On independent reporting

Along with the story on the Cons' systematic throttling of information, the other major story yesterday was the Star's report on Peter Van Loan's suppression of a report on the federal gun registry. But I have to wonder if there's a relatively simple solution available to at least part of the problem with the gun report:

Van Loan told reporters he had the report in hand for "several days." He went on to accuse firearms staff of inflating numbers in the report to justify the existence of the gun registry.

In fact, the document trail shows the RCMP – as required by law – submitted the report to the minister's office on Sept. 18. The RCMP anticipated it would be released within the usual 15 sitting days.

But it was held until Nov. 6 while Van Loan's staff pored over the statistics within and tried to parse data that showed the firearms registry's use and popularity is on the rise.
...
Unhappy with the contents of the report, ministerial staff asked for further explanations of statistics that showed a rise in police queries to the firearms registry, and greater satisfaction with service provided over the Internet or telephone.

The minister's office demands an explanation for "why the minister has been presented with an inked, bound and printed final draft not long before the document needs to be tabled," and appears to challenge why a report was produced at all, since the minister hadn't issued a direction or instruction on it.

Now, the Cons' efforts to pressure the RCMP about the contents of the report are obviously a problem. But the largest issue looks to have been the timing, as the report was hidden by Van Loan until after a vote in Parliament on the registry being evaluated.

Which raises the question: why should it be left to ministers to decide when and how to release or table statutorily-mandated reports which don't involve any political direction?

Of course, the government shouldn't be caught off guard by a report's release. But there's a difference between making advance copies available a day or two in advance to allow the government (and other parties) to craft their responses, and putting the release timing entirely in the hands of a government which goes out of its way to hide inconvenient facts. And at least some of the Cons' information suppression would seem to be relatively easily countered by ensuring that important reports don't have to flow through ministerial channels.