Posted at 11:00 a.m.
When, in a municipality, the same person is responsible for requests for access to information and holds the positions of director general, secretary for legal aspects, treasurer for financial management, director of roads, responsible for communications and chief electoral officer, this leaves little room for transparency.
We live in a small village in Estrie and we are lucky enough to see many Highland cows grazing on our hillsides. These are easily recognizable by their long fringe of hair in front of the eyes. Like them, we sometimes feel like we have a partially obscured view when it comes to our access to information requests.
In 2021, the then administration tabled at least one offer to purchase 12.9 acres of land before it even got a resolution from Council. This resolution never came, having been removed from the agenda following a commotion by citizens at two Council meetings in September 2021. Having filed a reserve for public purposes on the ground in a short extraordinary session in November 2020, this administration judged that it had done enough to legitimize its offer to purchase. Over time, we heard about the construction of a new town hall (for three office workers), a disaster shelter, a community center, a public market, a a children’s park, a walking path, etc. In 2021, we had a budget of $1.9 million. Note that neighboring municipalities already offer these services and that the land in question is made up of 57% water! To this day, we refuse to explain the interest of buying a largely submerged land.
Each of us wrote a freedom of information request about 10 weeks apart to get that offer to purchase. We have had rejections. It is, however, a matter of public interest.
The reason given was that the offers to purchase were “drafts”, which exempted them from an access to information request. How can an offer to purchase written, signed, dated and filed with a company be a draft?
We have tried our luck with the Freedom of Information Requests Commission for a review of the decision and are awaiting a response which may possibly come in 2023.
In addition, it took us six months to obtain a report commissioned from a consulting firm in 2020 on commercial development on a road adjacent to this land, which could change our rural tranquility and the panorama of our landscapes. One of the reasons given for keeping this report secret was that the report belongs to the municipality! But the residents are the municipality, we are the ones who occupy it and we are the ones who bring it to life.
We believe that the responsibility for responding to access to information requests should not rest with the same person who had an active part in those same decisions and actions.
The Law on access to documents held by public bodies must be modified so that a citizen does not receive an e-mail from the person responsible for access to information requests asking him to meet with her, before sending her an acknowledgment of receipt. Just as a citizen should not receive an email from an elected official following a very specific access to information request asking him what he is looking for. Nor should a citizen who gave more than $19,400 in welcome tax and property taxes in 2020 and 2021 be asked to pay for the printing of fifty pages of paper in order to obtain reports. municipal expenses. She had never asked for a paper version. Citizens requesting public documents should be free from any administrative or political interference or even pressure. Our right to know is not a privilege.
“He who knows can reign. This sentence is taken from Marie-Ève Martel’s book Deprived of meaning: advocacy for better access to informationwhich should be read by anyone responsible for access to information requests.