Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Nothing to see here … move along

The language seemed damning enough. After investigating complaints from Canadians, the Office of the Information Commissioner concluded in its latest report that there has been a “clear deterioration in the access to information system and that indicates that institutions are having difficulty meeting even their basic obligations under the Access to Information Act.”

And what are those basic obligations? Things like “adhering to the legislative deadlines for responding to requests or following proper procedures for taking time extensions.”
Taken together, Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault said in a statement, “these circumstances tell me in no uncertain terms that the integrity of the federal access to information program is at serious risk.” Later, at a press conference, she even laid the blame at the feet of one individual: Treasury Board President Tony Clement.

“I know what she said. I know what she said. I say the facts speak for themselves,” Clement told reporters later in the day — before speaking for the facts himself. “Fifty-four thousand requests were answered last year.”

“It took one year to get (an) answer,” a reporter said.

Clement answered with another figure. “Six million pages were divulged,” he said. Then, a moment later: “If there are staffing issues that we can deal with, we can deal with those, but the fact of the matter is, given the exponential nature of inquisitiveness of both the media and ordinary citizens, we are doing more than pulling our weight. We are responding. We are being open and transparent, and that is the record that these statistics speak to.”

It was an interesting line of argument for Clement to take — as if volume was really the issue here. ‘Fifty-four thousand’ — that’s a big, serious-sounding number, one Clement linked to the “exponential nature” of the public’s “inquisitiveness.”

But it’s a shame Clement thought to link that to staffing rather than to the question of why so many more Canadians are trying to figure out what their government is up to these days.

Six million is also a huge figure, though what it really means remains unclear. For instance, how many of those pages were redacted? Or how many contained little to no usable or relevant data? How many of the six million pages actually answered the question posed on its corresponding ATIP form?

In answering a question about information access, Clement provided very little relevant information. Hopefully, the irony wasn’t lost on him.

But okay, if we want to talk numbers, here are some more.

Five hundred and forty: the number of days Transport Canada took in a time extension to respond to one request. Legault’s office deemed the extension ‘invalid’.

Eleven-hundred: the number of days National Defence took for its own time extension on a file about surplus military asset sales to Uruguay. “At slightly more than three years, this extension was one of the longest we have seen in recent memory,” Legault’s report states. It took DND only 230 of those days to process the roughly 3,000 pages of information related to the request — but a whopping 880 days to consult with other government institutions before releasing it.

Or how about these numbers: 336, 125, 109. That’s how many complaints were filed to the Information Commissioner against the Canada Revenue Agency, the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada in 2012-13. And one more for the RCMP: the number of complaints filed about it grew by 84 per cent last year.

As for what Clement said about “being open and transparent”? Thursday’s report actually almost agreed with him there: Canada, it said, is “committed to open government initiatives.” But a commitment doesn’t necessarily translate into action.

For instance, someone asked the Privy Council Office for “all information concerning the requester’s application for a Governor-in-Council position” — and was turned down under Section 21 of the Access to Information Act. That’s the section that says the head of a government institution can refuse to disclose any record that contains “advice or recommendations developed for a government institution or a minister of the Crown.”

But in this case, the applicant was asking for his or her own personal information. With some prodding, PCO eventually released the details. Open and transparent — when pushed.

Here’s another number: 7,240. That’s how many words were in Wednesday’s throne speech, designed to outline the government’s goals and plans.

Here’s one more: 0. That’s how many times the words “transparency” or “transparent” appeared in that speech.

Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Colin Horgan

No comments:

Post a Comment