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.
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
To be honest with you, I'm not sure what the specific rules are in terms of access to medical files.
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
Oh, you mean in terms of why they can't see all of the information being held about them?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Yes. Why do they have to go through all of these hoops? They're going to get it anyway.
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
There could be a number of exemptions that apply. For example, there may be information about incompatibles. There may be information on the file that relates to third-party information. There may be information on security issues. There are a number of things in a correctional environment that require you to do some vetting before you just turn over the file.
So it's a balance between wanting to have as complete a file as you can, which captures all the information, and recognizing that in a correctional environment there are some things that can't just be turned over.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
But can an inmate just ask the warden to see the file and have the exempted parts taken out, so that they actually know basically what's there, or do they have to go through all of the hoops to see even that?
For all of these requests, I guess I just want to know why we put this whole process in place if what they are going to see at the end has all the exemptions taken out?
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
In terms of what they'll see at the end, depending on the scenario, they'll see either most of it or perhaps all of it if there are no relevant exemptions. But just as we process every other document to make sure we respect third-party information, and make sure there's not a safety-security issue around, for instance, an incompatible, we have to make sure that the exemptions are properly applied and that the release of information can't lead to harm of another individual. There has to be some analysis brought to bear, and that's what Ms. Rooke's shop does.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I'm new to the committee, but I want to learn as we go along.
You'd probably have to be careful in terms of how you respond to proposed amendments to the Privacy Act. I'm still wondering if there is some comment you can make in a careful way in terms of how one could do it.
You've made some comments already that give me a bit of food for thought on that, but where there's no mechanism in place to assess whether they're trivial, frivolous, or vexatious, do you have any ideas coming from your law background, Ian? You've probably stayed awake nights and thought hard and long on this one. Do you have any ideas? There have to be good minds put to this one in terms of how you can sort this out, especially as it pertains to the corrections system.
4:15 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
Yes. Drawing from my days with the Department of Justice, one of the things new justice department lawyers often get are applications to the court to get people declared frivolous and vexatious. That's normally a job that's given to newcomers. So when I joined the Department of Justice, I did a few of them.
What I would say about that, just talking about it in a court context, is that it's a very high threshold you have to hit. You have to satisfy a judge that somebody has consistently abused their rights to do whatever it is, whether it's to file a lawsuit with the courts....
I don't know the exact parameters of what's being proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, and I wouldn't propose to comment on whether it is or isn't needed in terms of her fulfilling her mandate. I think that's very much for her—and I would suggest also, Treasury Board and the Department of Justice, given their policy responsibilities—to comment on.
What I would say is that from what I have seen, and I'd encourage Ms. Rooke to add in if she sees it differently, I'm certainly not aware that there's a huge flood of grievances that would hit the threshold, the high threshold that I remember from my legal days, of frivolous and vexatious.
I'm sure there are some where, if an exemption were brought into law, we'd use it, but we're not talking about the majority, by any stretch of the imagination, of the requests that we get from inmates that would fit into that category.
Ms. Rooke.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
I would agree with Mr. McCowan on that point.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
On that point, then, have you actually ever made a point, in any kind of systematic fashion, of chronicling or analyzing and looking at that to determine that maybe it doesn't meet these high thresholds--because as you say, it's a pretty high standard there--but something flags it for you, like there are dozens and dozens from any one person? Have you ever attempted anything, in any cursory fashion, in any manner at all? And secondly, would there be some merit to attempting to do some analysis of that?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
To my knowledge, we haven't. It's an interesting thought.
Ms. Rooke.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Access to Information and Privacy, Correctional Service Canada
It's not something I've turned my mind to, to be honest. From my year and a half of experience at Corrections Canada, I cannot say that I've seen anything that jumped out at me as fitting the category of trivial, frivolous, and vexatious.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Okay, so it's more anecdotal, unless it really jumps out at you. Obviously in your busyness of life, you look at the ones that come before you, but you haven't been able to go back prior to a year and a half in terms of the hundreds of complaints, really, to know.
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
You're giving us food for thought in terms of the things we should be looking at on our end, but from both of our perspectives, I take your point. We don't see all of them. I certainly don't. What we've given you is our best understanding of the lay of the land.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I didn't catch it before, Ian. You've been in that role a while. How long?
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
Just two years.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Oh, just two years as well. Okay.
For the most part, I take it you're in agreement with the Privacy Commissioner. As you say in your remarks, complaints must be handled indiscriminately by government departments, even though the individual may simply have an axe to grind against that government institution.
I've been asking this other background stuff, and I take it from what you say that you have a genuine concern about whether there might be something getting into the category of trivial, frivolous, and vexatious. But in your previous remark that these must be handled indiscriminately—I'll give you a chance to respond here and defend yourself—does that kind of suggest to me that you have a bias to say, “Well, maybe there's really very little point; because they have to be handled indiscriminately, somebody may or may not have an axe to grind, so why would we even look at whether it's trivial, frivolous, vexatious?”
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
I think the comment was just to say that the way the statutory frame works right now, all requests are treated equally and that's how we process them. What I meant by my earlier comment was that we don't systematically track, for example, the percentage or the number of requests that are associated with various categories: inmates, staff, victims.
What I'm taking as food for thought from our exchange here is that this may be something we need to get a better handle on in the future in terms of having a better statistical understanding of the breakdown of the requests that we receive.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to keep going on the same line here, because I see this as so important. We have to get to the bottom of this thing.
Please understand, I'm not pointing out any accusations. I know you're trying to do your job. Just help me understand this a little better.
Back in 1971, or something like that, I took a law class in high school—it goes back a long way—and I don't remember a lot, but I remember learning back then that if you went to prison, you lost your rights. I'm guessing that with the charter that all changed, in 1984. Am I right, Ian?
4:25 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Research, Correctional Service Canada
The charter certainly gives a broad range of rights to individuals in society, which obviously includes the category we're talking about. But in addition to that, there's a principle in our statute that offenders retain the rights and privileges of all members of society, except those privileges that are necessarily removed and restricted as a consequence of sentence. So our frame is similar to the discussion about the Privacy Act, in terms of all complaints being the same.
