Redaction in action
GOOD MORNING TELEGRAM READERS. THIS POST IS UPDATED 2013-01-03. SEE BELOW.
An interesting document which came embedded recently in a much-larger provincial Access to Information return:
ATI Transcript You might notice that this document is a transcript of a CBC Radio program. The content was broadcast on the open airwaves. Then it was written down. Then it was blacked out.
Disclosure of House of Assembly service and statutory office records
30.1 The Speaker of the House of Assembly or the officer responsible for a statutory office shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information
(a) where its non-disclosure is required for the purpose of avoiding an infringement of the privileges of the House of Assembly or a member of the House of Assembly;
(b) that is advice or a recommendation given to the speaker or the Clerk of the House of Assembly or the House of Assembly Management Commission established under the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act that is not required by law to be disclosed or placed in the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission; and
(c) in the case of a statutory office as defined in the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, records connected with the investigatory functions of the statutory office.
UPDATE 1: The redactions were actually justified on the basis of s. 30(1) of the Act:
30. (1) The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant where the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy.If you are keenly interested to know what information was blacked out, including the name of the interview subject and in extenso portions of what he or she told Dorothy King on the open airwaves, the podcast is still available for listening or downloading here.
VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE 2: Despite the presence of details in the ATI return excerpt which might suggest otherwise, the redacted document was not returned pursuant to a request to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, but rather through a request made to the Department of Justice. In fact, an unredacted version of the same document was released in a separate request made to the OIPC.