Their request was simple, though wide in scope.

They wanted “any documentation (including emails and other correspondence) produced subsequent to the tabling of Budget 2012 in Parliament on March 29 2012, which relate to service level impacts from the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan.”

Determined to leave no stone unturned, they added: “The request would apply to the measures undertaken as part of Budget 2012, as well as measures taken subsequently to replace or augment those that were part of the initial suite of measures.”

Each department and agency has their own ATIP co-ordinator, and resources differ from one to the next, so a fair bit of variance was expected among the 66 government bodies to which the team submitted requests.

But the differences between the responses were so great they gave the impression DRAP had been applied haphazardly across the government, without any uniformity.

The student volunteers classified the responses in Excel spread sheets by the amount of information provided, and patterns soon emerged.

Some departments and agencies had, of course, used the template the PBO had provided back in April, 2012, which listed the amount saved by specific measure and sometimes answered — all in an easily-read table — whether the measures would affect service levels.

In cases where this happened, the researchers’ work got very close to what the PBO and Page had always wanted. One example, the Canadian Border Services Agency, sent their completed version of the table with measures including the closure of a truck examination centre in Brampton and “extending the life-cycle of uniforms.” In other words, getting a few more washes in before throwing them in the trash.

Story continues below.

CBSA didn’t say, however, whether there had been a service level impact, explaining that it was “beyond statutory access entitlement.” That whole mandate issue again.

A third of the departments and agencies admitted to some kind of impact on services, but they didn’t explain how they had reached that conclusion. While Treasury Board policies define service levels, there was no evidence in the ATIP responses that public servants across government were using the same definition.

This ambiguity may be the most problematic hitch in the search to understand DRAP's impacts, since it prevents the public from understanding whether services have actually been affected, the extent to which they've been affected, and where the government might be doubling back on itself to do its job with fewer employees and resources.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) had to narrow the documents it provided to the researchers because there was too much information, its response said. One of the major changes to come from DRAP was the outsourcing for the provision of gear tags for lobster, crab and shrimp fishermen to private industry associations. This was done despite DFO hearing from industry that the move was “grossly unrealistic” and there were “opportunities for fraud.”

The department also reduced the number of scientific assessments for fisheries, reduced communication efforts, closed departmental libraries and shuttered detachment offices.

The effect of DRAP on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development’s services was more nuanced. “Essential services, such as education, water and housing, child and family services, economic development programming and core programs in the North, were not impacted by savings measured,” says a November 2012 communications plan.

But the department’s handling of other key responsibilities didn't go so smoothly. Staff working on transfer payments were experiencing increased workloads, “significant pressure on remaining staff, morale challenges and absenteeism,” says a PowerPoint presentation slide provided through an ATIP response.

Among public servants dealing with treaties and aboriginal governments, the implementation of DRAP brought “lots of anxiety and stress,” just as Ottawa was dealing with a bolder approach from aboriginal groups over all kinds of negotiations, the presentation says.

Library and Archives Canada (LAC) had to make drastic changes. “The cuts affected the majority of LAC programs,” says an internal September 2014 backgrounder. A total of 122 positions were cut within the LAC.

The department ended loans with other libraries across Canada for many types of archives, instead turning to a new model when a loan requester would have to first prove that the LAC was a lender of last resort. International loans were another casualty.

Still, in a June 11, 2012 letter to a constituent that came up in the ATIP, Alberta Conservative MP Laurie Hawn said that Canadians would not feel the cuts. “LAC is not eliminating any of the services it delivers directly to the Canadian public, although its service model is being adjusted in response to evolving clients’ needs and demands,” says the letter.

That was the ATIP system at its most transparent. The dragnet left out the most important information needed to fully understand how DRAP had altered the government.

The largest and most important departments asked Page’s team to pay prohibitive fees if they wanted an answer to their ATIP requests. While fees are a normal part of the process, these sums were outlandish.

Parks Canada asked for $20,000 for the 2,000 hours they estimated it would take to process the request. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, one of the most politically sensitive service providers in the federal government, asked for $17,569 for 1761 hours of work.

Six other departments asked for lower sums that were still too high for the researchers, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service ($7920), Environment Canada ($2520), Veterans Affairs ($2100) and the RCMP ($1492).

Other critically important departments told Page’s team that requests would take months to finish. The Canada Revenue Agency would need 180 days, Health Canada would need 240, Natural Resources Canada would be busy for 300 days and Public Safety would need exactly one year to process the ATIP request.

Patience and a generous benefactor may have be able to undo these roadblocks, but the researchers also encountered a number of departments that claimed they had no documentation related to DRAP — or that said the austerity program had no impact on their work.

The University of Ottawa team didn’t receive any kind of meaningful response from around one third of the government bodies.

Canadian Heritage said in its response that they had no records related to the request. But even a quick Google search easily turns up a May 2012 committee meeting in which the department’s deputy minister explains the impact of DRAP.

“As you know, the Government of Canada's Budget 2012 was announced on March 29, 2012. Some of the reduction measures with regard to the Department of Canadian Heritage include elimination of the Katimavik program, the grants and contributions component of the human rights program, the cultural capitals of Canada component of the Canada Cultural Investment Fund, the Canada Interactive Fund, the arts, culture, and diversity program, and the creators' assistance component of the Canada Music Fund,” Daniel Jean told the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Certain departments, like the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CANNOR), offered brief responses that said DRAP had no impact despite having done their part to find savings.

“We do not expect that service levels relating to these savings will be impacted as the agency has taken steps to ensure that economic development activities are not impacted,” said agency president Patrick Borboy in a letter to the PBO picked up in the ATIP request.

CANNOR's painless escape from the DRAP cuts is the opposite of one of its sister agencies, Western Economic Diversification Canada. The economic development body said DRAP had created an “untenable situation with regard to IT Help Desk Services and system cross training to provide adequate backup during vacations and illness.”

Due to personnel cuts, nine people were now doing the job that previously 14 people had done. A 2013 internal document tried to sum up the impact of DRAP on the small agency's capability.

DRAP, it said, had caused a “significant loss of corporate knowledge.”