Very briefly, the question, whether innocuous or not, is not something that ultimately the commissioner is in a position to decide on, nor should she be in a position to have to decide on that kind of question.
Thanks to the Access to Information Act, I am sent, the odd time, a piece of correspondence from the commissioner asking me to sign off—“Is it okay that we release the piece of correspondence that you sent to a minister?”—presumably because someone is looking to see what the content of that correspondence would be. Typically these are cases in which I have written to a minister because I found the department is not working out and doing its job properly, and the minister's personal intervention is needed.
Ultimately, whether I sign off or not—it doesn't happen all the time, but it has happened a few times—is based on whether there is anything in the item that indicates the identity of the individual in question. Sometimes you can put it together from the facts, and these can be things that are embarrassing to them. Some degree of sensitivity to this has to remain in the system or we will find ourselves abusing the...I won't say the rights or privileges, but we'll be abusing people, if we aren't careful. That would be the unintended consequence.
I'm not sure I can point to a solution for it. I think what Mr. Martin said is valid, that there is a distinction between what we're allowed to do without violating the law and what the public thinks is a legitimate limit. That's an area that we want to keep as close as we can. But we have to remember that there is this second item that won't become obvious until somebody gets hurt.