|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-956
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9400652
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
BACKGROUND: In 1986, Ontario enacted the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan (PNEP) in order to deal with nuclear accidents up to a certain level of severity. In the same year, following the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, the provincial government established a number of committees to consider the safety of Ontario Hydro's CANDU reactors. One such committee was designated as "Provincial Working Group #8" (the Working Group). The objective of the Working Group, which was made up of government officials and scientists, was to review the technical basis for nuclear emergency planning in Ontario and to make appropriate recommendations to the provincial government. The report of the Working Group was circulated to many individuals and groups before being finalized in 1988. The provincial government considered the recommendations of the Working Group in developing a Cabinet Submission which was presented to the Cabinet Committee on Environmental Planning on September 30, 1993. NATURE OF APPEAL: The requester in this appeal, which is brought under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ), is a member of a public interest group. He has asked the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (the Ministry) for access to all documents respecting possible revisions to the PNEP. Among other things, the requester is seeking information on the requirement to pre-distribute "stable iodine" or potassium iodine to the public in the event of a nuclear emergency, the zone around each nuclear reactor to be covered by the plan and the recommendations of the Working Group on the subject of emergency planning. The requester takes the position that there exists a compelling public interest in the disclosure of this documentation under section 23 of the Act . The Ministry located a total of 92 pages of records that were responsive to the request and released 45 of these pages to the requester in their entirety. The Ministry made the decision, however, not to disclose the remaining 47 pages, either in whole or in part, under the following exemptions contained in the Act : Cabinet records - section 12(1) advice or recommendations - section 13(1) invasion of privacy - section 21(1) The requester appealed this decision to the Commissioner's office. A Notice of Inquiry was provided to the appellant, the Ministry and three parties with an interest in one or more of the records (the affected parties). One of these parties was Ontario Hydro while the other two were individuals. Representations were received from the appellant, the Ministry and two of the affected parties. During the course of this appeal, the appellant indicated that he no longer wished to obtain access to the name and address of an individual mentioned on page 43 of the records (which I have designated as Record 14). On this basis, I order that this information not be disclosed to the appellant. Since the Ministry has not claimed any exemptions for the remainder of this page, I direct that these portions be released to the appellant. Finally, the Ministry has withdrawn its reliance on the advice or recommendations exemption found in section 13(1) of the Act . Consequently, I will not make any further reference to this provision in my order. To assist in the processing of this and a companion appeal, the Ministry agreed to provide the Commissioner's office with a copy of the Cabinet Submission to which I have previously referred. Based on the wording of the appellant's request, I have concluded that this document should also be added to the list of responsive records. I will refer to this document as Record 15 in the discussions that follow. DISCUSSION: There are 14 records which remain at issue in this appeal. These documents (numbered 1 to 13 and 15) variously consist of policy papers, letters, memoranda and a Cabinet Submission. The records are described more fully in Appendix "A" which is attached to this order. OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE A GRAVE ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARD The appellant takes the position that the Ministry is obliged to disclose the records at issue to the public by virtue of section 11 of the Act . This provision states that: Despite any other provision of this Act, a head shall, as soon as practicable, disclose any record to the public or persons affected if the head has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it is in the public interest to do so and that the record reveals a grave environmental, health or safety hazard to the public. In Order P-482, Inquiry Officer Holly Big Canoe addressed the potential application of section 11 to an appeal brought under the Act . She approached the matter in the following fashion: Section 11 of the Act is a mandatory provision which requires the head to disclose records in certain circumstances. The duties and responsibilities set out in section 11 of the Act belong to the head alone. As a result, the Information and Privacy Commissioner or his delegate do not have the power to make an order pursuant to section 11 of the Act . I agree with this interpretation and adopt if for the purposes of this appeal. It follows that I do not have the authority to review the Ministry's decision not to release the records under section 11 for the purposes of the present appeal. CABINET RECORDS The Ministry claims that the introductory wording of section 12(1) and/or sections 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Act apply to exempt Records 1 through 13 from disclosure. These provisions state that: A head shall refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure would reveal the substance of deliberations of an Executive Council or its committees, including, ... (b) a record containing policy options or recommendations submitted, or prepared for submission, to the Executive Council or its committees; (c) a record that does not contain policy options or recommendations referred to in clause (b) and that does contain background explanations or analyses of problems submitted, or prepared for submission, to the Executive Council or its committees for their consideration in making decisions, before those decisions are made and implemented; ... It has been determined in a number of previous orders that the use of the term "including" in t
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Irwin Glasberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jul 19, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|