The Harper Government’s Obstruction of the Free Flow of Information

“The free flow of information is essential to a democracy, just as oxygen is essential to a human body. Citizens can't make good decisions at the voting booth if they don't have the facts, and the arguments, on all sides of the issues.”

- Montreal Gazette, February 14, 2009

The Harper Government’s apparent attempt to control the free flow of information extends beyond the media and into many branches of the Canadian Government.

A 200-page secret “playbook” binder discovered by journalist Don Martin in 2007 provides evidence that the Conservative government has a concerted strategy to constrict the flow of information to the public.

This binder suggests that the Conservative party has instructed its parliamentary committee chairs to disrupt committee proceedings by:

choosing and preparing witnesses favourable to the Conservative government,
adjourning “disruptive” meetings at short notice with no debate or appeal,
informing the affected ministries, house leader, or party whip of any motions that are voted upon, in order to anticipate and control the response of the media.
giving Conservative members as much time as they want, to speak, in order to stall proceedings, ruling any motion unfavourable to the Conservative party as out of order.

A widely known example of the Harper government’s attempt to influence committee proceedings is the case of Richard Colvin, a Foreign Service officer summoned to testify before the Parliamentary committee on the Afghan detainee issue. In order to impede the ability of Mr. Colvin, a highly regarded public servant, to give his testimony before this committee, the government attacked his reputation. In addition, the government initially refused to pay the legal expenses incurred by this public servant in the performance of his duties.

Richard Colvin is not the only public servant to possibly be “muzzled” by the Harper government. In 2007, Environment Canada scientists were required to refer nearly all media-related information requests to Ottawa for approval. In 2006, senior military officers were instructed to channel all media information requests, speaking engagements, and speeches through the Prime Minister’s Office. In addition, concerns have very recently been raised by Former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer on possible attempts by the government to influence the judiciary. This control has also extended to other branches of public service.

The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service states “Any public servant who witnesses or has knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace may refer the matter for resolution, in confidence and without fear of reprisal,” and “Public servants shall support both individual and collective ministerial accountability and provide Parliament and Canadians with information on the results of their work.” The Harper government’s record appears to show that public servants are being discouraged from following their own code of ethics.

When Stephen Harper came to power in 2006, his stand on “transparency and accountability” included a promise to reform Canada’s thirty-year-old Access to Information Act, in particular to give the information commissioner the ability to order release of information, to read cabinet records and to adjudicate complaints. But few substantive changes were made. Instead, the government has gained “a reputation for secrecy, erecting one roadblock after another to any attempts to shed more light on government’s inner workings, from the handling of Afghan prisoners to its battles with independent watchdogs.” [ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/can-access-to-information-be-fixed/article1871549/ ]

Further, there have been reports that responses to Access to Information requests have been slower and less complete than in the past. In the introduction to his first annual report, former Information Commissioner Robert Marleau said, “Too often, responses to access requests are late, incomplete, or overly censored. Too often, access is denied to hide wrongdoing, or to protect officials or governments from embarrassment, rather than to serve a legitimate confidentiality requirement." [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4148dc8b-3519-415a-a75e-7ef9a1a182bb&k=35247]

Members of the news media have made similar complaints from time to time. The Globe & Mail compiled a list of “Five Ways Ottawa Stymies Access to Information Requests” This list included: creating delays, charging hefty fees, refraining from writing down communications so that there is no public record, intentionally being obtuse, extensively censoring documents or labelling them ‘sensitive documents’ and thus exempt, and leaving it to the applicant to challenge the result with a complaint to the Information Commissioner or the court.

Under the Harper government, Canada’s standing in the world has plunged dramatically in many areas, and the area of freedom of information is a strong example of this loss of international standing. Two academics in the UK have studied freedom of information legislation in five countries – Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Where did Canada place? You guessed it, last!

The Globe & Mail article reporting on the UK Study noted that Canada’s Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, isn’t startled at the findings of the UK study. She says: “I'm not surprised that they ranked Canada last...We were seen as the leaders...We have fallen behind.”

According to information obtained by the Globe & Mail “Only about 16 per cent of the 35,000 requests filed last year resulted in the full disclosure of information, compared with 40 per cent a decade ago...And delays in the release of records continue to grow, with just 56 per cent of requests completed in the legislated 30-day period last year, compared with almost 70 per cent at the start of the decade.”

During 2010, the opposition attempted to get a picture of what the Harper government’s 21 pieces of ‘tough on crime’ legislation is going to cost Canadian taxpayers. In an article published in the February 23, 2011, Toronto Star, Carol Goar reports that “The opposition parties have used every tactic available to find out how this affects the prison population and public spending. The government has stalled, stonewalled and claimed the information is “a matter of cabinet confidence.” Twice, under duress, it has released estimates for specific pieces of legislation. As of last week, its partial price tag was $2.7 billion over five years. Liberal finance critic Scott Brison calls that number “absolutely uanbelievable.”

Goar asserts that there appears to be more that the Prime Minister doesn’t want the public to know. Reliable figures from the government for the cost of the corporate tax cut seem elusive. Who was behind the security plan for last summer’s G8 and G20 summits? What are the implications of the North American perimeter agreement which Stephen Harper and President Obama have signed in January of 2011? What decision-making criteria does the government use when deciding to fund, or not fund, NGO’s? When will Canadians be told what really happened with Afghan detainees who allege they were tortured?

The irony that Stephen Harper has such a tight fisted control on information is not lost on The Toronto Star’s Carol Goar: “The list goes on. Harper has stymied parliamentary committees, removed outspoken government watchdogs and obstructed Access to Information requests. He has prorogued Parliament twice.”

Ironic, yes, because six years ago when Mr. Harper was opposition leader, he said: “Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and incompetent or corrupt governments can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.”

Indeed!

As a consequence of the government’s actions, Canadians may be blocked from the information they need in order to act as responsible and informed citizens.

Follow us on: