Minister Aware Of MP Brown’s PATI Request

May 15, 2015

MPs had an exchange in the House of Assembly today [May 15] following the disclosure by Public Works Minister Craig Cannonier that he was aware of a PATI request made by MP Walton Brown, which Mr Brown said is in violation of the PATI act which states the “identity of a requester shall be kept confidential.”

Mr Brown said, “The public must be concerned that a Cabinet Minister would place confidential information into the public domain, in violation of the laws of Bermuda,” while Minister Cannonier told Bernews he has apologised to Mr Brown for making the information public.

Screenshot of the relevant section of the Public Access to Information Act [PDF]:

Fullscreen capture 5152015 32113 PM PATI

This morning in the House of Assembly, the Opposition asked the Minister whether he would, in the spirit of PATI, commit to releasing the emails relating to the removal of Bermuda stone from the Blackwatch Pass site.

In response, Minister Cannonier said, “Copies of all emails have been provided to the government’s internal audit department and they are exercising oversight throughout this whole process, but I will take note that the spirit of PATI the question has been asked will we reveal those emails, only to find out that the honourable member from Constituency #17 has already put in a PATI request for all those emails.

Opposition Leader Marc Bean then spoke in the House, saying: “The honourable Minister just indicated that he has knowledge that the honourable MP Brown put in a PATI request. Mr. Speaker that confidential, that’s against the PATI law. How would the honourable Minister have that information?

MP Walton Brown then added, “Unfortunately the Minister has just brought into disrepute this Parliament because the Minister has violated one of the most important tenants of the PATI legislation which was just passed by this House. All applications to PATI are meant to be confidential, and now the Minister has just revealed this to the entire public.”

Audio of comments from MP Walton Brown following the exchange inside the House:

In a statement today, Mr Brown said, “The PLP is duly concerned at comments made by Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Craig Cannonier, in the House of Assembly, regarding a PATI request.

“Upon being asked a Parliamentary Question by Pembroke Central MP, Walton Brown, Minister Cannonier gave a reply which concluded that he knew that MP Brown had submitted a PATI request for information on the missing stone.

Mr. Brown added, “According to Section 12[4] of the Public Access to Information Act [PDF]:

“The identity of a requester shall be kept confidential and, except with the consent of the requester, may not be disclosed to any person other than a person who is required to deal with the request under this Act.”

“Ministers are not involved in the handling of PATI requests, so the only likely conclusion is that someone told Minister Cannonier, and he has in turn, told the public via his comments in the House of Assembly.

“This unidentified person, and Minister Cannonier have both violated Section 12[4] of PATI. This is very disconcerting.

“The responsibility for PATI resides with Cabinet Office, and we call on Premier Michael Dunkley to investigate how Minister Cannonier would be aware of this information.

“In addition, for Minister Cannonier to repeat this information in the House of Assembly shows a complete lack of professionalism and tact.

“The public must be concerned that a Cabinet Minister would place confidential information into the public domain, in violation of the laws of Bermuda,” concluded Mr Brown.

Audio of Minister Cannonier following the exchange inside the House:

Speaking on the matter following the exchange in the House, Minister Cannonier told Bernews, “One of the questions that was asked was, in the spirit of PATI, can you reveal all emails. In the spirit of PATI…PATI is available to the public.

“I thought it was a disingenuous question to ask based on the fact that you’re here, you’re asking a question in Parliament, in the spirit of PATI; well, all this information is available, and I did reveal that I was aware that maybe he had put in a request through PATI for the information.

“I’ve apologized to him for making that known to the public, that I thought he had put in a request, but to me it seemed a bit disingenuous since the beginning, to have a question in Parliament – listen, the spirit of PATI. PATI is there, we’re not going to circumvent PATI.

Asked over the Opposition’s concern over it, the Minister said, “It is a very valid concern, which is why I’ve gone to MP Walton [Brown] and apologized that it was made aware to me that maybe he was putting in a request.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (95)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Coffee says:

    The UBP /OBA cares not about rules or laws !

    • Mockingjay says:

      Well quite frankly, Historically they mastered it to a T and has always worked out in their favor.

    • WTF says:

      Craig while your at it who called planning and told them about the illegal wall my mate built on his property. Don’t stop now keep rolling the dice.

      What a idiot!!!

  2. hmmm says:

    Clutching at straws again Brown. Brown identified the PATI request in the house and sought further clarification on it.

    Are you a 5 year old Brown!!!!

  3. TonyC says:

    Is the PLP remit seriously to make mountains out of molehills, and to prevent Government doing the job it was elected to do?? Unbelievable.

    • Mockingjay says:

      They were elected under the slogan Transparency, Honesty and Accountability.
      Unbelievable.
      LMFAO

    • anydeeng says:

      Thats not a molehill you party thumper…

      Public access to info is designed by law to be confidential for a reason. Craig Can can not know about whom applies for what info without breaking the law. It also shows that the PATI office is not confidential.

      Forget about your warped party political view and realise things like this are not good! Who cares what party this is a problem.

      • Zevon says:

        After Walton Brown asked for the information in the HOA, there was no secret to keep. Brown had already told everyone that he wanted the information.

    • impressive. says:

      Is it Craig Cannonier’s remit to be the most controversial and deceptive politician in Bermudian History? As Terry says, I need a rum,, ;-) .. Where is Mike Hind when you need him??? lollllll

      • Zevon says:

        I think we all know who the “most controversial and deceptive politician” was. Nobody currently there even comes close.

    • hmmm2 says:

      Read the article again. Cannonier was in the wrong.

      • Zevon says:

        Walton Brown asked for information in The HOA and now he’s upset that people know that he asked for that same information. But he had already asked for that same information in the HOA. There was nothing secret about the fact that he wanted that information when Cannonier referenced it. The secret was out, because Brown himself has already said it. There was at that point nothing to keep secret.

        • big lad says:

          you keep missing the point here.
          cannonier should not have known that walton brown was the one who had submitted the pati request.
          that is the issue.

          • radical says:

            There is nothing in law preventing the Minister from knowing who puts in a PATI request. That’s the point that you and Jonathan miss. In fact, it’s ridiculous to think the Minister would not know about it, if it is a question directly involving him. He would presumably be the source of some of the information, so how can he not know?

            So let’s look at what happened here. Walton tells everyone that he wants this information. Cannonier says yes, I know, you already asked for it. And the Walton complains that now everyone knows he wants the information.

            Frankly, it’s bizarre. And it’s a total waste of time.

            • You are still missing the point ” Cannonier told the HOA that Brown ALREADY asked for this information when under PATI law he should not know”!!! Plain and simple…..

  4. watching says:

    Cannonier again…he is lucky he is in a safe seat because he is certainly a liability to the Government.

    • Mockingjay says:

      You mean Country.

    • impressive. says:

      and a safe group,, ahem ahem,, membership has its privileges… My Brother’s Keeper,, ;-)

      • Coffee says:

        Well coming up to a year since ‘The Colt Cannonier ‘ resigned from the big check , he finds himself telling huge porkers again in the hopes of staying in the money .

        It’s funny watching him go for broke every time he moves his lips .

  5. stunned... says:

    hilarious.

  6. clearasmud says:

    The Ministers comments are nonsensical and does not address the fact that he just broke the law. Noone is susposed to have to rely on PATI if the information can be obtained freely in any other forum! It also shows that he does not have a good understand of the PATI law!

    • impressive. says:

      When was the last time Cannonier understood anything?? I mean, really and truly..

      • stunned... says:

        cannonier’s only response should have been: “Oops, I’m sawwwy, I was only trying to be ‘transparent’.”

  7. cs says:

    How ironic that the party that never introduced PATI despite years of promises is now complaining that a requestors identity has been revealed. Yes, a mistake was made and the Minister has apologized. Move on to more important business. Mr. Bean’s argument that the Minister should not be aware of a PATI request has no merit because the very emails requested involved the Minister so he had to be aware. Once again, the Opposition leader wants to deflect and distract us from all his party’s poor performance.

    • Stop ya noise says:

      Deflect and distract is what you are doing

    • It’s getting rather boring when Everytime something or someone brings up another of the OBA’s wrong doing you “faithful” bring up what the past Govt. did …. And then the favorite line, lets get on with getting the Island back on track!!! SMDH

  8. Never Never says:

    Please listen to Craig he has not learned anything from his Jetgate mess… this man is to think we are paying him six figures make me sick to my stomach surely we can find someone anyone but Craig SMH

  9. aceboy says:

    So, the PLP are complaining that a request for Public information was made public?

    LOL

    That is so funny.

    They even want their requests kept secret….under PATI.

    • JD says:

      Its even funnier if you remember this is all over a worthless pile of rubble.

      Some mix up over the removal of some rubble, and we have the PLP throwing PATI requests around, and then getting in a tizzy that their PATI request has been disclosed.

      Am I the only one that feels like we have a bunch of ten year olds playing government here.

      • anydeeng says:

        Whats so hard for you fools to realise that it is illegal to disclose confidential info.

        It proves the pati office doesnt operate lawfully, and it shows that oba are in collusion with that…

        ITS ILLEGAL AND DISHONORABLE

      • aceboy says:

        That’s kind of insulting to 10 year olds. Let’s go with 5.

      • J Starling says:

        The ‘worthless rubble’ has been officially valued at $875.

        • aceboy says:

          lol

          That calls for a Commission of Enquiry.

          $875!!!!

          Who “officially” valued it?

          • J Starling says:

            The figure was in the Minister’s statement to the House, so I would assume his Ministry officially valued it.

      • Make a new plan Stan says:

        It doesn’t matter what the inquiry was regarding, what matters is that contrary to what is promised BY LAW Mr.Cannonier knew that Mr. Brown requested the information.

        Doesn’t it bother you that if it were YOU asking, the annonimity that was assured DOESN’T actually exist?

        This was JUST in BERNEWS on the 12th of THIS month…………

        “When asked about the independence of the Office of the Information Commissioner as relates to it not being subject to bias or influence by any political party or government, Commissioner Gutierrez asserted: “I do think it’s absolutely critical that the Information Commissioner’s Office be independent and also actually be free from bias, as well as being perceived as being free from bias.

        “This office is charged with safeguarding a process. The role of the Information Commissioner is not to take sides, to be an advocate for any particular issue or any particular political party, but really to promote, oversee and safeguard a process for people informing themselves. One of the most important changes in the law with the PATI Act is that we’ve moved from people having access to information as a matter of discretion to people having access to information as a matter of right.”

        “So if the office of the Information Commissioner is perceived as exercising some sense of discretion based on bias or personal preference or political influence, then that completely undermines one of the most important aspects of the Act. I am personally very committed to the principle of independence and fairness and impartiality.”

        Dear Commissioner Gutierrez, just so know Mr. Cannonier has apologized so it’s all good…..KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON.

    • impressive. says:

      It is within the law to be kept secret.. or should we just overlook the law to suit the OBA??

      • aceboy says:

        LOL. It is the *spirit* of the law that you need to examine, not just the words. The reason that clause is there is to protect ordinary citizens who make a request from powerful government politicians seeking to find out who is trying to uncover something they may be involved in.

        Is MP Brown worried about OBA retribution because he made a request under PATI? No. He is simply reading the words on paper and thinks he has a “gotcha” on the OBA.

        It is stupid politics. Don’t fall for it.

        • rhonda says:

          Are mps entitled to protection under the law

          • Zevon says:

            If Brown wanted it to be a secret, why did he tell the HOA that he wanted that information?

        • @ acyboy: Precisely…And now rhonda. In some incidences, the answer is yes.

  10. Terry says:

    The PLP are working overtime with their lawyers et al.

    This was a man made ploy to sucker Craig because they knew he knew of the request.

    Things are gonna get real ugly.

    Glad I am not there.

    Stay tuned for PATI Cake PATI Gate…….Brownies Man. Make me a cake an watch it it go………

    Shalom.

  11. Tough Love says:

    Wow. The bloggers on here are ignoring that fact that ALL requests under/thru PATI are supposed to be anonymous! Cannioner is not on the PATI board nor does he work in the office. How does he know that a request was made? Who is revealing information? Where is the commissioner of PATI? What does she have to say to this?

    How can the public now trust that their requests are really confidential?

    • Zevon says:

      It was confidential until Walton Brown told the house he wanted that information.
      Obviously, since he said it himself, he can’t have been concerned about his request for the information being a secret.

      • stunned... says:

        if walton could not entrust himself to keep his own secret, why should he cry foul if someone else does the same with his secret?

    • Redman says:

      @ Tough Love,

      Spot on.

      “… and I did reveal that I was aware that maybe he had put in a request through PATI for the information”. This only serves to raise more questions and calls into question the staff in the Pati Office.

      It doesn’t matter if Mr. Brown spoke about it in the HOA if he wanted to say that it’s up to him. However requests are supposed to be confidential, on this evidence it sounds like someone leaked Mr. Browns request to him. Not Good.

  12. Joonya says:

    Cannonier…SMH.. Pack it in bie and go fix your credit card machines on your pumps.

  13. Vote for Me says:

    The Minister’s revelation will have an impact on future violations of PATI. If he is note held accountable, how can anyone else be held accountable in the future?

    One of the core tenets of PATI is that anyone who requests information should be kept confidential, except to the PATI Officer.

    In this instance, even though the request relates to the Minister’s emails, the PATI Officer is not supposed to disclose who is requesting the information. Also, it will be easy to identify who released the information since only the PATI Officer is supposed to have the actual request.

    Some of the posters are asking ‘what is the big deal?’ If anyone is asking, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of PATI. If we cannot confidentially request information, people will be reluctant to request the information. The result is that the very purpose of PATI will be undermined because people will be reluctant to request the information that PATI was designed to release!!

  14. High Road says:

    Who gives a rats A**

  15. Cubicle2B says:

    Why can’t the public know who is requesting information? Why so secretive over public information?
    Walton had already told others of his PATTI request so I’m not sure why he wouldn’t think CC would find out.

    • anydeeng says:

      Because anonymity in a small town like bda is important to peoples safety and livelihoods often when disclosing certain information.

      This proves that professional process is unlawfully breached by the oba duh

      • But, but, but, as mentioned above, “Walton had already told others i.e. the Public of his PATTI request so I’m not sure why he wouldn’t think CC would find out.”
        Therefore when Minister Craig Cannonier called his name after the Shadow Minister, has already revealed to the Public the matter reference to the stones. By the way u’lot, get on with the “peoples matters” and stop throwing stones.

  16. hmmm says:

    Why is Brown wasting the PATI folks time with this request when he could have asked in the House.

    This is mean’t for the public, not those privaledged to be able to directly ask questions in the house.

    No laws have been broken in the house. So sorry PLP, proves PATI works and, but you didn’t need to waste valuable house time playing games, because that does not help Bermuda.

  17. J Starling says:

    This should concern us all.

    The reason the PATI Act states that the names of those making PATI requests are to be kept confidential, unless with the consent of the requester, is to protect people from possible retribution exacted by the Government of the day or those associated with the subject of the request.

    The Minister should not have known the identity of anyone who has made a request, and most definitely not have stated it publicly.

    This undermines the entire PATI Act and leaves individuals at fear of retribution going forward – it has a chilling effect.

    There is the potential for this to be made a ‘learning moment’ with a suitable censure of the Minister plus an investigation into the matter to ensure this doesn’t occur in the future.

    • Terry says:

      He stated it (according to question/s in the House).
      Go away you communist.

    • stunned... says:

      @JStarling

      questions? at what point are Members’ statements made in the House privileged? do the PATI rules supersede Members privileges? if the Member’s statement was privileged was it wrong for the media to disclose the name of the requestor. thanks.

      • J Starling says:

        The Minister should never have known who the requester was in the first place. That he did is a fundamental problem.

        Members of parliament have the parliamentary privilege to speak in parliament in ways that outside it would constitute an offence. So although breaching the law, he will not likely suffer the consequence (I believe it’s a $5000 fine and some imprisonment). However, it opens up concerns that future requesters may not have their names concealed, and they may fear retribution and so not request information in the first place. The Premier, in this case, should censure the Minister, possibly even relieving him of his Cabinet position.

        Media are within their rights to report whatever is said on the floor of the House. As the proceedings of the house are played live on the radio anyway, the name of the requestor would immediately have been broadcast regardless.

        • stunned... says:

          thank you. one more, if there were no media, and the comments were confined to the house of parliament would the parliamentary privilege have been upheld despite them being in breach of the law?

          lastly with Bermuda’s size and closely knit communities, it would not be a stretch for the Minister to ‘know’ who the requestor was either by accident or design. so even if he ‘knew’, the Minister’s real wrong-doing was in uttering the requester’s name into the public domain?

          • stunned... says:

            my confusion comes from trying to understand why Mr Brown wasted the PATI’s time when he could ask any question(s) he wanted of Mr. Cannonier and if walton were not satisfied he could have gone to the PATI to obtain more information. mr brown’s circuituous way of obtaining the information greatly reveals his integrity and true intent.

            • J Starling says:

              I think you will have to ask Mr Brown that. He’s quite approachable in my experience and I’m sure if you ask him he’ll be happy to give you his reasoning.

              My guess would be that Mr Cannonier has a bit of a track record (think Jet Gate) of misleading parliament and refusing to answer parliamentary questions. So perhaps Mr Brown thought it best to go through the PATI route as (a) a back-up should Mr Cannonier refuse to answer; and (b) to confirm that Mr Cannonier was not misleading parliament in any answer he provided.

          • J Starling says:

            If I’m understanding your questions correctly, parliamentary privilege exists by virtue of him being a Member of Parliament and speaking within the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly. He himself is thus immune to the penalty the PATI Act has in place for the offence he committed, although the civil servants involved in revealing the information to him are not. Only the Speaker (at the time) or the Premier can discipline him for his transgression, as I understand it.

            It is because we are a small and close-knit society that the importance of protecting the requester is all the more important. That the Minister was able to find it arguably calls into question the professionalism and impartiality of the civil servants involved.

        • radical says:

          That’s just BS Starling. There is nothing in the law that suggests the Minister should not know about a PATI request.

          In fact, it’s ridiculous to think the Minister would not know about it, if it is a question directly involving him. He would presumably be the source of some of the information, so how can he not know?

          So, as I said above, let’s look at what happened here. Walton tells everyone that he wants this information. Cannonier says yes, I know, you already asked for it. And the Walton complains that now everyone knows he wants the information.

          It’s bizarre, and it’s a total waste of time.

          • J Starling says:

            The relevant part of the law is quoted in this article, Section 12(4).

            The Minister can know about a PATI request, no question. However, the Minister should not know who the requester is.

            The civil servant in charge of handling the PATI request is bound by the law to ensure the name of the requester is confidential – only s/he should know it for the sake of responding to the requester, and should not be sharing it with anyone else, let alone a Minister.

            • radical says:

              S(4) says ‘other than a person required to deal with the request’. So if Cannonier was involved in dealing with the request, which is likely, it would have been within the law for him to know.

              • J Starling says:

                The ‘person required to deal with the request’ is the appointed Information Officer.

                No one else. Not the Permanent Secretary, the Minister or anyone else.

                • Zevon says:

                  It says “a person required to deal with the request under the Act”. If the minister is required to deal with the request, he might be such a person.

                  • J Starling says:

                    The Minister is not required to deal with the request. The Information Officer at the relevant Ministry handles the request.

                    The Information Officer keeps the requester confidential; the Minister or other civil servants simply have to comply with the Information Officer’s requests for XYZ based on the request of the requester.

                    That’s the point of the Information Officer, to be a named person the requester lodges the request for so that the requester itself is kept confidential and the Information Officer handles the request.

    • EDI says:

      The fact that CC had the information should not be the issue. The principle of the PATI has been violated and whom ever at PATI released the information should be disciplined and/or removed so that the process can be restored. As of now it is broken until such time people can be confident that the PATI overseers are not in position to do it again. Once this is done, one can go back to using PATI.

    • Redman says:

      @ J Starling,

      Exactly.

      … “This undermines the entire PATI Act and leaves individuals at fear of retribution going forward – it has a chilling effect.

      Minister Cannonier will to have to disclose how he ‘was aware…’ Mr. Brown had made a request. How was the Minister aware, did Mr. Brown tell him? I doubt it. Did a PLP member tell him? possible, but if it came directly from someone connected to the Pati office then see J Starlings comments above.

  18. WhistleBlower says:

    Great!! I just purchased my new lounge for the summer. This is going to be a hot summer session along with this, the 18 mil and the airport contract saga.
    My lounge has a pull out table and spot for a bevi maybe I should park out on the lawn for the surround sound.

  19. impressive. says:

    For what its worth, the OBA have some pretty smart people in their party and even smarter people supporting them, surely there must be a better candidate than Craig Cannonier to choose from..

    • aceboy says:

      I tend to agree actually, every time something stupid comes up that the PLP jump on he’s involved. He just needs to go.

      • In-spite of the fact I also admire Minister Craig Cannonier, I will have to concur with you, “aceboy” i.e.”every time something stupid comes up that the P.L.P. jump on he’s involved.”
        Maybe there is another competent members of the One Bermuda Alliance who can uphold the respect from the public in the area Min. Craig Cannonier represents or have Mr. John run for the O.B.A.?

        • Typo: or have Mr. John Barritt run for the O.B.A.

          • Varied says:

            I think many people miss Mr. Barritt’s mature outlook and good ideas on the Hill… on the other hand he definitely deserves a peaceful retirement, what with the grandkids and all :)

  20. Common Sense says:

    I would like to make a PATI request to a former Minister of W/E who told us that certain cedar beams, which were suspected to be missing, were in fact “in safe keeping for the Bermudian People”. Obviously they were not returned to the St Georges post office. I would like to know from Mr Scott whether they went missing before or after they “went into safe keeping”!! The value of this historic cedar is much greater than some old rubble. Does Mr Scott know where this cedar is; it is probably no longer in the form of beams.

    • Lemon Tree says:

      I was wondering the same thing. WHERE are the cedar beams?? i think they are worth more than the wall.

  21. jt says:

    What a waste of time this whole episode is.

  22. stunned... says:

    if it’s any consolation Mr. Premier, i have a spare muzzle if you need one.

  23. Onion Soup says:

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Cannonier heard about Brown’s PATI request while he was having lunch somewhere in town. You’d be shocked at what sensitive, confidential information is bandied about by some government workers during their lunch breaks, all within ear-shot of other patrons and restaurant staff!

    • Rockfish#2 says:

      Onion Soup,

      You are absolutely correct, not to mention the information that is shared at social gatherings.

  24. Silence Do Good says:

    Really how does the Minister know who made a request? I hope the Information Commissioner is all over this serious breach.

  25. Pastor Syl says:

    Min. Cannonier’s revelation in the House, for which he apologized, is one thing, but that he had the information in the first place is something else entirely.

    Reading the PATI guidelines, I have a couple of questions/concerns. Who are the “public administrators?” Are they specific officers/civil servants, or does it mean anyone who serves in a public capacity? If it refers to specific officers who work in the PATI office (if there is one), it appears to me that the PATI officer responsible for fulfilling Mr. Brown’s request had a duty to keep the request private, and the name of the requester confidential. However, that duty does not appear to extend to anyone other than the PATI officer, unless it means anyone who serves in a public capacity, and therefore would include Min. Cannonier – at least that is the way I read it. If I should happen to become privy to the details of a PATI request, the person who told me, if they were the officer, would and should be liable, but there don’t appear to be any restrictions on me talking about the information I have received, since I do not serve in a public capacity. Now, maybe there should be restrictions on my revealing said information, but what I read above does not make that clear. At the very least, that section of the guidelines is ambiguous and open to interpretation
    All of which is to say, this incident can be viewed as a blessing in disguise. The offending officer needs to experience appropriate consequences for breaching the guidelines and the legislators might want to revisit the Act to ensure this loophole, if it is one, gets closed. Maybe if the penalty for an officer breaching the guidelines is severe enough, the likelihood of members of the public gaining access to confidential information will be nonexistant.

  26. @ Pastor Syl: You my friend have presented some extremely important points that should be reviewed by them in Government as well as the Opposition. The points following are pertinent.”Now, maybe there should be restrictions on my revealing said information, but what I read above does not make that clear. At the very least, that section of the guidelines is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
    All of which is to say, this incident can be viewed as a blessing in disguise. The offending officer needs to experience appropriate consequences for breaching the guidelines and the legislators might want to revisit the Act to ensure this loophole, if it is one, gets closed. Maybe if the penalty for an officer breaching the guidelines is severe enough, the likelihood of members of the public gaining access to confidential information will be nonexistent.” EoQ

  27. Smh says:

    I can’t believe people are defending this!
    -There is a law mandating anonymity for all requests made through PATI.
    -SOMEHOW the minister knew of brown’s request -EVEN BEFORE it was mentioned in the house.

    Remember the black balling and retribution that many people faced back in the 1900′s and under the old oligarchy?? It started with things like this. What if a random member of the public is on to something that the government is trying to hide? The people are no longer protected! PAY ATTENTION, we are very quickly going back to “the old days” !!!

  28. Jeremy Deacon says:

    It is extremely disturbing that the Minister knew who had tabled the PATI request. Section 12,4, makes it very obvious that the identity of the requester shall not be released unless the requester agrees. I doubt Mr Brown agreed. This really is a very serious breach that will have those making requests concerned if their identity is also known. On such a small island this cannot happen and I do hope the Information Commissioner will look at this.

    • Terry says:

      Oh come now Jeremy.

      Your heritage here in Bermuda is minimul.

      Stop stirring the pot.

      Really.

  29. Terry says:

    Walton brought it up in the House.

    So it is not confidential once he crossed that line.

    Nothing to see here except more garbage from the PLP and their wanted destruction of a Government trying to make things tick-tock again.

    Think about it before you slam me.

    Shalom.

  30. Terry says:

    Upon reflection it appears that Mr. Cannonier is really out of touch.

    Go pump gas.

  31. cromwell says:

    I thought that MP Brown and the PLP were all for transparency! Now they (PLP OR OBA)want to hide behind PATI; give me a break they need to get out of the shadows and walk the walk about transparent dealings in politics and in their own lives.

    PATI is for the people and others to get information out of the civil servants which keeps information secret to cover up avoid their responsibilities not for partisan politicians to keep their job.