There was a time when much of the world looked to Canada as a leader in access legislation. Let me share a sobering statistic with you. According to an international survey conducted by the Centre for Law and Democracy, we now rank 55th out of 93 nations. This is in some part due to the limited coverage of the act.
I have long advocated for the adoption of a principled approach to the coverage of the Access to Information Act, one that is steeped in openness and accountability, two fundamental values embedded in the act. I have also been and continue to be in favour of bringing all institutions funded by taxpayers’ dollars, in whole or in part, under the act. That means the House of Commons and the Senate, ministers and their offices, and the Prime Minister’s Office.
As part of my office’s recent Open Dialogue with Canadians on how to best modernize the act, many have supported the inclusion of a number of public institutions under its purview.
For example, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression noted that “It is hard to comprehend how two of the most significant institutions (House of Commons and Senate) in the functioning of Canadian democracy are not subject to access to information inquiries.” The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic wrote: “The act must be applied to the legislative branch, to Parliament, to Ministers (inclusive of Secretaries of State), and to their respective offices. All of these entities play a vital democratic role and the information under their respective control is therefore of central importance to transparency, open governance and democratic discourse.”
Canadians want and expect more transparency in government, not less. They want access to accurate information on the issues that impact their daily lives. They want to know what is behind the policy and spending decisions of their government. Access to information legislation gives citizens a legal framework to seek and get answers about how their government is managing the affairs of state and their tax dollars. When we have access legislation that works properly, we have citizens who are better informed and, as a result, more fully engaged as participants in their democracy.
On Canada Day, Canada will observe a major milestone — the 30th anniversary of the introduction of the Access to Information Act. This occasion is a source of pride, but it is also an incentive for change. Our law was considered groundbreaking in its time. But 30 years is a long time. The act has grown tired and out-of-date. Worst of all, over that period our access to information rights have been slowly eroded by a variety of constraints, practices and amendments to the act.
In the days leading up to the House of Commons summer recess, we witnessed a flurry of proposals to subject spending by parliamentarians to robust and independent oversight. I am encouraged by the increased attention this issue is now receiving. But from my perspective, it is not enough.
If Parliament is serious about transparency and accountability, it must not only proactively disclose much more information regarding the expenses and allocations of parliamentarians, it must also subject itself to the Access to Information Act.
This fall, I will present recommendations to Parliament on amending and modernizing the act to reflect the realities of 2013.
When you consider that after 30 years the Access to Information Act still does not apply to our parliamentary institutions, is it not about time that we reassert the value we place on unfettered access to information and broaden the scope of the act to all of our democratic institutions?
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Suzanne Legault
No comments:
Post a Comment