Evidence of this unfortunate reality is found in a recent report of investigations by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia. The Commissioner found that the BC government either “willfully or negligently” failed to produce documents sought through access to information requests and also evaded personal responsibility by relying on verbal responses to information requests. In addition, the government routinely destroyed what were referred to as transitory records, a practice it continues to regard as appropriate. Transitory records are supposed to be convenience copies, unnecessary duplicates, and drafts – once the final record has been produced. But The Commissioner found that the government defined transitory records far too broadly, with the Premier’s Deputy Chief of Staff, for example, treating almost all of her email communications as transitory records. What makes this story interesting is that the current government had promised to be the most open and transparent in the province’s history.
Some Secrecy Valid, but Balance Lacking
Not all government records must be open to the public. It is entirely appropriate that cabinet deliberations remain secret, until the results of such deliberations emerge in the form of proposed legislation. Briefing notes for Ministers and other such information are also appropriately kept confidential. Governments are understandably concerned that information is sought by their political opponents to attack and embarrass them. They also feel that the media seeks information as the basis for critical assessments of the government’s performance. It is impossible to recall any instance in which the media sought information so that it could provide a praiseworthy analysis of government achievements – largely because “good news is not news, bad news is.”
While some restrictions on information are, therefore, legitimate and understandable, the trend has been toward ever more secretive governments and this has been especially evident with the federal government of the Harper years. The prevailing current view seems to be that everything in government is confidential unless its release can be justified under an access to information request. What if we stood that approach on its head – and had a system in which all government information is public unless the government can justify keeping it secret? If those two positions represent extremes, we are far too close to the first (secret) one at the moment.
Balance is also needed in Media Coverage
During the recent federal election campaign, the Liberal Party promised a number of democratic reforms, including more openness in government and more freedom for public servants to provide their advice and for Cabinet Ministers to run their departments. If the new government attempts to follow through on these promises, it will be important for the media to show some restraint in its response to the consequences of this greater openness and operating freedom.
In particular, we are likely to have situations in which public servants, quite properly fulfilling their role as experts in their particular fields, provide advice which is not supportive of a position the government may plan to take. We are likely to have Cabinet Ministers expressing views that are not always consistent with the position being advocated by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet. Such differences of opinion are a sign of a healthy democracy. Out of discussion and consideration of alternatives we are likely to arrive at better decisions. If, however, the media pounce on every instance of varying viewpoints as an indication of a government divided or in disarray, it will effectively be encouraging the Liberals to return to the total message control and relentless suppression of independent thought that characterized the Harper regime.
A Probationary Period is in order
If the new Liberal Government moves, even slowly and inconsistently, toward greater openness and greater respect for evidence-based decision making, it should be given some slack by the media. The resulting process – one that we have not seen in Ottawa over the past decade - will inevitably be messier, but it should be welcomed as an inevitable component of a functioning democracy.