Lacking confidence

The Globe and Mail adds yet another example of the suppress first, hope nobody asks any questions later strategy the Cons have encouraged in dealing with information requests:

The Defence Department has been ignoring federal access to information policy in an attempt to avoid releasing large chunks of material related to individuals detained during Canada's Afghanistan mission.

Last year, The Globe and Mail submitted several requests under the access to information law for material sent by the Department of National Defence regarding detainees captured by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan during 2006.

The department responded in May that almost all such documents could not be released because they constituted cabinet confidences, a special designation that means requested material is outside the access act...

Long-standing Treasury Board policy requires any department to obtain approval from the Privy Council Office before invoking the cabinet-confidence provision to withhold information. The Globe complained to Robert Marleau, the Information Commissioner. According to an investigation report sent to The Globe, “PCO was not consulted by National Defence.”

Only after intervention by the Information Commissioner did the department process the material correctly. PCO reviewed the records and confirmed they did not constitute cabinet confidences.

What we don't know yet is where the policy actually originated. And while the blame currently seems likely to fall on National Defence, there's reason for concern that the issue goes far higher.

After all, this is far from the first time that the Cons have been caught trying to suppress documents based on a blanket policy rather than allowing the Department of Defence to meet its obligations under the Access to Information Act by actually considering what should be disclosed. And given the Cons' history of spuriously claiming national security as a reason to avoid any embarrassing truths, it wouldn't be at all surprising if they similarly tried to authorize National Defence to use the cabinet confidence designation even where it obviously doesn't apply.

More importantly, it's also far from clear just where else other similar policies might be in place. In the case of National Defence, the information embargo only emerged as an obvious response to the Cons' embarrassment on the Afghan detainee issue. But it's worth wondering if the Cons have managed to pre-emptively cover their tracks elsewhere - as well as asking why Canadians should settle for a government which raises such serious concerns about what's going on behind closed doors.