Thank you.
Chair, I'd simply say that the anonymity of the applicant is a fundamental cornerstone of freedom of information laws. That has to be our starting point, the premise, the foundation of everything that we stand for and believe in, if we're fighting for the right to know and for freedom of information. What you've told us today changes everything.
I used to think I was somewhat of an authority on this issue, as I've been engaged in it for at least the last four or five years. But I didn't know that. To me, life as we know it will never be the same in the access to information community, as you put it.
In fact, I think as of this moment there's going to be a chill on freedom of information requests based on what we've learned at this meeting. This is devastating. We, as a committee, should be really concerned. It's shocking to me, because the retribution can go both ways too. It's not just the applicant who has to fear retribution; it's the access to information coordinator who may say no to a minister because he thinks it's morally or ethically repugnant to disclose the name of the applicant.I think we've opened up a real can of worms here.
I want to thank you for your testimony today and for your interpretation of it. In your presentation on page 6, you say, “Heads of government institutions are responsible for ensuring...” access to government information, etc. It never occurred to me for a minute that that goes all the way up to a minister's right to know who the applicant is.
I don't know if I even have a question, Mr. Chair, other than to say that I thought we were in for a dry, boring presentation, a statement of the status quo and the law as it stands, so we could all start with the same base-level information. In actual fact, our committee has a lot of work to do if that's the status quo. Freedom of information laws in this country are in tatters.