Liberals still stalling on transparency in government

OTTAWA—If you thought the NDP would hold the federal Liberals' feet to the fire for the public to gain vastly increased transparency practices in their “confidence-and-supply agreement," you'd be wrong. The Liberals' disdain for transparency has been well documented. From the prime minister dropping transparency as a priority in his cabinet ministers' mandate letters, to his government passing legislation for more secrecy, the days of Justin Trudeau calling for more transparency are long gone. At the provincial level, the New Democrats' past track record of decreasing transparency once in government is well-known. In British Columbia, John Horgan's NDP government has used its majority to ram through increased freedom-of-information fees and created more exemptions, despite vocal opposition. The federal NDP was not about to negotiate and take up the transparency banner with the federal Liberals when priorities like dental care, pharmacare, and taxing the rich are on the table. The irony is that the New Democrats' dream programs will only superficially begin to be developed, but once the Conservatives take power in three years, they will be phased out or be left to languish. Those moves will all largely be done behind closed doors, and not everything will be documented. Public access to any if these records will be denied, mainly on the claims of cabinet confidences and policy advice. This is hardly what you want if you're truly seeking public support and a working participatory democracy. No political party loves real transparency once they're in power, or jointly in power, though they like to talk a good talk. Political parties are absolutely not inclined to want to be covered under access legislation. Most political parties of all stripes don't want their political parties' aggressive, at times unsavoury, marketing tactics being covered under access and privacy legislation. More transparency would only help expose all parties' questionable tactics and practices in profiling voters and potential contributors and their sometimes misuse of collecting personal information. Meanwhile, the biggest beneficiaries of decreased transparency polices and practices are the bureaucrats. The Treasury Board, on the federal level, has been slow to move on its access to information legislation review. My latest access-to-information requests to find out what's going on with the Treasury Board's management of the access-to-information review have been met with lengthy time extensions and a few releases with many exemptions. Treasury Board, in one response received to date, exempted a policy advice document, dated Dec. 16, 2021, which was a briefing memo on the timeliness issue. Treasury Board refused to divulge its “Top Issues” table (which contains key questions for each access act section); and its 2021-22 evaluation of pro-active disclosure programs that was carried out, at taxpayers expense, by consultants Goss Gilroy Inc. When pressed, in another request, Treasury Board said, after an earlier failed 2018 attempt to obtain such figures, that it had no records of estimated itemized and separated costs of their pro-active disclosure program that has been on-going for several years now. One thing Treasury Board did do was invite the public last summer to make submissions on improving transparency, required under the statutory review. Those submissions were then publicly posted, showing overwhelmingly that submitters wanted less secrecy and better service. But highly redacted access records show this has not prevented Treasury Board from continuing secret consultations with preferred government agencies who want less transparency. Their officials are still posing secret questions to these agencies and receiving secret responses. These colleague agencies will have significant back-door influence and likely do not want the public interfering with their less-than-satisfactory access-to-information service standards. Treasury Board bureaucrats are cagey, some taking a 150-day time extension to divulge anything about their existing documentation. I've been told that 200 pages on Indigenous groups' access issues, including dealing with residential school record gaps, will take 85 more days to process. I've also been told that 200-plus pages on ATI improvement have gone to Public Safety and Justice for consultations with a 150-day extension. And a request for media lines and stories, mine included, with an estimated 500 pages, some likely public already, is going to take another 90 days. It is pathetic, as other documents show, that Treasury Board has worked at a snail's pace in the last two years. It's as if the Treasury Board doesn't get it that its open two-way discussion and disclosures are the hallmark of public consultations. This is what transparency is all about. For Treasury Board's operatives, the transparency and pro-active disclosure file is just one more program to be kept in check. It's not exactly the best career move either, to activate uncontrollable disclosure changes. The Treasury Board bureaucrats know full well that their PMO colleagues demand more secrecy, not less. Last time round, in 2019, government officials drafted Bill C-58 and ensured the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices were permanently excluded from the Access to Information Act. In one redacted access record, Treasury Board admitted that “the list of exemptions and exclusions has grown since the inception in Canada, whereas more recent international approaches to ATI have tended toward simplicity and streamlining, especially where exceptions to the right of access are concerned." That is true. For the Treasury Board, “streamlining” access to information means doing little and being superficial at best. “Simplicity” in the Treasury Board's way of thinking gives the bureaucracy cosmetic and deceptive cover to continue with limited releases while cutting back fuller and more timely meaningful disclosures. We live in a fool's paradise where politicians promise and bureaucrats dither, hide, and disappoint. Ken Rubin writes on transparency and other issues and is reachable at kenrubin.ca The Hill Times

Liberals still stalling on transparency in government

We live in a fool's paradise where politicians promise and bureaucrats dither, hide, and disappoint.

How can Ontario achieve net zero, with greater energy reliability and resilience? Roadmap to a clean energy future

Poilievre’s miscues won’t save Trudeau

One investment in the 2024 federal budget would make a difference in the lives of 12 million Canadians

Indigenous human rights are not second-class rights

China: has the moment arrived?

What do pandemics and climate change have in common? They disrupt supply chains

Deceit, spin, politics, and a costly plan replace calls for greater transparency

Treasury Board’s overdue review of Access Act is big on propaganda, light on recommendations

Treasury Board should get out of the business of faking disclosures

2022: the year of information deals and vulnerabilities

Transparency remains low on Trudeau and other governments’ priorities

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Liberals still stalling on transparency in government

We live in a fool's paradise where politicians promise and bureaucrats dither, hide, and disappoint.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter