Statues of five women celebrating the victory of the ‘Persons’ Case, a monumental moment in Canadian history, congregate proudly behind the East Block on Parliament Hill. But not everyone was celebrating when the statues were unveiled in October 2000.

According to letters accessed under the Access to Information Act, the plans for the statues were historically inaccurate at the time the Senate announced they were to be implemented on the Hill.

Famous Five Letters (Text)
Marguerite E. Ritchie, president of the Human Rights Institute of Canada at the time, wrote a series of letters condemning the portrayal of the individuals who were part of the Famous Five and the events that led up to what became known as the ‘Persons’ Case.

The Famous Five, under the leadership of Emily Murphy, were a group of women from Alberta who campaigned to have women earn the right to be appointed to the Senate.

Their request was denied based on the claim made in the British North America Act of 1867 that women were not eligible for such appointments. In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld this claim.

However, the women eventually won their case after appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On October 18, 1929, the Committee ruled that women would be eligible for Senate appointment.

To commemorate this decision and significant historical event, statues of the five women were placed in Calgary and Ottawa in 1999 and 2000, respectively, with a plaque describing the historical context and individuals involved. Edmonton sculptor Barbara Paterson created the monuments.

Ritchie expressed her profound dissatisfaction with the placement of the statues and the version of history they represent, even going to the extent of describing them as “pure revisionism.” She was particularly concerned with the placement of the statue of Emily Murphy, who stands aside as the statue of Nelly McClung triumphantly holds the newspaper.

“I can only describe this representation as false history,” Ritchie writes in her letter. “It was

Emily Murphy who planned and organized the case, and who wrote the letters to the government.”

Tarah Brookfield, Ontario representative for the Canadian Committee on Women’s History, says the statues perpetuate misunderstandings by oversimplifying facts and details.

“If you don’t go up to the plaque or you don’t take a finer look, you might not get a sense of who these women are at all,” Brookfield said about the marginalized portrayal of Murphy.

“It also positions women in a very traditional setting as opposed to the fact that many of them are quite maverick in their professions and in their political action, which the statues do not reflect at all.”

Teacups sit on the table between two of the statues, while an empty chair invites visitors to the installation to sit down and take part in the achievement.

Laurie Mackenzie, an instructor at Carleton University, says that the presence of the five women on the Hill is separate from the historical moment they represent.

“I watch people at Parliament Hill when they go to that statue and really, I don’t know how many people read it,” Mackenzie said in reference to the plaque that describes the ‘Persons’ Case. “I think that in that moment, when people are there, they see that there’s a statue of five women on Parliament Hill.”

Brookfield said that it is very difficult to capture an entire narrative involving multiple events and several individuals in one monument.

“The presence of women on the Hill, I think, is important. But if we’re going to do something, let’s do something right,” Brookfield said.

The importance of doing right by the Famous Five was emphasized in Ritchie’s letters. According to the documents, changes to the plaque accompanying the statue were made based on Ritchie’s suggestions.

Despite Ritchie’s efforts, inaccuracies remain in the positioning of the statues and the individuals they represent.

Requests for documents to each level of government.

Correspondence with each level of government regarding my requests.

I had a phone conversation with Judy Keith on February 20, 2014, regarding the wording of my request. We altered my request and the documents I received were a result of these changes. I am still waiting for my documents from the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.

Correspondence for New Requests (Text)
Requests for previously released federal records.

Previously Requested ATIPs (Text)
From the pages in the document I cite in my story:

What is the information?

The documents used for the purposes of my story are letters written by Marguerite E. Ritchie in 2000. She was the president of the Human Rights Institute of Canada at the time. The letters are written to the Speaker of the Senate, the clerk of the Senate and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. On page three, Ritchie illustrates her dissatisfaction with the proposed plan for the statues commemorating the Famous Five on Parliament Hill. Her particular concern is with the monument’s portrayal of Emily Murphy, which she explains on pages four and five. The changes made to the plaque accompanying the statues on Parliament Hill are described on pages nine through 11.

From which department and level of government did you obtain these pages?

The documents were received from the Department of Canadian Heritage at the federal level of government.

Why was this information helpful?

The documents contain information about the ‘Persons’ Case and demonstrate Ritchie’s concerns regarding the historical inaccuracy of the statues of the Famous Five. Her commentary is quite detailed and provided historical background and ways the Senate could fix the errors. Many of the changes Ritchie suggested were incorporated into the plaque that accompanies the statues.

Recently disclosed records show that Treasury Board President Tony Clement dismissed Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault’s warning that the elimination and amalgamation of federal institutions threatened the integrity of the Access to Information system.

In a letter to Clement, dated April 8, 2013, Legault wrote “It has recently come to my attention that, in some instances where a federal institution has been eliminated or amalgamated, there is an absence of measures, legislative or otherwise, to ensure the orderly transition of records and the integrity of existing access requests and complaints.”

“The absence of clear transitional measures has, in at least one instance, negatively impacted on the rights of requesters under the Act, including my ability to effectively investigate complaints,” Legault wrote.

Natalie Hall, a communications manager from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, wrote in an email response that Legault’s letter was prompted by the closure of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

The closure occurred while the Office was conducting an investigation. Hall wrote that the Office learned “no measures had been taken to ensure the orderly transition of the centre’s records.”

As Canada’s Information Commissioner, Legault is responsible for investigating complaints from people who believe federal institutions have violated their rights under the Access to Information Act.  In her letter, Legault urged Clement to implement measures that protect information when institutions are eliminated or amalgamated.

The Office did not respond to requests for an explanation of the term “measures”.

Clement, who is responsible for ensuring the federal government’s record management system complies with the Act, responded to Legault’s letter.

In his response, which is not dated, Clement did not address Legault’s claim that the situation had negatively impacted requesters’ rights and her ability to investigate complaints.

Clement also did not address Legault’s demand for measures to preserve information from eliminated or amalgamated institutions.

Instead, Clement wrote “The Government of Canada continues to be committed to ensuring that Canadians can access information about their government’s activities and decisions in an open, comprehensive and timely manner including in times of transition such as those you raise in your letter.”

Clement cited existing legislation and policy designed to manage information when institutions are eliminated or amalgamated, including the Library and Archives Canada Act and Policy on Information Management.

Clement wrote that the Librarian and Archivist is responsible for the care and control of records when an institution is eliminated. He also wrote that when an institution is amalgamated, the new organization may dispose of records under the terms issued to the original institution by Library and Archives Canada.

The letter exchange between Legault and Clement was released under the Access to Information Act.

Kelly James, from Treasury Board’s media relations department, wrote in an email response that “Information of business and archival value from government institutions that are eliminated or amalgamated will continue to be available to Canadians.”

France Bouthillier, director of McGill University’s School of Information Studies, said Clement ignored the real issue.

Bouthillier said Legault’s concerns stem from poor application of existing laws and policies, not the lack of them.

“The government has this attitude that nothing is terrible, there’s no problems, it’s business as usual, when in fact applying the legislation and policies and measures is a big challenge.”

She said staffing cuts make it difficult to apply policies designed to protect information.

“It’s not clear whether the people who are supposed to make sure that the regulations are applied are still in place,” Bouthillier said.

Bouthillier said proper application of the Access to Information system becomes especially important when institutions are eliminated or amalgamated.

“As citizens we are absolutely entitled to be able to go back and see why these things are done.”

Description of Relevant Information

Requests

See page 15 of the document below for a list of government agencies that have been eliminated or amalgamated. 

According to records obtained through an access to information request, Canadian Tire and Tim Hortons are the companies making use of the Ontario’s Youth Employment Fund most frequently.

Launched on Sept. 23 by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, the fund is a wage-subsidy program for job placements of four to six months that aims at helping young workers transition into permanent employment.

But critics doubt the kind of jobs obtained through the government program will lead to real careers. “The program is enabling them to find these jobs but I don’t see this as a long-term employment solution,” says Hashmat Khan, economics professor at Carleton University.

So far, seven employers have had 20 or more placements. Included in those are Canadian Tire, Tim Hortons, Paragon Security and Mucho Burrito. Records also show that 76 per cent of the financial support granted through the program was spent on either transportation or clothing. Only 5 per cent was spent on training activities.

Khan says this data is alarming because it shows that young employees are easily replaceable. “Suppose that there is a massive downturn in the economy, almost all kinds of jobs are at risk but potentially these jobs would be at a greater risk because there is no skills specificity that is being acquired through this program.”

The program targets disadvantaged youth, and data shows that almost 30 per cent are on social assistance and come from rural areas. Khan says that this explains why so much money is being allocated to transportation and clothing.

“My sense is that it is helping the youth from this particular social economic background and it looks more and more like an income subsidy rather than an employment scheme.”

The program is part of the Ontario government’s youth jobs strategy. The government is investing $295 million over the next two years to create new job opportunities for 25,000 young people.

Those between the ages of 15 and 29 who are unemployed, not in school full time and resident in Ontario are eligible for the program. Employers can receive up to $6,800 to help cover the cost of wages and training for new hires when they provide a job placement. Employment centers throughout Ontario work directly with young people to connect them with job placements.

When asked how the employment center at St. Lawrence College in Ottawa is trying to ensure young people are gaining skills and have a chance at long-term employment, coordinator Heather Morrison said, “Well sometimes it’s a hit and miss.” “What we try and do is go to employers that we had good working relationships with in the past.”

Morrison said the employment centre is keeping a close eye on all job placements, with monthly visits to make sure everything is going well. “We do an exit interview and we have to have an outcome.”

But although outcomes are being tracked, Khan says it does not tell us whether or not the placements were successful.

So far, the program has reached its target in providing almost 6000 job placements. “Yes they are meeting their target but in some sense their potential is not really being honed or developed through this,” says Khan.

But then why would the Ontario government put money into basic job placements like Tim Hortons that can easily be obtained by anyone?

Khan says its politics.  “A lot of people may have a lot of questions about why my tax dollars is going to this particular cause… but because it is couched as an employment scheme it may sound more positive.”

Data on whether or not the job placements are leading to long-term employment is not yet available.

Provincial Request (Text)
 

Please look at annotated document to see how the records were helpful.

ATI requests at the Federal, Provincial and Municipal level.

Previously released requests: Request 1. Request 2. Request 3.

Email correspondence: Email 1. Email 2. Email 3. Email 4.

Demand for Canada Post’s services may be in decline, but a database obtained through an access to information request shows the postal service gets frequent use by Canadians mailing marijuana to every corner of the country.

The database, which compiles all of the illegal goods seized by Canada Post in 2011 and 2012, shows that marijuana is far and away the most common item seized.

Canada Post refused to be interviewed about the released data and their methods for detecting the presence of illegal goods in the mail.

“For security reasons, we unfortunately cannot provide details on these. It only serves those who aim to fraud the postal system,” a Canada Post representative said in an email.

Const. Marc Soucy of the Ottawa Police Services says that though Canada Post employs its own investigators who deal with illicit items discovered in the mail, if a seizure yields the discovery of something criminal, local police are alerted.

“Any illegal substance in any quantity is investigated,” Soucy said.

The quantities of marijuana seized in the two years that the database covers range from a single gram to as much as 36 kilograms. Despite Soucy’s statement that all discoveries of marijuana are investigated, there is a significant online community that seems to be unconcerned about the risk of using Canada Post as a courier for the drug. A simple Google search for mail-order marijuana in Canada returns dozens of results that promise to deliver quickly and discreetly by mail.

Bud Buddy is a set up that advertises itself on its website as “Canada’s original and best mail-order marijuana service”. The website claims “So far, Canadian police have had higher priorities than going after us” and “We have never had a customer suffer a legal problem due to ordering from us”.

The mail service’s website assures customers that it vacuum seals its products to prevent the telling odour from giving away the contents and that the packages it ships via Xpresspost are discreet and blend in with regular mail. Bud Buddy even provides customers with a guarantee of a one-time free replacement if an order doesn’t arrive. Interestingly, the guarantee is not offered and an extra shipping fee is charged to customers in Canada’s three northern territories. The website says that shipments to Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are at a much higher risk of being lost and stolen.

To avoid detection and theft, senders sometimes attempt creative packaging, the efforts of which are described in the Canada Post database. An entry for an October 2012 seizure of a package destined for Inukjuak, Quebec reads “Homestyles Coffee Brewer original box – inside water reservoir was a substance appearing to be cannabis wrapped in plastic wrap”. In May 2012, officials recorded finding Whitehorse-bound marijuana tucked inside an unused diaper.

The detection of illegal marijuana moving through Canada’s postal system has the potential to get a lot more complicated in the coming weeks. As of March 31, Health Canada will require anyone with a prescription for medical marijuana to purchase their dosage from a licensed dispenser and to have it delivered by post, as storefront and retail distribution centres will be disallowed. It will be interesting to see if the flood of legal marijuana into the mail service will prove to be a boon for those who Canada Post fears are working to fraud the system.

Access to Information Requests

Correspondence

Relevant pages

1. The information I used for my story is a previously released request from Canada Post. It is the hard copy of a database that lists all of the illegal things Canada Post seized from the mail in 2011 and 2012.

2. I received the information from Canada Post, a federal crown corporation.

3. This information was helpful because it showed that marijuana is by far the most commonly discovered illegal substance in the mail. The problem was that I only had access to a hard copy, so there was no way for me to sort the information. This is a shame both because I lacked the accuracy that would have come with being able to speak to the actual numbers and because being able to sort for date and location could have provided some rather useful insights.

Few people are getting tickets for idling their vehicles, but a parking enforcement official says Peterborough’s six-year-old anti-idling bylaw is helping reduce emissions from parked cars nonetheless.

Documents released under municipal Freedom of Information legislation reveal there were just 11 tickets issued in 2012 and seven in 2013 under the anti-idling bylaw. The measure, introduced in 2008 to reduce air pollution and climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions, bans idling a vehicle for more than two minutes. It was criticized at the time as unenforceable.

“Even though the numbers might be low, the conversation has started and the education process obviously has started,” said Dennis VanAmerongen, parking operations supervisor for the city.

According to Natural Resources Canada, if Canadian drivers all cut back on unnecessary idling by three minutes per day, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would be equivalent to taking 320,000 cars off the road.

VanAmerongen said parking enforcement officers mostly only issue tickets if an empty vehicle is left running while its driver pops into a store. If the driver or a passenger is in an idling vehicle, “most times” the officer will approach and explain the bylaw. “Nine times out of 10 people will comply and shut their vehicle off,” VanAmerongen said.

“And that’s really what we’re after, just to kind of educate the public and let them know that they really shouldn’t be doing it.”

There are several exemptions under Peterborough’s bylaw, including for police, fire and ambulance vehicles and transit vehicles while they embark and disembark passengers.

VanAmerongen said parking enforcement officers are less likely to ticket idlers on the kinds of extremely cold days Peterborough has seen plenty of this winter.

“We understand that people are just trying to keep their vehicles warm, especially if they have small children in the car,” he said. “So we’ll have that conversation with them, give them the information and if it’s only going to be a short while, then most of the time it’s fine.”

But one Peterborough resident, Megan Millette, got a $15 ticket for idling her car on a day in early January when the windchill dipped below minus 30 Celsius.

By the time she received it in the mail she couldn’t remember what she was doing on Jan. 2, the day the infraction was issued. And she’s not sure how she could have got it.

“I never idle, I always turn my car off, I never remember being on Water St. and idling,” Millette said. “I don’t ever remember leaving my car on and leaving. I would definitely turn it off and lock it before I left.”

She said she supports the bylaw even though she’s not pleased about her ticket.

“For the environment it’s good,” she said. But “the way they go about ticketing maybe needs to be different so people are aware right away” that they got a ticket.

The childcare worker said she is considering challenging the ticket, which will now cost her $31 because she didn’t pay it by the due date. “It’s something I’m thinking about, definitely.”

The city hasn’t collected statistics to determine if idling has decreased. But Otonabee ward councillor Lesley Parnell doesn’t think the bylaw is effective.

“Bylaw enforcement quite often is not the way to go,” she said, adding that the city should focus more on educating people about the environmental impacts of idling.

She said she agrees reducing emissions is important, but “enforcement is always an issue because you have to balance the resources you have with how you enforce your bylaws.”

“I do think the bylaw is a little bit flawed in our situation,” she added. “It’s not realistic in the Canadian winter and in the Canadian summer.”

Enforcement of anti-idling bylaws is a challenge in other cities as well. Only one ticket was issued under Toronto’s anti-idling bylaw last year. A ticket in that city will set you back $130 and can be issued after one minute of idling.

What is the information?

This is a summary of tickets issued by type by Peterborough bylaw officers between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013.

From which department and level of government were these pages obtained?

It was released under Ontario’s municipal Freedom of Information legislation from the City of Peterborough’s parking department.

Why was this information helpful?

This information was helpful because it revealed the exact number of tickets issued under the city’s relatively new anti-idling bylaw (it was introduced in 2008). It showed there were few tickets issued in 2013, raising the question of how effective the bylaw is in reducing idling.

What is the information?

This is a summary of tickets issued by type by Peterborough bylaw officers between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012.

From which department and level of government were these pages obtained?

It was released under Ontario’s municipal Freedom of Information legislation from the City of Peterborough’s parking department.

Why was this information helpful?

This information was helpful because it revealed the exact number of tickets issued under the city’s relatively new anti-idling bylaw (it was introduced in 2008). It showed there were few tickets issued in 2012, raising the question of how effective the bylaw is in reducing idling.

FINAL ATIP & FOI Documents (Text)