Both sides now

It's like the scrum that keeps on giving!

I promoted ATIP, I promoted Access to Information when I was in opposition coz I felt it was worthwhile. What I've seen from the other side of the fence is some of the requests that we get for access to information are UNbelievable. Like, every speech I've ever given since I got into politics, that's ten years of speeches. So fine [mumble] staff will dig that out. Then they start to dig into more information. My staff at the Eighth Floor could spend all their time just digging out and trying to answer ATIP requests. Things that are important, things that are fundamental and that the public need to know we get that for them. But some of the requests that come in are ludicrous, they're ridiculous, they're just people who are looking for an edge, people who are trying to find something that they can hang their hat on, but, y'know, there's no hidden agenda here. This is not about trying to be secretive or private. There's just so much a government can handle, there's only so much we can do and still run the province at the same time.

Invoking the NOT(X) = X formula, a logician yields an interesting result when it's applied to the pronouncement that "this is not about trying to be secretive or private".

You can now add "ludicrous" and "ridiculous" to Himself's list of favourite latinate adjectives to describe Access to Information Requests that We Don't Like. The previous adjective of choice having been, of course, "frivolous".

But you see, here's a strange thing.

Nowhere in the governing legislation, nor in the associated regulations, will you find the words "ludicrous", "ridiculous", or "frivolous". You will certainly find nothing which gives a respondent department, like, say, the Premier's own, Executive Council, any power to determine that a request is "ludicrous", "ridiculous", or "frivolous" and ignore it accordingly. (You will also not find the magic phrase, "non-responsive".) And you will not find any exculpatory provisions about what a government can handle or how much a government can do.

Requesters request. Respondents respond. The end. Unless the Commissioner has to investigate. The end. Well, unless the courts get involved. The end.

And the strangest thing of all? That would be, to ponder the question of why the Premier himself takes such a close and fascinating interest in the content of Access to Information requests, to the point where he can throw out the specific example of the content of an ATI request like that.

Really, isn't there only so much a Premier can handle? only so much a Premier can do and still run the province at the same time?

To the Premier's credit, he does indicate in his scrum that his staff will release the speeches that are the subject of the example request. However, his talk about "the other side of the fence" makes it clear that he is acutely aware of his own — how to put this? — evolution on the issue of access to information.

Just how far has he evolved?

On November 28, 2001, he waxes indignant about delays in processing ATI requests:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has claimed to have an open, accessible and transparent government, yet the new Freedom of Information Act, the proposed Bill 49, in fact makes it more difficult for the public to secure information due to procedural roadblocks.

Could the Premier explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why the former act had a thirty-day response period, yet the new act, the proposed bill, requires reasonable efforts only in a thirty-day period, provides for an extension of a further thirty-day period under certain circumstances and, in fact, provides for circumstances where it can be in excess of ninety days? Could the Premier please explain why the differences?

On December 3 he pledges:

...I quoted Abraham Lincoln, he said: "Let the people know the truth and the country is safe. We will keep the people of this Province fully informed; there will be no secret documents, there will be no hidden agenda. If you and I know the facts then we will collectively decide the best course for our future.." of this Province. That is what I said at that time, and a week later the committee was struck to review the Freedom of Information Act. I am glad that you took that initiative.

He waxes indignant about the fee his caucus colleague was assessed, back in the day when ATIPs were still "worthwhile":

...last year, if I remember correctly, there was an incident where a member of the Opposition made an application for some information under Freedom of Information and a bill of $10,000 was proposed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. A $10,000 bill was put forward to try and block the information. A lot of money.

And indignant about delays:

Now, let’s deal with time periods because I think it is important to track what the ordinary individual is going to have to go through in order to get information from this government or public body or any of the people under the definitions. The former act said it took thirty days. In thirty days the information had to be provided. The new act says, reasonable efforts within thirty days. Now, Mr. Speaker, my submission is: Who decides what reasonable efforts are? So, if you can’t do it in thirty days with a reasonable effort, what is a reasonable effort: 365 days, 720 days, 31 days? Who defines that? Completely subjective.

He thinks (thought) resource-deal negotiations should be open to scrutiny:

... information about negotiations carried on by or for a public body for the government of this Province. That is the Voisey’s Bay clause. That is the Lower Churchill clause. That is the one that this government can use to prevent disclosure of negotiations. Their answer to that is: Well, you cannot disclose the negotiations. If negotiations are going on in private, it is not right to get out and disclose those negotiations. You cannot do that.

Well I submit, Mr. Speaker, we should do that. The people of this Province have a right to know what is going on. It should not be done behind closed doors. It should not be a fait accompli. It should not be signed, sealed and delivered and then rammed down their throats after it is all over. That is too late.

That is wrong. It is these kinds of clauses that are dangerous to the public. Access to information is extremely important, but denial of the right to know what is going on in those negotiations affects our future and affects the future of the children of this Province. If those resources are given away, forever and a day, when hon. members opposite are long gone, who pays the price? It will not be any of us in this House. It will be our children and it will be our grandchildren. They are the ones who are going to pay the price when it is all over.

And, on November 26th, he asks the pointed question:

Why are he and his government using this very, very important piece of legislation to deny vital information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? What are you trying to hide?

Of course, that was then, and this is now. Not only does He have the benefit of seeing things from the nicer side of the fence, the two situations are nothing alike.

The government he was opposing was, allegedly, using the legislation to deny access to information.

His government doesn't even deign to invoke the legislation to do the same, and more.

PS: Special greetings to the Access to Information officials from across Canada who are meeting this week in Dannystan. Be sure to buy something nice for your office staff back home: after all there are only 18 shopping days till Right to Know Week.