Skip to main content

Elizabeth Denham, British Columbia’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, speaks to the media in Ottawa, August 27, 2009.

Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press Images

Elizabeth Denham, British Columbia's Information and Privacy Commissioner, raised concerns this week about the government's penchant for secrecy when she reported on the Liberal administration's high failure rate in responding to freedom of information requests.

Ms. Denham's investigation showed that the number of times the government reported it had found "no records" climbed from 11 per cent in 2002 to 18 per cent by 2010, then to 21 per cent and 25 per cent over the past two years. The most secretive department of all was the Premier's Office, which gave a "no records" response in 45 per cent of all FOI requests.

Ms. Denham talked with The Globe and Mail about her findings and concerns.

Story continues below advertisement

The Premier's Office's explanation for 'no records' is that they don't write things down because they are a small office and like to communicate one on one. Is there any doubt in your mind about what the motivation is for this kind of 'oral government?'

I can't speculate about what the motivation is, but I can say that the Premier's Office made it very clear and made unequivocal representations that they follow a transitory records policy, so they destroy [e-mail] records that they feel are of little enduring value. I think the government could do a better job in defining as a whole … what transitory records are and what they aren't.

It's not in the report, but did it come up for discussion that government staff can use private e-mails to communicate and thereby avoid putting anything on the record?

Government agencies are required to follow the law when it comes to responding to FOI requests. My expectation is that government will follow the law, which would include the search of a private e-mail account for records that are responsive to the request.

So, if there are responsive records relating to government business and they happen to be in private e-mail, then the government is required to produce those records in response to an FOI request. … I think a lot of people, journalists and people in the public, don't realize this, but e-mails that contain information about government mandate, government business, sent from a personal account, are subject to those FOI laws. And the determining factor is not the type of account, personal or government, but actually whether the e-mail relates to the performance of that employee's or that contractor's duties.

So the private e-mail that's very much in the news this week about ethnic voter strategy should be captured in an FOI request?

If it … encompasses government business, then it would be subject to an FOI request … We don't differentiate between private e-mails and government e-mails. What we are looking for is whether or not the records are related to government actions, government decision making. And if they are then they should be made available.

Story continues below advertisement

And that really gets to the heart, I think, of the importance of this research you are doing. Something should be part of the record, and yet it's not because they said, 'Well, we talked about it, but we didn't write it down.'

Right. And there's no rule in law that prohibits government from operating on an oral basis. And that's what I'm very, very concerned about. So in this investigation, we saw clear evidence of oral government.

I've asked the government to amend the legislation so that there is a duty to document an accurate record of government actions. Because if there's no legal duty to write things down, I think that's not just poor practice or poor governance, but it's very difficult for the public to actually trust the government and hold them to account for decisions that are made. So I really believe there should be a duty to document.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies