MPs should be eyeing a bigger chopping block for interference issues

As parliamentarians and the government slowly navigate how much data on long-standing foreign interference in Canadian affairs should or should not come out, it becomes apparent that their will to be transparent, accountable, and to act to set up effective protections is not really there. The latest twist comes with a National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) report citing intelligence saying some current and former parliamentarians strayed into helping, and—in some cases—being rewarded by foreign powers. But the redacted version doesn’t name any MPs. Politicians have now handed this hot potato over to the Foreign Interference Commission to deal with. But the commission is already hampered in its probe of recent electoral foreign interference by not getting all cabinet documents for their ongoing examination. Those documents remain unavailable for at least 20 years. The Privy Council Office states it is not willing to hand over an unidentified number of cabinet records, and has redacted parts of other cabinet records. Yet the intelligence community provided the commission with records in confidence “summaries” reputedly based on some cabinet documents. Normally, access to information rules exempt and do not have to say anything much about MPs’ inputs into government operations or electoral matters since MPs are outside the access act's purview. And Parliament has avoided agreeing to suggestions that its operations and those of parliamentarians be subject to access to information coverage. The problem of knowing—or being misinformed—about foreign interference in Canadian affairs is hardly new. It has taken years to make this matter one of parliamentary investigation and legislation. Meanwhile, domestically, there is a growing pattern of interfering with, delaying, and repressing requests made under Canada's limited access to information legislation. Two recent examples come to mind where I’ve encountered the right to know about important safety matters being compromised. In one case, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) just sent me a response to a 2014 request on mercury poisoning and its impacts in Canada. Its release—10 years late—comes at the same time that a Grassy Narrows lawsuit was filed on the deadly effects mercury pollution has had on this Treaty 3 First Nation. The ECCC documents have monitoring charts on northern and Prairie sites near the oilsands, and very limited data on other regions' mercury exposure. Belatedly obtained ECCC 2014 briefing notes—with policy advice exemptions still applying on possible mercury regulatory actions—emphasize the high risk mercury exposure poses to those “who eat large amounts of fish or marine mammals, such as Arctic Aboriginal peoples who rely on traditional foods.” The briefing also indicates that “ver 95% of the mercury deposited in Canada” come from foreign sources with approximately 42% coming from China, 17% from the United States and 8% from Europe (without Russia).” Upon inquiry, Environment Canada indicated it had no intention of releasing redacted data as “xemptions are valid if the record came into existence less than twenty (20) years prior to the request.” No matter that this request dealt with a deadly neurotoxin. In another case, it took Global Affairs Canada three-and-a-half years to respond to a November 2020 request on what the Canadian government was doing about the oil pollution Frontera Energy Ltd.—a Calgary-based oil exploration company—left behind in northern Peru. The Global Affair documents show that they were well aware of the company's 2015-2021 record of not consulting the local people while disrupting the health and fragile environment in a rainforest area where Indigenous Peoples lived. But in the records, Global Affairs claims it was not there in Peru to be a “mediator” in a dispute, but it says it expects “responsible business conduct by Canadian companies operating” overseas, and that somehow such corporate malfeasance will be resolved without its intervention. The access records outlined Canadian NGOs’ unsuccessful efforts for the Canadian Embassy in Peru to take action. An April 1, 2023, Globe and Mail article—“Hollow Core”—outlined the controversies and the contamination and environmental violations Frontera left behind. The Globe quoted those who believed that the Canadian government was not being active in demanding that Frontera clean up the pollution it left behind, and was not helpful in supporting the affected Indigenous people's valid grievances. This was a case where every few months, Global Affairs kept saying the Frontera file release was imminent, but then it was always being held up at the approval stage. Part of the finally received Global Affairs response was exempted as policy advice and as commercial sensitive. There has not been a parliamentary investigation initiated on this egregious example of a Canadian oil company’s interventions leaving behind a trail of environmental degradation. In May, Treasury Board President Anita Anand issued a Trust and Transparency Strategy that no one has really taken seriously, writes Ken Rubin. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade So when Treasury Board President Anita Anand issued a Trust and Transparency Strategy this May restating that secrecy and delay problems with the access to information system are to be dealt with by plans to use expensive technology-driven tools, no one really took that plan seriously. Anand did not even bother subjecting her very vague “trust us” blueprint or its implementation costs to a review by the House of Commons Access to Information Committee, saying MPs should wait around for a “review” of sorts that may begin in mid-2025. While MPs are caught up with the transparency issue of whether their colleagues or former colleagues should be named for “wittingly” collaborating with foreign powers interfering in Canadian affairs, they should not overlook how they deal with the domestic government interference in the public's knowledge about what government agencies are up to. Ken Rubin writes about transparency issues and is reachable at kenrubin.ca. The Hill Times