Federal
government plans to keep more public records secret
Including documents on advertising sponsorship
Reposted with permission from the Hill
Times
News index
Front page
Monday,
June 24, 2002
Ken Rubin
The Hill Times
The
Chrétien
Government
has just
received
its
internal
Treasury
Board's
Access
Task Force
Report and
plans to
use it as
the basis
for
ramming
through
regressive
amendments
this fall
to
Canada's
1982
Access to
Information
Act. This
means more
public
records
will be
cut off,
including
ones
exposing
government
waste in
the
sponsorship
program.
The
$4-million
dollar,
two-year
exercise
was set up
as a
brokered
Privy
Council
Office
deal to
help shut
down
greater
public
access.
Right from
the start,
the
sponsors
of the
task force
--
Treasury
Board and
the
Justice
Department
-- made it
clear that
its
hand-picked
task force
would not
be
changing
the
"sound
balance"
of the
Access
Act, just
fine-tuning
it.
Now the
government
wants to
sell the
task
force's
findings
as
reasonable
and
"bold."
That's
because
they
recommend
expanding
the Access
Act's
coverage
to records
held by
Cabinet,
Parliament,
the
Information
and
Privacy
Commissioners,
the
Auditor
General,
and some
federally-funded
agencies.
But what
is unsaid
is that
very few
such
records
will
become
available.
And most
Cabinet
records
would not
even be
considered
for
release
until 15
years
later --
if the
Prime
Minister
okays this
proposal.
However,
the Prime
Minister
Office's
records
and most
ministerial
records
most
adamantly
still
remain
excluded.
True to
its
mission,
the task
force
endorses
every
existing
Access Act
exemption
and adds
more.
The task
force's
new ways
to deny
access
include
creating a
brand new
exemption
to refuse
release of
records
concerning
cultural
and
heritage
sites.
They also,
incredibly,
want
officials'
"personal"
jot notes
to become
classified
as secret
and that
could put
a big
smile on
the faces
of those
public
servants
who have
always
wanted to
legally
keep a
second set
of records
squirreled
away.
So-called
draft
audits,
until
thoroughly
vetted,
are also
deemed
secret.
Consultant
reports
become
exempt
because
they would
now be
considered
policy
advice.
More data
from
foreign
authorities
and
"critical
infrastructure"
data also
become
exempted.
The
section
that
allows
other acts
to be
added to
override
the Access
Act is
also
retained.
The law
enforcement
exemption
would be
greatly
expanded
despite my
having won
a Federal
Court of
Appeal
ruling in
1998
restricting
its
application
once
specific
investigations
are
completed.
Now, the
government's
task force
wants to
permit all
"foreseeable"
future
legal and
consumer
regulatory
investigations
to qualify
for
exemption.
The task
force also
wants
officials
to spend
more time
classifying
records in
advance
for
security
purposes.
And the
task force
did not
protest or
resign
en masse
last fall
when the
government's
anti-terrorist
bill
incorporated
into it
Attorney
General
powers to
issue
secrecy
certificates
for 15
years that
order
courts not
to
disclose
undefined
security
related
matters
applied
for under
the Access
to
Information
Act.
Some of
their
other
suggestions
amount to
exemptions,
too. The
task force
wants time
extensions
to delay
releasing
data when
access
requests
"interfere"
with their
normal
departmental
operations.
Applications
that are
considered
frivolous,
vexatious
or abusive
can be
excluded,
and they
want
powers to
ensure
that
requests
are
"focused
efficiently,"
and to
their
liking.
But for
the
government
itself,
the task
force
recommends
considerable
extra
public
monies for
"effectively"
processing
requests.
However,
it rejects
its own
access
operations
being
subject to
conduct
codes or
being
penalized
for lousy
service.
But it
still
demands
control
over how
they are
to be
evaluated
and
suggests
the
Information
Commissioner's
Office
join them
in inside
evaluations
and cast
aside
doing any
more
critical
independent
assessments
of
departmental
compliance
with the
Access
Act.
The task
force, on
the other
hand,
however,
has no
hesitation
in telling
Information
Commissioner
John Reid
what's
wrong with
his
operation.
I should
say,
there's no
doubt that
the
Commissioner's
Office
needs an
overhaul,
greater
transparency,
better
mediation
procedures
and
binding
order
powers,
but it's
hardly the
role of
those
currently
at war and
in court
with the
Commissioner
over
matters
like the
releasing
of the
PM's daily
agendas to
be pushing
changes,
some of
which,
like
restricting
the
Commissioner's
subpoena
powers,
are to
their
selfish
advantage.
For his
part, the
Information
Commissioner,
in a brief
release
last week,
called the
task force
report
"timid"
and was
rather
restrained
in stating
some
suggestions
expanded
the
government's
"zone
of
secrecy."
Meanwhile,
nowhere in
the task
force
report is
there a
plan to
increase
public use
which is
now stuck
at a
little
more than
20,000
applications
a year.
Instead,
the task
force
report
looks more
to
official
training
retreats,
better
notifications
going to
corporations,
and more
"guidance"
being put
on
official
websites.
The task
force
avoids
changes
that would
promote
open
government
such as
suggesting
whistle-blower
protection,
open
meetings,
mandatory
record-keeping,
retrieval
requirements,
or placing
freedom of
information
into the
Charter of
Rights and
Freedoms.
It also
ignores
the wealth
of
external
access
experience
and
successes.
If the
federal
government
proceeds
with the
report it
will only
lead to
further
public
cynicism
and
mistrust,
and will
ultimately
suppress,
rather
than
advance
open
government
in Ottawa.
Ken
Rubin is
an access
to
information
advocate.
His e-mail
address is
kdrubin@cyberus.ca
Original
story
Top
News index
Front page
|