Submit a detailed proposal

The comments section of this webpage closed . Proposals submitted after this date will not be published here. Thank you to everyone who participated. We always welcome your feedback at ATIconsultationAI@tbs-sct.gc.ca.

You can submit your proposal on other ways to improve the Access to Information Act through one of the options below.

How to submit your proposal

You can:

  • Send us an email at ATIconsultationAI@tbs-sct.gc.ca.
  • Write us at the address below.

    Information and Privacy Policy Division
    Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
    Flaherty Building, floor 04
    90 Elgin Street
    Ottawa, ON K1A 0R5

See what others have submitted

Content provided by external sources is not subject to official languages, privacy and accessibility requirements. For more information, please refer to the Terms and conditions.

Please note that comments are moderated. It may take some time for your comments to appear online. For more information, consult our rules of engagement.

User comments

Besides some proposals for the legislation which I have submitted separately, I think it would be a good idea if all government websites had direct links from their home page to the relevant part of the department or agency's Access to Information and Privacy information (i.e. about submitting requests and not just showing us what they've already released and the latest report on what a good job they're doing).

June 30, 2016

RE: ATI Consultation (Privacy Act)

Dear Sir / Dear Madam:
The attached letter to the Access to Information and Privacy Standing Committee I wrote in November 2010 to bring to the attention of Parliamentarians the effective denial, due to improper exercise of investigative powers under the Privacy Act, of quasi-constitutional access rights in relation to my passenger name record data (PNR) processed by the CBSA. I have yet to receive any response.
The concerns raised in my letter, however, remain relevant to the ongoing consideration of how best to reform privacy and access to information legislation.
If the resources are lacking for proper exercise of the Privacy Commissioner’s investigative powers, and the Commissioner's findings are not binding on the Court, in any event, why not provide direct access to the Court and let the Privacy Commissioner continue doing what he / she has shown to be good at doing, namely, educating the public and keeping Parliament updated on relevant privacy issues?

Vlasta Stubicar

Enclosure: 20 pages (November 18, 2010 Letter to Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, including attachments)

N.B. : Enclosure to be forwarded by mail, due to technical problem in accessing the email address provided above : ATIconsultationAI@tbs-sct.gc.ca.

The access to information act should be improved by requiring all institutions, government offices, politicians' offices to share information with each other so Canadian citizens and residents be no longer required to provide information to the government that te government already has. The government should also share information with other levels of government as well as the private sector so people no longer be asked or required to provide information that the organization already has about them.

Is there a deadline for submissions?

Alison,
The deadline for submissions is 5 p.m. EDT on Thursday, June 30, 2016.
Hope this is helpful,
Karin -open-ouvert team

What steps will be taken to ensure that this information will be shared in an equitable manner across all socio economic groups including non English speakers. Will there be an ombudsperson who can assist those with limited understanding of how to access information? Will school children be informed of this valuable right?

The Commissioner definitely must be able to order the release of information/records. If not, the legislation is completely meaningless.
The Prime Minister and Minister's office should be covered by the legislation. They are government offices, not political or constituency offices. This has always been the case in Ontario.
The terms frivolous and vexatious should not be used. They are archaic legal terms that do not apply to the meaning envisioned in the legislation. The meaning is that the volume of requests or the scope of a request would interfere with the normal operations of an office or staff. The requester should be given opportunity to reduce the amount of requests or narrow the scope of the request.
Detailed written explanations for each exemption applied is not always necessary. Some exemptions are very clear just by being applied, i.e. personal information. It may only be necessary to note the type of information, i.e. contact information without going into a long drawn-out explanation.
Regarding Open Data/Information, it is very costly to provide all government records to the public in a routine manner. Much government work is routine without any public interest. It would be better to define records and information of public interest and provide those routinely. More information isn't necessarily a good thing. Meaningful information is.

This is a good start . We need access to information people to give us an Detailed Index of all documents in the file . I have personal found that they some times do not add all documents and another time they state that is all documents and then you take your other complaint to that body and there is many added different documents that they have which defends the other party !!!!! Please ad that to the Privacy Act, Thank you

It would be nice if you had an email address and not just a link to it .I could not email this way ?

Hi,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions on how to revitalize access to information. Your feedback will help the government better achieve its commitment to revitalize access to information. 

In response to your question, you can email us directly at ATIConsultationsAI@tbs-sct.gc.ca.

We look forward to hearing from you!

The ATI Consultation team