70) External Internal
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
6.2 Length of extensions
Length of Extensions 15(a)(i) Interference with operations 9(1)(b) Consultation 9(1)(b) Consultation
Further review required to determine exemptions Large volume of pages Large volume of requests Documents are difficult to obtain Cabinet Confidence Section (Section 70) External Internal
1 to 15 days 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 days 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
31 days or greater               0
Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Section 7: Consultations Received From Other Institutions and Organizations

7.1 Consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions and other organizations
Consultations Other Government of Canada Institutions Number of Pages to Review Other Organizations Number of Pages to Review
Received during reporting period 0 0 0 0
Outstanding from the previous reporting period 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0
Closed during the reporting period 0 0 0 0
Carried over within regotiated timelines 0 0 0 0
Carried over beyond negotiated timelines 0 0 0 0
7.2 Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions
Recommendation Number of Days Required to Complete Consultation Requests
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
Disclose entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclose in part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exempt entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exclude entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consult other institution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.3 Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other organizations outside the Government of Canada
Recommendation Number of Days Required to Complete Consultation Requests
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
Disclose entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclose in part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exempt entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exclude entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consult other institution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 8: Completion Time of Consultations on Cabinet Confidences

8.1 Requests with Legal Services
Number of Days Fewer Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
1 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 to 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
More than 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.2 Requests with Privy Council Office
Number of Days Fewer Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
1 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 to 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
More than 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 9: Complaints and Investigations Notices Received

Section 31 Section 33 Section 35 Court action Total
3 10 3 0 16

Section 10: Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) and Personal Information Banks (PIBS)

10.1 Privacy Impact Assessments
Number of PIA(s) completed Number of PIAs modified
1 1
10.2 Institution-specific and Central Personal Information Banks
Personal Information Banks Active Created Terminated Modified
Institution-specific 0 0 0 0
Central 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0

Section 11: Privacy Breaches

11.1 Material Privacy Breaches reported
Number of material privacy breaches reported to TBS Number of material privacy breaches reported to OPC
0 0
11.2 Non-Material Privacy Breaches
Number of non-material privacy breaches
0
12.1 Allocated Costs
Expenditures Amount
Salaries $100,000
Overtime $0
Goods and Services $15,475
Professional services contracts $15,475
Other $0
Total $115,475
12.2 Human Resources
Resources Person Years Dedicated to Access to Information Activities
Full-time employees 1.000
Part-time and casual employees 0.000
Regional Staff 0.000
Consultants and agency personnel 0.300
Students 0.500
Total 1.800

Note: Enter values to three decimal places.

Appendix C: Supplemental Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act

Section 1: Open Requests and Complaints Under the Access to Information Act

1.1 Enter the number of open requests that are outstanding from previous reporting periods.
  Number of weeks
Able to receive requests by mail 52
Able to receive requests by email 52
Able to receive requests through the digital request service 52
1.2 Enter the number of open complaints with the Information Commissioner of Canada that are outstanding from previous reporting periods.
Fiscal Year Open Complaints Were Received by Institution Number of Open Complaints
Received in 2023-24 0
Received in 2022-23 0
Received in 2021-22 0
Received in 2020-21 0
Received in 2019-21 0
Received in 2018-19 0
Received in 2017-18 0
Received in 2016-17 0
Received in 2015-26 0
Received in 2014-15 or earlier 0

Section 2: Open Requests and Complaints Under the Privacy Act

2.1 Enter the number of open requests that are outstanding from previous reporting periods.
Fiscal Year Open Complaints Were Received by Institution Open Requests that are Within Legislated Timelines as of March 31, 2024 Open Requests that are Beyond Legislated Timelines as of March 31, 2024 Total
Received in 2023-24 2 0 2
Received in 2022-23 0 0 0
Received in 2021-22 0 0 0
Received in 2020-21 0 0 0
Received in 2019-21 0 0 0
Received in 2018-19 0 0 0
Received in 2017-18 0 0 0
Received in 2016-17 0 0 0
Received in 2015-26 0 0 0
Received in 2014-15 or earlier 0 0 0
Total 2 0 2
2.2 Enter the number of open complaints with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that are outstanding from previous reporting periods.
Fiscal Year Open Complaints Were Received by Institution Number of Open Complaints
Received in 2023-24 0
Received in 2022-23 7
Received in 2021-22 0
Received in 2020-21 0
Received in 2019-21 0
Received in 2018-19 0
Received in 2017-18 0
Received in 2016-17 0
Received in 2015-26 0
Received in 2014-15 or earlier 0
Total 7

Section 3: Social Insurance Number

Has your institution begun a new collection or a new consistent use of the SIN in 2023-24 No

Section 4: Universal Access under the Privacy Act

How many requests were received from foreign nationals outside of Canada in 2023-24 0
Share this page
Date Modified:

Annual Report on the Access to Information Act 2023–24

Date of Publishing:

Introduction

The Access to Information Act (ATIA) gives Canadian citizens and permanent residents, as well as any person or corporation present in Canada, the right of access to information under the control of a government institution, subject to certain specific and limited exemptions and exclusions.

Section 94 of the ATIA requires the head of each government institution to prepare an annual report on the administration of the ATIA within the institution that is to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. In addition, section 20 of the Service Fees Act requires the responsible authority to report to Parliament each fiscal year on all statutory fees processed during the reporting period.

This report to Parliament, which is prepared and tabled pursuant to section 94 of the ATIA and section 20 of the Service Fees Act, describes the activities of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat in administering these Acts during the period of April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024 (the reporting period).

If you require more information or wish to make a request under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act, please direct your inquiries to the following:

Access to Information and Privacy Office
National Security and Intelligence Review Agency
P.O. Box 2430, Station “D” Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5W5
Email: ATIP@nsira-ossnr.gc.ca

Who we are

Established in July 2019, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) is an independent agency that reports to Parliament and conducts investigations and reviews of the federal government’s national security and intelligence activities.

The NSIRA Secretariat (the Secretariat) assists NSIRA in fulfilling its mandate. The Secretariat headed by an Executive Director, is designated as the government institution for the purposes of administering the ATIA and the Privacy Act.

Mandate

The Secretariat supports NSIRA in its dual mandate to conduct reviews and investigations in relation to Canada’s national security or intelligence activities.

Reviews

NSIRA’s review mandate is broad, as outlined in subsection 8(1) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act (NSIRA Act). This mandate includes reviewing the activities of both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), as well as the national security or intelligence-related activities of any other federal department or agency. This includes, but is not limited to, the national security or intelligence activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), Global Affairs Canada (GAC), and the Department of Justice. Further, NSIRA may review any national security or intelligence matter that a Minister of the Crown refers to NSIRA.

NSIRA’s reviews assess whether Canada’s national security and intelligence activities comply with relevant laws, policies, and ministerial directions, as well as whether they are reasonable and necessary. In conducting its reviews, NSIRA can make any findings or recommendations it considers appropriate.

Investigations

NSIRA is also responsible for investigating national security or intelligence-related complaints from members of the public. As outlined in paragraph 8(1)(d) of the NSIRA Act, NSIRA has the mandate to investigate complaints about:

  • any activity of CSIS or of CSE;
  • decisions to deny or revoke certain federal government security clearances;
  • any complaint referred under subsection 45.53(4.1) or 45.67(2.1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act,
  • reports made under section 19 of the Citizenship Act, and
  • matters referred under section 45 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Access to Information and Privacy Office – Organizational Structure

The Secretariat’s ATIP Office is accountable for the development and implementation of effective policies, guidelines, systems, and procedures to ensure that the Secretariat meets its responsibilities under the ATIA and the Privacy Act.

For the reporting period, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office consisted of:

  • 1 full-time Access to Information Consultant;
  • 1 part-time Privacy Consultant;
  • 1 full-time ATIP Coordinator, who managed the Secretariat’s ATIP Office, and fulfilled the normal duties as Manager of Administrative Services for the Secretariat and NSIRA Members; and
  • the Secretariat’s Senior Counsel, Internal Services as well as Senior General Counsel supported the Secretariat’s ATIP Office when required.

The Secretariat’s ATIP Office is responsible for the following:

  • monitoring compliance with ATIP legislation and relevant procedures and policies;
  • processing requests under both the ATIA and the Privacy Act;
  • developing and maintaining policies, procedures, and guidelines to ensure that the Secretariat respects the ATIA and the Privacy Act;
  • maintaining Personal Information Banks and conducting privacy impact assessments;
  • preparing annual reports to Parliament and other statutory reports, as well as other materials that might be required by central agencies; and
  • representing the Secretariat in dealings with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), the information and privacy commissioners, and other government departments and agencies in matters pertaining to the ATIA and the Privacy Act.

During the reporting period, the Secretariat was a party to a service agreement under section 96 of the ATIA in which the Secretariat received administrative support from the Privy Council Office related to the tabling of the Annual Report in Parliament. The Secretariat was also a party to a service agreement under section 92 of the ATIA, in which the Secretariat received ATIP Online services from TBS.

Part 2: Proactive Publications

The Secretariat ensured that the following proactive publication legislative requirements were met during the reporting period with the assistance of its Finance division:

  • travel expenses;
  • hospitality expenses;
  • reports tabled in Parliament; and
  • contracts over $10,000.00

To assist the Secretariat’s ATIP Office in meeting its overall legislative obligations, the Secretariat relied on a collaborative internal group of subject matter experts from all divisions.

Delegation Order

As the Head of the Secretariat, the Executive Director is responsible for the administration of the ATIA within the institution. Pursuant to section 95 of the ATIA, the Executive Director has delegated the ATIP Manager and ATIP Officer, as well as individuals acting in these positions, to perform certain and specific powers, duties, and functions for the administration of the ATIA. These positions have limited delegation of authority under the ATIA and the Privacy Act, in accordance with the delegation of authority instrument approved by the Executive Director in August 2022. The Delegation Order can be found in Appendix A (page 13).

Performance 2023-2024

Performance in Processing Access Requests

In addition to 5 requests that were outstanding from previous reporting periods, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office received 16 formal requests during the current reporting period, bringing the total number of formal requests to 21. Of these, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office closed 16 requests and processed approximately 15,323 pages during the reporting period. 5 requests were carried over to the following reporting period, 3 of the carried over requests were received during the reporting period.

Statistical Reports for 2023-2024

The Secretariat’s 2023-2024 Statistical Report on the ATIA and Supplemental ATIP Statistical Report for 2023-2024 were both previously validated by TBS.

Extensions and Completion Time of Closed Requests

During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office invoked extensions while processing 7 formal requests: 5 extensions of 31 to 60 days, 0 extensions of 61 to 120 days, 1 extension of 121 to 180 days, 0 extensions of 181 to 365 days, and 1 extension of 365 days or more, all of which required extensions to consult with third parties.

Of the requests completed during the reporting period,

  • 1 request, or 6.25% of the requests completed, was disclosed in its entirety. This request was completed within 181 to 365 days;
  • 5 requests, or 31.25% of the requests completed, were disclosed in part. 1 request was completed within 16 to 30 days, 1 request was completed within 61 to 120 days, 1 request was completed within 121 to 180 days, and 2 requests were completed after 365 days;
  • 0 requests, or 0% of the requests completed, were all exempted;
  • 10 requests, or 62.50% of the requests completed, resulted in no records. 1 request was completed within 16 to 30 days, 2 request were completed within 31 to 60 days, and 7 requests were completed within 61 to 120 days;
  • 0 requests, or 0% of the requests completed, were abandoned and completed; and
  • 0 requests, or 0% of the requests completed, were neither confirmed nor denied.

The responses to many requests required an intensive review of complex records, including extensive internal and external consultations due to a significant portion of the Secretariat’s information holdings consisting of sensitive and classified records created or originally received by other government institutions owing to NSIRA’s mandate. During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s on-time response rate decreased to 18.7% from 33.3% in the 2022-2023 reporting year due to a significant increase in the number of pages processed for formal requests.

Consultations

During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office received 20 consultation requests from other government institutions. 3 requests were completed within 0 to 15 days, 3 requests were completed within 16 to 30 days, 5 requests were completed within 31 to 60 days, 8 requests were completed within 61 to 120 days, and 1 request was completed within 121 to 180 days. The Secretariat’s ATIP Office closed all 20 consultations during the reporting period and processed approximately 549 pages.

Requests Treated Informally

During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s ATIP Office received 18 informal requests for records previously released under the ATIA, closed 6 informal requests, and carried over 12 informal requests into the 2024-2025 reporting period.

Complaints and Investigations of Access Requests

Subsection 30(1) of the ATIA describes how the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) receives and investigates complaints from individuals regarding the processing of requests under the ATIA. The Secretariat’s ATIP Office received 3 access complaints during the reporting period. 1 of these complaints was discontinued during the reporting period, while the other 2 complaints remained active on March 31, 2024.

Training and Awareness

The Secretariat took a customized approach to training subject matter experts on their legislative requirements, roles, and responsibilities. The Secretariat’s ATIP Office encouraged employees to take the ATIP training courses offered by the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS). The Executive Director held an awareness session for the Secretariat’s management team on the new Directive on Proactive Publication in the Fall of 2023 and senior management was briefed on Amending the Access to Information Regulations in June 2023. In addition, new employees were required to complete an online training session entitled Fundamentals of Access to Information and Privacy within six months of joining the Secretariat and in January 2024, an internal ATIP training session was held.

Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures

The Secretariat’s ATIP Office implemented certain efficiency-enhancing measures, such as online tracking tools, and continued to seek new opportunities to improve the efficiency and timeliness of request processing. For example, the Executive Director designated two officials within the Secretariat who were responsible for supporting the Executive Director’s accountability for proactive publication under various policies and guidelines specified under the ATIA.

The Secretariat continued to engaged with Library and Archives Canada on obtaining institution-specific disposition authorities.

Proactive Publication under Part 2 of the ATIA

In accordance with subsection 81(b) of the ATIA, the Secretariat is listed as a government entity subject to the following proactive publication requirements:

  • Travel expenses (section 82);
  • Hospitality expenses (section 83);
  • Reports tabled in Parliament (section 84);
  • Contracts over $10,000.00 (section 86);
  • Grants and Contributions over $25,000.00 (section 87); and
  • Briefing materials (section 88)

During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s proactive publications were published on open.canada.ca. of the total proactive publication requirements that were due during the reporting period, 80% were published within the legislated timelines.

Legislative Requirement Section Publication Timeline Institutional Requirement
All Government Institutions as defined in section 3 of the Access to Information Act
Travel Expenses 82 Within 30 days after the end of the month of reimbursement open.canada.ca
Hospitality Expenses 83 Within 30 days after the end of the month of reimbursement open.canada.ca
Reports tabled in Parliament 84 Within 30 days after tabling open.canada.ca
Government entities or Departments, agencies, and other bodies subject to the Act and listed in Schedules I, I.1, or II of the Financial Administration Act
Contracts over $10,000 86 Q1-3: Within 30 days after the quarter
Q4: Within 60 days after the quarter
open.canada.ca
Grants & Contributions over $25,000 87 Within 30 days after the quarter N/A
Packages of briefing materials prepared for new or incoming deputy heads or equivalent 88(a) Within 120 days after appointment N/A
Titles and reference numbers of memoranda prepared for a deputy head or equivalent, that is received by their office 88(b) Within 30 days after the end of the month received N/A
Packages of briefing materials prepared for a deputy head or equivalent’s appearance before a committee of Parliament 88(c) Within 120 days after appearance N/A
Government institutions that are departments named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act or portions of the core public administration named in Schedule IV to that Act
Reclassification of positions 85 Within 30 days after the quarter N/A
Ministers
Packages of briefing materials prepared by a government institution for new or incoming ministers 74(a) Within 120 days after appointment N/A
Titles and reference numbers of memoranda prepared by a government institution for the minister, that is received by their office 74(b) Within 30 days after the end of the month received N/A
Package of question period notes prepared by a government institution for the minister and in use on the last sitting day of the House of Commons in June and December 74(c) Within 30 days after last sitting day of the House of Commons in June and December N/A
Packages of briefing materials prepared by a government institution for a minister’s appearance before a committee of Parliament 74(d) Within 120 days after appearance N/A
Travel Expenses 75 Within 30 days after the end of the month of reimbursement N/A
Hospitality Expenses 76 Within 30 days after the end of the month of reimbursement N/A
Contracts over $10,000 77 Q1-3: Within 30 days after the quarter
Q4: Within 60 days after the quarter
N/A
Ministers’ Offices Expenses 78 Within 120 days after the fiscal year N/A

Initiatives and Projects to Improve Access to Information

During the reporting period, the Secretariat’s Information Technology division continued to improve our ATIP software tool for the Secretariat’s classified and unclassified systems.

Summary of Key Issues and Actions Taken on Complaints

During the reporting period, 3 complaints were received. 1 complaint was discontinued during the reporting period, while the other 2 complaints remained active on March 31, 2024.

Access to Information Act Fees for the Purposes of the Service Fees Act

The Service Fees Act requires a responsible authority to report annually to Parliament on the fees collected by the institution.

With respect to fees collected under the ATIA, the information below is reported in accordance with the requirements of section 20 of the Service Fees Act:

  • Enabling authority: Access to Information Act
  • Fee payable: $5.00 application fee is the only fee charged for an ATI request
  • Total revenue: $65.00
  • Fees waived: $15.00
  • Cost of operating the program: $360,421.00

Monitoring Compliance

Legislative deadlines for access to information requests were strictly monitored by using several Microsoft Lists trackers, as were proactive publication requirements. The ATIP Manager organized ad hoc meetings to discuss request-related activities (such as whether internal consultations were necessary), determine deadlines, and ensure that all division members were informed of the status of requests. At bi-weekly team meetings with the Senior General Counsel and Senior Counsel, Internal Services, the ATIP Manager raised and discussed compliance with legislative and policy obligations. The Executive Director was also briefed on all ATIP compliance issues.

During the reporting period, the Secretariat also continued to assess the feasibility of making information previously released under the ATIA available on its public-facing website.

Appendix A: Delegation Order

Access to Information Act Designation Order

The Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pursuant to section 95 of the Access to Information Act, hereby designates the persons holding the positions or acting in these positions, set out in the schedule hereto to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency as the head of a government institution under the section of the Access to Information Act set out in the schedule opposite each position.

Privacy Act Designation Order

The Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pursuant to section 73 of the Privacy Act, hereby designates the persons holding the positions or acting in these positions, set out in the schedule hereto to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency as the head of a government institution under the section of the Privacy Act set out in the schedule opposite each position.

Appendix B: 2023-2024 Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act

Name of institution: National Security and Intelligence Review Agency

Reporting period: 2023-04-01 – 2024-03-31

Section 1: Request Under the Access to Information Act

1.1 Number of Requests
  Number of Requests
Received during reporting period 16
Outstanding from previous reporting period 3
Outstanding from more than one reporting period 2
Total 21
Closed during reporting period 16
Carried over to next reporting period 5
Carried over within legislated timeline 3
Carried over beyond legislated timeline 2
1.2 Sources of requests
Source Number of Requests
Media 2
Academia 3
Business (private sector) 2
Organization 1
Public 8
Decline to Identify 0
Total 16
1.3 Channels of requests
Source Number of Requests
Online 12
E-mail 0
Mail 4
In person 0
Phone 0
Fax 0
Total 16

Section 2: Informal requests

2.1 Number of informal requests
  Number of Requests
Received during reporting period 18
Outstanding from previous reporting periods 0
Outstanding from more than one reporting period 0
Total 18
Closed during reporting period 6
Carried over to next reporting period 12
2.2 Channels of informal requests
Source Number of Requests
Online 11
E-Mail 7
Mail 0
In person 0
Phone 0
Fax 0
Total 18
2.3 Completion time of informal requests
Completion Time
1 to 15 days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More than 365 Days Total
0 2 0 4 0 0 0 6
2.4 Pages released informally
Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5 Pages re-released informally
Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
4 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 3: Applications to the Information Commissioner on Declining to Act on Requests

  Number of Requests
Outstanding from previous reporting period 0
Sent during reporting period 1
Total 1
Approved by the Information Commissioner during reporting period 0
Declined by the Information Commissioner during reporting period 1
Withdrawn during reporting period 0
Carried over to next reporting period 0

Section 4: Requests Closed During the Reporting Period

4.1 Disposition and completion time
Disposition of Requests Completion Time
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Disclosed in part 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 5
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No records exist 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 10
Request transferred 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Decline to act with the approval of the Information Commisioner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 2 2 8 1 1 2 16
4.2 Exemptions
Section Numbers of Requests
13(1)(a) 1
13(1)(b) 0
13(1)(c) 0
13(1)(d) 0
13(1)(e) 0
14 0
14(a) 0
14(b) 0
15(1) – I. A. * 1
15(1) – Def. * 2
15(1) – S.A. * 0
16(1)(a)(i) 2
16(1)(a)(ii) 0
16(1)(a)(iii) 1
16(1)(b) 1
16(1)(c) 1
16(1)(d) 0
16(2) 0
16(2)(a) 0
16(2)(b) 0
16(2)(c) 0
16(3) 0
16.1(1)(a) 0
16.1(1)(b) 0
16.1(1)(c) 0
16.1(1)(d) 0
16.2(1) 0
16.3 0
16.31 0
16.4(1)(a) 0
16.4(1)(b) 0
16.5 0
16.6 0
17 0
18(a) 0
18(b) 0
18(c) 0
18(d) 0
18.1(1)(a) 0
18.1(1)(b) 0
18.1(1)(c) 0
18.1(1)(d) 0
19(1) 2
20(1)(a) 0
20(1)(b) 0
20(1)(b.1) 0
20(1)(c) 0
20(1)(d) 0
20.1 0
20.2 0
20.4 0
21(1)(a) 2
21(1)(b) 0
21(1)(c) 0
21(1)(d) 0
22 0
22.1(1) 0
23 3
23.1 0
24(1) 1
26 0

* I.A.: International Affairs
* Def.: Defence of Canada
* S.A.: Subversive Activities

4.3 Exclusions
Section Numbers of Requests
68(a) 0
68(b) 0
68(c) 0
68.1 0
68.2(a) 0
68.2(b) 0
69(1) 0
69(1)(a) 0
69(1)(b) 0
69(1)(c) 0
69(1)(d) 0
69(1)(e) 0
69(1)(f) 0
69(1)(g) re (a) 0
69(1)(g) re (b) 0
69(1)(g) re (c) 0
69(1)(g) re (d) 0
69(1)(g) re (e) 0
69(1)(g) re (f) 0
69.1(1) 0
4.4 Format of information released
Paper Electronic Other
E-record Data set Video Audio
1 5 0 0 0 0
4.5 Complexity
4.5.1 Relevant pages processed and disclosed for paper and e-record formats
Number of Pages Processed Number of Pages Disclosed Number of Requests
15323 15323 6
4.5.2 Relevant pages processed per request disposition for paper and e-record formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
All disclosed 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 3 185 1 102 0 0 0 0 0 14966
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the information Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 4 225 1 102 0 0 0 0 1 14996
4.5.3 Relevant minutes processed and disclosed for audio formats
Number of Minutes Processed Number of Minutes Disclosed Number of Requests
0 0 0
4.5.4 Relevant minutes processed per request disposition for audio formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 60 Minutes Processed 60 – 120 Minutes Processed More than 120 Minutes Processed
Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.5.5 Relevant minutes processed and disclosed for video formats
Number of Minutes Processed Number of Minutes Disclosed Number of Requests
0 0 0
4.5.6 Relevant minutes processed per request disposition for video formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 60 Minutes Processed 60 – 120 Minutes Processed More than 120 Minutes Processed
Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.5.7 Other complexities
Disposition Consultation Required Legal Advice Sought Other Total
All disclosed 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 2 4 0 6
All exempted 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0
Total 2 4 0 6
4.6 Closed requests
4.6.1 Requests closed within legislated timelines
  Requests closed within legislated timelines
Number of requests closed within legislated timelines 3
Percentage of requests closed within legislated timelines (%) 18.75
4.7 Deemed refusals
4.7.1 Reasons for not meeting legislated timelines
Number of Requests Closed Past the Legislated Timelines Principal Reason
Interference with Operations/Workload External Consultation Internal Consultation Other
13 12 1 0 0
4.7.2 Requests closed beyond legislated timelines (including any extension taken)
Number of Days Past Legislated Timelines Number of Requests Past Legislated Timeline Where No Extension Was Taken Number of Requests Past Legislated Timeline Where an Extension Was Taken Total
1 to 15 Days 0 0 0
16 to 30 Days 1 0 1
31 to 60 Days 2 5 7
61 to 120 Days 2 0 2
121 to 180 Days 0 1 1
181 to 365 Days 1 0 1
More than 365 Days 0 1 1
Total 6 7 13
4.8 Requests for translation
Translation Requests Accepted Refused Total
English to French 0 0 0
French to English 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0

Section 5: Extensions

5.1 Reasons for extensions and disposition of requests
Disposition of Requests Where an Extension Was taken 9(1)(a) Interference With Operations/Workload 9(1)(b) Consultation 9(1)(c) Third-Party Notice
Section 69 Other
All disclosed 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 3 3 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0
No records exist 0 1 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0
Total 3 4 0 0
5.2 Length of extensions
Length of Extensions 9(1)(a) Interference With Operations/Workload 9(1)(b) Consultation 9(1)(c) Third-Party Notice
Section 69 Other
30 days or less 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 days 3 2 0 0
61 to 120 days 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 days 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 days 0 0 0 0
365 days or more 0 0 0 0
Total 3 4 0 0

Section 6: Fees

Fee Type Fee Collected Fee Waived Fee Refunded
Number of Requests Amount Number of Requests Amount Number of Requests Amount
Application 13 $65.00 3 $0.00 0 $0.00
Other fees 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
Total 13 $65.00 3 $0.00 0 $0.00

Section 7: Consultations Received From Other Institutions and Organizations

7.1 Consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions and other organizations
Consultations Other Government of Canada Institutions Number of Pages to Review Other Organizations Number of Pages to Review
Received during reporting period 20 549 0 0
Outstanding from the previous reporting period 0 0 0 0
Total 4 189 0 0
Closed during the reporting period 20 549 0 0
Carried over within negotiated timelines 0 0 0 0
Carried over beyond negotiated timelines 0 0 0 0
7.2 Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions
Recommendation Number of Days Required to Complete Consultation Requests
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
Disclose entirely 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4
Disclose in part 3 1 4 6 1 0 0 15
Exempt entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exclude entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consult other institution 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3 3 5 8 1 0 0 20
7.3 Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other organizations outside the Government of Canada
Recommendation Number of Days Required to Complete Consultation Requests
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
Disclose entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclose in part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exempt entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exclude entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consult other institution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 8: Completion Time of Consultations on Cabinet Confidences

8.1 Requests with Legal Services
Number of Days Fewer Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
1 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 to 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
More than 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.2 Requests with Privy Council Office
Number of Days Fewer Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
1 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 to 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
More than 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 9: Investigations and Reports of finding

9.1 Investigations
Section 32 Notice of intention to investigate Subsection 30(5) Ceased to investigate Section 35 Formal Representations
2 1 0
9.2 Investigations and Reports of finding
Section 37(1) Initial Reports Section 37(2) Final Reports
Received Containing recommendations issued by the Information Commissioner Containing orders issued by the Information Commissioner Received Containing recommendations issued by the Information Commissioner Containing orders issued by the Information Commissioner
0 0 0 2 0 0

Section 10: Court Action

10.1 Court actions on complaints
Section 41
Complainant (1) Institution (2) Third Party (3) Privacy Commissioner (4) Total
0 0 0 0 0
10.2 Court actions on third party notifications under paragraph 28(1)(b)
Section 44 – under paragraph 28(1)(b)
0
11.1 Allocated Costs
Expenditures Amount
Salaries $90,000
Overtime $0
Goods and Services $270,421
Professional services contracts $270,421
Other $0
Total $360,421
11.2 Human Resources
Resources Person Years Dedicated to Access to Information Activities
Full-time employees 0.000
Part-time and casual employees 1.000
Regional Staff 0.000
Consultants and agency personnel 1.000
Students 0.500
Total 2.500

Note: Enter values to three decimal places.

Appendix C: Supplemental Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act

Section 1: Open Requests and Complaints Under the Access to Information Act

1.1 Enter the number of open requests that are outstanding from previous reporting periods
Fiscal Year Open Requests Were Received Open Requests that are Within Legislated Timelines as March 31, 2024 Open Requests that are Beyond Legislated Timelines as of March 31, 2024 Total
Received in 2023-24 3 0 3
Received in 2022-23 0 1 1
Received in 2021-22 0 0 0
Received in 2020-21 0 1 1
Received in 2019-20 0 0 0
Received in 2018-19 0 0 0
Received in 2017-18 0 0 0
Received in 2016-17 0 0 0
Received in 2015-16 0 0 0
Received in 2014-15 or earlier 0 0 0
Total 3 2 5
1.2 Enter the number of open complaints with the Information Commissioner of Canada that are outstanding from previous reporting periods
Fiscal Year Open Complaints were received by institutions Number of Open Complaints
Received in 2023-24 0
Received in 2022-23 0
Received in 2021-22 0
Received in 2020-21 0
Received in 2019-20 0
Received in 2018-19 0
Received in 2017-18 0
Received in 2016-17 0
Received in 2015-16 0
Received in 2014-15 or earlier 0
Total 0

Section 2: Open Requests and Complaints Under the Privacy Act

2.1 Number of open requests that are outstanding from previous reporting periods.
Fiscal Year Open Requests Were Received Open Requests that are Within Legislated Timelines as March 31, 2024 Open Requests that are Beyond Legislated Timelines as of March 31, 2024 Total
Received in 2023-24 2 0 2
Received in 2022-23 0 0 0
Received in 2021-22 0 0 0
Received in 2020-21 0 0 0
Received in 2019-20 0 0 0
Received in 2018-19 0 0 0
Received in 2017-18 0 0 0
Received in 2016-17 0 0 0
Received in 2015-16 0 0 0
Received in 2014-15 or earlier 0 0 0
Total 2 0 2
2.2 Enter the number of open complaints with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that are outstanding from previous reporting periods
Fiscal Year Open Complaints were received by institutions Number of Open Complaints
Received in 2023-24 0
Received in 2022-23 7
Received in 2021-22 0
Received in 2020-21 0
Received in 2019-20 0
Received in 2018-19 0
Received in 2017-18 0
Received in 2016-17 0
Received in 2015-16 0
Received in 2014-15 or earlier 0
Total 7

Section 3: Social Insurance Number

Has your institution begun a new collection or a new consistent use of the SIN in 2023-24? No
How many requests were received from foreign nationals outside of Canada in 2023-24? 0
Share this page
Date Modified:

Review of Air Passenger Targeting by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA): Government Responses

Review of Air Passenger Targeting by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)


Government Responses

NSIRA Recommendation 1: NSIRA recommends that the CBSA document its triaging practices in a manner that enables effective verification of whether all triaging decisions comply with statutory and regulatory restrictions.

GOC Response: The CBSA agrees with this recommendation. The CBSA will complete a review of its APT triaging practices to ensure practices are in place which will enable effective verification of compliance with statutory and regulatory restrictions.

NSIRA Recommendation 2: NSIRA recommends that the CBSA ensure, in an ongoing manner, that its triaging practices are based on information and/or intelligence that justifies the use of each indicator. This justification should be well-documented to enable effective internal and external verification of whether the CBSA’s triaging practices comply with its non-discrimination obligations.

GOC Response: The CBSA agrees with this recommendation. While we are satisfied that justification for triaging and targeting practices exist, the CBSA acknowledges that better documentation practices could be implemented to enable effective internal and external verification of whether the CBSA’s triaging practices comply with its non-discrimination obligations. The CBSA’s Scenario Based Targeting Governance Framework will be updated to include information and/or intelligence that justifies the use of each indicator. Annual reviews of scenarios will continue to be conducted and documented to confirm that each active scenario is supported by recent and reliable intelligence.

NSIRA Recommendation 3: NSIRA recommends that the CBSA ensure that any Air Passenger Targeting related distinctions on protected grounds that are capable of reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating a disadvantage constitute a reasonable limit on travellers’ equality rights under the Charter.

GOC Response: The CBSA agrees with this recommendation. The CBSA will review its APT practices to ensure that distinctions based on protected grounds are reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in the border administration and enforcement context.

NSIRA Recommendation 4: NSIRA recommends that the CBSA develop more robust and regular oversight for Air Passenger Targeting to ensure that its practices are not discriminatory. This should include updates to the CBSA’s policies, procedures, training, and other guidance, as appropriate.

GOC Response: The CBSA agrees with this recommendation. The CBSA acknowledges that policies, procedures, training, and other guidance, as appropriate can be improved to ensure robust and regular oversight for Air Passenger Targeting to ensure that its practices are not discriminatory. The CBSA will complete a review of its policies, procedures, guidelines and training to ensure practices are not discriminatory.

NSIRA Recommendation 5: NSIRA recommends that the CBSA start gathering and assessing the necessary data to identify, analyze, and mitigate discrimination-related risks. This includes disaggregated demographic data, data on the effects of Air Passenger Targeting on secondary examinations that may be apparent from related human rights complaints, and data on a baseline comparator group.

GOC Response: The CBSA agrees with this recommendation. To that end, the CBSA is taking deliberate steps to develop its capacity to capture and analyze reliable and accurate data in non-intrusive ways. The Agency is working on developing standard and consistent positions and frameworks on the collection, use, management and governance of disaggregated data, developing  metrics and indicators to measure the impact of decisions and policies on different groups; using data to build more inclusive and representative policies and strategies, and; identifying possible discrimination and bias.

Share this page
Date Modified:

Review of Government of Canada Institutions’ Disclosures of Information Under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act in 2022: Report

Review of Government of Canada Institutions’ Disclosures of Information Under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act in 2022


Report

Date of Publishing:

List of Acronyms

CBSA Canada Border Services Agency
CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency
CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
CRA Canada Revenue Agency
CSE Communications Security Establishment
CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service
DND/CAF Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces
FINTRAC Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
GAC Global Affairs Canada
GC Government of Canada
IRCC Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
NSIRA National Security and Intelligence Review Agency
PHAC Public Health Agency of Canada
PS Public Safety Canada
RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police
SCIDA Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act
TC Transport Canada

Glossary of Terms

Contribution test The first part of the two-part threshold that must be met before an institution can make a disclosure under the SCIDA: it must be satisfied that the information will contribute to the exercise of the recipient institution’s jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada (paragraph 5(1)(a)).
Proportionality test The second part of the two-part threshold that must be met before an institution can make a disclosure under the SCIDA: it must be satisfied that the information will not affect any person’s privacy interest more than reasonably necessary in the circumstances (paragraph 5(1)(b)).

Executive summary

This review provides an overview of the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act (SCIDA)’s use in 2022. In doing so, it documents the volume and nature of information disclosures made under the SCIDA; assesses compliance with the SCIDA; and highlights patterns in the SCIDA’s use across Government of Canada (GC) institutions and over time.

In 2022, four disclosing institutions made a total of 173 disclosures to five recipient institutions. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) found that institutions complied with the SCIDA’s requirements for disclosure and record keeping in relation to the majority of these disclosures. Instances of non-compliance related to subsection 9(3), regarding the timeliness of records copied to NSIRA; subsection 5.1(1), regarding the timeliness of destruction or return of personal information; and subsection 5(2), regarding the provision of a statement on accuracy and reliability. The observed non-compliance did not point to any systemic failures in GC institutions’ implementation of the SCIDA.

NSIRA also made findings in relation to practices that, although compliant with the SCIDA, left room for improvement. These findings related to:

  • the use of information sharing arrangements;
  • the format of records prepared by institutions and copied to NSIRA, including the characteristics of effective records;
  • the nature of information provided under paragraph 9(1)(e) and relied upon in the conduct of assessments under subsection 5(1);
  • the provision of statements regarding accuracy and reliability prepared under subsection 5(2); and
  • the timeliness of administrative processes supporting information disclosure.

NSIRA made six recommendations designed to increase standardization across the GC in a manner that is consistent with institutions’ demonstrated best practices and the SCIDA’s guiding principles.

Overall, NSIRA observed improvements in reviewee performance as compared with findings from prior years’ reports and over the course of the review. These improvements include corrective actions taken by reviewees in response to NSIRA’s requests for information in support of this review.

1. Introduction

Authority

This review was conducted pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(b) and subsection 39(1) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act (NSIRA Act).

Scope of the Review

This review provides an overview of the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act (SCIDA)’s use in 2022. In doing so, it:

  1. Documents the volume and nature of information disclosures made under the SCIDA;
  2. Assesses Government of Canada (GC) institutions’ compliance with the SCIDA’s requirements for record keeping;
  3. Assesses GC institutions’ compliance with the SCIDA’s requirements for disclosure, including the destruction or return of personal information, as appropriate; and
  4. Highlights patterns in the SCIDA’s use across GC institutions and over time.

The review’s scope was defined by records provided to NSIRA under the SCIDA, subsection 9(3) (see Annex A for a copy of institutions’ section 9 obligations under the Act). As such, the review’s assessment of compliance was limited to the seven GC institutions identified within these records as either disclosers or recipients (Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA], Communications Security Establishment [CSE], Canadian Security Intelligence Service [CSIS], Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces [DND/CAF], Global Affairs Canada [GAC], Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC], and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP]); and to instances of information disclosure where the SCIDA was identified by these institutions as an authority for disclosure. The review also included Public Safety Canada (PS) in its capacity as manager of the Strategic Coordination Centre on Information Sharing, which provides SCIDA-related policy guidance and training across the GC. 

The review satisfies the NSIRA Act’s section 39 requirement for NSIRA to report to the Minister of Public Safety on disclosures made under the SCIDA during the previous calendar year.

Methodology

The review’s primary source of information was records provided to NSIRA by disclosing and recipient institutions under the SCIDA, subsection 9(3). NSIRA also identified a targeted sample of disclosures for which it requested and assessed all associated documents provided by both the disclosing and recipient institution. This information was supplemented by a document review of institutions’ SCIDA policies and procedures, and related explanations.

NSIRA assessed administrative compliance with the SCIDA’s record-keeping obligations in relation to all disclosures identified in the records provided to NSIRA under subsection 9(3) (N=173). Where these records were incomplete, NSIRA provided an opportunity for institutions to supply the missing records. NSIRA accounted for such late submissions in its assessment of compliance with subsections 9(1) and 9(2).

NSIRA assessed substantive compliance with the SCIDA’s disclosure requirements in relation to the sample of disclosures (n=19). The sample was designed to reflect a non-representative cross-section of the SCIDA’s use, with particular attention to areas at higher risk of non-compliance. Disclosures were selected for the sample based on the content of records provided to NSIRA under subsection 9(3), according to defined parameters (see Annex B, Sample of Disclosures).

Review Statements

NSIRA found that, overall, its expectations for responsiveness by CSE, CSIS, DND/CAF, GAC, IRCC, PS, and RCMP during this review were met. Its expectations for responsiveness by CBSA were partially met, as CBSA required repeated follow-up to provide the requested information.

NSIRA was able to verify information for this review in a manner that met NSIRA’s expectations.

2. Backgrounder

The SCIDA provides an explicit, stand-alone authority to disclose information between GC institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that undermine its security. Its stated purpose is to encourage and facilitate such disclosures.

Section 9 of the SCIDA prescribes record-keeping obligations for all institutions who (1) disclose or (2) receive information under the Act. Each paragraph under subsections 9(1) and 9(2) identifies particular elements that must be set out in the records prepared and kept by each institution (see Annex A). Subsection 9(3) requires that these records be provided to NSIRA within 30 days after the end of each calendar year.

Subsection 5(1) of the SCIDA authorizes GC institutions to disclose information – subject to any prohibitions or restrictions in other legislation or regulations – to designated recipient institutions, if the disclosing institution is satisfied that (a) the information will contribute to the exercise of the recipient institution’s jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada (the “contribution test”); and (b) the information will not affect any person’s privacy interest more than is reasonably necessary in the circumstances (the “proportionality test”).

Subsection 5(2) requires institutions that disclose information under subsection (1) to, at the time of the disclosure, also provide information regarding its accuracy and the reliability of the manner in which it was obtained.

When a GC institution receives information under the Act, subsection 5.1(1) requires that the institution destroy or return any unnecessary personal information as soon as feasible after receiving it.

The Act’s guiding principles underscore the importance of effectiveness and responsibility across disclosure activities. Of note, subsection 4(c) sets out that information sharing arrangements are appropriate in particular circumstances.

3. Findings, Analysis, and recommendations

Volume and Nature of Disclosures

In 2022, four disclosing institutions made a total of 173 disclosures to five recipient institutions (see Table 1). 79% (n=136) of these disclosures were requested by the recipient institution. The other 21% of disclosures (n=37) were sent proactively by the disclosing institution.

Table 1: Number of SCIDA disclosures made in 2022, by disclosing and recipient institution [all disclosures (proactive disclosures)]

    Designated Recipient Institutions
Disclosing Institution   CBSA CFIA CNSC CRA CSE CSIS DND/CAF Finance FINTRAC GAC Health IRCC PHAC PSC RCMP TC TOTAL (proactive)
CBSA 4
(3)
4
(3)
GAC 39
(18)
2
(2)
12
(12)
53
(32)
IRCC 59
(0)
56
(2)
115
(2)
RCMP 1
(0)
1
(0)
TOTAL (proactive) 59
(0)
95
(20)
2
(2)
1
(0)
16
(15)
173
(37)

The total number of disclosures made under the SCIDA since its implementation reflects a slight downward trend, with a generally constant proportion of requested versus proactive disclosures for the years in which this data was collected (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Number of SCIDA disclosures over time

In 2022, these disclosures were made and received by institutions that had each disclosed or received information, as the case may be, in at least two prior review years (see Annex C, Overview of SCIDA Disclosures in Prior Years).

Finding 1: NSIRA found that CSE, CSIS, GAC, and IRCC regularly use the SCIDA in a manner that warrants information sharing arrangements, as encouraged by subsection 4(c) of the SCIDA.

CSE, CSIS, GAC, and IRCC were the most frequent users of the SCIDA in 2022. The number of disclosures between these institutions was comparable to those observed by NSIRA in prior years (see Annex C), indicating the occurrence of regular exchange over time.

NSIRA also observed regular patterns in the purpose and nature of the information exchanged between these institutions in 2022, as described in Table 2. These information exchanges were not governed by up-to-date information sharing arrangements.

Table 2: Nature of disclosures between the SCIDA’s most frequent users

GAC-to-CSIS (N=39) IRCC-to-CSIS (N=56) IRCC-to-CSE (N=59)
  • GAC information holdings relevant to threats to the security of Canada
  • Often (85%) made in direct response, or as a follow-up, to CSIS requests
  • IRCC information holdings relevant to threats to the security of Canada
  • Almost always (96%) made in response to CSIS requests
  • IRCC confirmation of Canadian status of named individuals of interest, required to ensure lawfulness of CSE operational activities
  • All (100%) made in response to CSE requests

NSIRA has previously recommended that information sharing arrangements be updated (for GAC and CSIS) or created (for IRCC and CSE) to govern certain information exchanges made under the SCIDA.

Recommendation 1: NSIRA recommends that information sharing arrangements be used to govern regular SCIDA disclosures between GAC and CSIS; IRCC and CSIS; as well as IRCC and CSE.

Record Keeping

Copy to NSIRA: Subsection 9(3)

Finding 2: NSIRA found that CBSA, DND/CAF, and IRCC were non-compliant with subsection 9(3) of the SCIDA, as they failed to provide all records created under subsections 9(1) or 9(2) to NSIRA within the legislated timeframe.

Requests for information from NSIRA during the course of this review prompted the late production of additional records relating to paragraphs under subsections 9(1) or 9(2) from each of CBSA, DND/CAF, and IRCC (see Table 3).

Table 3: Number [and associated subsection 9(1) or 9(2) paragraph] of late records leading to non-compliance with subsection 9(3), by cause

Administrative Error Delayed Preparation of Records
CBSA 2 [paragraph 9(1)(e)]
DND/CAF 2 [paragraphs 9(2)(e-g)]
IRCC 6 [paragraph 9(1)(e)] 1 [paragraphs 9(2)(e-g)]

CBSA and IRCC were non-compliant with subsection 9(3) due to administrative error; the records they eventually supplied had existed at the time of the reporting deadline, but were not copied to NSIRA as required.

NSIRA expected that all records would be prepared within 30 days after the end of the calendar year, in order to meet the subsection 9(3) requirement to provide a copy of those records to NSIRA within that timeframe.

DND/CAF and IRCC were non-compliant with subsection 9(3) on account of delayed preparation of records; they did not prepare the records referred to in Table 3 within 30 days after the end of the calendar year, and therefore did not provide a copy of them to NSIRA within the legislated timeframe.

NSIRA underscores the importance of administrative precision and timeliness in preparing records and copying them to NSIRA.

Format of Records

Finding 3: NSIRA found improved compliance outcomes in instances where departments prepared record overview spreadsheets under subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the SCIDA that displayed the following characteristics:

  • a row for each disclosure made or received;
  • columns explicitly tied to each individual paragraph under section 9; and
  • additional columns to capture relevant administrative details, such as whether the disclosure was requested or proactive; the date of the request (if applicable); and any applicable file reference numbers.

The SCIDA does not specify a format for records prepared under section 9. Accordingly, in 2022, GC institutions fulfilled their record-keeping obligations in different ways.

Most institutions provided NSIRA with an overview of each disclosure made or received. These overviews were submitted to NSIRA as spreadsheets that generally captured the information required in records under subsections 9(1) and 9(2).

Most institutions also provided NSIRA with a copy of the disclosure itself and a selection of related documents. These documents often included email consultations with legal services, disclosure request letters, and other correspondence between disclosing and recipient institutions. The scope of requests for information in the course of the review was minimized in cases where institutions provided such documents.

DND/CAF and IRCC (for its one disclosure receipt) were the only institutions that originally provided NSIRA with a copy of the raw disclosure, including transmittal details, in the absence of a record overview or other related documents.

NSIRA observed that DND/CAF and IRCC’s choice in records format for these disclosures contributed to their non-compliance with subsection 9(3), described in Table 3. The information elicited under paragraphs 9(2)(e-g) cannot by definition be found within a copy of the disclosure itself, as it relates to action taken by recipient institutions following the disclosure’s receipt. A copy of the disclosure on its own is therefore insufficient to comply with all requirements under subsection 9(2).

Both DND/CAF and IRCC were infrequent recipients of disclosures under the SCIDA in 2022, accounting for only two and one disclosures, respectively. Each of the more frequent recipients of information (CSE, CSIS, and RCMP) included express columns in their record overview spreadsheets to capture whether and, if applicable, when personal information was destroyed or returned, per the requirements of paragraphs 9(2)(e-g).

NSIRA also observed that CBSA and IRCC’s choice in records format contributed to their non-compliance with subsection 9(3) due to administrative error. These institutions did not account for the full scope of information required under paragraph 9(1)(e) in their record overview spreadsheets.

The information relied upon to satisfy the disclosing institution that a disclosure is authorized under the Act is not required to be conveyed within the disclosure itself. Completing an appropriately-specified record overview spreadsheet is therefore an effective way to ensure that the corresponding information is documented and conveyed to NSIRA ahead of the legislated deadline.

The RCMP’s record overview spreadsheet was particularly effective in demonstrating compliance with the Act. The spreadsheet included columns that were explicitly tied to individual paragraphs under section 9, with additional fields limited to RCMP administrative information such as file and database reference numbers.

Spreadsheets designed in this way enable institutions’ efficient self-assessment against the requirements of the Act. They also facilitate the task of review by clearly matching the information provided with its corresponding requirement under the SCIDA, and by organizing disclosures and receipts of information in a manner that supports cross-verification.

Recommendation 2: NSIRA recommends that all GC institutions prepare record overviews to clearly address the requirements of subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the SCIDA; and provide them to NSIRA along with a copy of the disclosure itself and, where relevant, a copy of the request.

Preparing and Keeping Records: Subsections 9(1) and 9(2)

Finding 4: NSIRA found that all GC institutions complied with their obligation to prepare and keep records that set out the information prescribed under subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the SCIDA.

Finding 5: NSIRA found that more than half of the descriptions provided by CBSA and IRCC under paragraph 9(1)(e) of the SCIDA did not explicitly address their satisfaction that the disclosure was authorized under paragraph 5(1)(b), the proportionality test.

Although NSIRA expected an express statement describing the information that was relied on to satisfy the disclosing institution that the disclosure was authorized under the SCIDA, in this review, NSIRA considered any records that demonstrated the corresponding assessment had been conducted.

IRCC n’a pas fait de déclaration expresse précisant que les communications demandées par le SCRS, qui représentent 57 % (n=54) de l’ensemble de ses communications, lui semblaient satisfaisantes du point de vue du critère de proportionnalité. En revanche, IRCC a fourni des copies des lettres de demande et de l’information communiquée en guise de réponse, ce qui confirme que la communication était manifestement conforme aux besoins précis de la demande (et donc témoigne d’une évaluation de la proportionnalité).

L’ASFC n’a pas fourni de déclaration expresse concernant sa satisfaction au regard du critère de proportionnalité pour 75 % (n=3) de ses communications. Elle a plutôt démontré qu’elle tenait compte du principe de proportionnalité en fournissant divers documents justificatifs, y compris de la correspondance interne.

La feuille de calcul utilisée par AMC pour donner une vue d’ensemble de ses documents a été particulièrement efficace pour répondre aux exigences de l’alinéa 9(1)e). L’analyse détaillée qu’elle a consignée en ce qui concerne les critères de contribution et de proportionnalité lui a permis de remplir ses obligations en matière de conservation des dossiers et de démontrer qu’elle respectait en substance le paragraphe 5(1).

Recommendation 3: NSIRA recommends that disclosing institutions explicitly address the requirements of both paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) in the records that they prepare under paragraph 9(1)(e) of the SCIDA.

Disclosure of Information

Contribution and Proportionality Tests: Paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b)

Finding 6: NSIRA found, within the sample of disclosures reviewed, that disclosing institutions demonstrated they had satisfied themselves of both the contribution and proportionality tests, in compliance with subsection 5(1) of the SCIDA.

Finding 7: NSIRA found that GAC satisfied itself under the SCIDA’s paragraph 5(1)(a) contribution test based on an incorrect understanding of the recipient’s national security mandate in two cases.

The threshold for compliance with subsection 5(1) is that the disclosing institution has satisfied itself of the contribution and proportionality tests, and that it has done so prior to having made the disclosure.

In relation to the two disclosures that it made proactively to DND/CAF, GAC provided a rationale for the information’s contribution to DND/CAF’s mandate in respect of national security. Upon receipt of the information, however, DND/CAF did not agree with GAC’s assessment and therefore assessed that the SCIDA was not an appropriate disclosure mechanism in the circumstances.

Informal communication between the two institutions may have allowed DND/CAF and GAC to resolve this issue prior to the disclosure. When such communications occur, it is important that they be limited to the information necessary to confirm that the information contributes to the recipient’s mandate in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada.

Recommendation 4: NSIRA recommends that GC institutions contemplating the use of proactive disclosures under the SCIDA communicate with the recipient institution, ahead of making the disclosure, to inform their assessments under subsection 5(1).

Statement Regarding Accuracy and Reliability: Subsection 5(2)

Finding 8: NSIRA found, within the sample of disclosures reviewed, that CBSA and GAC (in one and two disclosures, respectively) were non-compliant with the SCIDA’s subsection 5(2) requirement to provide a statement regarding accuracy and reliability.

Finding 9: NSIRA found, in relation to the remaining disclosures within the sample, that GAC, IRCC, and RCMP included their statements regarding accuracy and reliability within the disclosures themselves, whereas CBSA provided its statements in the disclosures’ cover letters.

Providing the statement on accuracy and reliability in a cover letter for the disclosure satisfies the Act’s requirement to provide the statement at the time of disclosure. However, separating the statement from the information disclosed increases the risk that the information may be subsequently used without awareness of relevant qualifiers. The location of the statement on accuracy and reliability – and not just its contemporaneous provision to the recipient – is therefore relevant to its value added.

Recommendation 5: NSIRA recommends that all disclosing institutions include statements regarding accuracy and reliability within the same document as the disclosed information.

Requirement to Destroy or Return Personal Information: Subsection 5.1(1)

Finding 10: NSIRA found that DND/CAF destroyed information under the SCIDA subsection 5.1(1), but they were non-compliant with the requirement to do so “as soon as feasible after receiving it.”

DND/CAF determined, upon receipt of the two disclosures it received from GAC, that the personal information contained within the disclosures should not be retained. The information, however, was not destroyed until April 2023 – 12 days following a request for information from NSIRA to provide a copy of records that set out whether and when the information had been destroyed or returned. The date of destruction was 299 and 336 days following DND/CAF’s receipt of each disclosure.

Taking into consideration the elapsed time between receipt of the information and its destruction, as well as DND/CAF’s timely conclusion that the information should not be retained, DND/CAF’s ultimate destruction of the information was non-compliant with the requirement to destroy the information “as soon as feasible after receiving it.” Its delay in this respect was also inconsistent with the responsible use and management of the information.

DND/CAF was the only institution to identify any disclosures as containing information that was destroyed or returned under subsection 5.1(1) in 2022. NSIRA did not identify any other disclosures within the sample for which personal information disclosed should have been destroyed or returned.

Purpose and Principles: Effective and responsible disclosure of information

Finding 11: NSIRA found delays between when a disclosure was authorized for sending and when it was received by the individual designated by the head of the recipient institution to receive it in at least 20% (n=34) of disclosures.

These 34 disclosures include 29 for which there was a delay between the dates provided by disclosing and recipient institutions in their section 9 records, as well as an additional five for which CSIS reported both the date of administrative receipt within the institution and the subsequent date of receipt by the person designated by the head to receive it (i.e., the relevant operational unit).

NSIRA attributes most of these delays to expected dynamics in classified information sharing: the individual authorizing the disclosure is not always the same individual who administratively sends it to the recipient, and the person who administratively receives the disclosure is not always the same person who is designated by the head to receive it.

In the majority of cases, the observed delays were shorter than one week. In nine cases, however, the delay ranged from 30 to 233 days.

Such delays mean that information is not processed and actioned within the recipient institution until long after it was sent – or intended to be sent – by the individual authorizing the disclosure. While these delays do not amount to non-compliance with the SCIDA, they are inconsistent with the Act’s purpose and guiding principles.

Recommendation 6: NSIRA recommends that GC institutions review their administrative processes for sending and receiving disclosures under the SCIDA, and correct practices that cause delays.

4. Conclusion

The SCIDA’s requirements for disclosure and record keeping apply to both disclosing and recipient institutions in all cases where the SCIDA is invoked as a mechanism for disclosure. This review assessed GC institutions’ compliance with requirements for record keeping in respect of all 173 disclosures that were made and received in 2022. It assessed their compliance with requirements for disclosure in relation to a targeted sample of 19 disclosures.

NSIRA found that institutions complied with the SCIDA’s requirements for disclosure and record keeping in relation to the majority of disclosures. GC institutions’ non-compliance with subsection 9(3) was driven by irregularities in the reporting of 11 disclosures. Observed non-compliance with substantive requirements under subsection 5(2) related to three disclosures; and non-compliance with subsection 5.1(1) related to two disclosures. These instances of non-compliance do not point to any systemic failures in GC institutions’ implementation of the SCIDA.

Within this context, NSIRA observed improvements in reviewee performance as compared with findings from prior years’ reports and over the course of the review. Of note, NSIRA’s requests for information in support of this review prompted corrective action by CBSA, DND/CAF, and IRCC that would have otherwise amounted to non-compliance with requirements under section 9.

NSIRA also observed several practices that, although compliant with the SCIDA, leave room for improvement. NSIRA’s recommendations in this review are designed to increase standardization across the GC in a manner that is consistent with institutions’ demonstrated best practices and the SCIDA’s guiding principles.

Annex A. Record Keeping Obligations for Disclosing and Recipient Institutions

Obligation – disclosing institution Obligation — recipient institution 
9 (1) Every Government of Canada institution that discloses information under this Act must prepare and keep records that set out (2) Every Government of Canada institution that receives information under this Act must prepare and keep records that set out
(a) a description of the information; (a) a description of the information;
(b) the name of the individual who authorized its disclosure; (b) the name of the institution that disclosed it;
(c) the name of the recipient Government of Canada institution; (c) the name or position of the head of the recipient institution — or of the person designated by the head — who received the information;
(d) the date on which it was disclosed; (d) the date on which it was received by the recipient institution;
(e) a description of the information that was relied on to satisfy the disclosing institution that the disclosure was authorized under this Act; and (e) whether the information has been destroyed or returned under subsection 5.1(1);
(f) if the information has been destroyed under subsection 5.1(1), the date on which it was destroyed;
(g) if the information was returned under subsection 5.1(1) to the institution that disclosed it, the date on which it was returned; and
(f) any other information specified by the regulations. (h) any other information specified by the regulations.

Copy to National Security and Intelligence Review Agency

Within 30 days after the end of each calendar year, every Government of Canada institution that disclosed information under section 5 during the year and every Government of Canada institution that received such information must provide the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency with a copy of every record it prepared under subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, with respect to the information.

Annex B. Sample of Disclosures

Disclosures were selected for the sample based on the content of records provided to NSIRA under subsection 9(3), according to the following parameters:

  • At least two disclosures per discloser-recipient pair, if available;
  • At least one proactive disclosure per discloser, if available;
  • At least one requested disclosure per recipient, if available;
  • All disclosures identified by recipient institutions as including personal information that was destroyed or returned under the SCIDA, subsection 5.1(1);
  • All disclosures for which there is a high-level discrepancy in the discloser and recipient records (i.e., a record of receipt, but no record of disclosure; a substantive misalignment in the description of the information; greater than seven days’ discrepancy in the date sent and received; date of receipt earlier than the date of sending);
  • All disclosures made by an institution that is not listed in Schedule 3 of the SCIDA; and
  • All disclosures received by institutions added to Schedule 3 in the preceding year.

Annex C. Overview of SCIDA Disclosures in Prior Years

Drawing on information published in previous NSIRA reports, Table 5 summarizes the number and distribution of disclosures made under the SCIDA in prior years.

Table 5: Number of SCIDA disclosures, by disclosing and recipient institution, 2019-2021

    Designated Recipient Institutions
  Disclosing Institution CBSA CFIA CNSC CRA CSE CSIS DND/CAF Finance FINTRAC GAC Health IRCC PHAC PSC RCMP TC TOTAL (proactive)
2021 DND/CAF 2 2
GAC 41 1 2 44
IRCC 68 79 2 149
TOTAL 68 122 2 1 2 195
2020 CBSA 1 3 4
GAC 1 25 1 13 40
IRCC 60 61 37 1 159
RCMP 1 3 5 9
TC 2 2
Other 1 1
TOTAL 61 88 1 3 6 55 1 215
2019 CBSA 1 2 3
GAC 23 3 1 15 42
IRCC 5 17 1 36 59
RCMP 4 1 3 1 9
TC 1 1
TOTAL 4 5 41 1 1 3 4 1 54 114

Annex D. Findings and Recommendations

Findings

NSIRA found that CSE, CSIS, GAC, and IRCC regularly use the SCIDA in a manner that warrants information sharing arrangements, as encouraged by subsection 4(c) of the SCIDA.

NSIRA found that CBSA, DND/CAF, and IRCC were non-compliant with subsection 9(3) of the SCIDA, as they failed to provide all records created under subsections 9(1) or 9(2) to NSIRA within the legislated timeframe.

NSIRA found improved compliance outcomes in instances where departments prepared record overview spreadsheets under subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the SCIDA that displayed the following characteristics:

  • a row for each disclosure made or received;
  • columns explicitly tied to each individual paragraph under section 9; and
  • additional columns to capture relevant administrative details, such as whether the disclosure was requested or proactive; the date of the request (if applicable); and any applicable file reference numbers.

NSIRA found that all GC institutions complied with their obligation to prepare and keep records that set out the information prescribed under subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the SCIDA.

NSIRA found that more than half of the descriptions provided by CBSA and IRCC under paragraph 9(1)(e) of the SCIDA did not explicitly address their satisfaction that the disclosure was authorized under paragraph 5(1)(b), the proportionality test.

NSIRA found, within the sample of disclosures reviewed, that disclosing institutions demonstrated they had satisfied themselves of both the contribution and proportionality tests, in compliance with subsection 5(1) of the SCIDA.

NSIRA found that GAC satisfied itself under the SCIDA’s paragraph 5(1)(a) contribution test based on an incorrect understanding of the recipient’s national security mandate in two cases.

NSIRA found, within the sample of disclosures reviewed, that CBSA and GAC (in one and two disclosures, respectively) were non-compliant with the SCIDA’s subsection 5(2) requirement to provide a statement regarding accuracy and reliability.

NSIRA found, in relation to the remaining disclosures within the sample, that GAC, IRCC, and RCMP included their statements regarding accuracy and reliability within the disclosures themselves, whereas CBSA provided its statements in the disclosures’ cover letters.

NSIRA found that DND/CAF destroyed information under the SCIDA subsection 5.1(1), but they were non-compliant with the requirement to do so “as soon as feasible after receiving it.”

NSIRA found delays between when a disclosure was authorized for sending and when it was received by the individual designated by the head of the recipient institution to receive it in at least 20% (n=34) of disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. NSIRA recommends that information sharing arrangements be used to govern regular SCIDA disclosures between GAC and CSIS; IRCC and CSIS; as well as IRCC and CSE.
  2. NSIRA recommends that all GC institutions prepare record overviews to clearly address the requirements of subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the SCIDA; and provide them to NSIRA along with a copy of the disclosure itself and, where relevant, a copy of the request.
  3. NSIRA recommends that disclosing institutions explicitly address the requirements of both paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) in the records that they prepare under paragraph 9(1)(e) of the SCIDA.
  4. NSIRA recommends that GC institutions contemplating the use of proactive disclosures under the SCIDA communicate with the recipient institution, ahead of making the disclosure, to inform their assessments under subsection 5(1).
  5. NSIRA recommends that all disclosing institutions include statements regarding accuracy and reliability within the same document as the disclosed information.
  6. NSIRA recommends that GC institutions review their administrative processes for sending and receiving disclosures under the SCIDA, and correct practices that cause delays.
Share this page
Date Modified:

Review of Government of Canada Institutions’ Disclosures of Information Under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act in 2022

Review of Government of Canada Institutions’ Disclosures of Information Under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act in 2022


Last Updated:

Status:

Published

Review Number:

23-03

Share this page
Date Modified:

Annual Report on the Access to Information Act 2022–23

Date of Publishing:

Introduction

The Access to Information Act gives Canadian citizens and permanent residents, as well as any person or corporation present in Canada, a right of access to information contained in government records, subject to certain specific and limited exceptions.

Section 94(1) of the Act requires the head of each government institution to prepare an annual report on the administration of the Act within the institution and to submit the report to Parliament. In addition, section 20 of the Service Fees Act requires institutions to report on all statutory fees processed during the reporting period.

This report to Parliament, which is prepared and tabled in accordance with section 94 of the Access to Information Act and section 20 of the Service Fees Act, describes the activities of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) Secretariat in administering these Acts during the period of April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023.

If you require more information or wish to make a request under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act, please direct your inquiries to the following:

Access to Information and Privacy Office
National Security and Intelligence Review Agency
P.O. Box 2430, Station “D” Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5W5
Email: ATIP@nsira-ossnr.gc.ca

Who we are

Established in July 2019, NSIRA is an independent agency that reports to Parliament and conducts investigations and reviews of the federal government’s national security and intelligence activities.

The NSIRA Secretariat assists NSIRA in fulfilling its mandate. It is the NSIRA Secretariat, headed by an Executive Director, that is the government institution for the purposes of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Mandate

NSIRA has a dual mandate to conduct reviews and investigations in relation to Canada’s national security or intelligence activities. 

Reviews

NSIRA’s review mandate is broad, as outlined in subsection 8(1) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act (NSIRA Act). This mandate includes reviewing the activities of both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), as well as the national security- or intelligence-related activities of any other federal department or agency. This includes, but is not limited to, the national security or intelligence activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), Global Affairs Canada (GAC), and the Department of Justice. Further, NSIRA may review any national security or intelligence matters that a minister of the Crown refers to NSIRA.

NSIRA reviews assess whether Canada’s national security and intelligence activities comply with relevant laws, policies, and ministerial directions, and whether they are reasonable and necessary. In conducting its reviews, NSIRA can make any findings or recommendations it considers appropriate.

Investigations

NSIRA is responsible for investigating national security or intelligence-related complaints from members of the public. As outlined in paragraph 8(1)(d) of the NSIRA Act, NSIRA has the mandate to investigate complaints about:

  • any activity of CSIS or of CSE;
  • decisions to deny or revoke certain federal government security clearances;
  • any complaint referred under subsection 45.53(4.1) or 45.67(2.1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act,
  • reports made under section 19 of the Citizenship Act, and
  • matters referred under section 45 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Access to Information and Privacy Office

NSIRA’s ATIP Office is accountable for the development and implementation of effective policies, guidelines, systems, and procedures to ensure that the NSIRA Secretariat meets its responsibilities under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

For the reporting period, the NSIRA ATIP office consisted of:

  • 1 Full-time Access to Information Consultant;
  • 1 Part-time Privacy Consultant; and
  • 1 Full-time ATIP Manager who fulfilled the duties that would normally be carried out by an ATIP Coordinator, as well as managed the ATIP Office, in addition to fulfilling normal duties as Manager of Administrative Services for the Secretariat and Agency Members.

NSIRA Secretariat Corporate Legal Counsel and Senior General Counsel supported the ATIP office on an as required basis.

The ATIP Office is responsible for the following:

  • monitoring compliance with ATIP legislation and relevant procedures and policies;
  • processing requests under both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act;
  • developing and maintaining policies, procedures, and guidelines to ensure that the NSIRA Secretariat respected the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act;
  • maintaining Personal Information Banks and conducting privacy impact assessments.
  • preparing annual reports to Parliament and other statutory reports, as well as other material that might be required by central agencies; and
  • representing the NSIRA Secretariat in dealings with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the information and privacy commissioners, and other government departments and agencies in matters pertaining to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The NSIRA Secretariat was a party to a service agreement under section 96 of the Access to Information Act during the reporting period, pursuant to which it received administrative services from the Privy Council Office related to the tabling of the Access to Information Act annual report in Parliament. The NSIRA Secretariat was also a party to a service agreement under section 92 of the Act, pursuant to which it received ATIP Online services from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

The NSIRA Secretariat ensured that the following proactive publication legislative requirements were met during the reporting period with the assistance of its Finance team:

  • Travel expenses;
  • Hospitality expenses;
  • Reports tabled in Parliament; and
  • Contracts over $10,000.

To assist the ATIP Office in meeting its overall legislative obligations, the NSIRA Secretariat relied on a collaborative internal group of subject matter points of contact from all its branches.

Delegation Order

The Executive Director, as the Head of the NSIRA Secretariat, is responsible for the administration of the Access to Information Act within the institution. Pursuant to section 95 of the Access to Information Act, the Executive Director has delegated the ATIP Manager and ATIP Officer – as well as persons acting in these positions – to perform powers, duties, and functions for the administration of the Act. These positions have limited delegation of authority under the Act and the Privacy Act, in accordance with the delegation of authority instrument approved by the Executive Director in August 2022. The Access to Information Act Delegation Order can be found in Appendix A.

Performance 2022-2023

Performance in Processing Access Requests

During the reporting period, from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023, the NSIRA Secretariat received 11 formal requests in addition to 10 requests that were outstanding from previous reporting periods, bringing the total number of requests to 21. Of these, the NSIRA Secretariat closed 15 requests in 2022-23, and 6 were carried over to the next reporting period. Five of the carried-over requests were received during the 2022-23 reporting period, of which two open requests are within the legislated timelines as of March 31, 2023, and four are beyond the legislated timelines, including one request that was received during the 2018-19 reporting period.

Statistical Reports for 2022-2023

The institution’s 2022-2023 Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act and Supplemental ATIP Statistical Report for 2022-2023 are found in Appendices B and C.

Extensions and Completion Time of Closed Requests

During the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat invoked extensions in processing 10 requests: 1 extension of 31 to 60 days, 3 extensions of 61 to 120 days, 2 extensions of 121 to 180 days, 2 extensions of 181 to 365 days, and 2 extensions of 365 days or more, all of which included extensions necessary to consult with third parties.

Of the requests completed during the reporting period,

  • 2 requests, or 13.33% of the requests completed, were disclosed in its entirety. 1 request completed within 16 to 30 days, and 1 request completed within 181 to 365 days.
  • 7 requests, or 46.66% of the requests completed, were disclosed in part. 3 requests completed within 61 to 120 days, 2 requests completed within 181 to 365 days, and 2 requests completed more than 365 days.
  • 2 requests, or 13.33% of the requests completed, were all exempted. 1 request completed within 1 to 15 days, and 1 request completed within 31 to 60 days.
  • 1 request, or 6.66% of the requests completed, resulted in no records. This request was completed within 16 to 30 days.
  • 1 request, or 6.66% of the requests completed was abandoned and completed within 1 to 15 days.
  • 2 requests, or 13.33% of the requests completed, were neither confirmed nor denied. 1 request completed within 16 to 30 days, and 1 request completed within 31 to 60 days.

The NSIRA Secretariat’s responses to many requests required intensive review of complex records, including extensive internal and external consultations due to a significant portion of our information holdings consisting of sensitive and classified records created or originally received by other government institutions owing to NSIRA’s mandate. In 2022-23, the NSIRA Secretariat’s on-time response rate decreased extensively to 33% from 80% in the previous reporting year.

Consultations

The NSIRA Secretariat was consulted on 4 requests this fiscal year. All 4 requests were completed within 61 to 120 days. The NSIRA Secretariat closed all consultations and carried over none into 2023-2024.

Requests Treated Informally

In 2022-2023, the NSIRA Secretariat responded to 2 informal requests for records previously released under the Access to Information Act and carried over one into 2023-2024.

Impact of COVID-19 measures

During the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat was not affected by measures related to the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Complaints and Investigations of Access Requests

Subsection 30(1) of the Act describes how the Office of the Information Commissioner receives and investigates complaints from individuals regarding the processing of requests under the Act. The NSIRA Secretariat received three new complaints during the reporting period. One of these complaints was discontinued during the reporting period, while the other two complaints remained active on March 31, 2023.

Moreover, one complaint received in fiscal year 2021-2022 was closed as “well-founded” during this reporting period. This complaint concerned the NSIRA Secretariat’s delay in providing a fulsome response to a large request that was made to NSIRA’s predecessor, the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), before the established legislative deadline. The delay was largely due to extended external consultations.

Training and Awareness

During the reporting period, access to information training requirements were identified for all NSIRA Secretariat employees, as well as for those with functional or delegated responsibility for the administration of the Access to Information Act, in accordance with the Directive on Access to Information Requests. The Canada School of Public Service course Access to Information and Privacy Fundamentals (COR502) was included as mandatory training in all employees’ training curriculum.

Privacy policies, guidelines, procedures and initiatives

The NSIRA Secretariat updated the Delegation Order during the reporting period. We also engaged with Library and Archives Canada on obtaining institution-specific disposition authorities, as we are currently operating under the former SIRC’s disposition authorities.

Proactive Publication under Part 2 of the ATIA

In accordance with paragraph 81(b) of the Access to Information Act, the NSIRA Secretariat is a government entity subject to the following proactive publication requirements:

  • Briefing materials (section 88)

During the reporting period, NSIRA Secretariat proactive publications were published on open.canada.ca.

Of the total proactive publication requirements that were due during the reporting period, 80% were published within the legislated timelines.

Initiatives and Projects to Improve Access to Information

The NSIRA Secretariat’s IT team began work to develop an ATIP software tool for our classified and unclassified systems. The NSIRA Secretariat also signed a memorandum of understanding with TBS to make full use of ATIP online and implemented the tool during the reporting period.

Summary of Key Issues and Actions Taken on Complaints

The NSIRA Secretariat hired a consultant to help process the large aforementioned access request made to its predecessor; a request that was subsequently the subject of a delay complaint made in FY 2021-2022 and deemed well-founded by the Information Commissioner during the reporting period. The NSIRA Secretariat took concrete action during the reporting period to comply with the Commissioner’s order to provide a fulsome response to the request “forthwith”, including but not limited to streamlining the consultation process with another government institution and disclosing additional records to the requestor.

Access to Information Act Fees for the Purposes of the Service Fees Act

The Service Fees Act requires a responsible authority to report annually to Parliament on the fees collected by the institution.

With respect to fees collected under the Access to Information Act, the information below is reported in accordance with the requirements of section 20 of the Service Fees Act.

  • Enabling authority: Access to Information Act
  • Fee payable: $5.00 application fee is the only fee charged for an ATI request
  • Total revenue: $30
  • $25
  • Cost of operating the program: $294,640

Monitoring Compliance

In order to meet legislative deadlines for access to information requests, deadlines for individual requests are strictly monitored by using MS Outlook reminders. The ATIP Manager organizes ad hoc meetings to discuss request-related activities (such as whether inter-institutional consultations are necessary), determine deadlines and ensure that all team members are informed of the status of files. At bi-weekly team meetings with the Senior General Counsel and Corporate Counsel, the ATIP Manager raises and discusses compliance with legislative and policy obligations. The Executive Director is also briefed on all ATIP compliance issues.

The NSIRA Secretariat has a document setting out the procedures to be followed in carrying out our monthly proactive disclosure, together with the associated expectations and timelines, in order to monitor the accuracy and completeness of the information proactively published under Part 2 of the Act.

During the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat also began assessing the feasibility of making information previously released under the Access to Information Act available on its public-facing website.

For contracts issued during the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat included a General Condition on Access to Information from Public Services and Procurement Canada’s Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions Manual.

Appendix A: Delegation Order

Access to Information Act Designation Order

The Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pursuant to section 95 of the Access to Information Act, hereby designates the persons holding the positions or acting in these positions, set out in the schedule hereto to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency as the head of a government institution under the section of the Access to Information Act set out in the schedule opposite each position.

Privacy Act Designation Order

The Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pursuant to section 73 of the Privacy Act, hereby designates the persons holding the positions or acting in these positions, set out in the schedule hereto to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency as the head of a government institution under the section of the Privacy Act set out in the schedule opposite each position.

Appendix B: 2022-2023 Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act

Name of institution: National Security and Intelligence Review Agency

Reporting period: 2022-04-01 – 2023-03-31

Section 1: Request Under the Access to Information Act

1.1 Number of Requests
  Number of Requests
Received during reporting period 11
Outstanding from previous reporting period 9
Outstanding from more than one reporting period 1
Total 21
Closed during reporting period 15
Carried over to next reporting period 6
Carried over within legislated timeline 2
Carried over beyond legislated timeline 4
1.2 Sources of requests
Source Number of Requests
Media 0
Academia 0
Business (private sector) 0
Organization 0
Public 10
Decline to Identify 1
Total 11
1.3 Channels of requests
Source Number of Requests
Online 10
E-mail 0
Mail 1
In person 0
Phone 0
Fax 0
Total 11

Section 2: Informal requests

2.1 Number of informal requests
  Number of Requests
Received during reporting period 3
Outstanding from previous reporting periods 0
Outstanding from more than one reporting period 0
Total 3
Closed during reporting period 2
Carried over to next reporting period 1
2.2 Channels of informal requests
Source Number of Requests
Online 0
E-Mail 3
Mail 0
In person 0
Phone 0
Fax 0
Total 3
2.3 Completion time of informal requests
Completion Time
1 to 15 days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More than 365 Days Total
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2.4 Pages released informally
Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
2 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5 Pages re-released informally
Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 3: Applications to the Information Commissioner on Declining to Act on Requests

  Number of Requests
Outstanding from previous reporting period 0
Sent during reporting period 0
Total 0
Approved by the Information Commissioner during reporting period 0
Declined by the Information Commissioner during reporting period 0
Withdrawn during reporting period 0
Carried over to next reporting period 0

Section 4: Requests Closed During the Reporting Period

4.1 Disposition and completion time
Disposition of Requests Completion Time
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
All disclosed 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 7
All exempted 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No records exist 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Request transferred 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Decline to act with the approval of the Information Commisioner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2 3 2 3 0 3 2 15
4.2 Exemptions
Section Numbers of Requests
13(1)(a) 0
13(1)(b) 0
13(1)(c) 0
13(1)(d) 0
13(1)(e) 0
14 0
14(a) 0
14(b) 0
15(1) – I. A. * 0
15(1) – Def. * 5
15(1) – S.A. * 1
16(1)(a)(i) 3
16(1)(a)(ii) 0
16(1)(a)(iii) 0
16(1)(b) 1
16(1)(c) 4
16(1)(d) 0
16(2) 0
16(2)(a) 0
16(2)(b) 0
16(2)(c) 0
16(3) 0
16.1(1)(a) 0
16.1(1)(b) 0
16.1(1)(c) 0
16.1(1)(d) 0
16.2(1) 0
16.3 0
16.31 0
16.4(1)(a) 0
16.4(1)(b) 0
16.5 0
16.6 0
17 0
18(a) 0
18(b) 0
18(c) 0
18(d) 0
18.1(1)(a) 0
18.1(1)(b) 0
18.1(1)(c) 0
18.1(1)(d) 0
19(1) 2
20(1)(a) 0
20(1)(b) 0
20(1)(b.1) 0
20(1)(c) 0
20(1)(d) 0
20.1 0
20.2 0
20.4 0
21(1)(a) 0
21(1)(b) 0
21(1)(c) 0
21(1)(d) 0
22 0
22.1(1) 0
23 1
23.1 0
24(1) 1
26 0

* I.A.: International Affairs
* Def.: Defence of Canada
* S.A.: Subversive Activities

4.3 Exclusions
Section Numbers of Requests
68(a) 0
68(b) 0
68(c) 0
68.1 0
68.2(a) 0
68.2(b) 0
69(1) 0
69(1)(a) 0
69(1)(b) 0
69(1)(c) 0
69(1)(d) 0
69(1)(e) 0
69(1)(f) 0
69(1)(g) re (a) 0
69(1)(g) re (b) 0
69(1)(g) re (c) 0
69(1)(g) re (d) 0
69(1)(g) re (e) 0
69(1)(g) re (f) 0
69.1(1) 0
4.4 Format of information released
Paper Electronic Other
E-record Data set Video Audio
0 9 0 0 0 0
4.5 Complexity
4.5.1 Relevant pages processed and disclosed for paper and e-record formats
Number of Pages Processed Number of Pages Disclosed Number of Requests
856 856 14
4.5.2 Relevant pages processed per request disposition for paper and e-record formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
All disclosed 1 7 1 322 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 6 247 1 280 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the information Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 12 254 2 602 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.5.3 Relevant minutes processed and disclosed for audio formats
Number of Minutes Processed Number of Minutes Disclosed Number of Requests
0 0 0
4.5.4 Relevant minutes processed per request disposition for audio formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 60 Minutes Processed 60 – 120 Minutes Processed More than 120 Minutes Processed
Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.5.5 Relevant minutes processed and disclosed for video formats
Number of Minutes Processed Number of Minutes Disclosed Number of Requests
0 0 0
4.5.6 Relevant minutes processed per request disposition for video formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 60 Minutes Processed 60 – 120 Minutes Processed More than 120 Minutes Processed
Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.5.7 Other complexities
Disposition Consultation Required Legal Advice Sought Other Total
All disclosed 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0
4.6 Closed requests
4.6.1 Requests closed within legislated timelines
  Requests closed within legislated timelines
Number of requests closed within legislated timelines 5
Percentage of requests closed within legislated timelines (%) 33.33333333
4.7 Deemed refusals
4.7.1 Reasons for not meeting legislated timelines
Number of Requests Closed Past the Legislated Timelines Principal Reason
Interference with Operations/Workload External Consultation Internal Consultation Other
10 0 10 0 0
4.7.2 Requests closed beyond legislated timelines (including any extension taken)
Number of Days Past Legislated Timelines Number of Requests Past Legislated Timeline Where No Extension Was Taken Number of Requests Past Legislated Timeline Where an Extension Was Taken Total
1 to 15 Days 0 0 0
16 to 30 Days 0 0 0
31 to 60 Days 0 2 2
61 to 120 Days 0 3 3
121 to 180 Days 0 0 0
181 to 365 Days 0 3 3
More than 365 Days 0 2 2
Total 0 10 10
4.8 Requests for translation
Translation Requests Accepted Refused Total
English to French 0 0 0
French to English 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0

Section 5: Extensions

5.1 Reasons for extensions and disposition of requests
Disposition of Requests Where an Extension Was taken 9(1)(a) Interference With Operations/Workload 9(1)(b) Consultation 9(1)(c) Third-Party Notice
Section 69 Other
All disclosed 0 0 2 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 7 0
All exempted 0 0 1 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0
No records exist 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 10 0
5.2 Length of extensions
Length of Extensions 9(1)(a) Interference With Operations/Workload 9(1)(b) Consultation 9(1)(c) Third-Party Notice
Section 69 Other
30 days or less 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 days 0 0 1 0
61 to 120 days 0 0 3 0
121 to 180 days 0 0 2 0
181 to 365 days 0 0 2 0
365 days or more 0 0 2 0
Total 0 0 10 0

Section 6: Fees

Fee Type Fee Collected Fee Waived Fee Refunded
Number of Requests Amount Number of Requests Amount Number of Requests Amount
Application 0 $30.00 5 $0.00 0 $0.00
Other fees 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
Total 6 $30.00 5 $0.00 0 $0.00

Section 7: Consultations Received From Other Institutions and Organizations

7.1 Consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions and other organizations
Consultations Other Government of Canada Institutions Number of Pages to Review Other Organizations Number of Pages to Review
Received during reporting period 4 189 0 0
Outstanding from the previous reporting period 0 0 0 0
Total 4 189 0 0
Closed during the reporting period 4 189 0 0
Carried over within negotiated timelines 0 0 0 0
Carried over beyond negotiated timelines 0 0 0 0
7.2 Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions
Recommendation Number of Days Required to Complete Consultation Requests
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
Disclose entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclose in part 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4
Exempt entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exclude entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consult other institution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4
7.3 Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other organizations outside the Government of Canada
Recommendation Number of Days Required to Complete Consultation Requests
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
Disclose entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclose in part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exempt entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exclude entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consult other institution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 8: Completion Time of Consultations on Cabinet Confidences

8.1 Requests with Legal Services
Number of Days Fewer Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
1 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 to 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
More than 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.2 Requests with Privy Council Office
Number of Days Fewer Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
1 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 to 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
More than 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 9: Investigations and Reports of finding

9.1 Investigations
Section 32 Notice of intention to investigate Subsection 30(5) Ceased to investigate Section 35 Formal Representations
3 0 0
9.2 Investigations and Reports of finding
Section 37(1) Initial Reports Section 37(2) Final Reports
Received Containing recommendations issued by the Information Commissioner Containing orders issued by the Information Commissioner Received Containing recommendations issued by the Information Commissioner Containing orders issued by the Information Commissioner
1 1 1 1 1 1

Section 10: Court Action

10.1 Court actions on complaints
Section 41
Complainant (1) Institution (2) Third Party (3) Privacy Commissioner (4) Total
0 0 0 0 0
10.2 Court actions on third party notifications under paragraph 28(1)(b)
Section 44 – under paragraph 28(1)(b)
0
11.1 Allocated Costs
Expenditures Amount
Salaries $100,000
Overtime $0
Goods and Services $194,640
Professional services contracts $194,640
Other $0
Total $294,640
11.2 Human Resources
Resources Person Years Dedicated to Access to Information Activities
Full-time employees 0.000
Part-time and casual employees 1.000
Regional Staff 0.000
Consultants and agency personnel 1.000
Students 1.000
Total 3.000

Note: Enter values to three decimal places.

Appendix C: Supplemental Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act

Section 1: Capacity to Receive Requests under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act

  Number of weeks
Able to receive requests by mail 52
Able to receive requests by email 52
Able to receive requests through the digital request service 52

Section 2: Capacity to Process Records under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act

2.1 Number of weeks your institution was able to process paper records in different classification levels
  No capacity Partial Capacity Full capacity Total
Unclassified Paper Records 0 0 52 52
Protected B Paper Records 0 0 52 52
Secret and Top Secret Paper Records 0 0 52 52
2.2 Number of weeks your institution was able to process electronic records in different classification levels
  No capacity Partial Capacity Full capacity Total
Unclassified Paper Records 0 0 52 52
Protected B Paper Records 0 0 52 52
Secret and Top Secret Paper Records 0 0 52 52

Section 3: Open Requests and Complaints Under the Privacy Act

3.1 Number of open requests that are outstanding from previous reporting periods.

Fiscal Year Open Requests Were Received Open Requests that are Within Legislated Timelines as Open Requests that are Beyond Legislated Timelines as of March 31, 2023 Total
Received in 2022-23 2 3 5
Received in 2021-22 0 0 0
Received in 2020-21 0 0 0
Received in 2019-20 0 0 0
Received in 2018-19 0 1 1
Received in 2017-18 0 0 0
Received in 2016-17 0 0 0
Received in 2015-16 0 0 0
Received in 2014-15 0 0 0
Received in 2013-14 or earlier 0 0 0

3.2 Number of open complaints with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that are outstanding from previous reporting periods

Fiscal Year Open Complaints were received by institutions Open Requests that are Within Legislated Timelines as
Received in 2022-23 3
Received in 2021-22 0
Received in 2020-21 0
Received in 2019-20 0
Received in 2018-19 0
Received in 2017-18 0
Received in 2016-17 0
Received in 2015-16 0
Received in 2014-15 0
Received in 2013-14 or earlier 0
Total 3
Share this page
Date Modified:

Annual Report on the Privacy Act 2022-23

Date of Publishing:

Introduction

The Privacy Act gives individuals the right to access information about themselves that is held by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat, subject to certain specific and limited exceptions. The Privacy Act also protects the privacy of individuals by giving them substantial control over the collection, use, and disclosure of their personal information and by preventing others from having access to that information.

Section 72 of the act requires the head of each government institution to prepare an annual report on the administration of the act within the institution and to submit the report to Parliament.

This report to Parliament, which is prepared and tabled in accordance with section 72 of the Privacy Act, describes the activities of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat in administering the Act during the period of April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023.

If you require more information or wish to make a request under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act, please direct your inquiries to the following:

Access to Information and Privacy Office
National Security and Intelligence Review Agency
P.O. Box 2430, Station “D” Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5W5
​Email: ATIP@nsira-ossnr.gc.ca

Who we are

Established in July 2019, NSIRA is an independent agency that reports to Parliament and conducts investigations and reviews of the federal government’s national security and intelligence activities.

The NSIRA Secretariat assists NSIRA in fulfilling its mandate. It is the NSIRA Secretariat, headed by an Executive Director, that is the government institution for the purposes of the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

Mandate

The NSIRA Secretariat supports NSIRA in its dual mandate to conduct reviews and investigations in relation to Canada’s national security or intelligence activities.

Reviews

NSIRA’s review mandate is broad, as outlined in subsection 8(1) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act (NSIRA Act). This mandate includes reviewing the activities of both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), as well as the national security- or intelligence-related activities of any other federal department or agency. This includes, but is not limited to, the national security or intelligence activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), Global Affairs Canada (GAC), and the Department of Justice. Further, NSIRA may review any national security or intelligence matters that a minister of the Crown refers to NSIRA.

NSIRA reviews assess whether Canada’s national security and intelligence activities comply with relevant laws, policies, and ministerial directions, and whether they are reasonable and necessary. In conducting its reviews, NSIRA can make any findings or recommendations it considers appropriate.

Investigations

NSIRA is responsible for investigating national security or intelligence-related complaints from members of the public. As outlined in paragraph 8(1)(d) of the NSIRA Act, NSIRA has the mandate to investigate complaints about:

  • any activity of CSIS or of CSE;
  • decisions to deny or revoke certain federal government security clearances;
  • any complaint referred under subsection 45.53(4.1) or 45.67(2.1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act,
  • reports made under section 19 of the Citizenship Act, and
  • matters referred under section 45 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Access to Information and Privacy Office – Organizational Structure

NSIRA’s ATIP Office is accountable for the development and implementation of effective policies, guidelines, systems, and procedures to ensure that the NSIRA Secretariat meets its responsibilities under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. For the reporting period, the NSIRA ATIP office consisted of:

  • 1 Full-time Access to Information Consultant;
  • 1 Part-time Privacy Consultant; and
  • 1 Full-time ATIP Manager who fulfilled the duties that would normally be carried out by an ATIP Coordinator, as well as managed the ATIP Office in addition to fulfilling normal duties as Manager of Administrative Services for the Secretariat and Agency Members.

NSIRA Secretariat Senior General Counsel and Corporate Counsel supported the ATIP Office on an as required basis.

The ATIP Office is responsible for the following:

  • monitoring compliance with ATIP legislation and relevant procedures and policies;
  • processing requests under both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act;
  • developing and maintaining policies, procedures, and guidelines to ensure that the NSIRA Secretariat respected the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act;
  • maintaining Personal Information Banks and conducting privacy impact assessments.
  • preparing annual reports to Parliament and other statutory reports, as well as other material that might be required by central agencies; and
  • representing the NSIRA Secretariat in dealings with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the information and privacy commissioners, and other government departments and agencies in matters pertaining to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The NSIRA Secretariat was a party to a service agreement under section 73.1 of the Privacy Act during the reporting period, pursuant to which it received administrative services from the Privy Council Office related to the tabling of the Privacy Act annual report in Parliament. The NSIRA Secretariat was also a party to a service agreement under section 71.1 of the Act, pursuant to which it received ATIP Online services from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

To assist the ATIP Office in meeting its overall legislative obligations, the NSIRA Secretariat relied on a collaborative internal group of subject matter points of contact from all its branches.

Delegation Order

The Executive Director, as the Head of the NSIRA Secretariat, is responsible for the administration of the Privacy Act within the institution. Pursuant to section 73 of the Privacy Act, the Executive Director has delegated the ATIP Manager and ATIP Officer – as well as persons acting in these positions – to perform powers, duties, and functions for the administration of the Act. These positions have limited delegation of authority under the Act and the Access to Information Act, in accordance with the delegation of authority instrument approved by the Executive Director in August 2022. The Privacy Act Delegation Order can be found in Appendix A.

Performance 2022-2023

Performance in Processing Privacy Requests

During the reporting period, from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023, the NSIRA Secretariat received 12 formal requests. All 12 requests were completed during the reporting period. No requests were carried over from the previous reporting period.

Statistical Reports for 2022-2023

The institution’s 2022-2023 Statistical Report on the Privacy Act and Supplemental ATIP Statistical Report for 2022-2023 are found in Appendices B and C.

Extensions and Completion Time of Closed Requests

During the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat invoked extensions in processing 5 requests: 3 extensions of 31 to 60 days, and 2 extensions of 61 to 120 days, all of which included extensions necessary to consult with third parties.

Of the requests completed during the reporting period:

  • 1 request, or 8.33% of the requests completed, was disclosed in its entirety. This request was completed within 16 to 30 days.
  • 4 requests, or 33.33% of the requests completed, were disclosed in part. 1 request completed within 16 to 30 days, 2 requests completed within 31 to 60 days, and 1 request completed within 61 to 120 days.
  • 7 requests, or 58.33% of the requests completed, resulted in no records. 1 request completed within 1 to 15 days, 4 requests completed within 16 to 30 days, 1 request completed within 31 to 60 days, and 1 request completed within 61 to 120 days.

The NSIRA Secretariat’s responses to many requests required intensive review of complex records, including extensive internal and external consultations. In 2022-23, the NSIRA Secretariat’s on-time response rate decreased to 58.33% from 71% in the previous reporting year.

Consultations

No consultations were received by the NSIRA Secretariat during the reporting period.

Impact of COVID-19 Measures

During the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat was not affected by measures related to the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Complaints and Investigations

During the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat received 9 privacy complaints, 2 of which were related to access. All 9 complaints remained active on March 31, 2023.

Moreover, one privacy breach-related investigation initiated by the Privacy Commissioner in fiscal year 2020-2021 continued during the reporting period and remained active on March 31, 2023.

Training and Awareness

During the reporting period, privacy training requirements were identified for all NSIRA Secretariat employees, as well as for those with functional or delegated responsibility for the administration of the Privacy Act, in accordance with the Directive on Personal Information Requests and Correction of Personal Information. The Canada School of Public Service course Access to Information and Privacy Fundamentals (COR502) was included as mandatory training in all employees’ training curriculum.

In addition, an all-staff lunch and learn session was held in August 2022 to provide employees with a debrief of the International Association of Privacy Professionals Privacy Conference.

Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures

The NSIRA Secretariat updated the Delegation Order during the reporting period and also established its internal Directive on Managing Security and Safety Events in March 2023, which provides for coordination with the ATIP Office and Office of Primary Interest when a security event involves a suspected or actual privacy breach.

Initiatives and Projects to Improve Privacy

The NSIRA Secretariat’s IT team began work to develop an ATIP software tool for our classified and unclassified systems. The NSIRA Secretariat also signed a memorandum of understanding with TBS to make full use of ATIP Online and implemented the tool during the reporting period.

Summary of Key Issues and Actions Taken on Complaints

As previously outlined, all 9 complaints received during the reporting period remained active on March 31, 2023. The NSIRA Secretariat meaningfully engaged with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on all active investigations and disclosed additional records in 1 of the 2 access-related complaints.

Material Privacy Breaches

In the 2022-2023 reporting period, no material privacy breaches occurred.

Privacy Impact Assessments

The NSIRA Secretariat did not complete any PIAs in 2022-2023. During the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat received feedback from TBS for its PIA on the creation of NSIRA — which had been submitted to TBS in FY 2021-2022 — and undertook revisions to the PIA. During the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat also launched a PIA exercise pertaining to its investigations-related activities.

Public Interest Disclosures

No disclosures were made pursuant to paragraph 8(2)(m) of the Privacy Act during the reporting period.

Monitoring Compliance

In order to meet the legislative deadlines for privacy requests, deadlines for individual requests are strictly monitored by using MS Outlook reminders. The ATIP Manager organizes ad hoc meetings to discuss request-related activities (such as whether inter-institutional consultations are necessary), determine deadlines and ensure that all team members are informed of the status of files. At bi-weekly team meetings with the Senior General Counsel and Corporate Counsel, the ATIP Manager raises and discusses compliance with legislative and policy obligations. The Executive Director is also briefed on all ATIP compliance issues.

For contracts issued during the reporting period, the NSIRA Secretariat included a Standard Procurement Clause on the Handling of Personal Information or a Supplemental General Condition on Personal Information from Public Services and Procurement Canada’s Standard Acquisition Clauses and Conditions Manual.

Appendices

Appendix A: Delegation Order

Access to Information Act Designation Order

The Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pursuant to section 95 of the Access to Information Act, hereby designates the persons holding the positions or acting in these positions, set out in the schedule hereto to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency as the head of a government institution under the section of the Access to Information Act set out in the schedule opposite each position.

Privacy Act Designation Order

The Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, pursuant to section 73 of the Privacy Act*, hereby designates the persons holding the positions or acting in these positions, set out in the schedule hereto to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Executive Director of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency as the head of a government institution under the section of the Privacy Act set out in the schedule opposite each position.

Appendix B: 2022-2023 Statistical Report on the Privacy Act

Name of institution: National Security and Intelligence Review Agency

Reporting period: 2022-04-01 – 2023-03-31

Section 1: Request Under the Access to Information Act

1.1 Number of Requests
  Number of Requests
Received during reporting period 12
Outstanding from previous reporting period 0
Outstanding from more than one reporting period 0
Total 12
Closed during reporting period 12
Carried over to next reporting period 0
Carried over within legislated timeline 0
Carried over beyond legislated timeline 0
1.2 Channels of requests
Source Number of Requests
Online 10
E-mail 2
Mail 0
In person 0
Phone 0
Fax 0
Total 12

Section 2: Informal requests

2.1 Number of informal requests
  Number of Requests
Received during reporting period 0
Outstanding from previous reporting periods 0
Outstanding from more than one reporting period 0
Total 0
Closed during reporting period 0
Carried over to next reporting period 0
2.2 Channels of informal requests
Source Number of Requests
Online 0
E-Mail 0
Mail 0
In person 0
Phone 0
Fax 0
Total 0
2.3 Completion time of informal requests
Completion Time
1 to 15 days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More than 365 Days Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.4 Pages released informally
Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 3: Requests Closed During the Reporting Period

3.1 Disposition and completion time
Disposition of Requests Completion Time
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
All disclosed 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Disclosed in part 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 4
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No records exist 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 7
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 6 3 2 0 0 0 12
3.2 Exemptions
Section Numbers of Requests
18(2) 0
19(1)(a) 0
19(1)(b) 0
19(1)(c) 0
19(1)(d) 0
19(1)(e) 0
19(1)(f) 0
20 0
21 1
22(1)(a)(i) 3
22(1)(a)(ii) 0
22(1)(a)(iii) 0
22(1)(b) 4
22(1)(c) 0
22(2) 0
22.1 0
22.2 0
22.3 0
22.4 0
23(a) 0
23(b) 0
24(a) 0
24(b) 0
25 0
26 0
27 2
27.1 0
28 0
3.3 Exclusions
Section Numbers of Requests
69(1)(a) 0
69(1)(b) 0
69.1 0
70(1) 0
70(1)(a) 0
70(1(b) 0
70(1)(c) 0
70(1)(d) 0
70(1)(e) 0
70(1)(f) 0
70.1 0
3.4 Format of information released
Paper Electronic Other
E-record Data set Video Audio
0 5 0 0 0 0
3.5 Complexity
3.5.1 Relevant pages processed and disclosed for paper and e-record formats
Number of Pages Processed Number of Pages Disclosed Number of Requests
795 795 5
3.5.2 Relevant pages processed per request disposition for paper and e-record formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
All disclosed 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 3 150 0 0 1 644 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 4 151 0 0 1 644 0 0 0 0
3.5.3 Relevant minutes processed and disclosed for audio formats
Number of Minutes Processed Number of Minutes Disclosed Number of Requests
0 0 0
3.5.4 Relevant minutes processed per request disposition for audio formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 60 Minutes Processed 60 – 120 Minutes Processed More than 120 Minutes Processed
Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0
Declined to act with the approval of the Information Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5.5 Relevant minutes processed and disclosed for video formats
Number of Minutes Processed Number of Minutes Disclosed Number of Requests
0 0 0
3.5.6 Relevant minutes processed per request disposition for video formats by size of requests
Disposition Less Than 60 Minutes Processed 60 – 120 Minutes Processed More than 120 Minutes Processed
Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed Number of Requests Minutes Processed
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.5.7 Other complexities
Disposition Consultation Required Assessment of Fees Legal Advice Sought Other Total
All disclosed 0 0 0 0 0
Disclosed in part 0 0 0 0 0
All exempted 0 0 0 0 0
All excluded 0 0 0 0 0
Request abandoned 0 0 0 0 0
Neither confirmed nor denied 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
3.6 Closed requests
3.6.1 Requests closed within legislated timelines
  Requests closed within legislated timelines
Number of requests closed within legislated timelines 7
Percentage of requests closed within legislated timelines (%) 58.33333333
3.7 Deemed refusals
3.7.1 Reasons for not meeting legislated timelines
Number of Requests Closed Past the Legislated Timelines Principal Reason
Interference with Operations/Workload External Consultation Internal Consultation Other
5 0 3 0 2
3.7.2 Requests closed beyond legislated timelines (including any extension taken)
Number of Days Past Legislated Timelines Number of Requests Past Legislated Timeline Where No Extension Was Taken Number of Requests Past Legislated Timeline Where an Extension Was Taken Total
1 to 15 Days 0 1 1
16 to 30 Days 1 0 1
31 to 60 Days 1 1 2
61 to 120 Days 1 0 1
121 to 180 Days 0 0 0
181 to 365 Days 0 0 0
More than 365 Days 0 0 0
Total 3 2 5
3.8 Requests for translation
Translation Requests Accepted Refused Total
English to French 0 0 0
French to English 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0

Section 4: Disclosures Under Subsections 8(2) and 8(5)

Paragraph 8(2)(e) Paragraph 8(2)(m) Subsection 8(5) Total
0 0 0 0

Section 5: Requests for Correction of Personal Information and Notations

Disposition for Correction Requests Received Number
Notations attached 0
Requests for correction accepted 0
Total 0

Section 6: Extensions

6.1 Reasons for extensions and disposition of requests
Number of requests where an extension was taken 15(a)(i) Interference with operations 9(1)(b) Consultation 9(1)(b) Consultation
Further review required to determine exemptions Large volume of pages Large volume of requests Documents are difficult to obtain Cabinet Confidence Section (Section 70) External Internal
3 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0
6.2 Length of extensions
Length of Extensions 15(a)(i) Interference with operations 9(1)(b) Consultation 9(1)(b) Consultation
Further review required to determine exemptions Large volume of pages Large volume of requests Documents are difficult to obtain Cabinet Confidence Section (Section 70) External Internal
1 to 15 days 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0
16 to 30 days 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
31 days or greater               0
Total 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0

Section 7: Consultations Received From Other Institutions and Organizations

7.1 Consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions and other organizations
Consultations Other Government of Canada Institutions Number of Pages to Review Other Organizations Number of Pages to Review
Received during reporting period 0 0 0 0
Outstanding from the previous reporting period 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0
Closed during the reporting period 0 0 0 0
Carried over within regotiated timelines 0 0 0 0
Carried over beyond negotiated timelines 0 0 0 0
7.2 Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other Government of Canada institutions
Recommendation Number of Days Required to Complete Consultation Requests
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
Disclose entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclose in part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exempt entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exclude entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consult other institution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.3 Recommendations and completion time for consultations received from other organizations outside the Government of Canada
Recommendation Number of Days Required to Complete Consultation Requests
1 to 15 Days 16 to 30 Days 31 to 60 Days 61 to 120 Days 121 to 180 Days 181 to 365 Days More Than 365 Days Total
Disclose entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disclose in part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exempt entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exclude entirely 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consult other institution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 8: Completion Time of Consultations on Cabinet Confidences

8.1 Requests with Legal Services
Number of Days Fewer Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
1 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 to 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
More than 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.2 Requests with Privy Council Office
Number of Days Fewer Than 100 Pages Processed 101-500 Pages Processed 501-1000 Pages Processed 1001-5000 Pages Processed More Than 5000 Pages Processed
Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed Number of Requests Pages Disclosed
1 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 to 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 to 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 to 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 to 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
More than 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section 9: Complaints and Investigations Notices Received

Section 31 Section 33 Section 35 Court action Total
1 8 0 0 9

Section 10: Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) and Personal Information Banks (PIBS)

10.1 Privacy Impact Assessments
Number of PIA(s) completed Number of PIAs modified
0 0
10.2 Institution-specific and Central Personal Information Banks
Personal Information Banks Active Created Terminated Modified
Institution-specific 0 0 0 0
Central 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0

Section 11: Privacy Breaches

11.1 Material Privacy Breaches reported
Number of material privacy breaches reported to TBS Number of material privacy breaches reported to OPC
0 0
11.2 Non-Material Privacy Breaches
Number of non-material privacy breaches
0
12.1 Allocated Costs
Expenditures Amount
Salaries $60,000
Overtime $0
Goods and Services $5,000
Professional services contracts $5,000
Other $0
Total $65,000
12.2 Human Resources
Resources Person Years Dedicated to Access to Information Activities
Full-time employees 0.000
Part-time and casual employees 1.000
Regional Staff 0.000
Consultants and agency personnel 0.500
Students 0.000
Total 1.500

Note: Enter values to three decimal places.

Appendix C: Supplemental Statistical Report on the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act

Section 1: Capacity to Receive Requests under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act

  Number of weeks
Able to receive requests by mail 52
Able to receive requests by email 52
Able to receive requests through the digital request service 52

Section 2: Capacity to Process Records under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act

2.1 Number of weeks your institution was able to process paper records in different classification levels
  No capacity Partial Capacity Full capacity Total
Unclassified Paper Records 0 0 52 52
Protected B Paper Records 0 0 52 52
Secret and Top Secret Paper Records 0 0 52 52
2.2 Number of weeks your institution was able to process electronic records in different classification levels
  No capacity Partial Capacity Full capacity Total
Unclassified Paper Records 0 0 52 52
Protected B Paper Records 0 0 52 52
Secret and Top Secret Paper Records 0 0 52 52

Section 3: Open Requests and Complaints Under the Privacy Act

3.1 Number of open requests that are outstanding from previous reporting periods.

Fiscal Year Open Requests Were Received Open Requests that are Within Legislated Timelines as Open Requests that are Beyond Legislated Timelines as of March 31, 2023 Total
Received in 2022-23 0 0 0
Received in 2021-22 0 0 0
Received in 2020-21 0 0 0
Received in 2019-20 0 0 0
Received in 2018-19 0 0 0
Received in 2017-18 0 0 0
Received in 2016-17 0 0 0
Received in 2015-16 0 0 0
Received in 2014-15 0 0 0
Received in 2013-14 or earlier 0 0 0

3.2 Number of open complaints with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that are outstanding from previous reporting periods

Fiscal Year Open Complaints were received by institutions Open Requests that are Within Legislated Timelines as
Received in 2022-23 9
Received in 2021-22 0
Received in 2020-21 0
Received in 2019-20 0
Received in 2018-19 0
Received in 2017-18 0
Received in 2016-17 0
Received in 2015-16 0
Received in 2014-15 0
Received in 2013-14 or earlier 0
Total 9

Section 4: Social Insurance Number

Has your institution begun a new collection or a new consistent use of the SIN in 2022-23?
No

Section 5: Universal Access under the Privacy Act

How many requests were received from confirmed foreign nationals outside of Canada in 2022-2023?
0
Share this page
Date Modified:

Review of Departmental Implementation of the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act for 2020: Report

Review of Departmental Implementation of the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act for 2020


Report

Date of Publishing:

Executive Summary

The Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act (ACA or Act) and its associated directions seek to prevent the mistreatment of any individual as a result of information exchanged between a Government of Canada department and a foreign entity. At the heart of the directions is the consideration of substantial risk, and whether that risk, if present, can be mitigated. To do this, the Act and the directions lay out a series of requirements that need to be met or implemented when handling information. This review covers the implementation of the directions sent to 12 departments and agencies from their date of issuance, January 1, 2020, to the end of the previous calendar year, December 31, 2020. It was conducted under subsection 8(2.2) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act (NSIRA Act), which requires NSIRA to review, each calendar year, the implementation of all directions issued under ACA.

This was the first ACA review to cover a full calendar year. Many of the reviewed departments noted that the pandemic impacted their information sharing activities, thus impacting the number of cases requiring further review as per the ACA. As such, NISIRA found that from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, no cases under the ACA were escalated to deputy heads in any department.

While NSIRA was pleased with the considerable efforts made by many departments new to ACA in building their frameworks, Canada Boarder Services Agency (CBSA) and Public Safety did not finalize their policy frameworks in support of the Directions received under the ACA for the review period.

As part of the review, NSIRA examined the case triage process of all twelve departments. NSIRA found that even when departments employ similar methodologies and sources of information to inform their determination of whether or not a case involving the same country of concern should be escalated, significant divergences in the evaluation of risk and the required level of approval emerge.

A case sent to both GAC and CSIS was reviewed by NSIRA for its implications under the ACA. While the information was ultimately not shared with the requesting foreign entity, nonetheless, NSIRA found that the risk of mistreatment was substantial and the decision should have been referred to the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs as the accountable deputy minister for this request.

Mitigation measures used by departments were also reviewed this year, since they are an integral part in the information sharing process for departments. NSIRA observed that there are gaps in departments’ ability to verify whether a country or entity has actually complied with caveats or assurances because of the difficulty in tracking compliance to mitigation measures.

NSIRA believes that it is now in a position to conduct in-depth case study assessments of individual departments’ adherence to the ACA and Directions, irrespective of whether or not a department reported any cases to its deputy head. Finally, future reviews will follow up on the ongoing implementation of NSIRA’s past recommendations.

In keeping with NSIRA’s 2020 Annual Report which emphasized the implementation of a “trust but verify” approach for assessing information provided over the course of a review, NSIRA continues to work on various verification strategies with the Canadian intelligence community. However, due to the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of verification processes was not possible across all twelve departments which fall under the ACA. Notwithstanding, the information provided by departments has been independently verified by NSIRA through documentation analysis and meetings with department subject matter experts, as warranted. Further work is underway to continue developing an access model for the independent verification of information relevant to ACA considerations.

Authorities

This review was conducted under subsection 8(2.2) of the NSIRA Act, which requires NSIRA to review, each calendar year, the implementation of all directions issued under the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act (ACA or the Act).

Introduction

Review background

Departments and agencies in the Government of Canada routinely share information with a range of foreign entities. However such practices can sometimes bring into play a risk of mistreatment for individuals who are the subjects of these exchanges or other individuals. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government of Canada to evaluate and mitigate the risks that this sharing entails.

In 2011, the Government of Canada implemented a general framework for Addressing Risks of Mistreatment in Sharing Information with Foreign Entities. The aim of the framework was to establish a coherent approach across government when sharing with and receiving information from foreign entities. Following this, Ministerial Direction was issued to applicable departments in 2011 (Information Sharing with Foreign Entities), and then again in 2017 (Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities).

On July 13, 2019, the ACA came into force. The preamble of the Act recognizes Canada’s commitments with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canada’s international legal obligations on prohibiting torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment. The Act also recognizes that information needs to be shared to enable the Government to fulfill its fundamental responsibility to protect Canada’s national security and the safety of Canadians.

On September 4, 2019, pursuant to section 3 of the ACA, the Governor in Council (GiC) issued written directions (Orders in Council (OiCs) or Directions) to the deputy heads of 12 departments and agencies. This added six new Canadian entities in addition to those that were already associated with the 2011 and 2017 Directions.

This report is NSIRA’s first full year assessment of the implementation of the Directions issued under ACA for the 2020 calendar year. The review builds upon two previous reviews conducted in respect of avoiding complicity in mistreatment. The first was in respect to the 2017 Ministerial Directions, while the second assessed the Directions issued under the ACA, but was limited to the four months from when the Directions were issued to the end of the 2019 calendar year.

ACA and Directions

The ACA and the Directions issued under its authority seek to prevent the mistreatment of any individual due to the exchange of information between a Government of Canada department or agency and a foreign entity. The Act and the Directions also aim to limit the use of information received from a foreign entity that is likely to have been obtained through the mistreatment of an individual.

Under the authority of subsection 3(1) of the Act, the Directions issued to the 12 departments and agencies are near identical in language and focus on the three aspects of handling information when interacting with a foreign entity: the disclosure of information, the requesting of information, and the use of any information received.

In regards to disclosure of information, the Directions state:

If the disclosure of information to a foreign entity would result in a substantial risk of mistreatment of an individual, the Deputy Head must ensure that the Department officials do not disclose the information unless the officials determine that the risk can be mitigated, such as through the use of caveats or assurances, and appropriate measures are taken to mitigate the risk.

With respect to requesting information, the Directions read as follows:

If the making of a request to a foreign entity for information would result in a substantial risk of mistreatment of an individual, the Deputy Head must ensure that Department officials do not make the request for information unless the officials determine that the risk can be mitigated, such as through the use of caveats or assurances, and appropriate measures are taken to mitigate the risk.

Lastly, as it relates to the use of information, the Directions provide:

The Deputy Head must ensure that information that is likely to have been obtained through the mistreatment of an individual by a foreign entity is not used by the Department
(a) in any way that creates a substantial risk of further mistreatment;
(b) as evidence in any judicial, administrative or other proceeding; or
(c) in any way that deprives someone of their rights or freedoms, unless the Deputy Head or, in exceptional circumstances, a senior official designated by the Deputy Head determines that the use of the information is necessary to prevent loss of life or significant personal injury and authorizes the use accordingly.

The consideration of substantial risk figures prominently in subsection 3(1) of the Act as well as the Directions. In considering whether to disclose or request information, a department must determine whether a substantial risk is present and if so whether it can be mitigated. As noted in the previous reviews on information sharing, the ACA does not define “substantial risk”. Departments refer to a definition of this term as set out in the 2017 Ministerial Directions as a general starting point when conducting assessments under the ACA. The 2017 Ministerial Directions define substantial risk as:

‘Substantial risk’ is a personal, present and foreseeable risk of mistreatment that is real and is based on something more than mere theory or speculation. In most cases, the test of a substantial risk of mistreatment would be satisfied when it is more likely than not there would be mistreatment; however, in some cases, particularly where the risk if of severe harm, the standard of substantial risk may be satisfied at a lower level of probability.

Based on the outcome of these determinations, the decision may be to approve, deny, or elevate to the Deputy Head for his or her consideration. Substantial risk is also contemplated in the consideration of the use of information received from a foreign entity. If it is evaluated that the information was likely obtained from the mistreatment of an individual, the department is prohibited from using the information in any way that creates a substantial risk of further mistreatment.

Throughout the process to determine whether to disclose or use information, the Directions require that the accuracy, reliability, and limitations of use of all information being handled are appropriately described and characterized.

Additionally, reporting requirements are found at sections 7 and 8 of the Act as well as within the Directions. Among these requirements, the Minister responsible for the department must provide a copy of the department’s annual report in respect of the implementation of the Directions during the previous calendar year as soon as feasible to NSIRA, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICoP) and, if applicable, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC) for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Reporting requirements as articulated in the Directions oblige the reporting of decisions which were considered by the Deputy Head in regards to disclosure, requesting of information, or authorizing use of information that would deprive someone of their rights or freedoms be made as soon as feasible to the responsible Minister, NSIRA, and NSICoP.

Review Objectives and Methodology

The review period was January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. The objectives of this review included:

  • Following-up on departments’ implementation of the directives received under the ACA;
  • Assessing departments’ operationalization of frameworks/processes that enable them to meet the obligations set out in the ACA and directives; and
  • Assessing coordination and consistency in implementation across applicable departments.

Additionally, NSIRA evaluated all twelve ACA member departments’ ‘case triage’ frameworks (i.e., the combination of policy assessment criteria and a pre-determined ‘escalation ladder’ for cases that require higher levels of managerial approvals). Refer to annexes B to M that provide additional details on each departments’ triage process. Finally, NSIRA reviewed the use and policies around departmental mitigation measures.

FINDINGS

Reporting and Framework Updates

As per the Act, all twelve departments fulfilled their obligations to report to their respective ministers and NSIRA on progress made in operationalizing frameworks and identifying cases escalated to the deputy head level.

Of the nine departments who had reported to NSIRA last year that they had finalized frameworks, all continued to refine assessment protocols over the 2020 review period. Based on submissions to NSIRA, TC has developed a corporate policy to highlight the department’s ACA-related requirements. However, CBSA and PS had yet to finalize their ACA policy. As a result, employees may not have adequate and up to date guidance on how to make determinations related to the ACA.

NSIRA Finding #1: NSIRA found that CBSA and PS did not finalize their policy frameworks in support of Directions received under the ACA over the review period.

Referrals to Deputy Head

The Directions specify that when departmental officials are unable to determine whether the risk of mistreatment arising from a disclosure of or request for information can be mitigated, the matter must be referred to the Deputy Head. The Directions also require the Deputy Head, or in exceptional circumstances a senior official designated by the Deputy Head, to determine the matter where the use of information that is likely to have been obtained through mistreatment of an individual by a foreign entity would in any way deprive an individual of their rights or freedoms and the use of this information is necessary to prevent loss of life or significant injury. In 2020, no cases were escalated to the deputy head level. NSIRA sought clarification on the absence of cases referred; the most common reason provided by departments for this outcome was that cases were either mitigated before deputy head involvement and/or this was a result of an overall reduction in the number of foreign information exchanges generally due to the ongoing pandemic.

NSIRA Finding #2: NSIRA found that from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, no cases under the ACA were escalated to deputy heads in any department.

Case Triage

Typically, when departments are making ACA applicability decisions, they employ varying “case triage” processes, that is, the combination of policy assessment criteria and a pre-determined ‘escalation ladder’ for cases that require higher levels of managerial assessment. NSIRA closely evaluated all twelve ‘case triage’ frameworks of the departments subject to the ACA (Refer to Annex B-M). In carrying out this work, NSIRA noted some issues in the implementation of triage systems; for example, there were instances of not having one designed and of information being outdated.

NSIRA observed that there were two main types of initial case triage processes: case-by-case, where the framework places the onus on the working level official to first make determinations based on policy assessment tools, relevant training, and individual experience; and country assessment rating, which emphasizes the initial use of a country-based risk level that may trigger case escalation. A country assessment rating is a representation of the assessed risk of mistreatment associated to a country, based on a number of criteria and often derived from a range of sources.

Initial Case Triage Category 1: Case-by-Case

All departments use working level officials to determine whether there is a risk of mistreatment. When a working level officials’ assessment is inconclusive as to whether a substantial risk of mistreatment exists, they will defer the decision to a higher management authority. NSIRA has developed Figure 1 to illustrate this type of triage process where the working level official consults assessment tools at his or her disposal to determine whether a substantial risk of mistreatment exists.

Figure 1: Case by Case Triage Diagram

Initial Case Triage Category 2: Informed by Country Assessment Rating

CSIS, CSE, FINTRAC, and RCMP require working level officials to use country assessment ratings that may trigger case escalation. For example, NSIRA has developed Figure 2 to illustrate this type of triage process where country assessment ratings may trigger case escalation.

Case Escalation

In addition to the two categories of case triage frameworks identified above, all departments except for FINTRAC, PS, CSE and TC make use of internal consultation groups/senior decision making committees when cases are identified as requiring consultation/escalation (e.g. working groups and senior management committee secretariats). The following table illustrates the various consultation groups across departments that would make determinations related to the ACA.

The general purpose of consultation groups is to serve as a single point of contact for employees who require assistance in assessing foreign information sharing activities or interpreting policy and procedure. Senior decision making committees are responsible for making determinations on the information exchange. They are the final decision making authority prior to escalation to the deputy head. NSIRA observed that leveraging the overall expertise of these groups may assist officials in consistently applying assessment criteria, as well as provide greater oversight for information exchanges with foreign entities.

Consistency in Implementation Across Departments

Beginning with the 2017 Ministerial Directions on Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities, it was required that departments maintain policies and procedures to assess the risks of information sharing relationships with foreign entities. While not specified in the Act or Directions, departments continue to implement country and entity assessments, a practice NSIRA has supported. NSIRA has previously raised concerns regarding the absence of unified and standardized approach to departments’ country assessments. The PCO-led community response to last year’s recommendation on this element stated in part that:

The information sharing activities of these organizations all serve either an intelligence, law enforcement, or administrative purpose with each carrying different risk profiles, privacy concerns, and legal authorities. Individual departments and agencies are responsible for establishing specific thresholds or triggers in their information sharing frameworks that are appropriate for their operational contexts. It is the view of the Government of Canada that applying the same threshold across all organizations for triggering, evaluating, and elevating cases is not necessarily practical nor essential to ensuring that each department or agency is operating in compliance with the Act.

In order to engage in the questions to which the divergence of thresholds gives rise, NSIRA asked departments to rank bi-lateral information exchanges with foreign partners in terms of volume, excluding exchanges with [***example of foreign entity information sharing***]. Nine of the twelve departments identified ███████ as a foreign exchange entity, a country which is widely recognized as having human rights concerns.

NSIRA then selected only those departments that initially utilize country assessment ratings as a triage method (i.e. FINTRAC, RCMP, CSIS and CSE). [***description of how departments determined foreign entity example***]. Nonetheless, in carrying out this analysis, NSIRA observed that all four departments relied on a combination of open source human rights reports and consultations with other departments. Additionally, RCMP, CSIS and CSE utilize classified intelligence sources.

However, although these departments utilize a similar approach when assessing a country, the assigned rating for ████ was not consistent. CSIS assigned █████████████; FINTRAC and RCMP assigned a [***description of department’s specific ratings***] ; and finally, CSE assigned a ██████ rating.

NISRA examined to what degree country ratings affected the level of approval required for an information exchange. Because CSE has assigned a rating of █████ when they receive a request from ████, a CSE official could require [***description of the factors used to determine the appropriate level process***] CSE acknowledged that its “human rights assessments do not necessarily correlate with the risk level assigned to an instance of sharing,” and nor do they “necessarily correlate to levels of approval or to restrictions to sharing.” [***description of the factors used to determine the appropriate level process***]

In contrast, according to their framework and methodology, an exchange with any one of the █████ authorities listed in the RCMP’s country and entity assessment list could result in an [***description of department’s specific ratings***] because █████ is associated with a country assessment rating. When an entity is yellow, the employee must consider whether or not there is a risk of mistreatment by looking at a list of criteria. If one or more of these criteria exist, the employee must send the case to a senior management committee. NSIRA observes that where the RCMP has a red country rating, the working level official must escalate to the senior management committee. Therefore, unlike CSE and CSIS, country ratings within the RCMP have direct impacts on approval levels.

NSIRA’s ACA report from last year recommended that departments should identify a means to establish unified and standardized country and entity risk assessment tools to support a consistent approach when interacting with Foreign Entities of concern. While PCO disagreed with this recommendation, NSIRA believes that there remain concerns regarding divergences in country and risk assessments.

NSIRA Finding #3: NSIRA found that even when departments employ similar methodologies and sources of information to inform their determination of whether or not a case involving the same country of concern should be scalated, significant divergences in the evaluation of risk and the required level of approval emerge.

Following this review, NSIRA intends to further scrutinize the processes employed regarding ACA triage and decision making by reviewing GAC and RCMP.

A case study as provided for in Box 1 exemplifies the divergent nature on the evaluation of risk where two departments’ considered responding to an identical request made by a foreign entity.

Box 1: A divergent decision-making process

[***description of the case study***] The foreign entity provided this information to GAC and CSIS and requested confirmation [***description of the information sharing request***]

In considering whether to respond to this request, GAC determined that the human rights record of the country in question generally and of the foreign entity specifically making the request were of significant concern. GAC’s senior decision making committee, working under the presumption that the individual’s detention was ongoing, considered whether the disclosure of this information “would not substantially increase the detainee’s risk of mistreatment.” The senior decision making committee determined that confirmation of the individual’s previous employment status with GAC was permissible, subject to the determination of CSIS’s assessment.

Ultimately, the decision by CSIS was made by a DG-level executive and, as the foreign entity was listed by CSIS as a restricted partner, information was not shared.

The assessment by GAC’s senior decision-making committee is of concern. The Act and the Directions impose that departments consider whether disclosing or requesting information “would result in a substantial risk of mistreatment.” [***legal advice to department***]

NSIRA agrees with this interpretation of the law, but not with its implementation by GAC in this case. GAC’s position was that responding to the request “would not aggravate” the risk of mistreatment. However, NSIRA is of a different view. Regardless of the information sought, the human rights record of the foreign entity and of the foreign country was of significant concern, and GAC was operating under the presumption that the individual may have already been subjected to mistreatment. While GAC’s sharing could not have accounted for any mistreatment that could have occurred earlier, responding to the request given the facts of this case would have nonetheless resulted in a substantial risk of mistreatment. Therefore, this case should have been refered to the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for consideration.

NSIRA also observes that this case was triaged at different levels within GAC and CSIS. In GAC’s triage process, the decision was made at the higher senior decision-making committee that disclosure was permissible. Comparatively, CSIS’s decision-making process was completed prior to reaching their senior-level committee and yielded the opposite result. The different levels of decision-making and different outcomes underscore a problematic inconsistency in how each organization considers the same information to be disclosed to the same foreign entity. Furthermore, while a department responsible for the information may consult with other departments as to whether disclosure of information is permissible, it cannot abdicate this responsibility and decision-making to another department.

NSIRA Finding #4: NSIRA found a procedural gap of concern in a case study involving the disclosure of information, even though information was ultimately not shared. The risk of mistreatment was substantial and the decision should have been referred to the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs as the accountable deputy minister for this request.

Mitigation Measures

Use of Mitigation Measures

To decrease the risk of mistreatment, departments will employ mitigation measures such as caveats, assurances, sanitization, and redactions. The most common mitigation measures are caveats and assurances. Caveats are specific stipulations appended to information to limit or prohibit certain uses of information unless otherwise authorized by the issuing department. For example, any departments use a ‘third party’ caveat that restricts further dissemination of the information to other departments (domestic and foreign), unless the originating department is consulted on the request to share.

Assurances are not specific to a single information exchange; rather, these are agreements with foreign entities (whether formal or informal), which aim to help ensure that a particular foreign entity understands Canada’s position on human rights and that the entity, in turn, agrees to comply with this expected behaviour. For example, when formulating a risk mitigation strategy for an information exchange, departments will consider written or verbal assurances, who provided the assurance (i.e. working level official or agency head), and whether the assurance is considered credible and reliable.

Furthermore, CSIS, CSE, and GAC have highlighted a number of differences in the types of assurances sought, including a number of informal and formal methods. For example, verbal assurances, scheduled formal assurances, and ad-hoc written assurances can be sought by various levels.

In a related issue, NSIRA observed that there are [***description and an example of a Department’s ability to track compliance***] CSIS, GAC, and CSE indicated that there is ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ is not specific to the ACA but is nonetheless key ████████████ when exchanging information with the Government of Canada.

Given that no cases were escalated to the level of deputy head, departments’ lower-level use of mitigation strategies would have taken on considerable prominence in decision making. In a subsequent review, NSIRA intends to further investigate policies of mitigation measures pertaining to their use and tracking.

CONCLUSION

This review assessed departments’ implementation of the directives received under the ACA and their operationalization of frameworks to address ACA requirements.

NSIRA’s first review of departments’ implementation of the Act and Directions was limited to a four month period (September-December 2019). As such, this review constitutes the first examination of the ACA over the course of one full year. NSIRA believes that it is now in a position to conduct in-depth case study assessments of individual departments’ adherence to the ACA and Directions, irrespective of whether or not a department reported any cases to its deputy head. Additionally, future reviews will follow up on the ongoing implementation of NSIRA’s past recommendations.

Annex A: Findings

NSIRA Finding #1: NSIRA found that CBSA and PS did not finalize their policy frameworks in support of Directions received under the ACA over the review period.

NSIRA Finding #2: NSIRA found that from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, no cases under the ACA were escalated to deputy heads in any department.

NSIRA Finding #3: NSIRA found that even when departments employ similar methodologies and sources of information to inform their determination of whether or not a case involving the same country of concern should be escalated, significant divergences in the evaluation of risk and the required level of approval emerge.

NSIRA Finding #4: NSIRA found a procedural gap of concern in a case study involving the disclosure of information, even though information was ultimately not shared. The risk of mistreatment was substantial and the decision should have been referred to the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs as the accountable deputy minister for this request.

Annex B: Canada Border Services Agency

Annex B: Canada Border Services Agency Framework

Framework updates: In 2018, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) issued a high-level policy document in response to the 2017 MD. Since then, CBSA has drafted updated policies and procedures that have not yet been finalized.

Working Groups: CBSA Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment Working Group (ACMWG)

Senior Management Committee: Senior Management Risk Assessment Committee (SMRAC). This committee convenes on an as needed basis, to assess cases that have a potential for mistreatment.

[***description of CBSA’s decision making methodology***]

Country Assessment: In-house risk scoring template under development

Mitigation Measures: The CBSA is currently working to strengthen its formal framework/process for deciding whether substantial risk of mistreatment associated with a given request can be mitigated.

Annex C: Canada Revenue Agency

Annex C: Canada Revenue Agency Framework

Framework Updates: The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) indicated that it did not make any changes to its framework since last year’s response. The department continues to refine its processes and has developed the Canada Revenue Agency Exchange of Information Procedures in the Context of Avoiding Complicity in the Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act.

[***departmental cabinet confidence***]

Working group: The CRA formed a Risk Assessment Working Group (RAWG) that developed a methodology to assess the human rights records of its information exchange partners, so that senior management can make informed assessments of the risk of mistreatment.

Canada has a large network of international partners with 94 tax treaties and 24 Tax Information Exchange Agreements. Canada is also a party to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAAC), which includes 144 signatories. These International Legal Agreements allow the CRA to exchange information on request, spontaneously and automatically. Each legal agreement includes secrecy provisions (caveats) that govern appropriate use and disclosure. In addition, members of the Global Forum (Global Forum) on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes are subject to peer reviews on a cyclical basis, including on Confidentiality and Data Safeguard .

Senior Management Committee: During the review period a senior committee was not in place, however there was a formal process to escalate reviews/risk assessment through the Director, Director General and ultimately the Assistant Commissioner of the Compliance Programs Branch (CPB) who is accountable for the administration of the ACA.

Additionally, in July 2021, the CRA established an ACA governance framework that includes the ACA Panel, a senior management consultative committee to support risk assessments, reporting, recommendations, and priorities. The panel currently consists of DGs and Directors within the CPB and the Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch. Also in July 2021, the CRA established an executive level committee to consider and develop recommendations on case specific engagements as well as issue identification and guidance. The committee consists of Directors across several directorates of the CRA that manage programs that are directly impacted by/reliant on exchange of information with other jurisdictions.

Triage: The initial assessment is done by a working level employee and requires, at minimum, director approval. The case may escalate to the DG and the AC and so on if there is doubt about risk mitigation.

In cases where risk was identified, there were challenges in conducting full assessments to determine if the risk was substantial, the CRA delayed disclosing the information until the full assessment could be completed. This was largely in part due to COVID-19. As such, files that normally would have been referred were temporarily put on hold and no action was taken during the review period.

The CRA informed NSIRA that funding from the November 2020 Fall Economic Statement was allocated to the creation of a dedicated risk assessment team. It is anticipated that the development and regular updating of country-level assessments and the preparation of individual-level risk assessments will transition to this new dedicated team housed within the CPB, in summer 2021.

The team will also be responsible for:

  • Creating and formalizing the framework for consulting with CRA senior management and other government departments and agencies;
  • Advising CRA officials who engage in exchange of information (EOI);
  • Identifying mitigation and other factors specific to the type of information that CRA exchanges and that would impact risk assessment;
  • Preparing annual and other reporting required under the Act and Directions;
  • Providing awareness and training sessions; and
  • Continuously improving documentation, policies, guidance, and procedures.

Country/Entity Assessments: Since January 2020, the CRA has completed their own set of mistreatment risk assessments for each potential information exchange, including the use of information received from the CRA’s information exchange partners in consultation with other Government of Canada partners. The CRA can only exchange information with another jurisdiction pursuant to a treaty, tax convention or other legal instrument that permits exchange of tax information.

The CRA uses a colour coded system to rate the risk related to a country: green; yellow; red. However, for specific or spontaneous exchanges of information, the CRA completes an analysis based on the specifics of the file to supplement the country specific risk assessment.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures, including caveats (data safeguards and confidentiality provisions) are embedded in all legal instruments that govern and allow for all the CRA’s exchanges of information, while peer reviews of jurisdictions’ legal frameworks and administrative practices provide assurances of exchange partners’ compliance with international standards for exchange of tax information. According to CRA, all information exchanged during the review period were subject to these mitigation measures. Due to COVID19, and for the period under review, the CRA put on hold all exchanges where it was deemed there may be a residual potentially significant risk of mistreatment until a process and mitigation measures were in place, including to redact information. However, the CRA routinely redacted personal information where it would not impact the substance of the exchange for those mitigated risk exchanges that did proceed during this period.

Annex D: Communications Security Establishment

Annex D: Communications Security Establishment Framework

Framework Updates: No changes made to the framework in 2020. It is the same procedure as the last review period.

Working group: Based on the RFI, there are no working groups leveraged to assess the level of risk of mistreatment. The Mistreatment Risk Assessment Process follows a process that has been refined continuously since its inception in 2012. The higher the level of risk (low, medium, high, substantial), the higher approval authority required to exchange or use information.

Senior Management Committee: There is no Senior Management Committee. As explained above, CSE relies on an approval authority scale based on the level of risk (from low to substantial). Senior level officials are involved in the process when there are medium and high-risk cases, which require Director and Director General/Deputy Chief approval, respectively.

Triage: A CSE official performs an initial assessment by consulting the Mistreatment Risk Assessment (MRA), which considers equity concerns, geolocation and identity information, human rights assurances, risk of detention and a profile of the recipients’ human rights practices.

Low (For Low Risk Nations)

If the MRA indicates a low level of risk, the official will need Supervisor [***specific unit***], approval if they wish to proceed with the information exchange or use.

Low (For non-Low Risk Nations)

If the MRA indicates a low level of risk, the official will need Manager [***specific unit***], approval if they wish to proceed with the information exchange or use.

Medium

If the MRA indicates a medium level of risk, the official will need Director, Disclosure and Information Sharing approval if they wish to proceed with the information exchange or use.

High

If the MRA indicates a high level of risk, the official will need Director General, Policy Disclosure and Review or Deputy Chief, PolCom approval if they wish to proceed with the information exchange or use.

Substantial

If the MRA indicates a substantial level of risk, the official may not proceed with the information exchange or use.

Country Assessments: CSE establishes its own country assessments (which CSE refers to as Human Rights Assessments) by using information from OGDs, its own reporting, and open source information. Foreign entity arrangements are reviewed annually. These HRAs are part of CSE’s MRAs.

There are two types of MRAs: Annual and Case-by-case. Annual MRAs include foreign entities with whom CSE regularly exchanges information, [***description of the foreign entities with whom CSE exchanges information***] Caseby-case MRAs are conducted in response to particular requests. Case-by-case MRAs often concern individuals and information sharing activities. There are Abbreviated MRAs, which are a sub case-by-case MRA, and they are conducted for Limited Risk Nations. These nations are considered low risk by CSE.

When making MRAs, CSE does the following:

  • assesses the purpose of the information sharing;
  • verifies there are mistreatment risk management measures in existing information sharing arrangements;
  • reviews CSE’s internal records on the foreign entity under consideration;
  • consults other available Government of Canada assessments and reports related to the foreign entity;
  • assesses the anticipated effectiveness of risk mitigation measures; and
  • evaluates a foreign entity’s compliance with past assurances, based on available information.

CSE consults with GAC, DND, and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and National Defence for some MRAs, usually case-by-case ones. CSE may also consult GAC for human rights-related advice in certain instances.

Mitigation Measures: CSE considers a number of mitigation factors, such as risk of detention, [***statement regarding information sharing obligations of partners***] caveats, formal assurances, and bilateral relationships. CSE’s principle mitigation measure is Second Party assurances. [***statement regarding information sharing obligations of partners***]

Identifying/Sensitizing: The DG, Policy Disclosure and Review or the DC PolCom review high-risk cases. 303 information-sharing requests were assessed for risk of mistreatment and 10 of them (3%) were referred to the Director, Disclosure & Information Sharing. For the 2020 review period, the Deputy Chief, Policy and Communications was responsible for ACA accountability and quality assurance.

Annex E: Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[***Info-graphic of CSIS’s Risk Assessment process***]

Framework Updates: While there were no changes during the 2020 review period, CSIS modified its procedure on January 2021. Most notably, cases will only be escalated to ISEC if the DG cannot determine if the substantial risk can be mitigated. In addition, CSIS merged the [***statement regarding internal process***] CSIS updated its human rights ‘Assurances’ procedures as a stand-alone policy. This policy requires CSIS Stations to seek assurances from [***statement regarding internal process***] coordination responsibilities for ISEC were moved to the ██████████. Through that, the █████ became ISEC’s Chair.

Triage: CSIS working-level officials do the initial assessment. This assessment requires the official to determine if one or more of the four risk criteria are met. These criteria are:

  • “Based on the available information about the foreign entity, if the information is disclosed or requested, is there a probability that the foreign entity will engage in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment against an individual(s)?”
  • “If the information is disclosed or requested, is there a probability that the foreign entity will disseminate the information in an unauthorized manner to a 3rd party, which may result in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment against an individual(s) by that 3rd party?”
  • “If the information is disclosed or requested, is there a probability that it may result in the extraordinary rendition of an individual(s) by the foreign entity which would lead to the individual(s) being tortured or subject to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?
  • “If the information is disclosed or requested, is there a probability or an extrajudicial killing of an individual(s) by the foreign entity or other security entities within the country?”

Four scenarios could occur before a case lands at ISEC:

[***description of four possible scenarios and the assessment criteria used to determine risk mitigation and/or ecalation***]

Working Group: While there is a senior management committee, there is no working level group on the operations side.

Senior Management Committee: ISEC is CSIS’s senior-level review committee for foreign information sharing activities. It is composed of CSIS senior managers and representatives from DoJ and GAC. This committee is responsible to determine if a case poses a substantial risk and if it can be mitigated. If ISEC cannot determine if the substantial risk is mitigatable, the case is referred to the Director. Of note, GAC and DoJ are no longer voting members on ISEC but will continue to provide feedback and advice.

Country Assessments: CSIS conducts its own country assessments. Each information exchange arrangement with a foreign entity has its own Arrangement Profile (AP). APs include a summary of the human rights summary.

Mitigation Measures: CSIS relies on a few mitigation measures. First, CSIS widely uses ‘Form of Words’, which include caveats. Second, CSIS uses assurances and relies on standardized templates provided to foreign entities. CSIS may also tailor assurances to address specific concerns, such as extra-judicial killings.

Identifying/Sensitizing Information: ██████ is responsible for CSIS’s information sharing framework. [***name of a specific unit***] is responsible for official policy management. Concerned program areas are responsible for applying related polices and procedures for ACA-related activities.

Annex F: DFO

Annex F: DFO Framework

Framework Updates: Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) did not make any changes to last year’s approach.

Triage: The initial assessment is made by the person receiving the request for information sharing or who first comes into possession of information derived from a foreign source. Risk is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The sector-level analyst/officer does the initial assessment and relies on OGD assessments to determine the level of risk. They determine the level of risk in relation to the specific case and whether they assess that there is a substantial risk or not will impact the level of approval. If the analyst/officer does not think there is risk, the case may proceed. This, according to the decision screen and information received, does not require any manager or senior level approval.

If the analyst/officer believes or is unsure that there is a substantial risk, the senior-level Internal Review Committee (IRC) must seek DM approval.

Working Group: Internal Review Committee

Senior Management Committee: DFO employs the use of a decision screen and the IRC as demonstrated above. It is unclear whether DFO has developed guidance to help officials and management accurately and consistently determine the risk of mistreatment.

Country Assessments: DFO relies on country assessments conducted by GAC (as well as DFO legal services, RCMP and CSIS as needed) to make mistreatment risk determinations.

Mitigation measures: DFO indicated that it employs the use of caveats and assurances as necessary but has not yet had to seek such assurances. As such, there is no tracking mechanism in place. The Department is able to retroactively determine when, how, and why a decision was made through its record keeping system. A process is in place to record the details of each case, its evaluation process, and any resulting actions and decisions.

Annex G: Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces

Annex G: Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces Framework

Framework Updates: The Department of National Defence (DND) indicated that there were no changes to its framework since last year’s response.

Triage: The process of assessing risk is largely the same across all three forms of information sharing transactions. The process involves examining country human rights conditions, and researching specific partner entities, including any reports of mistreatment. Adverse information on a foreign partner is reviewed by the Defence Information Sharing Working Group (DISWG) and recommendations are made to the implicated L1s on how to manage information sharing activities (request, disclosure, or use). There are no differences in the types of mitigation measures employed across the three forms of information sharing. The primary governance document Release and Disclosure Officers (RDOs) and Release and Disclosure Authorities (RDAs) must adhere to is the CDI Interim Functional Directive: Information Sharing with Certain Foreign States and their Entities.

Working Group: The Defence Information Sharing Working Group (DISWG) is a working-level committee led by the Release and Disclosure Coordination Office (RDCO) within CFINTCOM that serves as an advisory body to operation Commanders regarding issues covered under the ACA. This Working Group exists as a platform for open dialogue related to information sharing arrangements and transactions. This group convenes monthly, or as required.

Senior Management Committee: The Defence Information Sharing Assessment Committee (DISAC) is chaired by the Chief of Defence Intelligence / Commander CFINTCOM . The DISAC’s primary object is to act as an advisory committee for the Deputy Minister and the Chief of Defence Staff in support of their decision making regarding issues pertaining to the ACA.

Country Assessments: Currently, RDCO has established a list of low-risk countries that can be referred to by other L1s. Inclusion in this list indicates CDI’s confidence that sharing information with government entities of that foreign state can take place without a substantial risk of mistreatment. Moreover, RDCO has developed a draft methodology for Country Human Rights Profiles to classify countries as low, medium, or high risk but has only begun producing country human rights profiles on a few medium and high-risk countries and the methodology has not yet formally approved. These profiles will be used by other L1s in the development of specific Partner Entity Assessments and to inform the overall risk assessment of sharing information with foreign entities.

Information Management: There is no common shared system or repository for all RDOs. Information decisions are recorded by RDOs at the unit level. In some cases, all transactions are recorded using a spreadsheet and should include all details relating to the collection, retention, dissemination or destruction of the information, but the precise format will vary. CFINTCOM is working to standardize RDO logs across DND/CAF. From an information management perspective, there have been no changes since last year’s report. Records of discussion of all DISWG meetings are kept centrally within RDCO/CFINTCOM and it is possible to retroactively determine how and why a decision or recommendation was made.

Mitigation Measures: DND uses mitigation measures to reduce the risk of mistreatment. For example, DND uses measures such as the sanitization of information, the inclusion of caveats, and/or the seeking of assurances, including on low-risk cases in order to err on the side of caution.

Annex H: FINTRAC

Annex H: FINTRAC Framework

Framework Updates: The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) did not make any changes to their framework for the 2020 review year.

Triage: Who does the initial assessment will depend on the risk level classification of the country. If it’s green, the intelligence analyst (IA) does the risk assessment. If it’s yellow, the IA’s team leader does the risk assessment. If it’s red, Senior Level does the risk assessment. Regardless of the determined risk level, Senior Level must ultimately approve or decline the information exchange/use.

Partnerships and Working Groups: FINTRAC makes use of external organizations, such as the Egmont group, to ensure that member organizations are adhering to global standards against mistreatment. If one of these groups is found to have breached their duty of care, and is expelled from the group, then FINTRAC will cease to exchange information until the matter has been rectified. FINTRAC enters Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) with nations who wish to exchange information with them. To do so, each nation is assessed using a variety of criteria to determine their risk rating and whether an MOU should be established.

FINTRAC also regularly participates in ISCG meetings alongside other departments.

Senior Management Committee: FINTRAC does not have a senior management committee to determine risk like other departments. Instead, they rely on senior management and the Director to make final decisions on cases.

Country Assessments: FINTRAC established its own country assessments. Establishing each country assessment involves gathering pertinent information on the human rights situation in the country and using indicators to assess the risk level of mistreatment of each country. During the development of the country assessment process, FINTRAC consulted with other agencies/government departments captured under the ACA.

The Manager of International Relationships is responsible for monitoring and assessing the human rights profile of countries with which FINTRAC shares an MOU.

Mitigation Measures: Caveats and assurances are established at the signing of an MOU and repeated whenever sharing information with any foreign entity. The sharing of information is not allowed without a signed MOU.

Annex I: Global Affairs Canada

Annex I: Global Affairs Canada Framework

Framework Updates: Global Affairs Canada (GAC) indicated that no changes to their framework was made during the current review period.

Triage: There is not one unified set of processes at GAC for determining whether information being used by the department is likely to have been obtained through the mistreatment of an individual by a foreign entity. If an official determines that information that he or she has received is likely to have been obtained through the mistreatment of an individual by a foreign entity and that official still wants to use the information, they are instructed in their training to consult with their Program management at HQ. Should that manager be unable to make a determination on their own as to whether the use would comply with the Act, they will consult the relevant departmental policy group and the department’s Legal Services Unit.

Working Groups: The Ministerial Direction Compliance Committee Secretariat

Senior Management Committees: The Ministerial Direction Compliance Committee (MDCC) meetings focuses on the following:

  • Has the information, the use of which is being sought, likely been derived from mistreatment?
  • What are the proposed measures to mitigate the risks? What is the likelihood of their success?
  • Consider the justifications for and proportionality of any potential involvement with the foreign state or entity that may result in mistreatment.

The MDCC Secretariat will create a record of decision and circulate it for comment by MDCC members. Once finalized, it will be kept by the Secretariat for future reporting. The MDCC Secretariat follows up with the requesting official for updates on the outcome of the situation and requests a final update from the requesting official once the situation is resolved. Currently the MDCC Secretariat consists of one person.

Country Assessments: Global Affairs Canada’s human rights reports provide an evidence-based overview of the human rights situation in a particular country, including significant human rights-related events, trends and developments and include a section focused on mistreatment. There are no scores for countries however, and it is up to the officials to assess the risk based on the information in the reports.

Mitigation Measures: The Legal Services Unit and/or Intelligence Policy and Programs division will provide guidance on the limitations and the prohibitions of the use of information obtained through mistreatment. They are also able to propose potential mitigation measures, such as sanitization of the information, if there is a risk of further mistreatment; of depriving someone of their rights or freedoms; or if the information could be used as evidence in any judicial, administrative or other proceeding.

Annex J: IRCC

Annex J: IRCC Framework

Framework Updates: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) indicated that there were no changes to its procedures regarding the disclosure of information to foreign entities.

Triage: The initial assessment is done by the employee/officer receiving a request to disclose information. Officers are provided with a country assessment tool that provides a country-level risk assessment. If the country is listed as low-risk and the employee does not believe there are any risks of mistreatment, they may proceed with the exchange and record the details of that exchange (i.e., what information was exchanged; to which country, etc) into the Global Case Management System (GCMS). If the country is high-risk, or the officer believes that there is any risk of mistreatment and they wish to pursue with the case, then the officer is required to refer the case to IRM and Admissibility to assess the risk of the exchange.

Senior Management Committee: IRCC has the Avoiding Complicity Assessment Committee. The Committee is comprised of executives representing relevant policy, operations, legal and privacy branches within the Department. The purpose of the Committee is to reassess whether the circumstances of the case meet the “substantial risk” threshold, and to determine whether mitigations could be sufficiently imposed to allow for the disclosure. If the Committee is unable to unanimously determine if the risk can be mitigated, and there remains a need to disclose the information to the requesting foreign entity, then the case will be referred to the Deputy Minister for final decision.

Country Assessments: IRCC officers are instructed to refer to an initial country assessment tool when they are contemplating any disclosure or request for information from a foreign entity. This tool provides a general assessment of the country’s risk. If the country is identified as a high-risk country, then the officer is required to make a Consultation Request before disclosing, requesting or using information. If the country is identified as medium-risk, then it is recommended that the officer make a Consultation Request.

Mitigation Measures: Possible mitigation measures for a case where a substantial risk of mistreatment has been determined, if available, would be established in the Consultation Request assessment and, if necessary, in the Avoiding Complicity Assessment Committee’s recommendation. In either case, the mitigations will be manually recorded in the case file where they can be later recalled and noted in the Annual Report.

Annex K: Public Safety

Annex K: Public Safety Framework
Annex K: Public Safety Framework Image 2

Please note that the above flow charts are draft and have not yet been approved.

Framework Updates: Public Safety (PS) does not yet have a framework for deciding whether an exchange of information with a foreign entity would result in a substantial risk of mistreatment of an individual. PS noted, however, that it has drafted a departmental policy to support the department’s implementation of the Directions but it has not yet been approved by senior management.

Triage: PS officials at the operational level are responsible for identifying whether the disclosure of or request for information would result in a substantial risk of mistreatment of an individual. Prior to the disclosure of or request for information to/from a foreign entity, PS officials, as per the draft policy, are expected to:

  • review risk assessments and information sharing arrangements/agreements to determine risks;
  • identify mitigation measures as needed; and
  • seek DG approval for the disclosure or request; and the DG would determine whether the risk can or cannot be mitigated and whether the case should be referred to the DM for determination and decision.
  • PS officials at the operational level are responsible for identifying whether information for potential use was likely obtained through the mistreatment of an individual. As per the draft policy, prior to the use of information, PS officials are expected to:
  • conduct an assessment to determine if the information was likely obtained through the mistreatment of an individual, if not previously completed by PS officials or another government department, and mark it accordingly, based on DG-level determination;
  • assess and characterize the accuracy and reliability of the information; and,
  • advise their DG of the circumstance; and the DG would determine whether the information would be used as per section 3 of the Directions and refer the decision to the DM to determine if the use of information in any way that deprives someone their rights or freedoms is necessary to prevent the loss of life or significant personal injury.

For PS program areas where responsibilities for program delivery are shared among multiple Government of Canada departments, PS officials may use accuracy and reliability assessments conducted by another Government of Canada department for the express purpose of the specific information exchange. In these cases, and where PS does not have sufficient information (such as the source of the information) to conduct an assessment, it will require Government of Canada departments to attest to having conducted the assessment. This same principle applies risk assessments and assessments as to whether information was likely obtained through the mistreatment of an individual.

Working Group: The ISCG is the primary interdepartmental forum for supporting interdepartmental collaboration and information-sharing between members as they implement the Act and Directions and is regularly attended by all members.

PS participates in the ISCG in three ways as the:

  1. chair, coordinator and PS policy lead;
  2. area responsible for implementing the ACA;
  3. legal counsel representative.

PS has also made progress with ISCG guidance. However, due to COVID-19, the ISCG was limited in its capacity to convene meetings.

Senior Management Committee: PS does not have a formal senior management committee to review high-risk cases. The Investigative Authorities and Accountability Policy (IAAP) unit supports program areas in the referral process to the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister (SADM) of the National and Cyber Security Branch for further examination. Acting as a senior Public Safety official, the SADM is responsible for referring cases to the Deputy Minister if they are unable to determine whether the risk of mistreatment can be mitigated.

Country Assessments: PS currently does not have any country assessments completed and plans to use other department’s assessments, but as outlined in its draft policy, PS expects to conduct country and entity assessments as part of its annual risk assessment process. The risk assessment process will ensure that an agreement with the foreign entity is in place prior to information sharing exchanges; review risk and country assessments developed by portfolio agencies (e.g. CSIS) and other departments (e.g. GAC), and consider human rights reporting from non-government entities.

The IAAP will coordinate, on an annual basis, risk assessments. To do so, IAAP may, for example, review human rights reports developed by Global Affairs Canada (GAC), country assessments prepared by portfolio agencies (e.g. CSIS), human rights reporting from non-government entities and country/entity specific material.

Mitigation Measures: PS currently has developed a draft policy to address mitigation measures and caveats. The draft policy will provide guidance to officials on how to assess risk and apply mitigation measure, while also defining approval levels and country assessment responsibilities.

Once a risk of mistreatment has been identified, the PS official is required to undertake a risk mitigation assessment prior to requesting the information. Approved risk mitigation mechanisms include:

  • the caveating of information,
  • obtaining assurance and/or
  • disclosing a limited amount of the information.

The policy also outlines requirements regarding the use of congruent mitigation mechanisms to collectively reduce the risk.

Annex L: Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Annex L: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Framework

Framework Updates: There were no changes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s (RCMP) framework in 2020. RCMP has undertaken a number of internal reviews of its information sharing framework and continues to refine and optimize its processes.

RCMP also noted that it was in its final stages of rolling out an online training course specifically tailored to the ACA.

Triage: The Foreign Information Risk Advisory Committee (FIRAC) process may be initiated if and when an information exchange involves a country identified as high or medium risk. A low-risk case would only be sent if an official believes there is the potential for mistreatment.

All RCMP personnel are required to consider the risk of mistreatment before requesting, disclosing or using information and to engage the FIRAC process if there is a substantial risk identified to a specific individual(s) with a country of exchange.

An employee is almost always the one to perform the initial risk assessment. When an entity is green, the employee may exchange or use information without consulting FIRAC, unless they express doubts. When an entity is yellow, the employee must consider whether or not there is a substantial risk of mistreatment by looking at a list of criteria (similar to CSIS). If one or more of these criteria is present, the employee must send the case to FIRAC. If the entity is red, the employee must send the case to FIRAC for the initial assessment, unless no personal information is exchanged.

Working Group: Law Enforcement Assessment Group (LEAG). Full-length LEAG assessments include classified information from other Federal departments and agencies. The FIRAC Portal was developed to allow RCMP employees to access the assessments, and to further support compliance with the directions.

Senior Management Committee: FIRAC was established to facilitate the systematic and consistent review of RCMP files to ensure information exchanges do not involve or result in the mistreatment of any person.

FIRAC holds the responsibility to determine if a substantial risk exists and in cases where a substantial risk of mistreatment exists, make a recommendation on whether the proposed mitigating measures are adequate to mitigate the risk.

FIRAC’s recommendations are made by the Chair, upon the advice of the Committee, to the appropriate Assistant Commissioner / Executive Director responsible for the operational area seeking to disclose, request or use the information.

FIRAC determines if the risk is mitigatable or not. If it is, the case goes to the Assistant Commissioner. If it is not, FIRAC declines the exchange or use of information.

Country Assessments: An in-house country assessment model has been completed.

Countries are listed in alphabetical order, along with any specific foreign entities (i.e. police forces, military units, etc.) that have been assessed. For each entity, the risk level (Red-High, Yellow-Medium, Green-Low) is provided, as are the specific crime types and conditions.

Mitigation Measures: The RCMP leverages existing MOU’s with specific partners to partially mitigate underlying risk, in particular where mutually agreed standards around human rights exist as well as having a good track record for respecting caveats. Similarly, officials work with Liaison Officers to identify any relevant assurances or strategies, factors or conditions that could mitigate the risk of mistreatment posed by the information exchange, request for information or use of information.

All mitigation measures used are tracked through the FIRAC by filling in a FIRAC Request Form. Noting which mitigations/caveats are used is a mandatory part of the process.

Annex M: Transport Canada

Does not have a departmental framework for assessing ACA considerations, outside of the Passenger Protect Program (PPP).

Changes: Transport Canada (TC) developed a corporate policy in September 2020 to highlight the department’s ACA-related requirements, roles and responsibilities and remains a participant in PS framework.

Triage: Relies on PS’ framework for the Passenger Protect Program.

Should they have any concerns about a request for information from a foreign partner they will consult with other agencies, such as CSIS or GAC.

Working Group: TC is a voting member of the PPP Advisory Group but does not have any responsibility for drafting case briefs. At each meeting of the PPP Advisory Group, TC has ensured that all other voting members have acknowledged TC’s SATA-legislated responsibility for sharing the List with domestic and foreign air carriers, and its associated responsibilities under the ACA.

Senior Management Committee: TC does not have any senior management committee in place to further review cases with a potential for mistreatment.

Country Assessments: Rely on other government departments.TC relies on assessments by other departments such as PS and GAC.

Mitigation measures: The framework was established by Public Safety (lead on PPP), with consultations with the PPP partners (RCMP, CSIS, CBSA). TC has worked with PS to integrate mitigation measures into the operating procedures and protocols of PPP partners.

Share this page
Date Modified:

Review of Departmental Implementation of the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act for 2020: Backgrounder

Review of Departmental Implementation of the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act for 2020


Backgrounder

Backgrounder

The Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act (ACA or Act) and its associated directions seek to prevent the mistreatment of any individual as a result of information exchanged between a Government of Canada department and a foreign entity. At the heart of the directions is the consideration of substantial risk, and whether that risk, if present, can be mitigated. To do this, the Act and the directions lay out a series of requirements that need to be met or implemented when handling information. This review covers the implementation of the directions sent to 12 departments and agencies from their date of issuance, January 1, 2020, to the end of the previous calendar year, December 31, 2020. It was conducted under subsection 8(2.2) of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act (NSIRA Act), which requires NSIRA to review, each calendar year, the implementation of all directions issued under ACA.

This was the first ACA review to cover a full calendar year. Many of the reviewed departments noted that the pandemic impacted their information sharing activities, thus impacting the number of cases requiring further review as per the ACA. As such, NISIRA found that from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, no cases under the ACA were escalated to deputy heads in any department.

As part of the review, NSIRA examined the case triage process of all twelve departments. NSIRA found that even when departments employ similar methodologies and sources of information to inform their determination of whether or not a case involving the same country of concern should be escalated, significant divergences in the evaluation of risk and the required level of approval emerge.

In keeping with NSIRA’s 2020 Annual Report which emphasized the implementation of a “trust but verify” approach for assessing information provided over the course of a review, NSIRA continues to work on various verification strategies with the Canadian intelligence community. However, due to the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of verification processes was not possible across all twelve departments which fall under the ACA. Notwithstanding, the information provided by departments has been independently verified by NSIRA through documentation analysis and meetings with department subject matter experts, as warranted. Further work is underway to continue developing an access model for the independent verification of information relevant to ACA considerations.

Share this page
Date Modified: