The National Energy Board, Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, will now require pipeline operators to make emergency response plans publicly available online, according to an order issued this week.   The new rules require all pipeline companies to post emergency plans on their websites by September 30, 2016. The increased transparency measure is part of a larger effort by the National Energy Board to regain credibility with the Canadian public.

“We’ve always reviewed manuals, we’ve always reviewed companies’ emergency management systems to make sure they’re robust, but Canadians are now saying they want more information and we’re just acting on what Canadians are telling us,” National Energy Board chairman Peter Watson told Global News. 

“This is an example where I felt quite strongly that we could put more information out about companies’ emergency response plans and help people understand what’s at play and how these things work. And that will, I think, give them more confidence that we know what we’re doing around these systems for emergency response.”

The issue of pipeline transparency made headlines last summer after operator Kinder Morgan refused to disclose emergency plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline to the province of B.C., even though the company was in the process of applying for a permit to triple the capacity of the pipeline. 

As DeSmog Canada first revealed, Kinder Morgan made those same emergency response plans publicly available in Washington State yet claimed they could not be disclosed in Canada for safety reasons.   The province, acting as an intervenor in the NEB review of Kinder Morgan’s expansion plans, was left to wonder if the company did in fact have emergency plans in place.   The plans Kinder Morgan willingly disclosed in Washington State included detailed information about every unique segment of the pipeline, worst case scenario discharge maps, names, contact information and instructions for spill responders, and detailed spill response timelines for each zone of the pipeline.   In a motion to the National Energy Board, B.C. said Kinder Morgan’s secrecy was “excessive, unjustified and prohibitive.” The province argued the withheld emergency response plans thwarted a full review of the project and prevented intervenors from a thorough understanding of the project. The National Energy Board upheld Kinder Morgan's decision to keep the plans secret.   Kinder Morgan’s refusal to release full plan put a spotlight on the lack of transparency surrounding pipeline management in Canada, leading the National Energy Board to rethink disclosure rules.   In April of last year the board announced they were launching a public consultation campaign which concluded in June 2015.

“There may indeed be some specific information that should be kept confidential,” Watson said while announcing the public consultation program in Vancouver last April. “But I believe that we have been too conservative in our approach to this issue to date.”

“And to tell you the truth,” he added, “I haven't been happy with the amount of emergency response information that pipeline companies or the NEB has been sharing with the public.”

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association also responded to public concerns, saying a number of their members had “faced significant public pressure to disclose all information contained in emergency response plans.”   The new rules allow companies to exclude some information, such as personal details or location of sensitive indigenous site, from disclosure. Information relevant to a potential oil spill and disaster management, however, will be readily available to the public.   Should the Kinder Morgan expansion be approved — a final cabinet decision is expected in December — the disclosure rules will apply retroactively, Watson said.   Adam Scott, with Environmental Defence, told Global: “I don’t think it’s going to solve all of their problems, but I think it’s a really positive step.”

“I think it will be very interesting to see what the companies post.”

Image: Mychaylo Prystupa/Vancouver Observer

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Secrecy surrounding pipeline emergency response plans will soon be the subject of public consultation conducted by the National Energy Board (NEB), according to the board’s CEO Peter Watson.

As the CBC reports, speaking to a group of business leaders in Vancouver on Monday, Watson said, “Canadians deserve to be consulted on the transparency of emergency management information for NEB-regulated pipelines.”

Pipeline operator Kinder Morgan recently made headlines for refusing to disclose emergency response plans for its TransMountain pipeline expansion project, which would nearly triple the capacity of the existing line. Kinder Morgan refused to release an unredacted version of the emergency plan despite repeated requests from the province of B.C.

As DeSmog Canada first reported, the same emergency response plans were released in full to the public in the U.S. for portions of the pipeline that extend down into Washington State.

Redacted from the B.C. plans were contact details for company officials and first responders, information regarding spill response measures and cleanup equipment as well as spill response timelines for each unique segment of the pipeline.

Kinder Morgan argued disclosing the documents in B.C. triggered "security concerns." The NEB ruled the company was within its right to keep the information secret, leading some to question the legitimacy of the federal pipeline review process.

Now, Watson said the NEB wants to rethink the disclosure issue.

"There may indeed be some specific information that should be kept confidential,” he said, “but I believe that we have been too conservative in our approach to this issue to date."

"And to tell you the truth," he added, "I haven't been happy with the amount of emergency response information that pipeline companies or the NEB has been sharing with the public."

Watson said the recent bunker fuel spill in Vancouver’s English Bay put a spotlight on spill response capacities.

"I do not believe we have a choice on this matter," he said. "We need to help ensure that everybody involved in an emergency response for a leak in an existing pipeline knows what their role is — and how to deliver on that role, when something serious happens."

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) recently announced its would form a new task force to address public concern over disclosure rules.

“A number of our members have faced significant public pressure to disclose all information contained in emergency response plans,” Jim Donihee, chief operating officer with CEPA, said.

“The CEPA task force will work to support that by establishing clear principles and guidelines that seek to find the right balance between the public’s right to know, the privacy of personal information and the security considerations also required for public safety.”

Image Credit: NEB

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) is working hard to undo damage caused by pipeline company Kinder Morgan’s refusal to release oil spill response plans in British Columbia. The company’s lack of disclosure angered the province of B.C., especially when it was revealed that Kinder Morgan released detailed spill response plans in Washington State for portions of the pipeline that extend across the border.

The pipeline association recently announced it would form a task force to address the issue, hoping to waylay growing public concerns by developing “guiding principles” for disclosure.

“A number of our members have faced significant public pressure to disclose all information contained in emergency response plans. The CEPA task force will work to support that by establishing clear principles and guidelines that seek to find the right balance between the public’s right to know, the privacy of personal information and the security considerations also required for public safety,” Jim Donihee, chief operating officer with CEPA, said.

In the case of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, the company argues it shouldn’t disclose spill response plans — even to the province of British Columbia, which has requested the plans during the National Energy Board Review of the Trans Mountain pipeline — because of “safety concerns.”

DeSmog Canada first published the documents Kinder Morgan publicly released in the U.S., comparing them to similar documents severely redacted or completely withheld in B.C.

Since then, the story has been covered in the Globe and Mail, the CBC and the Canadian Press, forcing Kinder Morgan and the National Energy Board (NEB) to defend the company’s actions.

NEB spokesman Darin Barter said the board was considering making public pipeline emergency plans mandatory for energy companies.

“Our chairman is not very happy that there’s a lack of transparency around these emergency response plans,” Barter said. “Canadians deserve to have that information. There’s a public will for that information. Industry needs to find a way to make that information public.”

In a recent letter to Enbridge, the NEB expressed concern over the company’s requirement that municipalities sign non-disclosure agreements before emergency plans are released.

“I am concerned that Enbridge’s practice of requesting NDAs is not consistent with the principle of regulatory transparency that guides the board’s regulatory approach,” NEB chairman Peter Watson said in a letter, available on the NEB website.

Watson said he would like to know how Enbridge would proceed with a municipality unwilling to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Despite the NEB’s recent push for increased transparency, the board ruled Kinder Morgan was within its right to deny the province of British Columbia detailed spill response and emergency plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline.

When B.C. asked the NEB to compel Kinder Morgan to release the plans, the board refused.

As DeSmog Canada reported, the plans withheld in B.C. included contact information for first responders and company officials and outlined access to oil booms, pumps, hoses and storage tanks and other supplies needed in the event of an oil spill.

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association vice-president Pay Smyth said the group is seeking disclosure standards that will satisfy the public demand for disclosure while protecting personal information of company employees and first responders.

“This is by no means a PR exercise,” Smyth told the Calgary Herald. “We are treading new ground here. Industry recognizes that Canadians have the right and the need to know and we’re going to make sure they have access to information.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Unlike the U.S., where the wellspring of cash flooding federal elections is reaching a new level of absurdity (try $5 billion), Canada has kept federal political campaigns relatively grounded by placing an outright ban on corporate donations during elections. 

Yet the influence publicly-traded corporations exercise in Canada – through lobbying, political contributions during provincial elections, think tank support, advertising and advocacy campaigns – remains hugely significant, according to a discussion paper recently released by the Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE), an organization that provides investment services and research to institutional investors.

“Concern about the effect of money on politics is perennial,” Kevin Thomas, report author and director of stakeholder engagement for SHARE, writes. “Aside from the obvious concerns about the outright corruption and/or illicit expenses and bribery, there is a broader concern about the influence of private interests on the development of policy and regulation, as well as on the content and tenor of public political debate.”

The paper, Dollars, Democracy and Disclosure, argues corporations hazard a reputational risk when they pursue a political agenda or, for example, lobby for policy changes that may benefit a company while shortchanging the public.

Thomas told DeSmog Canada “there is a great deal of political activities being carried out by corporations in Canada and very little of it is disclosed.”

Where it is disclosed, Thomas explained, information on corporate political spending is often dispersed and hard to access. A lack of regulated, standardized reporting on all kinds of corporate spending means that not only are the dollar amounts left unknown, but the risk that such spending creates – from both a public and corporate governance perspective – are not fully understood, Thomas said.

“It really comes down to the question of risk, and I think that’s really where our report starts and ends.”

Corporate Political Spending Creates Risk

Thomas said political spending by corporations can create all manner of risk for investors.

“Leaving aside the public side of it – where you wonder about the influence of any one party on the political process, any party that has a lot of money…the risks we look at are to the company itself.”

Thomas said SHARE asks basic questions about the risks associated with putting money to political agendas: “Is it diverting resources and focus to matters that will make the CEO look good but actually have very little to do with creating a profitable company? Is it creating risks in terms of the types of things the company associates itself with – the party, the candidate or the issues it’s chosen to involve itself with?”

Take SHARE's survey to weigh in on Canadian Corporate Political Spending Disclosure.

Thomas said some of the most difficult and important questions have to do with the market-level, economy-wide risks corporate activity can create.

Take lobbying by corporations or trade associations against effective carbon pricing or climate legislation.

“That may seem like a good idea to that individual company, to their management that is heavily invested in oil and gas, but does it actually benefit shareholders?”

At times the express activity of shareholders and corporations can be at cross-purposes, he said.

And the issue of fossil fuel industry influence is significant in Canada, where the majority of the nearly 1000 lobbyists for TSX60 companies are registered to lobby on behalf of the oil and gas industry.

This infographic from the discussion paper details the lack of disclosure of corporate political influence in Canada. From Dollars, Democracy and Disclosure.

Counter-climate Lobby May Disadvantage Shareholders

Thomas pointed to coalitions of shareholders demanding more climate accountability. In September, investors worth a combined $24 trillion signed a joint letter calling on governments to take action on climate change and price carbon effectively.

“At the same time,” Thomas said, “the companies they’re invested in are doing the exact opposite – don’t price carbon, don’t regulate our activities. There’s a real disconnect there.”

“If investors see climate change as a real risk to their own long-term interests then there’s a disconnect with what the companies and the trade associations are doing here.”

Thomas also pointed to the fact that in the lead up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December, UN Climate Secretary of Christiana Figueres asked attendees at a Principles for Responsible Investing conference to actively fight those who lobby against strong climate policies.

“Help me to scrub the lobbying practices,” Figueres said.

“Even if you individually are not lobbying against ambitious climate policy in the jurisdictions within which you are present, I wouldn’t guarantee that your associations, your networks, everything that is under your influence is doing the same. I ask you to commit to finding out whether everyone who is under your sphere of influence is at least being neutral on climate policy – but it is in all our interests they are lobbying for a climate policy.”

Canada's Long History of Corporate Political Influence

Thomas said public concerns over the influence of corporate money goes all the way back to Canada's first political scandal around the time of confederation.

“There was a whole scandal that forced our Prime Minister (John A. Macdonald) to resign because of money he received from Canadian Pacific Rail. So we’ve got a lot of history with this and it’s embedded in concern that democracy is harmed when any one party can drown out the voices of others.”

More recently the bungled relationship between TransCanada, the proponent of the Energy East pipeline, and Edelman, a public relations firm, demonstrates how reputational hazards can occur when a company endeavours to influence public opinion.

While in the public sphere thare are some methods of demanding accountability when it comes to the exercise of corporate influence, big gaps still exist, he said.

“A lot of provinces don’t have lobbyist registries, they don’t make that information available to the public. Or they allow corporate donations to political party leadership campaigns but don’t also require that those donations be made public. Those are some gaps in our public regulation that need to be dealt with.”

But when it comes to corporations, Thomas said, the accountability gaps are much more pronounced.

“What we found even more so was an incredible gap in corporate governance where there is no common understanding of what needs to be disclosed in that area to shareholders, and there are no regulations affecting it.”

As the SHARE discussion paper outlines, there are no basic disclosure requirements for corporations spending to influence the political and legislative process.

For the most part, shareholders have no way of knowing the extent to which companies are spending to influence these processes and to what extent shares have been put at risk in doing so.  

“So in a sense this is a very opaque area for investors and that’s where we come in: we want to have a discussion on what should be disclosed,” Thomas said.

“What are the limits that we as shareholders can put on activity which doesn’t really contribute to either a solid democracy or the profitability of the companies we’re invested in.”

Image Credit: David Gorbould via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In their recently published book Your Right to Know, journalists Jim Bronskill and David McKie have done yeomans' work explaining how Canadians can use freedom of information requests to get government secrets. But, at the federal level, it's work they shouldn't have needed to do – pointing to another problem with Canada's broken access to information laws.

Introduced in 1980 by Pierre Trudeau's Liberals, the Access to Information Act gave Canadians a limited right to request government records. The bureaucracy's filing cabinets could now metaphorically be opened by anyone – unless the records in them included 75 different kinds of information that would still be considered secret.

But, even with those limits, the Trudeau administration seemed to have little interest in telling voters about their newfound rights or how to exercise them.

Just before the act came into force, the Globe and Mail told readers the government would be "placing posters in post offices and public libraries" to advertise the new program. But "it plans nothing else in the way of public information," a deficiency noted by information commissioner Inger Hansen in her first annual report.

At a news conference announcing the fees for access to information requests, then-Liberal cabinet minister Herb Gray seemed unconcerned about that lack of advertising, smiling when he told reporters, "That's why we invited you here."

Nor did the government give the information commissioner the power to aid journalists in the job of educating the public about their information rights, with Hansen writing her office had no mandate or funding to do so.

As a result, Hansen stated "the public appears unaware of the meaning of the act and the role of the information commissioner to mediate complaints and take proceedings to the Federal Court. Indeed, many who have tried to use the act soon gave up because they found procedures too complicated or too slow."

More than 30 years later, Hansen's successors still don't have that mandate, despite repeatedly requesting it. A spokesperson for the Treasury Board Secretariat, which administers the Access to Information Act, didn't provide a direct answer when asked why those requests hadn't been acted on.

Little promotion of your rights

By comparison, our country's privacy commissioner can "foster public understanding" about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by organizations outside government.

Spending on that mandate totalled more than $3 million in the past fiscal year, with past expenditures resulting in the publication of a graphic novel and cartoons about privacy issues, as well as presentation packages for teachers and a youth video contest.

The government doesn't currently publish anything comparable about Canadians' access rights.

The Treasury Board Secretariat spokesperson stated in an email that individual departments do have instructions on their websites about how to file an access request, as well as a legal requirement to assist applicants.

But the manual that bureaucrats use to interpret and often restrict Canadians' right to know dwarfs those brief instructions. The secretariat's access advice, for example, weighs in at just 389 words. But 57 of the manual's 133 pages are devoted to what kinds of information must or can be kept secret.

Moreover, the government currently doesn't spend any money advertising Canadians' information rights, instead relying on news releases, speeches and tweets to do that job.

Americans are beating us

As a result, responsibility for popularizing that right continues to be principally shouldered by journalists such as Bronskill and McKie, as well as the handful of non-governmental groups concerned with freedom of information issues.

So it's near miraculous that, according to government statistics, 59,947 access requests were filed in the past fiscal year. But that still means just 169 requests were filed per 100,000 persons in Canada.

By comparison, during 2012/13, 222 requests were filed per 100,000 persons in the United States. That means Americans, who have considerably greater access to government records without using freedom of information requests, are using their right to know law 31 per cent more than we are.

And that's probably just the way Canada's paternalistic public officials want it. After all, for them, the fewer Canadians who understand how to file freedom of information requests, the better.

At their best, the responses to those requests tell us what's really happening behind the closed doors and drawn curtains of government. And, at their worst, they remind us just how little the government cares about our right to know — a secret parties of all stripes have been trying and failing to cover up for years. 

This article originally appeared on The Tyee.

Image Credit: Leo Hidalgo via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As the mid-term elections in the United States continue to heat up, a new report released Wednesday shows that Canadian corporations have registered at least $15.3 million USD in spending on direct lobbying of the U.S. federal government in the first nine months of 2014.

That includes $2.87 million by Canadian National Railway Company in the face of increasing regulatory attention to the rail transport industry on both sides of the border, said the report — Are Canadian corporations spending to influence the U.S. political process?

Written by The Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE), the 13-page report noted that the TransCanada Corporation, well aware that the controversial Keystone pipeline project is up for approval at the federal level, spent $1.07 million on political lobbying from January to September.

The author of the report, Kevin Thomas, SHARE’s Director of Shareholder Engagement, said in a telephone interview that Canadian companies are clearly involved in political spending in the U.S.

“The problem is there’s no real requirement for disclosure on either side of the border that can quantify the extent of that spending,” Thomas said.

There needs to be transparency and proper oversight when it comes to companies trying to get involved in the political process, he added.

“Investor interest here [in Canada] is not necessarily being well served by lobbying.”

Other Canadian companies involved in U.S. lobbying include Blackberry ($2.59 million), Manulife Financial ($1.67 million), Bombardier Inc. ($1.39 million) and Barrick Gold Corporation ($1.26 million).

“As in Canada, corporations and unions are barred from contributing directly to U.S.  federal political candidates,” the report said. “However, they have multiple means of contributing funds to political activity that do not run afoul of this limit, and due to incomplete disclosure regimes, much of that spending is not transparent.”   

The report notes corporate contributions to political campaigns in the U.S. occur through direct contributions by a corporation’s Political Action Committee (PAC), contributions to so-called Super PACs, and indirect contributions to non-profit organizations and trade associations.

PACs pool money donated by members and contribute funds to political campaigns, the report said, while Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums on campaigns but cannot contribute directly to candidates or coordinate their spending activity with a candidate’s campaign.

Non-profit organizations can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising, and while their own spending must be disclosed, their source of funds can remain secret.

“This has given rise to widespread concerns about ‘dark money’ in U.S. elections,” the report said. “So far this year, dark money has already accounted for over $100 million in spending, and some observers expect it to top $200 million by the time the election is held.”

The veil was lifted on one of these non-profit organizations this fall when a technical glitch exposed a list of the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) contributors. The organization offered perks for corporations that donate, including “intimate gatherings” with governors and other VIPs, the report details.

TransCanada Corporation ($50,000) was also listed among the contributors, the report said.  “Other known donors to the RGA are Barrick Gold, who gave $25,000 in 2012 and Encana, which gave $50,000 in 2013.”

Another non-profit organization with significant corporate support is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that drafts and promotes legislation.

“ALEC came under intense scrutiny for advocating the adoption of ‘stand your ground’ laws (legalizing the use of lethal force by civilians if they believe they face an imminent threat of serious bodily harm) across the U.S. even after the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida in 2012.”

ALEC has also advocated the expansion of “right-to-work” laws, and has been accused of climate-change denial, the report added.

“A number of U.S. companies including Google and Facebook took a reputational hit when they were found to be supporting the organization. Although its membership is still largely secret, TransCanada has recently been shown to sponsor ALEC’s activities.”

The report said the lack of effective disclosure regulations in the U.S. and in Canada means Canadian investors have no idea to what extent their companies have been contributing to U.S. political campaigns, or why.  

“What we do know is that although foreign corporations are banned from directly contributing to a candidate’s campaign, their U.S. subsidiaries are allowed to form a Political Action Committee and solicit contributions from their managers or shareholders.”

In many cases, as the report outlines, amounts disclosed at both the federal and state level by Canadian corporations are likely financially immaterial to shareholders. “The problem is that they may represent only a small part of what the company spends to influence political outcomes in the U.S.”

“Too much is still hidden from view.”

The report added there is also a real need for disclosure of corporate associations with particular political positions so that investors can decide whether the company’s political activity is consistent with their own long-term interests, and whether the company is vulnerable to reputational risks as a result of that spending.

The report notes that the Vancouver-based SHARE is engaged in a three-year project looking at how Canadian corporations’ influence on public policy debates and decision-making affects the interests of long-horizon investors.

“Institutional investors in the United States have been raising concerns about disclosure of corporate political spending for years,” the report said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Partisans may not believe it, but Canada’s “culture of secrecy” existed long before Stephen Harper moved into the prime minister’s office. And it’ll be around long after he moves out, unless Canadians do more than just cast their ballots in the next election.

That’s why four groups concerned about freedom of information, one of which I’m part of, are launching a campaign encouraging Canadians to take a small but vital step on social media that would raise more awareness of just how much is being hidden from us: spotlighting examples of government secrecy with the hashtag #cdnfoi.

Such secrecy has its roots in our political system, which has a tradition of strict party discipline. Because of that discipline, decisions made by the government behind closed doors – in cabinet meetings, for example – are rarely defeated in the House of Commons, making secret forums the principle arbiters of public policy.

To be sure, the Harper administration has done more than its share to cultivate a backroom state, frustrating access to government records and officials, as well as failing to fix our broken freedom of information system. But Canadian society is an especially fertile ground for the growth of policies that violate our right to know.

In part, that’s because our country doesn’t have any groups that exclusively and routinely advocate for greater freedom of information at a national level. Probably the closest we have to that is the small BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.

But, as its name implies, the association’s two staff members toil on information and privacy issues in British Columbia and the rest of Canada from a tiny office above a beauty salon and spa in Vancouver.

Meanwhile, other organizations that care about our right to know have even more multiplicitous mandates. For example, Ottawa’s DemocracyWatch stands on guard for democratic reform and corporate responsibility, as well as freedom of information. Meanwhile, Halifax’s Centre for Law and Democracy also deals with other human rights issues abroad.

By comparison, the United States has three umbrella organizations that exclusively safeguard Americans’ right to know.

They include: OpenTheGovernment.org, representing 94 groups; the National Freedom of Information Coalition, representing 30 dues-paying groups; and the Sunshine in Government Initiative, representing nine groups.

Such umbrella organizations have always been few and far between in Canada.

In the seventies, a coalition called ACCESS: a Canadian Committee for the Right to Public Information was established to lobby for greater freedom of information.

Reports from the Globe and Mail back then described the committee as having the backing of groups such as the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association.

But long-time right to know researcher Ken Rubin stated in an email that ACCESS, which played a key role in the creation of Canada’s current freedom of information law, was actually “primarily a group of diverse individuals” that included academics, activists and lawyers and had some “paper” affiliations with other organizations.

Despite that key role, by the eighties the committee had folded. According to Rubin, during the same decade, a “loose coalition” came together under the auspices of the Canadian Federation of Civil Liberties and Human Rights Associations to “monitor and improve” freedom of information. That coalition also “went by the wayside” once the federation “faded away.”

Then, in January 2000, investigative reporter Robert Cribb announced the formation of Open Government Canada – a “national forum for FOI networking, education and advocacy pushing for legislative changes that grant greater access to public information.“

More than 25 groups were represented at its founding conference in March of that year. However, in an email, Cribb stated the coalition “died a regretful death.”

The reason: “It proved to be impossible to lure financial support for such an endeavour – part of the perplexing lack of concern, engagement or righteous indignation in Canada around issues such as freedom of information and the public's right to know.”

Those concerns aside, in 2011, DemocracyWatch launched the Open Government Coalition. So far, the coalition is made up of three groups – not counting DemocracyWatch and an affiliated charity. Although founder Duff Conacher stated in an email he plans to expand it this fall.

In the meantime, the New Democrats and the Liberals have proposed laws and policies that would open up government. They should be applauded for doing so. And, if the past is a predictor of the future, they may even act on some of those proposals if they win power – just as the Conservatives did.

But eventually the expediency of secrecy seems to seduce every government, regardless of its political stripe. Which means a New Democrat or Liberal administration will likely become just as tight with information as the Conservatives – albeit, perhaps, with more of a velvet glove covering that clenched, iron fist.

Don’t believe me? Well, look no further than the United States where Democrat president Barack Obama swept into office promising an “unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

Five years later, an Associated Press analysis found that in 2013 his administration “more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.”

More recently, the agency also listed “eight ways the Obama administration is blocking information.”

Meanwhile, for his part New York Times reporter James Risen has called Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation.”

Just as neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on the truth, neither has a monopoly on secrecy.

As a result, it’s vital for Canadians to start paying better attention to our information rights so we can better safeguard them.

That’s why the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Canadian Association of Journalists, DeSmog Canada and IntegrityBC, are now encouraging Canadians to tweet about threats to their right to know using the hashtag #cdnfoi.

Those threats include everything from backroom government meetings and frustrated freedom of information requests to inaccessible officials and nonexistent public records, whether they are at the federal, provincial or local level.

At present, the use of that hashtag isn’t widespread, making it more difficult for Canadians to know about such threats.

So, by just tagging stories about government secrecy with #cdnfoi, you can help your fellow citizens know about what they aren’t being allowed to know.

And you can encourage others to take up the fight by sharing these graphics promoting #cdnfoi – helping change Canada’s culture of secrecy in the process.

Image Credit: Will Brown

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.