The problems of access to information in Quebec are not just the concern of journalists, who in reality make far fewer requests than citizens. Four people from different backgrounds have agreed to testify about the pitfalls they encountered when using the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies.
Monique Dumont, retired journalist-researcher
Accustomed to requests for access to information, it was as a citizen that Monique Dumont wanted to obtain information from the CISSS de Laval at the start of the pandemic. The retired researcher, who lives in a private residence for seniors (RPA), wanted to understand the scientific reasons that led to the closure of dining rooms in RPA from January 8 to February 9, 2020. “I had the impression that ‘we put all the elderly in the same boat, out of ageism, whereas the situation in RPA was very different from that in CHSLDs. We had no cases in our residence, ”she says. Access to the dining room allowed residents to break the isolation during this troubled period, and this, in a safe way since the wearing of a mask and distancing were respected. More than three months after his request, Mme Dumont received a response from the CISSS, while the law gives public bodies 20 days to respond to a request, with the possibility of extending by 10 days. “It’s not the worst delays, it’s the answer,” she says. I had access to two emails exchanged between CISSS staff, one part of which was redacted and the other concerned the wording of the directive. Nothing to explain what guided her. […] It’s very lazy! Or it shows that there was no justification. “The dining rooms having been reopened in the meantime, she did not wish to request a review from the Commission for Access to Information (CAI) fearing to obtain an answer years later.
Rébecca Pétrin, Executive Director of Eau Secours
Concerned about water resources in Quebec, the organization Eau Secours asked the Ministry of the Environment in 2018 to have access to the quantities of water withdrawn by the companies that bottle it for sale, under the Law on access to documents. “The information exists, companies are obliged to report it, and the ministry collects the data,” notes Rébecca Pétrin. The government response was quick, the organization received a document that revealed the names of the companies and where they draw their water, but the column indicating in what quantity – which is the subject of the request – was completely redacted. The reason ? “ It was a trade secret,” according to the ministry, said Ms.me Kneader. Eau Secours was not discouraged and asked the CAI for a review. The decision fell two years later: new refusal for “trade secret”. “We relied on section 7 of the Water Act, which recognizes that it is a collective resource in Quebec and that any citizen wanting information on this subject has the right to request it. The problem is that the Law on Access to Documents takes precedence, because it is older, and deprives us of this right with its many exceptions”, deplores Mr.me Kneader. In January 2021, the case was appealed to the Court of Quebec, which however recently confirmed the CAI’s refusal. “It’s an aberration to have to go through this process and not even have the figures, when they exist! she insists.
Thomas Gerbet, journalist at Radio-Canada
At the beginning of 2022, when Quebecers were being imposed a new curfew to curb COVID-19, Thomas Gerbet sought to know what the government had relied on to adopt this measure again, through the Law on access to documents. “We finally received the ethical opinion prepared for Public Health, but the document was completely redacted. Impossible to know if it was favorable or not. […] I am used to redacted documents, but here they had the sharpie a bit intense, there was no legible information,” he explains. Believing that the situation struck the imagination, he hastened to publish the documents on his Twitter account, a way of “showing behind the scenes” of his profession to citizens, but above all the “lack of transparency” of the institutions. Opposition parties loved it, and its publication eventually created popular pressure. In the following 24 hours, the government made public the famous document, which confirmed that the former national director of public health, Horacio Arruda, recommended the deployment of the curfew despite an unfavorable ethical opinion. “Why did you redact it completely at first, and then make it public afterwards? insists Mr. Gerbet to illustrate the inconsistency of the situation. He points here to a lack of political will to share information, but also the flaws in the law that governs it and provides for vague exceptions.
Mathieu Santerre, president of L’Orange bleue public affairs
Wishing to best serve its clients whom it advises on public affairs and government relations, L’Orange bleue made a request in May 2020 to the various ministries and public bodies to find out their standards for communications with the lobbyists. “An example: do people have to be registered in the register of lobbyists before requesting a meeting with a ministry? These are very important little details for our customers”, illustrates Mathieu Santerre. The response from the Department of Executive Council surprised him to say the least. “At the Executive Council, we were told that there was no guide, no written standard or directive, no information document concerning their communications with lobbyists. The answer is implausible, it is impossible that there are no procedural standards. […] It is above all not normal not to know how our institutions work with lobbyists. Mr. Santerre wonders if this is simply a lack of transparency or a very limited interpretation of the law. “It is called the law on access to documents, but it is not because there are no documents as such that the information does not exist”, he argues. Not wishing to embark on long and laborious procedures by requesting a review from the CAI, the firm preferred to give up.