Evidence of meeting #39 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was requests.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
That training program would be of assistance to your employment search at present, is that correct?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
There's a new challenge in Ottawa right now: there are not enough people available to do this kind of work.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Thank you.
I have a question. As members of Parliament, we have done ATIP requests on different things over time, so we have some firsthand experience of this area, no doubt.
I recall at one point working with a staff member doing an ATIP request on a fairly serious matter, an issue of a politically sensitive nature. Because I was involved to some degree in the story, I did this ATIP request, and it came back with a lot of stuff blanked out. It was in respect to me, but I had some requests on a more general issue. But the explanation for this stuff having been blanked out was that it had involved someone else, and their consent or permission hadn't been obtained. So even the stuff that I think may have been in reference to me was taken out of there too, because in the sentence you'd have the other person's name and my name, and as a result you'd lose the whole sentence. That puzzles me.
If you have a scenario where a prisoner is requesting information on something, and maybe there's been some disciplinary measure or some interaction or altercation with a corrections officer, do you have to get the permission of that corrections officer?
Are you saying you don't have to?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
No, because--and this may sound funny--the guard's name is not, per se, personal information.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
There could be a safety or security reason for why information is exempted. It depends on the specifics of the case at hand.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay, so is this a rule of ATIP that applies just in respect to corrections, then, because they have this special status and their name is not personal or private?
4:35 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
No, it's within the legislation itself.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay, so you're saying that's for anybody in an official security or corrections role? Because that certainly didn't apply in the case I'm sketching for you. This other person's name had to be.... Even the information I was seeking to obtain in respect of my involvement was shielded from me, because this person had a name and therefore none of it was provided. So I don't know how that works in this area.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
I don't know anything about the specific case you're describing—
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
—and I don't know what the nature of the exemption was.
Ms. Rooke.
4:35 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
Without knowing the specifics, it's very hard to comment.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
But are you saying there are no problems with providing and divulging in an ATIP request...that you don't need the permission of the other person who's involved or described? Is this what you're telling me now?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
There is a third-party exemption, but I think what Ms. Rooke is saying is that it doesn't apply necessarily if the individual is—how would you frame it—a public servant.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
That's what I'm getting at. That's my question. Why do we have exemptions, and who exactly is being exempted, according to the part of the act or whatever she's reading here?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
Without having it in front of us, it's difficult to respond.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Yes, and we can forget my case and my example, but I thought the general principle of ATIP is that if it involves somebody else's name, and permission is not given, then you can't divulge it.
In this case, obviously, the corrections officer doesn't have....
4:35 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
Under the definition of “personal information”, the Privacy Act says that information about an individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual, including the fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the organization; the title, business address, and telephone number of the individual; the classification and salary range of the individual; and the name of the individual on a document prepared by that individual in the course of employment is not personal information.
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
But it's all in context. The name actually could be protected if, for example, it's part of some broader security concern. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes they're severing partial sentences, as you say, so it's not a one-size-fits-all situation. You have to look at the specific document and apply the exemptions case by case.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
