HomeMy WebLinkAboutLakeshore Advance, 2013-10-09, Page 3•
Wednesday, October 9, 2013 • Lakeshore Advance 3
Bump -up requesters outedby Ministry
Ministry says this was
public information
Lynda HIIIman-Rapley
Lakeshore Advance
flow in the name of privacy did this
happen? That was pretty much the
question from people who thought they
were under the cloak of confidentiality
when it came to their objection to the
size of the new treatment plant.
Last week an article in a local paper,
the names of those people who Islet in
confidence to explain why they did not
think the size of the new treatment
plant was adequate for future growth,
were listed, thanks to a call from a
reporter to the Ministry of the Environ-
ment. Since the story hit the streets,
some of the individuals have contacted
the reporter who wrote the story and
the Lakeshore Advance.
John Frazer speaking from MPI'
Monte McNaughton's office, told the
Lakeshore Advance due to complaints
to the MPP's office from constituents, a
letter will go to the MOE and to the Pri-
vacy Commission asking how names
that were supposed to be private ended
up being released.
In November 2012 some requesters
received a letter under Annamarie
Cross, Manager of Environment Serv-
ices Section. This letter stated if the
requesters wanted their information
excluded from the file, they needed to
let the Branch know. There was no
deadline on this and some of the
requesters told the Lakeshore Advance,
they were waiting to see what would
transpire with their request. 'Then, in
June of 2013, each of the requesters
received a letter from the Information
and Privacy Commission of Ontario
under the signature of mediator
Suzanne Brocklehurst. The letters
clearly stated Personal and Confiden-
tial in block letters asking if they would
allow the release of their name and per-
sonal information because a resident
wanted the names released.
The requesters received a confirma-
tion letter stating, "Our office is process-
ing an appeal from a decision made by
the Ministry of the Environment under
the Freedom of Information and Pro-
tection of Privacy Act (the Act). I had
contacted you to discuss the possibility
of seeking your consent to the disclo-
sure of information relevant to you.
'this is to confirm that you did not wish
to provide your consent:'
'I'o the requesters, they were clear
their personal information would not
be released.
By October 1st, a letter came to the
requesters that the appellant had
advised he would abandon the appeal.
One day later the list of requesters were
In the media.
After the names were listed in the
media, Shirey Andraza, one of the
objectors said she spoke to Brockle-
hurst who explained the Privacy Com-
mission informed the MOE there were
two people only who agreed to allow
their names to be released.
'l'rell lluether, the media relations
specialist for the Privacy Commission
responded to the Lakeshore Advance
with a statement saying," Me Office of
the Information and Privacy Commis-
sioner of Ontario has contacted the
Ministry of the Environment to review
this matter. If a decision was made by
the Ministry of the Environment (or
another government institution) to dis-
close the personal information of indi-
viduals who had not consented to the
disclosure, our office was not aware of
this nor were we consulted. Any indi-
viduals who feel that their privacy may
have been Violated can file a privacy
complaint with our office.'
None of the people the Lakeshore
Advance spoke to were concerned that
their naive was in lights last week, the
issue was that they had been assured of
confidentiality by the province, and
"that was breached':
"1 don't give a rat's ass about my
name being disclosed," said Cam Ivey,
who was vocal from the beginning he
did not care who knew he was an objec-
tor to the size of the proposed facility
for fiscal reasons, "But why would we
go through the charade of waivers if our
names could just he released in the end
anyway. 1 le said he does not recall get-
ting the Nov. 2012 letter and wonders
%vitere it was sent. "1 feet for those who
did not want their names disclosed, and
for anyone who wants to object to any-
thing, through this process, in the
future."
Peter Coleman saki the objectors felt
confident explaining their views to
those at the helm in a 2012 closed meet-
ing in (rand Bend because they were
assured their names would not be
released. Ile said they wanted their
objections discussed "away from mem-
bers (if an active special interest group,"
or to anyone." Ile said having their
names listed its the media made no
sense because' the reasons for objecting
were not written. "1 have no objection
to the the plant -I do have an objection
that the people in Zones 3 and 4 were
never part of the discussion. There was
no due process here."
Larry Broadley said "It seems you
never run out of reasons to mistrust the
government,"
(glen Baillie said he had no problem
with his name being attached to erro-
neous assumptions in selection of the
sized plant but that he (lid not author-
ize his name to be included in a pub-
lished list. "I did not authorize this
when I was specifically asked and
wonder if citizen faith in the process
will be permanently affected by this
breach. It takes a long time to gain trust
Ai
It seems you never run
out of reasons to mistrust
the government."
— Larry Broadley
hut little time to eliminate it," he said.
!Millie wrote to deputy mayor Elizabeth Davis-
Dagg, as a representative of the Sewer Board and
one who puhltcally saki she did not support the
bump up requests asking for clarification regard-
ing this breach. She explained in an e-mail back to
liaillie that,
"The proposed addendum was made available
for public continent between October 26 and
November 26 2012. During this time the ministry
received the bulut) up requests. Requestors were
informed that their name and other personal con-
tact information would be included as part of the
public file and if they wished to have it removed to
contact the ministry. None of the requestors made
this request. For that reason, their names would
have been available in the public file by early Dec
2012."
She added that the provincial Environmental
Assessment Policy states that,
"tinder the Freedom of Information and Protec-
tion of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assess-
ment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submis-
sion, personal information such as name, address,
telephone number and property location in a sub-
mission become part of the public record and will
be released, if requested, to any person."
The Lakeshore Advance asked Brent Kintner,
Director of Community Services for names of the
requesters and was told the MOE is the keeper of
the public file that offers the requesters the right to
have their personal information kept confidential.
Since no one had allowed for his or her names to
conte forward, Kittmer would not divulge the
information. But, the Ministry says the opposite
that no one denied his or her names being
released.
"'the requestors were explicitly asked in a letter
from MOE staff if they wished to have their names
and contact information removed from the
file. According to our files, no requests to delete
names were received. 'therefore, their identities
are part of the public record," explained Kate Jor-
dan, Media relations for the MOE.
She later told the Lakeshore Advance," Follow-
ing the Part I1 Order requests, the ministry received
a freedom of information (MI) request for signed
copies of all the Part II Order requests and objec-
tions, which included the names of the requesters.
'the Ministry's I'01 Office was not informed at
the time of the FM request that the signed cop-
ies of the Part 11 order requests and objections
were part of a public record tender the Environ-
mental Assessment Act and should not be with-
held tinder the 101 process. This means that the
removal of the personal information at the time of
the FOI request was not required because the per-
sonal information was intended to be available to
the general public."
"'this decision by the 1:01 office to remove infor-
mation, including the names, was appealed to the
information Privacy Commissioner's Office." She
said it was her understanding the IP(; contacted
the requesters asking if they would consent to dis-
closure of their names.
"'Ihe Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act states that the privacy protections in
the act (10 teat apply to personal information that is
maintained for the purpose of creating a public
record. 'Ibis means that the personal information
of the requesters is indeed part of the public
record."
My Secret Garden
Wednesday,
October 16th
4pmto8pm
at the Dante C 1 uh • _'
1331 London Rood
Sarnia, ON
s k))1g)in
�:�
;ntei'taiiu ent Sh
1)oor Prizes
1111
.r•• .R, l..)l
Fidel% evellaUk et Rtcret t:erde".11IHH4a-31101' 1.800414,1 0 1 41
Wine "l ' tmg -%