In January, the Chair of the National Privacy and Access Law Section wrote to the deputy minister of Justice, the deputy secretary to the cabinet, and the secretary of the Treasury Board urging the government “to introduce legislation to repeal the retroactive provisions introduced by Bill C-59, the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1. It also recommends that the government take all necessary steps to eliminate the barriers in Bill C-59 that prevent the Information Commissioner from fully discharging her mandate.”
For those needing a refresher, in March 2012, the RCMP received an Access to Information request for information contained in the long-gun registry. In April, the Information Commissioner wrote to the then-Minister of Public Safety reminding him that under law those records could not be destroyed, and the minister responded in May, saying that the RCMP would abide by the right of access contained in the Access to Information Act. And then in October of 2012, the RCMP destroyed most of those records.
In May last year Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault laid out her findings in a special report, just days after the federal government introduced its omnibus Bill C-59, which retroactively rewrote the 2011 Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to usurp the application of the ATIA and make the destruction of the records a legal act.
The Access to Information Act, the letter says, has been held by the Supreme Court to be a “quasi-constitutional law, in part because of the paramountcy provision in section 4(1).”
“The CBA Section is concerned about the retroactive denial of a quasi-constitutional right of access supported by blanket immunity for all officials responsible for the destruction of records during an ongoing investigation under ATIA,” the Section writes. The letter reminds the government of its commitment not to interfere in the work of parliamentary officers, and to enhance the openness of government.
Legault filed a lawsuit against the government in Ontario Superior Court. In December, the newly appointed Attorney General asked for a three-month delay in Information Commissioner of Canada and Bill Clennett v. Attorney General of Canada, in order to “consider its position in these proceedings.”