In fact, it was very interesting to listen to those exchanges between the two parties that have held office in the last year, and who have therefore been in power and had ministers' offices with political staff. They both seemed to be saying that it was a well-established procedure for political staff to get together with officials to look at all the access to information requests. As far as I can recall, no one mentioned any names, but I will do my homework and re-read the record of those exchanges.
The fact remains that there seems to be a well-established practice, which neither one denied, involving an exchange of information about ATIP requests in order to determine who is doing what and how, identifying the different categories.
Also, you say that there are very few complaints. It's quite obvious that there aren't many. Personally, I have made access to information requests, but I have no way of knowing whether my name was disclosed. I have no way of knowing whether someone might have disclosed my name. So, it's obvious that there are not going to be many complaints, because people simply are not aware.
On the other hand, you say that you are aware of five cases out of 25,000. You may be right, but you only know about five. However, is it possible that there is a well-established practice that involves going through the most sensitive ATIP requests and simply disclosing the names -- in other words, the names are not necessarily the product of people's suppositions? In fact, I find this whole theory of people simply guessing or assuming that it's a particular person -- I wouldn't want to say far-fetched, I would never say that -- rather strange.
Is it possible that the practice of exchanging this information is well established, that there aren't many complaints because people don't know what's going on, and that you are only aware of five cases because this is a well-established practice and no one ever complains.
Finally, should I not file an access to information request to find out whether there are other e-mails similar to the ones Mr. Kenney tabled here, last week, before the Committee?