Position put forward called 'ludicrous'

Print

E-mail

Text

Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner has dismissed a lawyer's opinion that city councillors ought to have access to private municipally-collected information about individuals as "ludicrous."

The letter from Commissioner Ann Cavoukian directly refutes an opinion obtained by three councillors - Ward 15 (Eglinton-Lawrence) Councillor Howard Moscoe, Ward 17 (Davenport) Councillor Cesar Palacio and Ward 25 (Don Valley West) Councillor Cliff Jenkins.

The three councillors are frustrated that they are unable to access basic information about things such as property ownership, to go about the business of representing their constituents.

Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, every municipality must have a "head," designated responsible for making decisions under the act.

The prevailing legal opinion in Toronto is that the city's Clerk's Office is that "head" - which means that councillors themselves are frequently denied that information.

However, the opinion, written by lawyer Martin Zarnett, argues that because council is deemed to be the "head" of the municipal corporation, it ought to be councillors who are able to see, and adjudicate, what information is appropriate for the public to view.

The three councillors brought the opinion to Toronto's Government Management Committee last month, and convinced the committee to recommend councillors be allowed access to that information as it pertains to their own wards.

Debate at council won't take place until the fall.

But Cavoukian made it clear in her letter that she did not agree with Zarnett's interpretation of the Act.

According to Cavoukian, information from municipal databases, which can include everything from the names of individuals to possible criminal records, is not freely available even to the "head" of the government - rather, that individual has the ability to decide what information is released.

"The legal opinion � appears to draw the conclusion that were city council to exercise the powers of the "head" under the Act, individual councillors would have a full right of access to all city-held information," she wrote. "With all due respects, this is ludicrous."

There are, wrote Cavoikian, circumstances in which councillors can access information - with the consent of the constituent. But those circumstances are rare and exceptional.

Jenkins, who helped pay for the opinion from his office budget, maintained there needs to be a compromise.

"What's at issue here is personal information and councillors for the most part don't need all the personal information to do their job," he said. "The database contains personal information and law enforcement information - and we're happy to have access to the database with that personal information taken out. But it's very difficult when we have to go through the normal channels to access this information."