Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 106 [45] Political neutrality, both actual and perceived, is an essential feature of the civil service in Canada (Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board), 1991 CanLII 60 (SCC) [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69, at p. 86; OPSEU v. Ontario (Attorney General), 1987 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R., at pp. 44-45). The advice and recommendations provided by a public servant who knows that his work might one day be subject to public scrutiny is less likely to be full, free and frank, and is more likely to suffer from self-censorship. Similarly, a decision maker might hesitate to even request advice or recommendations in writing concerning a controversial matter if he knows the resulting information might be disclosed. Requiring that such advice and recommendations be disclosed risks introducing actual or perceived partisan considerations into public servants’ participation in the decision-making process. [46] Interpreting “advice” in s. 13(1) as including opinions of a public servant as to the range of alternative policy options accords with the balance struck by the legislature between the goals of preserving an effective public service capable of producing full, free and frank advice and the goal of providing a meaningful right of access.384 The British Columbia Court of Appeal similarly stated in College of Physicians of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), (2002), that the equivalent provision in British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 165, “recognizes that some degree of deliberative secrecy fosters the decision-making process.”385 However, protecting information is balanced against the need for effective public participation in a democracy. In Canada Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), (1999), Justice Evans stated: [32] On the other hand, of course, democratic principles require that the public, and this often means the representatives of sectional interests, are enabled to participate as widely as possible in influencing policy development. Without a degree of openness on the part of government about its thinking on public policy issues, and without access to relevant information in the possession of government, the effectiveness of public participation will inevitably be curbed.386 384 John Doe v. Ontario (Finance), [2014] 2 SCR 3, 2014 SCC 36 (CanLII) at [43] to [46]. Also relied on by Justice Kalmakoff in Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, 2019 SKQB 150 at [31]. 385 College of Physicians of B.C. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2002 BCCA 665 (CanLII) at [105]. Also noted in BC IPC Order F14-57 at [10]. 386 Canada Council of Christian Charities v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1999 CanLII 8293 (FC), [1999] 4 F.C. 245 at [32].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==