Page: 7 [27] This theme has been noted in the case law. In Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance)12 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the “overarching purpose” of access to information is to “facilitate democracy” and stated (at para. 63) that “rights to state-held information are designed to improve the workings of government; to make it more effective, responsive and accountable.” LaForest J. held at paras 61-62: [61] The overarching purpose of access to information legislation, then, is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry. As Professor Donald C. Rowat explains in his classic article, “How Much Administrative Secrecy?” (1965), 31 Can. J. of Econ. and Pol. Sci. 479, at p. 480: Parliament and the public cannot hope to call the Government to account without an adequate knowledge of what is going on; nor can they hope to participate in the decision-making process and contribute their talents to the formation of policy and legislation if that process is hidden from view. See also: Canadian Bar Association, Freedom of Information in Canada: A Model Bill (1979), at p. 6. [62] Access laws operate on the premise that politically relevant information should be distributed as widely as reasonably possible. Political philosopher John Plamenatz explains in Democracy and Illusion (1973), at pp. 178-79: There are not two stores of politically relevant information, a larger one shared by the professionals, the whole-time leaders and persuaders, and a much smaller one shared by ordinary citizens. No leader or persuader possesses more than a small part of the information that must be available in the community if government is to be effective and responsible; and the same is true of the ordinary citizen. What matters, if there is to be responsible government, is that this mass of information should be so distributed among professionals and ordinary citizens that competitors for power, influence and popular support are exposed to relevant and searching criticism. [Emphasis in original.] How does a purposive approach inform the interpretation? [28] Having determined that the intent of the legislature in enacting the Act was to enhance democratic values by providing its citizens with access to government information, the next stage 12 Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403 per LaForest J. at paras. 61-62, adopted by the majority on this point at para 1.