The government periodically modifies/changes procedural details, including particular methods or protocols for obtaining access to information stored by government entities. So the specifics, including acronyms, change, and the particular means of obtaining information change.
But the basics remain largely the same. There are two different types of requests:
-- a request for general records
-- a request for personal records
And there are two different statutory schemes governing access to information stored by the government:
There can be some overlap. Which can get complicated. However, no need to wrestle with this to understand the basics, except to recognize that given the potential overlap, whether a fee is charged depends on whether the request is made based on the Access to Information Act (fee charged) or the Privacy Act (no fee for request for personal records under the Privacy Act).
In the past the distinction was noted by referencing either a
ATI request (which is about access to information under the Access to Information Act, typically a request for general information) versus the
ATIP request (access to personal information under the Privacy Act).
That is, generally there is the ATI request for general information, and the ATIP request for personal information. While I am not sure to what extent "ATI" versus "ATIP" are still commonly used this way, that remains a fairly easy way to distinguish the types of requests: ATI is for access to information, generally, and ATIP is a Privacy Act request for personal information.
Individuals can also make an
ATI request for personal information, which again means there is a fee; this is where things can overlap.
Requests for information will only generate information, NOT action on a file. There is no reason to think that such requests will stir anything.
That said, every time a citizenship application file is accessed, for any reason, that access to the file is itself recorded in the file. Whether or not those who frequently make ATIP requests are noted and flagged, I cannot say. Human nature being what it is, however, suggests that when a processing agent or citizenship officer is reviewing the file and they notice the applicant has made numerous ATIP requests, that almost forces them to at least be curious and potentially be motivated to take a deeper dive in search of what it is the applicant is worried about.
ATIP requests for PERSONAL records:
Most of the discussions in this forum are about ATIP requests for copies of personal records held by IRCC. As long as the individual requesting their own personal records makes the request through the online portal to make these requests
under the Privacy Act, there is no fee. (In contrast, if the request for the records is through the procedures governed by the Access to Information Act, same request will nonetheless require payment of a fee.)
The online procedure for IRCC ATIP requests channels the requests based on a selected pending application. I have often referred to this as a more or less "
generic" ATIP request. And while this can be useful for some, and a good idea for some, the vast majority of these requests appear to be utterly pointless and useless. They generate a copy of partial GCMS records for the individual limited to records related to the particular application, which rarely reveal anything of use.
It is more complicated and difficult to make a customized ATIP request. A well-composed customized request is the better way to get real information, even if IRCC might not make this at all easy to do.
I know of no advantage making the request for personal records based on the Access to Information Act; the obvious disadvantage is the fee.
There are several "exemptions" regarding information about a person that will not be disclosed to that person. Some of these are very broad, including those listed under "Responsibilities of Government," which are set out in Sections 19 to 25 in the Privacy Act. Among the broadest there is the law enforcement and investigation exemption, set out in Section 22 of the Privacy Act (see
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/page-3.html#docCont ) Since a great deal of what CBSA and IRCC do falls under the ambit of law enforcement and investigation, this can dramatically limit the citizenship applicant's access to information about himself or herself.
ATI requests for GENERAL records:
Canadians (including both citizens and PRs), and persons lawfully in Canada, can make a request for any information the government stores that is not otherwise restricted. The latter, however, the amount of information stored by the government that is subject to restricted access, is huge.
Moreover, massive amounts of information stored by the government is personal, and in addition to the specific exemption prohibiting the disclosure of personal information, as set out in Section 19 in the Access to Information Act (see
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-3.html#h-504 ), the Privacy Act is as much about protecting the privacy of individuals, limiting access and use of information, not just from the public generally, but within the government as well . . . even the institution which gathers and stores the information is limited in how it can use personal information.
In the past I made several ATI requests, none having anything to do with me personally. For example, many years ago I was part of an extended effort to obtain information related to the adoption and implementation of OB 407, and several of us asked for and obtained hundreds of pages of internal CIC memos related to that Operational Bulletin which dramatically changed internal procedures and practices in processing grant citizenship applications. The memos were, of course, peppered with redactions. And none of us obtained a copy of the File Requirements Checklist (FRC) through this process, that being "confidential" information omitted from the information provided (there is a widely shared version of the FRC; that 2012 version was apparently accidentally included in response to a particular individual's ATIP request, a copy of the FRC in that individual's file included in the response, and they deleted the personal information and shared the FRC itself online . . . to this day, that is still the only copy of a FRC, so far as I am aware, that has been shared publicly, and thus for example constitutes the last known version of the triage criteria employed to determine who is issued a Residence Questionnaire).
While it is work to research it, and the overwhelming majority of requests are poorly composed rendering most more or less useless, there is a portal where any and all completed ATI requests are listed and searchable. This makes it relatively easy to basically get a copy of any completed ATI request.
Sample: there is Req # 2A-2021-57941 which was completed in September 2021 and which provided the party requesting it with 210 pages of material. That request was summarized as:
Please provide all memorandums to the Minister, operational manuals, training guides, program delivery instructions, guidance, legal opinions, reports, both publicly available and internal, relating to IRCC's two-stage study permit approval procedure. We seek records dated between January 2019 to August 10, 2021
As is typical, the "disposition" is "Disclosed in part" (meaning certain information was omitted or redacted). Anyone in Canada can easily request a copy of the material provided in response to that request. Much faster and easier than making an original request.
see
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/0797e893-751e-4695-8229-a5066e4fe43c to find portal/links to search completed access to information requests.
Request for INFORMATION in RECORDS or DOCUMENTS; REMINDER: both the ATI and the ATIP process are about obtaining INFORMATION as stored, information under the control of a respective government institution. The government will not "
answer" questions in response to these requests. When the request is framed as a question, typically the respective institution will attempt to interpret the question as a request for records or documents as described. Any question framed as a "why" question, for example, will not be answered unless there is some particular documents or records in which there is an explanation of why. The government does not analyze or compile data to respond to these requests but, rather, only provides copies of records and documents within the scope of the request. This can make composing effective requests difficult. For example, if IRCC does not already have records stating how many applicants were issued RQ, a request asking for the number of applicants issued RQ will not generate any results . . . it is not as if IRCC will review its data to determine how many in order to respond to the request. That is, that information may be available to IRCC by analyzing its internal records, but IRCC will not analyze its records to answer how many in response to an ATI request.
For additional information see
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy.html
