The minister should leave the building
Iwould
like to comment on the stream of letters and columns between Justice Minister Felix Collins and Telegram columnist Pam Frampton.
These exchanges deal with the recent Bill 29 from the Dunderdale government which imposed new and onerous restrictions on access to information.
Specifically, the minister states that information previously released under the old rules would still be released under the new rules and that the frivolous and vexatious provisions are appropriate and consistent with other provinces.
On both counts he is simply wrong. Sadly, simply because the minister claims the law has been made “stronger” does not mean it strengthens the public interest.
In her column, Frampton discusses a freedom of information request submitted to then-education minister Joan Burke seeking documents related to the minister’s interviews with potential candidates for the MUN presidency. This was an important issue because government publicly insisted they were taking no role in the ongoing search.
This request disclosed documents which proved that a government minister was interfering in an independent presidential search process for the purpose of ensuring that a new president was predisposed to government’s political goal of a separate Grenfell university, regardless of cost or academic issues.
This embarrassed government and harmed the international reputation of MUN as an independent university.
Government was forced to retreat and a new, independent search process driven by the Board of Regents was established.
Under Bill 29, subsection 20(1)(c), any information related to consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of a public body, a minister or the staff of a minister are specifically excluded from disclosure.
There is no doubt that this rule, if put in effect at the time by the Dunderdale government, would have buried the evidence of the extent and motivation of government’s political interference in the governance of MUN.
More mistakes
On the issue of frivolous and vexatious requests, the minister is again mistaken on the language and intent of his own law.
He defends the provisions, asserting they are consistent with other provinces, that the public body must notify an applicant that the request is refused due to it being frivolous and vexatious and that a reason must be provided for refusal.
While other provinces do have “frivolous and vexatious” provisions in their access to information legislation, every other Canadian jurisdiction with such a provision, with the sole exception of Ontario, requires that a request can only be deemed “frivolous and vexatious” with the prior consent of the information commissioner.
Here, the information commissioner is cut out of that process. Here, the decision that a request is frivolous and vexatious rests solely with the public body. There is no prior independent review or oversight.
Finally, I’d be negligent if I didn’t note the unfortunate tone of condescension of the minister’s letters.
Clearly, he still doesn’t appreciate how his legislation shuts down the flow of information to the public.
This attitude is perfectly consistent with his remarks throughout the debate on Bill 29 where he seems not to have read the text of his own bill.
Every public intervention he makes confirms how out of touch he is on these issues; it’s time for him to go on summer holidays.