« Video shows what REALLY happened on June 7, 2006. Why wasn't this shown in the Court? And PHOTO RADAR! | Main | YIPPEE YAYS TORONTO SUN!!! (I can't believe I typed that --let alone made it my title) »

The Mississauga Muse goes to The World-Wide-Well and asks about "The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act"

The Mississauga Muse has been pondering about "personal information". And I'm not gettin' anywhere.

So I'm going to the Great Wide Wisdom Well --it has yet to fail me. I need help interpreting the "personal information" part of the The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Yes, I know I could just email the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario and ask there. But then readers who'd really benefit from understanding this conundrum won't be aware of it. And awareness is important in that this has relevance to society's most vulnerable --those least able to defend themselves.

It's got to do with "personal information".

Ready? OK. First this part of the Act.

The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

“personal information” means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,

(a) information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual,

(b) information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved,

(c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual,

(d) the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual,

(e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except if they relate to another individual,

(f) correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,

(g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and

(h) the individual’s name if it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual; (“renseignements personnels”)

I'm trying to understand the definition of "personal information" as it applies to video surveillance --like Donald Barber's video surveillance "evidence" tape. Or the "personal information" that's slurped up when you go to Mississauga City Hall underground parking and pass (pulling this from memory...) one, two, five video surveillance cameras before you even get to (say) the Ground floor cashier's line where four more are staring down at you (cameras, not cashiers).

The definition of "personal information" in this Act suggests that video surveillance can pick up on "information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual". Video surveillance can certainly record your race, colour, definitely sex. In addition, depending on who you're with --also sexual orientation, as well as marital and family status.

I get it.

Certainly a video surveillance camera can also record "psychiatric, psychological" personal information because a video camera is GREAT at recording --and studying behaviour. When you watch TV tonight take a sitcom or drama and turn down the sound. You can still get excellent visual cues simply by watching body language or facial expressions to gauge if a person is happy, silly, angry, wasted, bored or...

With me so far?

Here's the part I don't get.

I figured that somewhere in the Act (silly me), there'd be some minimum-care-provision setting expectations around how a government handles/cares and especially creates, one's personal information.

Like I expected the Act to contain requirements --like a statement about some minimum standard regarding Accuracy. You know, like some kind of moral obligation on the part of a municipal government that information that they generate about you is accurate?....

BOY WAS I DISAPPOINTED!

I did find some reference --but I don't believe this. Like this is freaking-obscene if I'm interpreting this right. Back to the Act. Ready?

Standard of accuracy

(2) The head of an institution shall take reasonable steps to ensure that personal information on the records of the institution is not used unless it is accurate and up to date.

Don't use personal information "unless it is accurate" --OK, excellent, amen. Phew, right?

But then my eyeballs skinned their knees. You sitting down?...

Exception

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to personal information collected for law enforcement purposes.

WHAAAAA?! Say again, WHAAAAAAAAA?!

Like I'm fresh watching video of Donald Barber's June 7, 2006 Mississauga-Experience. And right now Canadian papers have all kinds of coverage of this "Alleged Homegrown Terrorist Conspiracy" trial

And then I read:

Exception

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to personal information collected for law enforcement purposes.

Someone please help me out here.

Serious question.

Is the Municipal Freedom of Information Act saying that "personal information" doesn't have to be accurate if it's used for law enforcement?!!!!

[UPDATE: 10:19 am. My email is mississauga_watch@yahoo.com]

Here's why I ask. After reviewing the June 7, 2006 merged ROGERS telecast/security footage, I have absolutely no idea why Donald Barber was removed from Council that day. He stood down. He was about to hand over his questions --the video shows that. He was resigned --had accepted Council's decision not to let him speak at Public Question Period.

And then when I read the "Statement[s] of a Witness" from the security guards.... well, you'd at least have thought that they'd have reviewed their own security tape --plus the ROGERS telecast before they wrote their report.

Let's put it this way. It appears, that the differences between the two "Statement[s] of a Witness" and what actually happened inside Council Chambers that day contain a greater gulf-in-reality than my Council videotaped-record and Mississauga's Council "minutes" of any meeting you care to name.

Here's the INCREDULOUS part. The "Statement of a Witness" of the male guard craps all over Donald Barber including the observation, "his voice getting louder and louder".

But here's the obscenity.

The male guard's "Statement of a Witness" makes no mention of Roy Willis except in passing. In this sentence:

"My Supervisor had also advised a male that was with Barber to leave".

The dude has GOT TO BE KIDDING! I mean seriously. That's It?!

Why does all this matter? Just please remember the premise that Donald Barber and I operate on. If "Mississauga" has happened to us, it has happened to others and will continue to happen to others. And it will affect the less-affluent/poor the most.

Understand now why I'm asking about:

Exception

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to personal information collected for law enforcement purposes.

I'm showing the Barber Tapes again --for readers interested in the concept of video being "personal information" and now intrigued in examining the ROGERS/surveillance footage based on the male guard making no mention of Roy Willis other than "My Supervisor had also advised a male that was with Barber to leave".

And maybe you can pretend that You are Donald Barber this time. Put yourself in Barber's place. You. And watch with eyes that believe that what happened to you, has happened to others and will continue to happen to others.

It's also instructive to watch this video again (concentrate on the security footage though) to fully appreciate "Why You Can't Fight City Hall".

"BIG BROTHER MISSISSAUGA" VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ARREST (June 7, 2006) 20 minutes

(Click here to go directly to the Big Brother clip on Google Video)

MISSISSAUGAWATCH will eventually reveal both "Statement[s] of a Witness" but first we have to do some *yawn* homework.

We're convinced that the only answer is dramatic and genuine change in Provincial legislation... in several acts. Starting with the one:

Ombudsman Act
R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER O.6

Citizens need the Ontario Ombudsman looking into Municipalities --like FULL INVESTIGATIVE POWERS.

Sure, Hospitals too. But the "M" in "MUSH sector" is The Priority.

Right now certain Ontario Municipalities are making far too many of us SICK. There are indications that many more are under-served and over-"SOLD". Dupes. Except, of course, an "entrenched elite".

Then again, best of all would be to give the Ontario Ombudsman full investigative powers into the entire MUSH sector all at once.

Stick around. We live in interesting times. (I hate interesting times)

Video: Allow the Ontario Ombudsman into Municipalities (1 minute)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube or Google Video)

[UPDATE: 10:19 am. My email is mississauga_watch@yahoo.com]

Signed,
The (Next we will reveal the "Statement of a Witness" from the female guard) Mississauga Muse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I was upstairs, and later made my way to the podium area - where I observed Mr. Barber - a known problem person, previously banned from city hall.." (Mississauga Corporate Security Supervisor Witness Statement - June 7, 2006 - 12:57 am.)

"Big Brother has his hand firmly planted in our back pocket – government revenues his lifeline; unaccountability his refuge." (Andre Marin, Ontario Ombudsman --June 27, 2007)

"We must employ every possible tactic to dissuade those who try to silence us with fear" ---The Mississauga News Editorial (2007-03-24)

Want (or worse, need) to learn more? Link to MISSISSAUGAWATCH.CA

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mississaugablogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/889

Comments (6)

What we don’t see in the Municipal FOI Act and psychological isotopes for their new Anger Management Courses are the ways the local government have piped Georges Guatemala Bay Water Boards into our residency telephone communication services through privatization that’s creating cranky people to push them up on the You Tubes.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ve2m9QSxRd4

In the wake of the Deb Mathews and the Income Advocacy Centre reports of Mississauga’s failed services, the 1998 senior officers yearly salary started at $109,200.36 plus $491.92 and was bumped up into increments to $165,764.54 and $11,673.35 a year in 2006 through administrative pooling without acknowledging our Fundamental Mobility and Legal Rights to sections 6 and 7 of our Constitution.

Anonymous:

Ombudsman blasts 'zones of immunity'
MATTHEW CAMPBELL
Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press
June 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM EDT

TORONTO — Citing the "treasure trove of government maladministration' uncovered in his work over the past year, Ontario Ombudsman André Marin repeated a demand today that his mandate be extended to include hospitals, schools, and municipalities.

At a press conference held before the release of his office's annual report, Mr. Marin blasted the conduct of public agencies operating beyond the limits of his oversight. Cities, health agencies, and schools "have become almost a law unto themselves," Mr. Marin said. "They have carved themselves a nice, comfortable niche, a zone of immunity against oversight."

Within Mr. Marin's area of responsibility – directly administered provincial agencies – he was no less direct. He singled out the Family Responsibility Office, a provincial agency that enforces child support payments, as suffering from "customer disservice syndrome." The Trillium Drug Program, which provides low-cost pharmaceuticals, behaves as though 'the customer is always wrong," he said.

Many Ontarians are trapped in "the ‘twilight zone' of public service," Mr. Morin added.

In addition to his criticisms of a number of provincial agencies, Mr. Marin announced the formation of an investigative team to enforce public access rules for municipal government meetings, an area for which his office was recently given oversight responsibility. The Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team, or OMLET, will have to power to "crack open meetings" of municipal councils, according to the Ombudsman's website.

Mr. Marin's demand that he be allowed to investigate the dealings of quasi-government bodies like schools and hospitals received a lukewarm reception in the Premier's office, which would have to endorse any expansion of his mandate.

A spokesperson for Premier Dalton McGuinty said that since the provincial Auditor-General already has the power to investigate those organizations, no expansion of Mr. Marin's power is necessary.

Anonymous:

Last one. Check out the Homer Simpson line. Maybe you can work this into one of your cartoons?

Ombudsman wants oversight of municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals
52 minutes ago

TORONTO — A provincial government that has taken over management of publicly funded hospitals and school boards because of spending waste should allow its watchdog a chance to investigate, Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin said Tuesday.
In his annual report, Marin acknowledged some improvement, but still discovered a "treasure trove of government maladministration," including a "not-my-job" mentality at Legal Aid Ontario and a "customer-is-always-wrong" approach at the Trillium Drug Program.

The Family Responsibility Office, which helps enforce court-ordered support payments, and has been criticized severely in previous ombudsman's reports, is suffering from what Marin called "customer disservice syndrome."
"We continue to encounter ingrained organizational attitudes and practices that at times can make public service seem more like public nuisance," wrote Marin.
"These maladies persisted this year, leaving many Ontarians in what I can only describe as the twilight zone of public service."

One man who paid his family support in 2000 found out in 2007 that the FRO had filed a writ with the sheriff's office seven years earlier to collect a debt of $6,900.
The FRO denied issuing the writ and refused to quash it - until Marin's office provided them with a copy.

Another man found himself in jail after being sentenced in absentia to driving without a licence, but he wasn't warned he could face jail time if he didn't reschedule a court appearance right away.

The 60-year-old man spent six days in jail and was denied a public defender before he called the ombudsman. The Crown discovered no one had told the man he faced a jail term, and he was granted bail the next day.

But Marin's biggest concern was that he still doesn't have the ability to investigate complaints about municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals or children's aid societies - the so-called MUSH sector that eats up a huge portion of the provincial budget.

These agencies "have become almost a law unto themselves," said Marin. "They have carved themselves a nice, comfortable niche, a zone of immunity against oversight."

Health Minister George Smitherman dismissed Marin's concerns, saying there's already lots of oversight of Ontario hospitals, even though it's the only province that doesn't give the ombudsman that right.

"The level of accountability that hospitals have right now with the combination of community-based governance, local health integration networks and the power of the provincial auditor for investigation, really is a pretty comprehensive regime of accountability," said Smitherman.

"Not all provinces have community-based governance."

But Marin wasn't buying Smitherman's argument.

The Ministry of Health's position . . .is, 'Everything is just on track, we have our own scrutiny,' while back at the ranch the wheels are falling off the bus," he said.
"How can it assume control over badly managed (hospitals and school boards) while at the same time refusing to subject them to the checks and balances that could have potentially prevented scandals from developing in the first place?"

The New Democrats support giving the ombudsman oversight of hospitals and long-term care homes, while the Conservatives said people should be able to take their complaints to either the ombudsman, the auditor general or someone appointed by the legislature.

"The ombudsman is the logical candidate to be looked at perhaps most seriously because he has a degree of independence, he's an officer of the legislature and has proven investigative skills," said Conservative Leader John Tory.

Marin said he would have started an investigation some time ago into why some 270 patients have died at seven Ontario hospitals as a result of the C. difficile bacteria - something the government still refuses to do.

"I would have been all over that one," he said. "Can you imagine, you go into a hospital with a broken ankle and die as a result of an intestinal bacteria? You want to provide an independent means of investigation to find out whether everything humanly possible has been done."

Marin said the government could have avoided embarrassing stories about school trustees abusing their expense accounts if his office had the ability to investigate the boards.

"Allegations of not only not budgeting properly, but Caribbean trips and lingerie - what is that? Is Homer Simpson in charge?"

The Bright Snoop:

A spokesperson for Premier Dalton McGuinty said that since the provincial Auditor-General already has the power to investigate those organizations [schools and hospitals], no expansion of Mr. Marin's power is necessary.

This seems to me to be a disingenuous remark, since as far as I know it contains faint truth. Even for the limited list of agencies the Auditor-General's office can investigate, it is limited to matters of finance.

That's hardly equivalent to the Ombudsman's Office. In fact, I am not aware of any procedure by which a citizen can complain to the AG with assurance that the complaint will be investigated. Worst of all, when it comes to municipalities the AG is specifically limited to narrow investigations into whether conditional grants were used for the purposes intended.

Suggesting that "all is well" is not only dishonest, it shows a remarkable lack of compassion for the people who are suffering from the mistakes or even deliberate actions of the bodies Mr. McGuinty's spokesperson so casually dismisses.

Anonymous:

Toronto Sun lead editorial today:

McGuinty? Like nailing MUSH to wall

There are two reasons Premier Dalton McGuinty doesn't want to give Ombudsman Andre Marin the right to investigate Ontario's "MUSH" sector -- municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals.

And why Health Minister George Smitherman insists Marin isn't needed to probe the deadly C. difficile outbreak that has claimed at least 264 lives in seven hospitals since 2006.

The first reason is governments instinctively resist greater openness and scrutiny.

The second is the smart and media-savvy Marin scares the daylights out of them.

In one sense, that's absurd.

After all, McGuinty is the premier and a master political tactician.

Smitherman is the self-designated "tough guy" of the cabinet whom, we are urged to believe, cracks heads behind closed doors if he must to ensure public safety and quality health care.

By contrast, Marin has no power. He can't charge or fire anyone or even order changes to procedures.

All he can do is investigate, report and recommend. His only weapon is to sway public opinion.

That's what Marin did when he exposed the culture of denial inside the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., which led it to stonewall about obvious problems it was having with some OLG retailers fraudulently cashing winning lottery tickets. It's what he did when he revealed the unconscionable, bullying tactics of Ontario's Criminal Injuries Board when compensating crime victims.

Both cases prompted reforms, but such agencies are bit players at Queen's Park. By contrast, to deny Marin the ability he wants to investigate public complaints about the MUSH sector, as other provincial ombudsmen can and which accounts for 80% of provincial spending, is absurd.

Marin also rightly complains Toronto Mayor David Miller, lobbying McGuinty for greater powers, including the right to meet privately with his executive committee (which we support), has failed to appoint a municipal ombudsman, as required, by Jan. 1. 2007. That's disturbing.

Whether McGuinty extends Marin's oversight to the MUSH sector will be the real test of how seriously the premier believes in accountability. If he doesn't, nothing else he says on the issue matters.


Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 13, 2008 9:07 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Video shows what REALLY happened on June 7, 2006. Why wasn't this shown in the Court? And PHOTO RADAR!.

The next post in this blog is YIPPEE YAYS TORONTO SUN!!! (I can't believe I typed that --let alone made it my title).

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.33