It’s a phrase that politicians love so much that they’ve basically merged it all into a single word: “TransparencyandAccountability.”
Governments fall over themselves claiming their administrations are the most transparent and the most accountable ever — “Not like the last administration, Mr. Speaker.”
But let’s have a look at those two words: transparent means “allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen.” (It’s not, for example, the same as translucent, where light passes through, but you can’t see clearly.)
“Accountable” is defined as being, “required or expected to justify actions or decisions.”
So, an accountable and transparent government would be required to clearly and distinctly justify its actions and decisions.
Now, let’s talk about one specific part of this province’s access to information legislation, which is under statutory review just now.
On Monday, provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey released his submission about changes that the province’s access legislation should contain.
The commissioner’s main concern? That the government — based on a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Alberta freedom of information law — feels that only it can decide that documents can be deemed bound by solicitor-client privilege and kept secret, unless the courts get involved.
That’s not the way this province’s access law was supposed to work, because the commissioner was supposed to have the ability to review such claims.
Not any more, the commissioner wrote: “Unfortunately, in the past year, the Department of Justice and Public Safety has begun an effort to chip away at that clear legislative direction, and is now refusing to provide the records, or indeed, any evidence to the commissioner, in support of its claims of solicitor-client privilege.”
In other words, we’ve gone back to, “We’re the government. Trust us.” That’s not good enough.
“This is extremely concerning,” Harvey said in a news release. “If the government is preventing me from reviewing records, then I can’t provide independent oversight of what public bodies are shielding from public view.”
The commissioner, after all, is not someone arbitrarily dragged in off the sidewalk who is just rooting around in government documents out of prurient curiosity.
The commissioner is an officer of the House of Assembly, bound by law to recognize and follow the rules of the position, including rules about the confidentiality of the documents he or she reviews.
The only reason for the government to withhold documents over which it is claiming solicitor-client privilege is to deliberately use that portion of the legislation to hide information.
By forcing applicants into expensive court actions, the government knows it is pulling the curtains shut and closing the doors.
And that means they’ll need to find a new catchphrase.
