Information & Ethics Committee on June 5th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're at nine minutes now. You were on a good line, and I wanted to show a bit of latitude here.

Mr. Hubbard, we're now on the second round, so you will have five minutes.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

It's hard to believe there are nearly 20,000 people incarcerated in federal institutions, according to your page 3, and you have 14,000 out on some sort of supervised parole. You have 15,000 workers and are costing nearly $2 billion a year to the Canadian taxpayer.

Unless I'm wrong, when a prisoner is incarcerated, when he goes to his first federal institution, a file goes with him. His future, in terms of getting early parole or in his relationship with the system, is dependent upon how that file is accessed, who puts things into it, and whether or not the information that's in there is correct concerning both parties that are involved.

It's very easy for a guard, for example, to put something into that file that would be a major factor in whether that prisoner would have a request for parole accepted after his minimum time has been served.

We have files that are there for the prisoners, but how does a prisoner get redress, if he's had difficulties with one or two guards who can put things into the file that the prisoner doesn't agree with? What access does he have to get his file seen, and secondly to get redress for something that he feels is not the true report of the situation that's been filed?

[Ian McCowan]

Perhaps I could deal with the first part, and I'll ask Ms. Rooke to deal with the redress issue.

As I mentioned before, the information we gather on inmates is really the lifeblood of our business. If we're going to make good public safety decisions, we have to gather all relevant information and keep gathering it constantly.

I take your point. Inmates are always going to be interested in what is on their file, because it's going to have a huge impact on the decisions that are taken about them. As a result, Ms. Rooke's shop is always going to receive, in decades to come, many requests for access to what's on the file. And when inmates are not satisfied with what they get back, I'm sure a complaint will follow.

But the bottom line is that the lifeblood of our business is information, and information on an inmate's file is of great interest to them. It's of great interest to victims too. There are many stakeholders involved, but that's very much our reality.

Perhaps Ms. Rooke might want to add some additional points on the redress issue.

[Anne Rooke]

Offenders who, after receiving their file as the result of an access request, feel that something on the file is not correct have redress to come back to us at ATIP to ask for a file correction. They also have redress under the CCRA to request that their file be corrected. So they have options when they dispute something that is on their file.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

To go back to Mr. Van Kesteren's situation, why is the prisoner not satisfied when he sees the file, and what is the degree of his dissatisfaction? Why does he have to go to the commissioner to get information that apparently is not available?

[Ian McCowan]

When requests are made for access to the file, as you know a variety of exemptions can be applied. It's possible that information might be exempted for reasons of safety and security of the penitentiary. Inmates will perhaps be interested in knowing what that is, and that might result in a complaint.

It's the nature of our environment again. Ms. Rooke's shop is challenged with the delicate balance of fulfilling our focus on public safety and making sure we give proper balance to the exemptions in the act. Inmates are always going to be interested, and they're particularly going to be interested in exempted materials.

Did you want to add anything to that?

[Anne Rooke]

No.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Just to go a step further—Dave, you were referring to the book—do some of your people get their knuckles rapped by the commissioner because you don't provide the proper access?

[Ian McCowan]

If you go back over the last decade of reports from the Privacy Commissioner, you will find examples where corrections has made mistakes in terms of the handling of personal information. Ms. Rooke can give you more details on this. But in situations like that, we work with the Privacy Commissioner's office to figure out how best to avoid repeating whatever it was that went wrong.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Just one point, then. Of the 100 you quoted, David, how many cases, 100-some cases in one year?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

This is 2006-07, Charlie. Corrections, 194—

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Of that how many were really valid?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

194 out of 839.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Yes, so one quarter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We now have Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming.

For my first round, I have a few questions for you. First of all, I would like to know how long you've both been on the job in terms of access to information and privacy, whether it's with this organization or with other government organizations. Could you just fill me in on your history or your background, because you mentioned something else, sir, that's—

[Ian McCowan]

My track record is amazingly thin relative to Ms. Rooke's, as you probably will have gathered from the exchanges that happened earlier. I was with the justice department for 15 years, and for the last two years I've been with Corrections. Access to information and privacy is part of the policy and research group at the justice department.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Part of that branch.

[Ian McCowan]

That's how I fit in. Ms. Rooke has a much more noble and extensive résumé.

[Anne Rooke]

I've been with the director of access and privacy for a year and a half. Prior to that I was with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for seven years.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Oh, you were with the office. Were you an investigator when a complaint came in?

[Anne Rooke]

I was the acting director general of complaints and investigations for two years.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Is that right? Okay. Great.

I think Dave was one of the ones who was keen on having you here as a group. Part of our reasoning is we are looking for suggestions on improvements. In 1986 there was a review of this legislation—I think it was called “Open and Shut”, or something like that—and of access to information.

One of the things that interested me.... A prisoners' rights committee came here to speak to that. Is there such a thing now in the system? Do prisoners have a rights committee? If not, that solves the problem. Do they talk about access to their information as part of their problem?

[Anne Rooke]

I'm not aware—

[Ian McCowan]

I'm not aware of a prisoners' rights committee. The correctional investigator is part of our statutory frame, who will often advance a broad range of issues on behalf of offenders.