The short answer to your question, “Is it going on?”, is yes. It is and it was.
We had a complaint from the Canadian Newspaper Association about amber-lighting for press-based or media-based requests. We did a very lengthy investigation, going back to 2004.
Our annual report, which is coming up very shortly, will again talk about that. We found that (a) it was going on and (b) the media was not the worst-treated group. Parliamentarians and lawyers were the worst-treated groups in terms of delays because of amber-lighting. Amber-lighting is related to delays caused by the fact that the department wants to prepare responses or communication lines or briefings for ministers, etc.
What I said was that I had no problem with amber-lighting as a concept where a department wants to prepare itself to respond to this information being made public so long as it is done within the prescribed timelines of the statute, and that the requester receives, without any prejudice to his request, the information required in the time required.
Our findings concluded in three recommendations to the Treasury Board. One was that they pay attention to the amber-lighting where it's going on. Some departments were doing it with no delay whatsoever; others were doing it with considerable delay. We recommended (a) that it stop in terms of delays and (b) that Treasury Board monitor this and report on it as well as promulgate or promote better practices where some amber-lighting may be going on.
There are two views out there. Some of my provincial colleagues are dead set against amber-lighting as a concept. I view it as an internal management issue of a department. It probably is even good for the public interest that a response is ready by the time it's made public, but it has to be done within the terms of the legislation.
As far as parliamentarians are concerned, I'll express a personal view. It's unfortunate that parliamentarians interacting with government have to resort to the statute to get information.