Submit a detailed proposal


  • RSS
  • Cite


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:

  • 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.


Submitted by Stacy on October 02, 2020 - 1:05 PM

Use some of the millions/billions to introduce psychological services covered by OHIP. So many millions/ billions would ultimately be saved in the long run in health care, crime, mental health (addictions, suicide), and so forth. We need to be allocating resources to mental well-being; interpersonal skills development, self-awareness, trauma healing, emotion regulation, mindfulness, etc. Each human being is impacted in some way by those around them, like a domino effect, emotions and mindset is contagious. Canada would stand out as a unified country by being ahead of the game and focusing on mental health and accessibility to counseling services to all as of equal importance to such accessibility to physical health. Preventive strategies ultimately have more cost benefits and success than does damage control.

Submitted by Galina Grigorieva on April 05, 2020 - 1:29 PM

Good day, In this difficult time, we are all very concerned about the situation developing in our country and around the world. I want to share with you my thoughts / wishes,which, it seems to me, can help in our fight against coronavirus. Perhaps this will help mitigate the impact that the virus is currently causing to our economy. Most countries have declared self-isolation as the main measure to prevent the spread of the virus. It’s absolutely the right tactic that helps save a huge number of lives. Unfortunately this also leads our economy to a global crisis,the consequences of which we now can’t even imagine. No one knows exactly how long our self-isolation will last: one month? Two months? Three months? I suggest looking at the situation from a different perspective. Suppose ALL people are on self-isolation (excluding people who are required to work on duty) in some region. Among these isolated people,there are those who are still healthy, and there are those who may have already had coronavirus. It is already known that in 80% of people the disease is mild,and even sometimes asymptomatic. Thus there can be a huge amount of infected people who have had a mild illness and have already recovered. At present they are all self-isolated and cannot work too, and many of them will receive benefits from the state. They can no longer get infected, they are no longer dangerous to others because they already have antibodies that protect them.Then why should they stay home? These people theoretically could already go to work and be useful to society. There remains one task: IT IS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY ALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY HAD CORONAVIRUS AND HAD ALREADY RECOVERED,THAT IS TO CARRY OUT TESTS AT THE WHOLE POPULATION TO FIND OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE IMMUNE TO VIRUS. Those people who will be found recovered and who will feel good can return to work. Or, if this is not possible for any reason, they can be temporarily sent where there is an urgent need in the workforce. Thus, people will gradually go out of isolation and return to normal life.Testing the population for antibodies may need to be repeated, because more unaffected people will get ill and will recover with the time. Perhaps antibody testing will be conveniently carried out at home so as not to collect people in large groups and not expose them to the risk of infection. This can be done by people who have already come out of self-isolation, who cannot be infected or infect others. So, I propose to add following measures to the ones already in place: - Collect information not only about infected and deceased, but also about successfully recovered people. People who did not have symptoms of the disease and did not pass the coronovirus test should also take an antibody test. Perhaps they have already been ill in a mild form and can already come out of self-isolation. - Give out passes to people who have recovered to confirm their status, which will allow them to move around in restricted regions, comeback to normal life.  Once again, I want to emphasize that the most difficult thing in this project is the general testing for antibodies of the entire population. But this is theoretically feasible and, in my opinion, this is a possible solution to the difficult situation in which we all now find ourselves.
Thank you for your time in reading my message. We all agree with the measures you are taking to combat the virus,and we are confident that together we will deal with this problem.
Best regards,

Galina Grigorieva

Submitted by Christopher Cook on June 30, 2016 - 8:03 PM

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).

Submitted by Vlasta Stubicar on June 30, 2016 - 8:01 PM

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 :

Submitted by Tyler Bacon on June 07, 2016 - 6:12 AM

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.

Submitted by open-ouvert on May 30, 2016 - 5:10 PM

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

Submitted by janice kopinak on May 07, 2016 - 4:20 PM

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?

Submitted by Peter Meyler on May 06, 2016 - 6:00 PM

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.

Submitted by Derek Thompson on May 04, 2016 - 4:32 PM

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 ?

Submitted by Anonymous on May 18, 2016 - 1:41 PM


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

We look forward to hearing from you!

The ATI Consultation team