BC Hydro has gone to court to avoid revealing the names of public employees who decide which companies are awarded lucrative Site C project contracts during construction of the $10.7 billion hydro dam.

B.C.’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) ordered BC Hydro to release the information after Vancouver freelance journalist Bob Mackin, who publishes The Breaker News, lodged a complaint about missing data in Freedom of Information responses and the OIPC conducted an inquiry.

“We’ve got a right to know who is being paid to build and operate and make decisions on any public project or any public office,” Mackin told The Narwhal. “There’s no reason why we can’t have it.”

Mackin said journalists and the public must be able to verify that people making decisions about Site C project contracts are free of conflicts of interest and that they are “not awarding contracts to friends or co-workers, or people they’ve worked with before or companies that they might hold shares in.”

“While their identities are shielded…the conclusion of the public would be ‘maybe there’s something going on behind the scenes,’” he said. “We really need to know that this project is being done in the best fashion. Let us see that this is being done properly.”

BC Hydro’s legal challenge — filed January 18 in BC Supreme Court — comes as the B.C. Legislature expense scandal ignites calls for increased transparency and accountability in government operations.

The Site C dam on the Peace River in northeast B.C. is the largest publicly-funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history.

Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

According to BC Hydro’s website, the hydro project provides opportunities for “a number of large contracts for major project components, as well as multiple smaller contracts for supporting activities and ancillary works.”

BC Hydro awards some contracts directly while others — including contracts worth millions of dollars and, in two cases, $1.6 billion and $1.75 billion respectively — are subject to a bidding process.

Mike Larsen, president of B.C.’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA), pointed out that governments routinely release the names of public employees, including the names of people making decisions about major expenditures from the public purse.

“FIPA’s position is that the OPIC made an effective and accurate ruling in this case and that their decision was a reasonable one,” Larsen told The Narwhal.

He said BC Hydro’s reluctance to release the names of employees involved in adjudicating Site C project procurement proposals is especially concerning given the current “crisis” at the B.C. Legislature, as details continue to emerge about the lavish expenditures of sergeant-at-arms Gary Lenz and clerk Craig James.

“We don’t want to be in a situation where public employees are able to make decisions without the knowledge of the public and without some reasonable degree of scrutiny.”

In a claim rejected by the OIPC, BC Hydro says in court documents that making the names public could constitute a threat to employees’ physical and mental health and safety.

The court documents note that while public debate about the Site C project has often included “genuinely constructive, reasoned and peaceful protest and complaints, there have also been alarming displays of physical and threatened violence.”

As one example, BC Hydro cites a Site C project public information meeting held in Dawson Creek in July, 2015, where a protestor ripped down displays, overturned tables and screamed obscenities at BC Hydro staff.

RCMP who were called to the scene fatally shot a masked man they believed was responsible for the protest, but the person they killed was not the protestor, BC Hydro notes. The Independent Investigations Office investigated the shooting and cleared the RCMP of any wrongdoing.

BC Hydro also claims that unspecified persons made “veiled threats of future violence” at public meetings about Site C and that unspecified persons working on the project were told if they entered private properties impacted by the dam the landowners would be there with “guns waiting.”

In its December 11 order, the OIPC said it was not satisfied of a sufficient connection between the disclosure of withheld employee names and a threat to their health or safety.

“There is no suggestion that particular employees have been targeted because of their association with Site C.”

Incidents described by BC Hydro — which included the discovery in 2017 that a stop sign on the Site C construction site had two bullet holes in it — were directed at the Site C project in general and not at specific employees, the OIPC noted.

“No evidence was provided, however, that anything remotely similar has occurred at BC Hydro’s offices where the procurement assessment presumably takes place and records of the type at issue here are dealt with….It seems more likely that if anyone were to be the target of animosity related to Site C, it would be the board of directors or senior management, yet BC Hydro has not kept their names from the public and there is no evidence that they have been harassed.”

Larsen said FIPA will be watching the judicial review closely, saying it is “unfortunate” it might not be heard until 2020.

Freedom of information law exists to allow the public to scrutinize government decisions and understand how those decisions are made, under whose authority, and who is making them, Larsen noted.

If names are not released, “you can see the slippery slope that leads us to in terms of rendering controversial processes less transparent simply by virtue of the fact that they’re controversial…”

Given the contention surrounding energy projects in Canada, and the Site C dam in particular, Larsen said these projects “are precisely the kinds of things that we want to scrutinize and to have full and informed debate about.”

The OIPC also ordered BC Hydro to release minutes from board of directors meetings and an e-mail exchange with its main civil works contractor, Peace River Hydro Partners, a foreign-owned consortium.

The OIPC agreed with BC Hydro that disclosing information about the Site C project’s contingency figures could be harmful to BC Hydro’s financial interests.

But the OIPC was not satisfied that disclosure of contingency funds already spent on the main civil works contract “could reasonably be expected to harm BC Hydro financially or economically,” according to the order.

BC Hydro is not contesting the rest of the OIPC order and Mackin said he expects the information will be delivered to him this week.

Last year, an international hydro dam construction expert described the high level of confidentiality surrounding the Site C project as “extraordinary” and said he has never encountered such secrecy during his five decades designing, developing and managing large hydroelectric projects, including in China.

The B.C. energy ministry said in an emailed response to questions from The Narwhal that the government cannot comment on BC Hydro filing for a judicial review of the OIPC order “out of respect for the judicial process.”

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 federal government received a failing grade in a new national audit of freedom of information regimes across Canada.

The vast majority of federal departments under the Liberal government, which campaigned on a promise to increase information disclosure and transparency in Canada, failed to fulfill requests within the legal timeframe, the audit found.

“I was surprised at the depth of the how poor the federal performance in the audit was,” Fred Vallance-Jones, audit lead author and associate professor at University of King’s College, told DeSmog Canada. “That wasn’t expected.”

The report states, “this year, the audit has a special focus on the performance of the federal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and performance was even worse than in the latter years of the former Stephen Harper government.”

The national audit, which looks at freedom of information regimes federally, provincially and municipally, was conducted Vallance-Jones and freelance journalist Emily Kitagawa. The audit was prepared for and funded by News Media Canada and is the seventh report of its kind since 2008.

To avoid relying on government reporting and statistics, a team of researchers submitted a total of 428 requests to 24 federal departments, agencies and crown corporations as well as provincial and municipal offices over a period of four months.

At the federal level only a quarter of request were answered within the legal 30-day time limit and one-third of responses were still not fulfilled at the end of the audit timeframe. Two federal departments, the RCMP and the Departmetn of National Defense, provided no response to the requests whatsoever.

“When we were looking at the results, we were so surprised we actually sent emails to a bunch of departments asking, ‘what’s the status of the request,’ expecting them to say, ‘well, we sent our response to you, didn’t you get it?’ ”

Vallance-Jones said the requests, which are made available in the report, were standard and should not have led to delays in response.

Governments in Opposition, Not Power, Champion Access to Information Improvements

Vallance-Jones said he has seen many governments promise to improve the public’s access to information, but few deliver.

“Governments aren’t as enamoured with the idea of freeing information when they’re no longer the opposition,” he said.

“It’s not so shocking from that perspective. But it’s quite a contrast with the promises of government for sunny ways, greater transparency and accountability.”

Vallance-Jones added it’s worth noting the Harper government rode into power on a similar set of promises.

“They promised to change the system after the whole sponsorship scandal and did succeed in adding new crown corporations to the Act.”

“But the Conservatives back off most of the things they promised to do.”

The federal Liberals too have largely failed to move forward on their promised of open, transparent government, Vallance-Jones added.

Bill C-58, introduced by the Liberals in June proposes to amend the current Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, but has been called a step backwards by Canada’s Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault.

The bill notably stops short of extending much-needed order-making powers to the commissioner.

Currently, the commissioner can review complaints filed under the federal system, but does not have the authority to order federal departments to release withheld information.

Several agencies with ties to the federal government are also left outside Access to Information legislation, meaning they have no obligation to release information to the public.

The Liberal government has stopped charging fees for fulfilling access to information requests, aside from a baseline five-dollar processing fee but the bill reintroduces the possibility of new fees as well as the right to deny requests deemed too large.

The audit found feed highly problematic in other Canadian jurisdictions. The City of Windsor provided the auditors with a $1872.60 fee estimate for a routine request, while the Ontario Ministry of Health cashed a cheque for a request but failed to provide the information paid for.

Overall the audit found the federal government’s proposed “watered-down” reforms  saying the Bill actually provides new avenues for agencies to deny the release of information.

Federal Freedom of Information in #Canada Worse Now Than Under #Harper: New Report https://t.co/B7waLPEspS #cdnpoli #cdnfoi @carollinnitt

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 29, 2017

Electronic Data. Because It’s 2017

The audit found the feds consistently failed to provide electronic, machine-readable documents.

The release of paper files or static PDFs that cannot be searched for keywords or data creates an “error-prone, complex process that many would not even attempt and which often yields poor results,” the audit found.

Despite requesting machine-readable records, the auditors found several federal departments did not comply.

“This is an ongoing problem,” Vallance-Jones said.

“Many places did a good job of this, but the feds did a particularly poor job of releasing machine-readable records.”

“This is the 21st century,” he said. “Journalists and the public need access to government data to do their jobs. But there is still a reluctance.”

Vallance-Jones added the audit found information released in electronic format is less likely to be released in full.

“Am I surprised? No. Am I disappointed that we’ve still not moved to a day where information is released electronically? Yes,” he said.

Systemic Problems of Secrecy Left Unaddressed

Not enough has been done to address the level of secrecy baked into the system, Vallance-Jones said.

“The federal government has done something but they haven’t addressed the systemic problems of exemptions, a lack of access to ministers’ offices and that kind of thing.”

“In a sense it’s an old baseline — we have a Westminster Parliamentary system which has always been founded on idea of cabinet secrecy and a civil service that is not heard from, that is silent.”

That lands Canadians in a situation where what is public is what the Minister says is public, Vallance-Jones said.

In addition, over the last several decades governments have become more sophisticated in how they restrict information.

“In general they have become better at turning the apparatus of government to private ends,” Vallane-Jones said, adding this was prevalent in the Harper government’s muzzling, reliance on spokespeople and long communications delays.

“You add that up, and it results in a lot of government secrecy.”

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.

By Andrew MacLeod for The Tyee.

For two years leading up to the May election, the government of British Columbia regularly broke its own law for responding to freedom of information requests, a report from the province’s information and privacy commissioner found.

“Overall, I am frustrated to see that government routinely operates in contravention of B.C. law,” acting commissioner Drew McArthur wrote in Timing is Everything: Report Card on Government's Access to Information Responses.

The report examined responses made during the two-year period that ended March 31. It found that in one out of five cases, the government failed to meet the deadlines for responding that are legislated in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Freedom of Information Seriously Suffered Under BC Liberals' Last Years: Report https://t.co/TmiI876FVz #cdnfoi #bcpoli @bcliberals

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 25, 2017

“I cannot consider an 80 per cent success rate to be satisfactory,” McArthur wrote. “The government needs to accelerate its recent progress in improving timeliness toward the goal of total compliance.”

The poor response rate was despite a 75 per cent increase in the number of requests made to his office for extensions, he said. “Time extensions under FIPPA are intended to be the exception rather than the norm, as each extension delays providing results to the applicant. Ministers need to prioritize responses to access to information requests.”

The law requires responses within 30 business days, though it allows public bodies to request extensions in some circumstances. In 2016-17, the report said, the government completed responses to 9,857 access to information requests. On average, it took 46 days to respond to requests, and those that were late were past due by an average of 62 days, it said.

“Government continues to contravene its statutory obligations,” the report said. “The results also show a decline in government’s performance from earlier this decade when the on-time response rate hovered around 90 per cent for over [four] years.”

Recommendations included proactively disclosing more records, providing more resources to close overdue files and that “Government must take whatever action necessary to respond to access requests within the timelines allowed by FIPPA.”

“We’ll be looking at the recommendations and of course we take them very seriously,” said Jinny Sims, the minister of citizens’ services.

“For 16 long years, under the BC Liberals, we saw government becoming more opaque, a government of triple deletes and a government of win at all costs,” Sims said.

The government, which took office on July 18, has begun consultation on the issue, but won’t rush the review of a law that applies to some 2,800 organizations, she said. “We want to make sure we get this right so that British Columbians can have a government that’s open, transparent, accountable and they get the information in a timely manner, while at the same time balancing the absolute necessity to protect privacy.”

Sims said the compliance rate has risen to 91 per cent since the NDP took office. “That’s a huge progress that’s been made in this very short time,” she said, attributing the improvement to: “Having targets, having people focused, and maybe people seeing there’s a change in government and there is a need to expedite things.”

In an emailed statement, BC Liberal citizens’ services critic Steve Thomson said the “report shows some progress made in improving response times but is also clear that more work needs to be done.”

Image: Former Premier Christy Clark during the 2017 swearing-in ceremony. That didn't last long. Photo: Province of B.C. 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.

Scientists and environmental groups breathed a sigh of relief when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau quickly followed through on a campaign promise to modernize Canada’s environmental laws.

Within a year of being elected, the Liberals initiated four parallel reviews of key environmental legislation weakened or eliminated under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

But now, as that review process is coming to a close, experts are back to holding their breath.

“There is a real climate of concern right now,” Aerin Jacob, Liber Ero scholar and conservation scientist with the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, told DeSmog Canada.

The federal government’s response to bold recommendations for reforming the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act is “underwhelming,” Jacob said.

Federal Response to Environmental Reviews Vague, Concerning

That response — released quietly this summer in the form of a 24-page, diagram-filled discussion paper — was so scant on details experts say it’s distressing.

“This was all under the radar in a very worrying way,” federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May told DeSmog Canada. “I just get the feeling like someone’s pulling a fast one.”

“Releasing this at the end of June with a public comment period ending August 28th, I can’t begin to imagine the average person or even the attentive environmentalist was properly alerted to the content of this document.”

ICYMI: 10 Reasons Ottawa Should Rebuild Our Environmental Assessment Law from Scratch

After multiple requests, the federal government recently extended the public submissions period until September 15.

May said the federal response lacked substance and paves the way for maintaining the devastating changes made to environmental laws under Harper.

“We’ve had all of these consultations with experts and citizens across Canada and now we end up — either by design or happenstance — with the federal government actually rejecting all the key recommendations by the panels without even explicitly saying so.”

“I’m apoplectic with rage that this is being proposed,” May said.

“Now we’re looking at mild tweaking as opposed to the massive repair of our gutted environmental laws.”

May said the regulatory system has been calibrated to serve the needs of industry.

“The changes to our laws have converted many of our agencies into a corporate concierge service to aid the approval of projects,” she said.

Linda Duncan, NDP member of parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona and Energy and Climate Change critic, said it’s troubling that the Liberals have continued to approve major resource projects while relying on “emasculated” laws and processes.

Federal approvals for several controversial projects, including the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, Enbridge Line 9 pipeline, the Site C dam and the Pacific Northwest LNG export facility, have been granted while the review process has been ongoing.

“The government continues to drag its heels on tabling the promised reforms,” Duncan said, adding onlookers have every right to be concerned appropriate actions won’t be taken to meaningfully restore Canada’s environmental laws.

“The initial concept paper issued by the government in response to their own expert review and public feedback is almost completely dismissive of the reforms called for,” Duncan said.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna told DeSmog Canada in an e-mailed statement, “We are committed to making environmental assessment and regulatory changes that regain public trust, protect the environment, support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and ensure good projects go ahead and get resources to market sustainably.”

ICYMI: Trudeau Promised to Fix the National Energy Board. Here’s What His Expert Panel Recommends

Pipeline and Major Project Reviews Plagued With Problems

The laws under review affect everything from fish to water to climate change to how we get energy.

“We entrust government to guide this process that helps us make decisions as a society on what kind of projects and infrastructure we want to see in our environment and on our lands,” said Katie Gibbs, executive director of the science-advocacy organization Evidence for Democracy. “That’s such a fundamental way government touches on and impacts our lives.”

Some of the most contentious project reviews in Canadian history have taken place in recent years.

The Enbridge Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline hearings were beset with problems stemming from what many have identified as a collapse of public trust in the process and Canada’s regulatory bodies.

Matters were made worse when the Harper government forced changes through the budget process to expedite project reviews and weaken public participation in environmental assessments.

Trudeau’s promise of environmental reform spoke directly to the question of how Canada could conduct more meaningful, credible scientific reviews of resource projects with a goal of selecting projects best situated to serve the public interest. (Although it’s important to note Trudeau did not follow through on an explicit promise to restart the Trans Mountain pipeline hearing under a new, modernized review process).

“These are some of the biggest challenges Canadians face today and we have a real opportunity to do things better,” Jacob said.

Is Trudeau Quietly Turning His Back On Fixing Canada’s #Environmental Laws? https://t.co/x9EcM6Nq6B @LindaDuncanMP @ElizabethMay #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 12, 2017

Federal Position Big Step Back From Bold Expert Recommendations

However, the federal government’s discussion paper takes a big step back from the panels’ bold recommendations, Jacob said.

In partnership with 24 other scientists, Jacobs spearheaded the writing of a report, Strong Foundations, that identifies gaps in the government’s response.

“Some of the gaps we talked about mentioned, for example, that we need to have decision rules. These rules would lay out how government — cabinet or the minister, whoever makes the final decision on an environmental assessment — how they came to that decision,” Jacobs said.

Environmental assessments incorporate multiple streams of information, including science produced on behalf of a project proponent, third-party reviews, academic research and traditional Indigenous knowledge.

“All of this information is taken into account in how we make decisions but unless you clearly lay out what role those things play in a decision, it remains a black box.”

ICYMI: Strategic Assessments: A Surprisingly Simple Solution to Canada’s Stalled Energy Debate

Jacobs said the report also touches on the need for greater transparency in the use and sharing of data, incorporation of the precautionary principle, assessment of regional and cumulative impacts as well as impacts of projects on larger national goals like Canada’s climate commitments under the Paris Accord.

Gibbs said Canada has the opportunity to become much more strategic in how and when it uses environmental assessments and what role science plays in those processes.

“One big issue that is left unaddressed is what will even trigger an environmental assessment. Even if you do have an incredibly strong environmental assessment process, if you don’t have a strong evidence-based trigger for what projects actually go through that process, it could end up being meaningless,” Gibbs, a co-author of the Strong Foundations report, said.

Jacob, Gibbs and their co-authors submitted their report to the federal government as part of the discussion paper’s public comment period.

ICYMI: Open Science: Can Canada Turn the Tide on Transparency in Decision-Making?

Fatal Flaws Not Addressed…Yet

Chris Tollefson, lawyer with the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation, said the Liberals could take a political hit for missing this generational opportunity to repair legislation.

”The government will have to realize the risk it’s taking here by potentially reigning in its aspirations and rolling over to industry pressure,” he said.

The government has been under tremendous pressure both in terms of lobbying and also tight review timelines, Tollefson said, and that could account for some of the gaps in its current position.

Of prominent concern to Tollefson, who has represented numerous individuals, environmental groups and First Nations in hearings and legal challenges of major projects, is the use of science bought and paid for by project proponents.

“In that respect the current model is fatally flawed,” he said.

One of the panel’s recommendations for environmental assessments is that Canada move to a model that relies on truly independent, cutting-edge science.

“That is a game changer,” Tollefson said.

“If we miss this opportunity to think more broadly about how we assess major projects, to put them into the proper social, environmental and economic context they deserve, that really is a missed opportunity we potentially won’t have for another generation.”

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 fossil fuel industry lobbied the B.C. government more than 22,000 times between April 2010 and October 2016, according to a report released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives as part of the Corporate Mapping Project.

The report also found that 48 fossil fuel companies and associated industry groups have donated $5.2 million to B.C. political parties between 2008 and 2015 — 92 per cent of which has gone to the BC Liberals.

The analysis found seven of the top 10 political donors from the fossil fuel industry are also B.C.’s most active lobbyists.

The Corporate Mapping Project is a six-year research and public engagement initiative jointly led by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Alberta-based Parkland Institute.

Researchers have painstakingly analyzed lobbying and political donation records to demonstrate the extensive political influence of the fossil fuel industry in B.C.

“I was definitely surprised at the sheer volume of lobbying contacts that we found,” Nick Graham, lead author of the report and PhD candidate at the University of Victoria, told DeSmog Canada.

Spectra Energy, Enbridge, FortisBC, Encana, Chevron Canada, CAPP and Teck Resources conducted the majority of registered lobbying contacts, more than 19,500 in total since the lobbyist registry was first initiated in 2010 — an average of 14 lobbying contacts in B.C. per day.

“We were expecting to see some overlap between political donations and lobbying,” Graham said. “Part of what donations help achieve is access to government so we certainly expected to see some of that.”

The top 10 fossil fuel industry donors were responsible for $3.8 million in contributions to the BC Liberals and $270,000 to the BC NDP.

The Corporate Mapping Project report, co-authored by Shannon Daub of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Bill Carroll, professor of sociology at the University of Victoria, is the first systematic analysis of fossil fuel lobbying in B.C.

Top 10 fossil fuel industry donors in B.C. Source: CCPA, Corporate Mapping Project.

Clear Connection Between Lobbying, Donations and Policy Outcomes

“There is a fairly clear connection between lobbying, donations and policy outcomes that is quite troubling,” Daub told DeSmog Canada.

“It can be difficult to draw a line between a political donation or a meeting and policy because so little information is released to the public about what is going on behind closed doors,” Daub said.

But, she added, a more broad analysis like this can help connect the dots.

“We did note the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, for example, in a one year period between October 2015 and August 2016, reported 201 lobbying contacts with the provincial government specifically in relation to the climate leadership plan.”

“And of course that plan turned out to not be much of a plan at all,” Daub added.

The analysis found 28 per cent of lobbying by the top fossil fuel lobbyists was with cabinet ministers.

Several cabinet ministers were the frequent target of lobbying contacts, the most popular being Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman, who was listed in 733 contacts with the top 10 fossil fuel firms.

The other most contacted senior ministers are Premier Christy Clark (618 contacts), Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett (437), Environment Minister Mary Polak (354) and Finance Minister Mike de Jong (330).

“It really does speak to the development of these close relationships,” Graham said. “You do see particular firms heavily targeting individuals. There is this really tight, if not cozy, ongoing relationship that develops and the perspective of the two become quite closely aligned.”

Companies such as Encana, with significant operations in B.C.’s natural gas plays focused heavily on lobbying Natural Gas Development Minister Coleman, the analysis found.

Source: CCPA, Corporate Mapping Project

Corporate Influence Far Outweighs Environmental Voices

Graham added the analysis was shaped in part by the B.C. government’s push for increased extractive industry projects in the province for nearly the last decade.

“The paper began from the perspective of seeing this really incredible push around expanding fossil fuel development in the province especially around natural gas and the really aggressive promotion of the LNG industry in particular by the government.”

“Part of our question was, ‘how can we explain this? What explains this?’ ” Graham said.

“What we found are there are multiple explanations that point to the structural power of industry and the provincial government’s reliance on resource rent. But also major corporate influence: the ability of corporations to have these stores of capital to pressure government on an ongoing basis.”

The analysis found a total of 1,300 lobby contacts between the government and environmental or non-governmental organizations during the same timeframe.

Daub said there is clearly not level access to provincial decision-makers in B.C.

“What shows really clearly from these numbers is that we have one industry with a very disproportionate level of access to government and government policy,” she said.

B.C.’s Ongoing Transparency Problem

B.C. has some of the weakest political donation rules in the country, which allow unlimited donations from individuals, foreigners, corporations and unions.

“Clearly it’s just time to ban big money in politics all together. One of the recommendations in our report is to put a stop to corporate and union donations and a cap on individual contributions.”

Federally, political parties cannot accept donations from corporations or unions and provinces like Quebec place a $100 limit on personal donations.

“It’s supposed to be one person, one vote,” Daub said. “Instead in B.C. it’s more like one dollar, one vote.”

A level democratic playing field is important for the public to have confidence in the political system but also to feel they can meaningfully participate in the process, Daub said.

Beyond problems with special interest dollars flooding the political process, B.C. also has poor transparency requirements when it comes to lobbying.

Lobbyists must register to lobby in B.C. and provide a list of intended meetings. However, there is no official record kept that distinguishes between intended and actual meetings.

Any meetings requested by public officials are not registered.

In addition, lobby records do not give the public detailed information about the content of meetings.

“Teck is one of the biggest lobbyists in the province among industry groups and they have a particular focus on MLAs,” Daub said. “But what they report they’ve lobbied on is things like ‘mining,’ or ‘employment and training’ or ‘aboriginal affairs.’ ”

“That doesn’t tell us anything about what they’re actually talking to these public officials about.”

Daub said better records should be kept of lobbying interactions that gives the public a decent account of when and how frequently these meetings are taking place and what public policy matters are at stake.

“A more transparent system would make it much easier for the public to find out what is going on in these closed door meetings.”

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.

It describes a framework but could just as easily be read as a request: open science.

And it’s something top of mind for Canadian scientists right now as the federal government is considering changes to the very way science is used to make major decisions about things like pipelines, oil and gas development and mines.

The ongoing federal review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is a huge opportunity to restore scientific integrity to decision-making, scientist Aerin Jacob told DeSmog Canada.

“I really can’t underscore how big an opportunity this is,” Jacob, Liber Ero postdoctoral scholar at the University of Victoria, said, adding Canada could transform the very way science feeds into the environmental assessment and decision-making process.

“One of the challenges being a scientist in wanting to evaluate government’s decisions is that we can’t see the evidence. We can’t see how decisions are being made.”

“It’s like a black box of decision-making. That’s not scientifically rigorous.”

In a conference meeting room in Nanaimo recently, Jacob had the chance to tell the federally appointed review panel how an environmental assessment could be improved by opening up science, not just to the greater scientific community, but to the public.

“All the information from an environmental assessment should be permanently and publicly available,” she said.

“This is more than having binders physically in a library or documents on a server.”

Other participants who presented to the federal review panel pointed to specific examples of when a lack of transparency was detrimental to the environmental review process.

Patrick McLaren, a geologist and expert sediment analyst, participated in the environmental assessment process for the controversial Pacific Northwest LNG terminal proposed for the coast of British Columbia. The project received federal approval in September.

McLaren, who was hired by local First Nations to provide scientific analysis of Flora Bank, a unique eelgrass estuary which provides resting grounds for juvenile salmon in the Skeena watershed, said he was consistently prevented from knowing what specific information the project’s proponent Petronas, and their private consultants, were using to determine no impacts would be made to salmon as a result of the project.

“In my research I came to the conclusion that the design of the terminal would probably result in Flora Bank being totally lost,” McLaren told the panel.

But when McLaren asked what information Petronas used to make the assertion no harm would be done to salmon, he was boxed out.

“I was precluded from asking the modelers questions,” he told the panel, adding that the data that challenged Petronas’ conclusions was not used in the decision-making process nor made public.

“The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans kept the data that did not support their conclusions secret…it was not put into the public domain because it was contrary to the ‘no harm’ mantra that was coming out of the modeling work.”

The Pacific Northwest LNG environmental assessment process, which scientists have called flawed and inadequate, is currently being legally challenged through multiple court cases.

Open Science: Can Canada Turn the Tide on Transparency in Decision-Making? https://t.co/mpZFb6dwUb #cdnpoli #environmental #assessments

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 21, 2016

Adam Ford, Canadian chair of wildlife ecology and assistant professor at the University of British Columbia, worked as a consultant on numerous environmental assessments in Alberta and British Columbia and said the lack of transparency around data plagues the environmental review process.

“I have created something of a wish list for the environmental assessment panel after years of being involved in these reviews and seeing the same problems come up over and over again,” Ford said.

One of the requests submitted to the panel is to increase transparency and reproducibility of findings in environmental impacts assessments.

“In this process they collect data, but it’s tricky because it’s collected by private companies that keep their data and methods secret,” Ford told DeSmog Canada.

“It would be good to see more meta-data on how they collected this data.”

Ford said if all participants in the process were to make their methodologies and findings public it would help standardize the research being done in these ecosystems and landscapes.

It would also help increase accountability by allowing other scientists to understand and retest any conclusions made.

“In other scientsits’ sampling efforts, for example, we could go to those same places and look at the data they collected, ask them ‘how did you choose these samples, when and why?’ We could try to reproduce their findings.”

“But those standards aren’t there and this research is treated as proprietary.”

Ford said from a scientific and peer-review perspective this lack of transparency undermines the integrity of public environmental assessments by not standing up to the expectations of scientific rigour.

Furthermore, he said, not sharing research is simply inefficient. Scientists end up having to do the exact same research over again for environmental assessments because they can’t access the basic information that went into prior reviews.

“If they just shared the data it would help scientists.”

“There are efficiencies to be had throughout this transparency initiative — that’s where Western science is headed. Science is moving us to a more transparent process.”

When thinking about where Western science is headed, Jacob said Canada now has the opportunity to not only modernize its review process but become a world leader in forward-thinking environmental assessments.

“Beyond the raw data we want to see the reproducible code used to analyze it,” Jacob told the review panel.

“This is the recipe we use to come up with conclusions,” Jacob said, showing a chart with raw spreadsheet data on the left and reproducible code for analyzing data on the right.

“It’s not good enough to say ‘I pressed 10 buttons, this is the result I got.’ You need to have other people be able to plug that into their own computer and get the same result.”

It might look complex, Jacob said, “But now kids in High School are learning how to do this.”

Opening up the science to review by other scientists, opening up methods and raw data to the public — all of this is “done in a spirit of making the process stronger,” Jacob said.

“It blows my mind this is not already part of environmental assessments. This would be so easy to implement.”

She added the default for scientists and officials involved in the review process “ought to be sharing information.”

“This is the standard,” Jacob said. “This is a part of a next generation environmental assessment.”

Image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Photo: Prime Minister’s Photo Gallery

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.

This is a guest post by Dermod Travis, executive director of IntegrityBC.

Last month, lobbyists gathered in Vancouver for The Future of Lobbying, a one -day conference put on by B.C.'s Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Simon Fraser Institute's Governance Studies and Public Affairs Association of Canada (B.C. Chapter).

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there does seem to be a future for the industry. In fact, if we're not careful, B.C. could be overrun by lobbyists.

Last year, there were 2,502 in-house and consultant lobbyists registered in the province, up from 1,451 four years ago. Whoever said the B.C. Jobs Plan wasn't working?

While others do get some attention — political staff, deputy ministers and the like — that works out to 30 lobbyists for every MLA.

In Ottawa, there are 3,008 lobbyists or nine per MP.

As one of 14 panelists at the Vancouver conference, it fell on me to provide a bit of insight on the public's perspective towards the industry and a few ideas on how it might be improved.

Somehow has to rain on the parade of rainmakers. Not a tough task, though. There's no shortage of material.

Last month, Missouri state legislator, Bart Korman, tabled Bill 2059.

If it becomes law, lobbyists in that state would be required to disclose any sex given by a lobbyist to a lawmaker or their staff each month. A dollar valuation will not be required when reporting sexual acts. Be thankful for small mercies.

Closer to home, former B.C. lobbyist Marcella Munro found herself in a pickle after taking a post with Alberta's new NDP government.

The Wildrose party was only too happy to blast her appointment by pointing to some of Munro's B.C. blog posts, including: “that saying no to projects like Kinder Morgan, to protect our environment and quality of life” are things to be celebrated.

The posts were quickly taken down and replaced with Alberta-centric messaging.

“My BMW 325i is my favourite possession” was Munro's new riff, telling the Calgary Herald: “there's no planet on which I could try to argue against the oilsands. I love all the good things petroleum does for me — including driving too fast on Highway 2.”

As the Herald's Don Braid put it: “If you have trouble reconciling the contradictions, you are most likely a regular human unconnected with the murky, interlinked worlds of lobbying, campaigning and government advocacy.”

If the industry is an unavoidable evil of modern politics, it was then sacrilege time for the assembled.

First up: transparency.

Reporting only intent to lobby — as the legislation currently requires — isn't good enough. The “if I'm really, really lucky the minister might open my email before he triple deletes it,” isn't the best approach for reporting lobbying activities.

It's meetings that count and lobbyists should be required to report who they've met with as well.

Those on the other end of the bargain — MLAs, political staff, deputy ministers — should also disclose who is lobbying them.

Good way to check to see if everyone's reporting matches up.

Fees paid by clients should be disclosed, as is done in the United States.

Last year, 11,169 lobbyists working Washington, D.C. billed US$2.4 billion, an average of $215,000 each.

A province-wide registry for municipal lobbyists is long over due.

Contingency fee agreements need to be trashed, as is the case at the federal level today.

Public agencies and local governments should be prohibited from hiring outside lobbyists.

In B.C., some universities, local governments, professional bodies such as the College of Dental Surgeons of B.C. and federal agencies like Via Rail and Port Metro Vancouver have all retained lobbyists in the past.

If there was an industry award for client development, it would have to go to Earnscliffe Strategy, who has represented Deloitte since 2013.

The goal: to raise Deloitte's profile and awareness about the services they bring to government. Who knew it needed raising?

Never let it be said that having a higher profile doesn't come with a price. For someone.

In 2010, Deloitte billed the B.C. government a little less than $20 million. By 2015, their billings had risen to more than $50 million.

Hope that wasn't a contingency deal.

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.

This article originally appeared on Climate Access.

Those who work on climate change were both chuffed and chagrined by its role in Canada’s federal election campaign, which peaked last week with the victory of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and defeat of Conservative incumbent Stephen Harper.

“The environment” — a catch-all concept that often encompasses concern about climate change — consistently ranked close to economy and healthcare on voters' list of top priorities. Oilsands and climate change issues took up nearly a quarter of the first leaders debate, commanding more than twice the airtime they did in 2011. Several media outlets ran editorials calling on all parties to take a strong stance on reducing GHG emissions or put a price on carbon.

To quote professor and commentator George Hoberg, “energy and environmental issues have become central to Canadian electoral politics.”

Despite all of this, climate change didn’t have a significant impact on the election’s outcome. Fundamentally this was a campaign about values where action on global warming was bundled into a broader set of aspirations and ideas that Canadians said yes to on October 19th. 

The election of Canada’s new prime minister is an important case study in the powerful potential of values-based messaging. Where the Conservative campaign sought to preserve the status quo and motivate voters with threats of an unstable or unsafe future, the Liberal campaign (and to a different extent, the New Democrats) mobilized Canadians with a vision of change centred on honesty, inclusion and fairness.

Of course, the timing couldn’t have been better. Much has been said about why Canadians’ were ready to bid farewell to one of their longer-standing leaders — corruption, fiscal mismanagement, deepening degrees of intolerance and an overt contempt for basic democratic principles being among them. Under Harper’s rule, Canada became a global pariah on climate change (the dark twin to its role as international cheerleader for the oilsands); even members of the Conservative base were beginning to question his judgment. Voters traditionally divided by ideology found common ground in their disapproval of Harper’s approach to governing, particularly his divisive tenor.

In this context, the fact that Trudeau wasn’t very scientific about how his climate plan would set him above other parties didn’t matter. Why would it, given most Canadians support emission reduction targets but can’t say what a good one looks like or how to achieve it. Election-time focus groups have been clear that Canadians rarely track the policy fine print; they’re lured in by a resonant vision. Trudeau’s generally progressive position on climate change was just one example of what made his party a desirable alternative. And for many — including those who supported strategic voting and ABC (Anything But Conservative) campaigns — what he presented was good enough.

At Climate Access, we regularly advise climate practitioners on using common values to articulate a vision of a better future, as well as the steps towards getting there. It’s a delicate approach that has the potential to come off idealistic or woo-woo if not executed thoughtfully. Certainly not for the risk-averse (neither was Trudeau’s comment about growing the economy “not from the top-down … but from the heart outwards”). But done well, values-based messaging that taps shared aspirations around fairness, equality and innovation, for example, lays the ground for the specific prescriptions or actions needed to achieve the vision. (Tools like Spitfire Strategies’ message box puts values at the start of every frame, and vision at the close.)

Values-focused campaigns can be stressful for people who work on policy. Many smart advocates grumbled over the fact that both the Liberals and NDP avoided getting specific on key aspects of their climate change strategies, including how they might price carbon and the future of oilsands development. “Instead, climate disruption was coded in symbols linked to the national social contract (between regions) and Canadian self-esteem that were much more suitable for the challenging parties,” Canadian pollster and activist John Willis told Climate Access.

This is partly why Trudeau focused on restoring the role (and independence) of science in decision making, as well as working more closely with the provinces and territories.

“The Liberal message about consulting the provinces and bringing the country together was probably the most effective message on climate (and wasn't really a message about climate policy per se, but rather a new style of collaborative governance),” communications specialist and instructor Andrew Frank told Climate Access.

Intelligent skeptics may be tempted to criticize these promises for focusing on process over outcomes. But then, commitments to restore Canada’s environmental laws and give First Nations and other stakeholders a meaningful seat at the table were also sought and received, and neither involve a scientific target.

The reality is the Trudeau-led Liberal campaign raised expectations — exponentially — about the kind of leadership, transparency and accountability Canadians can expect from their federal government going forward. And they made climate change a central indicator of their success on all of these fronts.

The opportunity for climate advocates now is to drive the details. Canadians need information on what smart climate policy looks like (i.e. a strong national action that will cut 1/3 of Canada’s carbon in the next 15 years, on the way to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050), as well as ideas on how to measure our progress. Most people are still unclear on the connection between the oilsands and climate change (perhaps including the new prime minister, who has a mixed position on pipelines). Stories about Canada’s burgeoning renewable energy sector and job market need to be shared and promoted.

There is still lots of work to do, but it should be easier with Canadians agreeing that it’s time to do something.

Sutton Eaves is a communications strategist specializing in environmental issues. She is senior editor and strategist at Climate Access.

Image: Justin Trudeau 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.

Holy smokes.

Polls are in and Canadians across the country are expressing surprise at the strong win for the federal Liberal party.

While there’s much ink to be spilled over former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s reign, he’s likely locked in a bathroom now, so we’ll save that for another, less change-y time.

Canada, you have a new Prime Minister. I would say ‘go home, you’re drunk.’ But don’t, because you’re not. This is actually happening.

But wait, what is actually happening? We have a new majority government. Before the fun gets away with us, let’s do a quick reality check for what the Liberal Party and incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have been promising all y’all on some of our top DeSmog Canada topics: climate, environment, science and transparency.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals on Climate

On the issue of Canada’s climate commitments for the UN climate summit this fall in Paris, the Liberal platform is underdeveloped. On the campaign trail last week party leader Justin Trudeau told the CBC he would not commit to specific emissions targets.

“Everybody has thrown out numbers and different targets, and what they’re going to do and what is going to happen,” Trudeau said.

“What we need is not ambitious political targets. What we need is an ambitious plan to reduce our emissions in the country.”

The federal Conservative party promised to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2050, a target that has been roundly criticized as weak. Others have pointed out the Conservative plan made no mention of the Alberta oilsands, the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada.  

Although the Liberals don’t have a specific plan yet, the party has promised to establish a new climate change framework by February 2016 that includes an eventual phase out of fossil fuel subsidies. The plan will also include investment in climate resilience, clean technology and low-carbon infrastructure.

The party will also set aside $2 billion for emissions-reducing projects through a new Low Carbon Economy Trust.

Trudeau has also promised to attend climate negotiations in Paris with all of the premiers and to work with the provinces on emissions reduction plans that are location specific.

Importantly the Liberals have also promised to work with other countries like Mexico and the U.S. in developing shared clean energy plans.

Liberals on Environment

The Liberal party is promising to undo some of the damage done to Canada’s environmental laws and environmental assessment process for projects like pipelines.

The party promises to establish new, credible reviews for proposed development that are comprehensive, consider full and cumulative impacts, including upstream impacts like development in the oilsands, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

Their revamped review process promises to be evidence-based and allow for more meaningful participation by the public.

Liberal party candidate Jonathan Wilkinson, who took the North Vancouver riding with 56 per cent of the vote, has also promised to scrap the current Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline review in favour of a revitalized process.

Trudeau has voiced his support for pipelines, including the Kinder Morgan and Keystone XL pipelines, but has also acknowledged “even though [it is] governments that grant permits, ultimately it’s only communities that grant permission.”

In that light, the party is also promising to engage more respectfully with First Nations during the consultation process. Considering cumulative impacts around the oilsands has been a major issue for local First Nations. On this note the Liberals have also promised to immediately implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — something that will alter the manner in which First Nations are approached and consulted on major energy projects.

Since 2012 the Conservative party has weakened and eliminated many of Canada’s strongest environmental laws, including the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act.

The Liberals have promised to review changes to both of these Acts, re-instate what was removed from them and possibly up protections where warranted.

Significantly for B.C. the Liberal party has promised a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on the province’s north coast.

Liberals on Science

The Liberal party has taken a strong stance on the war on science in Canada, promising to free scientists to speak publicly about their work.

Trudeau has also promised to instate a Parliamentary Science Officer to ensure transparency, expertise and independence of federal scientists. This position will mirror that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In addition to unmuzzling scientists, the party also wants to work collaboratively with the provinces, First Nations and other stakeholders when it comes to ocean management.

This is significant in light of the Conservative government’s de-funding of numerous marine science programs, including the only research being conducted into the effects of industrial pollutants on marine mammals. The Liberal party has promised to reinstate $40 million of funding for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Liberals plan on incorporating more science into federal environmental assessments including the consideration of climate change and environmental impacts of oilsands development on pipeline projects. Under the Conservatives both emissions and environmental impacts of the oilsands were considered ‘outside the relevant scope’ of pipeline reviews.

The federal Conservatives also fought against First Nations and conservation groups regarding the Species at Risk Act and its implication for major projects like oilsands mines or pipelines.

The Liberal party has promised to respond more quickly and more scientifically to the issue of at risk species. This means species will be listed faster and mandatory timelines will be put in place for species once they are listed as at risk.

A new version of the Species at Risk Act is already on the Liberal’s environmental plan.

Liberals on Transparency

When it comes to dealing with media, Trudeau has promised to have a much more open and transparent relationship with journalists.

Through its Transparency Act, the party has promised to make access to information much easier for Canadians, including making all government documents freely available online.

The Access to Information Act will be amended to make information ‘Open by Default,’ that is, more easily available to the public, on quicker timelines and for less money.

Current requests under the act cost $5 per request but may be subject to additional fees if the request is large or requires a lot of time. The amended act will limit the possible fee to the initial $5 charge.

In addition the Act will be reviewed every five years and expanded to include the Prime Minister’s Office, which is usually exempt from disclosure rules.

Trudeau has also promised to repeal certain elements of the Conservative’s controversial anti-terrorism legislation Bill C-51.

Former prime ministers, national editorial boards, tech experts, legal scholars, civil society organizations, democracy watchdogs and droves of citizens opposed the bill, saying it undermined the democratic rights of Canadians.

Many were outraged at the Liberals’ decision to support it.

Trudeau has promised to “take a constructive approach to improving the bill” including instituting greater oversight of Canada’s national security agencies and establishing an “all-party committee of Parliamentarians, to provide oversight of various agencies, including CSIS, CSE, the RCMP and DND.”

No matter what, Canadians are in for a real mix up under this new leadership. Reuters is reporting Justin Trudeau will bring “glamour, youth and charisma” to Ottawa in the dawning of this new age. I’ll reserve that kind of cheer for another moment. For now, I’ll just say the Liberal party certainly has their work cut out for them.

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.

This article originally appeared on Sean Holman's Unknowable Country.

Alberta’s freedom of information law is weak and underused. Yet, in an election where one of the most important issues is government accountability, there has been surprisingly little discussion about reforming that law — despite a proposed policy change that could further threaten the public’s right to know.

Alberta has historically been a stranger to freedom of information legislation, which allows access to internal government documents. That access is important because the public can then find out things the officials they elect and the institutions they pay for don’t want them to find out.

But, according to the Globe and Mail, Peter Lougheed — Alberta’s premier between 1971 and 1985 — claimed such legislation was unnecessary because his was one of North America’s most open administrations. His successor Don Getty also rejected and later delayed introducing an access law, stating government information was already “made available by the wheelbarrow loads” in the legislature.

“We mail it to people. It’s provided on a day-to-day basis,” he added.

But there were many outside government who disputed such claims. For example, in 1992, the Calgary Herald reported the Association of Alberta Taxpayers delivered 20,000 coupons to Getty’s office “from individual citizens demanding an information law.”

At the time, association spokesperson Kevin Avram was quoted by the newspaper as saying, “The most difficult government to get information from is right here in Edmonton.”

Getting that information became easier when Ralph Klein’s government finally introduced a freedom of information law in April 1994, making the province the second to last jurisdiction in North America to do so.

But it remains an access laggard.

According to a 2012 report from the Centre for Law and Democracy, Alberta tied with New Brunswick and the federal government for having the worst freedom of information law in the country. In that report, the centre stated the loopholes in Alberta’s legislation create “enormous amount of wiggle room for recalcitrant public officials who would seek to avoid disclosure of embarrassing information.”

In addition, it costs $25 just to file a freedom of information request in Wildrose Country. In Canada, the two territories are the only other jurisdictions with that high of an application fee. And that price tag doesn’t include the additional costs often associated with actually obtaining those records.

I can’t help but think that Alberta’s application fee is one reason why the province’s access law is so underused.

According to the most recent statistics available, in fiscal 2012/13 Alberta government ministries received 60 general freedom of information requests per 100,000 people in the province. By comparison, in Ontario, where the application fee for those requests is $5, that number was 87 in 2012. And, in British Columbia, where there is no charge, that number was 106 in 2012/13.

But, troublingly, Premier Jim Prentice has a plan that could further suppress such access requests in Alberta even further.

Right now, an individual who files a freedom of information request is the only one who receives the records responsive to it. That means reporters and others can get scoops from making those requests — a reward for the considerable time, effort and sometimes money spent on them.

But, in February, CBC News revealed the premier moved to take those scoops away by “personally” ordering government to post responses online for everyone to see, including competing reporters. And if you don’t think that’s a disincentive, just think how you would feel if someone else could constantly claim credit for work you were responsible for.

Prentice’s order has yet to be carried out.

Nevertheless, it’s another reason why opposition parties should be promising to reform the province’s freedom of information legislation, a law that’s benefitted them during the election campaign.

For example, thanks to that law, Wildrose found out the government had spent more than $950 million on sole-source contracts in fiscal 2013/14. Similarly, the Alberta NDP learned of “skyrocketing” ambulance service delays in Calgary and Edmonton.

Both revelations were used to attack the Tories on the campaign trail, where — according to a telephone survey of 758 Albertans conducted for CBC News by the polling firm Return On Insight — accountability is the second most important issue for voters.

Yet the platforms for the Alberta Party, the NDP and the Alberta Liberals don’t include a word about strengthening the province’s freedom of information law. Only Wildrose’s platform promises such a change, while the Greens have a plank that commits them to a “radical overhaul of rules around transparency and accountability.”

Nor have journalists talked much about the need for reform either, perhaps because they believe too many believe Canadians don’t care about that issue — a self-defeating notion, even if it may sometimes be a truthful one.

But what all this amounts to is, at the very least, a missed opportunity to change that indifference, raising awareness among Albertans about why their information rights are important and how those rights can prevent another 44 years of unaccountable governments in this province.

Image Credit: Charlotte Kinzie 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.

Dear government spin doctor,

I am working on a story about how the job you’re doing is helping to kill Canada’s democracy.

I know that your role, as a so-called communications professional, is to put the best spin on what the government is or isn’t doing.

That means you often don’t respond the questions I ask, you help elected officials do the same thing and you won’t let me talk to those who actually have the answers.

While this may work out very well for you, it doesn’t work out so well for my audience who, by the way, are taxpayers, voters and citizens.

So your refusal to provide me with information is actually a refusal to provide the public with information.

And if the public doesn’t know what their government is actually doing, it can continue doing things the public wouldn’t want it to do.

That just doesn’t seem very democratic to me. Does it seem democratic to you?

I understand you’re just doing your job.

I did that job before myself before I became a journalist, working as a communications officer for the British Columbia government.

So I don’t think you’re a bad person.

But you should know a few things about me.

My job isn’t to help you put the best spin on what the government is or isn’t doing.

My job is to tell the truth.

And, because that’s my job, you should know a few other things about how I’m going to report this story.

First, if you don’t respond to my questions, I’m going to let my audience know that.

Second, if you respond to my questions with non-answers, I’m going to let my audience know that too.

Third, I’m not going to put those non-answers in my story for the sake of false balance.

That’s because me asking questions about what the government is doing wrong isn’t an opportunity for you to simply tell the public about what government is doing right.

You have a big advertising budget for that.

Instead, it’s an opportunity to explain to the public why the government is or isn’t doing that thing I asked you about.

And, finally, if you refuse, ignore or interfere with my requests to interview public officials, my audience will also find out about that.

This may sound like hardball at best and blackmail at worst. But it’s actually the last and only defense I have against you and your colleagues.

Public relations professionals outnumber journalists more than four to one in this country – and for good reason.

It pays to promote and protect the powerful but it doesn’t pay to hold them to account.

My hope is that more journalists will also start routinely telling their audiences about the strategies and tactics you use to frustrate the public’s right to know.

If that happens then the public might start caring about the damage that’s doing to our democracy.

And, maybe, just maybe you might start rethinking what you are doing.

After all, there was a time when journalists could actually talk to public officials without having someone like you always watching over their shoulder and telling them exactly what to say.

I know it’s a long shot.

But it’s the only shot I can take against the tyranny of your talking points.

Sincerely,

Sean Holman, Journalist

SQUIBS (FEDERAL)

• Maclean’s magazine reports the Department of National Defence is withholding information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer about Operation IMPAC – Canada’s mission in Iraq – on the grounds of cabinet confidentiality. (hat tip: BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association)

• The National Post reports a Federal Court judge has ruled “media fighting for access to Omar Khadr have failed to show a prison-interview ban was politically motivated and violated their constitutional rights.”

SQUIBS (PROVINCIAL)

• CBC News reports, “Alberta Premier Jim Prentice has personally ordered that documents from all general freedom of information requests be publicly posted, despite serious concerns from the civil servants responsible for implementing the new policy. Critics say the plan – if implemented – represents a major policy change that will seriously undermine the ability of opposition parties and the media to hold the government accountable.”

• “The province is not tracking how many inmates are overdosing in jails across Ontario,” according to the Hamilton Spectator.

• The Vancouver Sun reports, “Soon-to-be mandatory ‘independent’ review boards for tailings dams at B.C. mines may not be answerable to government or open to scrutiny by the public.” The boards were recommended by a government-appointed panel that was struck following the breach of a tailings pond at the Mount Polley Mine.

• The Telegram hopes a committee reviewing Newfoundland and Labrador’s controversial right to know law will recommend a “much needed laissez-faire approach to the release of information.” That committee, led by former premier Clyde Wells, “has missed a couple of promised deadlines. At last check, it was supposed to release its report by the end of January.”

• Kinder Morgan Inc., the company that is looking to expand a pipeline that carries crude oil to the West coast, “has engaged in a protracted fight with the province of British Columbia in an effort to keep its oil spill response plans a secret.” But, according to DeSmog Canada, Kinder Morgan has “willingly disclosed” such plans “south of the border for portions of the pipeline that extend to Washington State.”

• The Globe and Mail reports, “B.C.’s Ministry of Health is withholding the results of scientific research on how oil and gas operations in the province’s northeast communities are affecting human health.” Independent MLA Vicki Huntington’s freedom of information request for that research was denied because its release could be harmful to the financial interests of a public body.

• CBC News reports Saskatchewan’s information commissioner has ruled a 15-page proposal to create a premier’s library in that province can stay secret because it would disclose a cabinet confidence.

• Saksatchewan NDP MLA Warren McCall has told the Regina Leader-Post that the creation of lobbyists registry in that province as proceeding “slower than molasses, uphill, in February.”

• Manitoba’s “Opposition Progressive Conservatives say they’re getting the runaround in finding how much taxpayers have paid to put up at-risk youth in hotels,” according to the Winnipeg Free Press. (hat tip: Ian Bron)

• CBC News reports DemocracyWatch founder Duff Conacher’s concerns that “New Brunswick’s right to information law is weak and the fines for breaking the laws are so low, they are meaningless”

SQUIBS (LOCAL)

• Winnipeg’s interim chief administrative officer has resigned after the mayor claimed he had lost confidence in the bureaucrat. But, according to the Winnipeg Free Press’s Dan Lett, no further details have been provided because the resignation is a personnel matter – a “trump card” that is “played way too often in situations in which government doesn’t want people to know what happened.”

• 24 hours Vancouver’s Kathyrn Marshall writes that White Rock, B.C.’s city council has “voted to scrap question period. Just like that, White Rock has obliterated a hallmark of liberal democracy. White Rock residents will no longer have the opportunity to pose public questions to their elected representatives following council meetings.”

• In October, TransLink – Vancouver’s regional transportation authority – began “re-examining current [freedom of information] practices and exploring options for easing the burden on staff.” That review, which was expected to take three months, was announced in a memo signed by the authority’s then-chief executive officer Ian Jarvis and obtained by freelance journalist Bob Mackin.

• The Vancouver Courier reports, “When the provincial government set the rules for the non-binding plebiscite on a sales tax hike for TransLink expansion, it didn’t include any campaign fundraising or reporting regulations.”

• “Toronto police met the mandated [freedom of information] response deadline of 30 days in 52 per cent of requests last year,” according to the Toronto Star. “That’s nearly a 30 per cent drop from 2005 – when 80 per cent of FOI requests were completed within the 30-day timeframe – and down almost 15 per cent from 2013, which saw a compliance rate of 65 per cent.”

• Alberta’s information commissioner has ruled Cold Lake, Alta. was right to release records that disclosed unit prices and hourly wage rates for the companies responsible for a highway twinning project. According to the Cold Lake Sun, a third party had argued that disclosure was harmful to business interests.

This article originally appeared on Sean Holman's Unknowable Country.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

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.