Alberta's Public Safety Minister Mike Ellis has attributed a significant documentation error to "human error" after his department initially claimed it possessed no records concerning the Edmonton Police Service's complaint against two police commissioners. The admission came following opposition NDP freedom of information requests that revealed substantial documentation existed despite the ministry's initial denials.
FOIP Request Reveals Contradictory Responses
The controversy emerged when the Alberta NDP filed two separate freedom of information requests regarding EPS's formal request for a review of Edmonton City Council's appointment of Daniel Jones and Renée Vaugeois to the Edmonton Police Commission. According to NDP public safety critic David Shepherd, the ministry responded on both occasions that it had no record of any communication between the department and the police commission regarding this matter.
However, when the same request was submitted to the police commission directly, the response proved dramatically different. The commission provided 130 pages of documents, including five letters personally signed by Minister Ellis himself. This stark contradiction between the two responses raised serious questions about the transparency and accuracy of the government's freedom of information processes.
Minister's Legislative Admission
During proceedings in the legislature on Tuesday, Minister Ellis acknowledged what he described as an "error in the access to information request process." The minister characterized the incident as "human error by the public service employee" and indicated that the deputy minister had extended apologies to all chamber members.
Ellis further committed to strengthening internal departmental processes to implement additional checks and balances, ensuring similar errors would not recur. The minister confirmed that the actual letters in question would be tabled later that same day, finally making the documents available to legislators after the initial denial.
Background of Police Commission Controversy
The root of this documentation dispute traces back to a complaint filed by then-EPS Chief Dale McFee, who sought a review of city council's appointment of Jones and Vaugeois under Section 30 of the Police Act. McFee had alleged that both appointees demonstrated bias against police, prompting the formal request for ministerial intervention.
The situation has since seen significant developments, with both Jones and Vaugeois ultimately departing their roles as police commissioners. Jones resigned shortly after McFee's complaint surfaced, stating he preferred not to have the issue overshadow the police commission's work. Vaugeois remained until May, despite a police commission review that determined she could continue serving with specific protocols to manage potential conflicts of interest.
Pattern of Information Interference Alleged
Opposition critic David Shepherd expressed skepticism about the "human error" explanation, suggesting the incident represents part of a broader pattern of UCP government interference in freedom of information procedures. Shepherd referenced a recent report from Information and Privacy Commissioner Diane McLeod that found public bodies had relied on policies violating access to information laws to improperly refuse certain public records requests.
"I have no problem believing in this case — and I think based on the evidence that we saw for the investigation earlier this year — that absolutely, the ministers and their political staff are directly interfering in the freedom of information process," Shepherd stated in an interview, emphasizing the concerning nature of the discrepancy between the ministry's initial response and the actual document availability.
The incident raises ongoing questions about government transparency and the independence of freedom of information systems from political influence, particularly regarding sensitive matters involving police oversight and appointments.
