A stealthy Treasury Board directive in
the summer of 2013 required bureaucrats to ask departmental lawyers
to decide what constitutes a secret, a decision that used to be made
by the Privy Council Office, which oversees cabinet matters resulting
in many more documents being exempted from Freedom of Information
requests.
There is a growing list of
seemingly routine reports, memos and documents caught up in an
enhanced dragnet of so-called cabinet confidences. The
Canadian Press has found dozens of cases from
various departments in which reports, briefing materials and emails
have been excluded entirely under Section 69 of the Access to
Information Act, which gives officials the power to withhold records
because they are meant to be seen only by the federal cabinet.
Suzanne Legault, the country's
information commissioner is concerned about how wide-ranging the
definition of a cabinet secret has become, especially since once the
exclusion is declared, not even she can see the documents in
question.
"When you look at the scope of
the exclusion, it is extremely broad," Legault said.
"It's very, very broad. It
basically catches anything that mentions a record that's a cabinet
confidence. In my view, the actual scope of this does not respect
fundamental tenets of freedom of information."
Once the exclusion is invoked, the
records remain sealed off from public scrutiny for 20 years.
"Under my time as the budget
officer we were told on numerous occasions — from crime bills to
elements of the government's economic forecast to departmental
spending restraint plans (post budget 2012) — that Parliament (and
the PBO) could not get access to information because it was a cabinet
confidence," Page said.
"The stakes were high. The
government was asking Parliament to vote on bills without relevant
financial information and were hiding behind the veil of cabinet
confidence. This undermined accountability for Parliament and the
accountability of the public service."
MPs and senators, who are subject
to parliamentary privilege, have found their formal written inquiries
— known as order paper questions — are also being run through the
filter of cabinet confidence by the Privy Council Office.
"An article by Sean Fine of
the Globe and Mail dated May 23, 2014 purported to provide various
details about the selection process, including the names of
candidates being considered," he noted.
"As a result of this, the
government chose not to constitute a selection panel, nor arrange for
an ad hoc parliamentary committee for the appointment of J. Clement
Gascon to the Supreme Court of Canada."
With another Supreme Court
seat set to open up next month, he said, the government appears to
have suspended the selection process entirely, at least as far as
parliamentary involvement.
"They say it's 'under
reconsideration,' and that it 'remains to be determined' what process
will be used in future," Cotler noted.
"That means there's no process
yet underway for a vacancy coming up in November."
Errol Mendes, a constitutional expert at the University of Ottawa had this to say.
"What I think is starting to happen now is the realization that they can basically shut down any democratic debate to anything that could be embarrassing to the government," "That is the way an authoritarian government behaves."
Exactly!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
1 comment:
Mendes hits the nail on the head, Rural.
In a real democracy, the Harperian agenda would be impossible.
Post a Comment