Centre for Law and Democracy

The government of Bangladesh recently approved a Digital Security Bill which has now been sent to parliament for its review and ultimately adoption. An Analysis by CLD shows that the Bill fails in several important ways to respect international guarantees of freedom of expression. This is despite the fact that a lot of criticism has already been directed at provisions in Bangladeshi laws which restrict freedom of expression online, under which 21 journalists were charged over just four months in 2017.

“The Bill includes numerous provisions which either duplicate existing provisions in the Penal Code or establish restrictions on digital content which fail to respect international standards”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “We very much hope that the government recognises that this Bill is not the right way forward and, instead of trying to pass it, consults with local stakeholders with a view to amending it.”

Some of the more serious problems with the Bill include:

• Content restrictions which are vague and/or overbroad, which protect interests that are not recognised as legitimate under international law, or which duplicate offences that are already covered in more carefully tailored ways in the Penal Code.
• Significant overreach, based on very wide definitions, leading to the criminalisation of perfectly innocuous activities, such as the fact that changing the settings on your own computer is included within the offence of hacking.
• Oversight bodies that are firmly under government control, contrary to the international law rule that regulatory bodies for expressive activities need to be independent of government.
• Leaving it up to the government to define the main functions and powers of key regulatory bodies, rather than including these in the primary legislation.

CLD calls on the government to substantially revise the Bill to address these and other problems, and then to table it in Parliament again.

The Analysis can be accessed here: Analysis of Bangladesh’s Draft Digital Security Bill

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+1 902 431-3688
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

A new Analysis by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) of the latest proposed Right to Information (RTI) Law reveals a relatively robust draft but with some shortcomings. The RTI Law, which will allow citizens to obtain information from public bodies, is key in any democracy, enhancing government accountability and improving trust between government and the people.

“It is encouraging that Myanmar is moving forward on this important issue, which will help it in its democratic transition,” said Toby Mendel, Executive, CLD. “We hope that when the law is placed before parliament they will be open to making changes to improve it further. Our work on this continues by working with media organisations and civil society organisations for which this law will be essential.”

The draft RTI law was released in late December 2017. When adopted, Myanmar will join the nearly 120 countries around the world that have RTI legislation, although the draft has not yet been placed before parliament. The Analysis was prepared by CLD with the support of International Media Support (IMS) and Fojo Media Institute.

The Analysis points to both “easy wins”, changes which are relatively easy to make, and ‘important gains’, changes that are important but which may either encounter more opposition or require a bit more effort. Some of the key points are:

• The law should make it clear that it covers all bodies created by statute as well as bodies which are owned, controlled or substantially funded by public bodies.
• The law should include a list of categories of information that every public body must, at a minimum, publish proactively.
• The procedures for lodging and processing requests should be substantially strengthened.
• A public interest override should be added to the law, so that information covered by an exception would still be disclosed where this was in the overall public interest.
• The law should include at least a general framework for the processing of appeals.
• A clause on whistleblower protection should be added to the law.

We urge the parliament of Myanmar to consider the recommendations in our Analysis with a view to bringing the draft Law more fully into line with international standards.

The Analysis is available at: Myanmar: Analysis of Draft Right to Information Law

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+1 902 431 3688
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) published a Draft Policy on Public Information in January 2018. According to Comments by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) and Bank Information Center (BIC), the draft Policy is a good start but far more is needed if it is to serve as a stable, effective mechanism for promoting transparency and access to information at the Bank.

“We welcome the fact that the draft Policy starts from a presumption of maximum disclosure”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “But this is undermined in practice by a vague and highly discretionary regime of exceptions, very few set procedures for the making and processing of requests and an unclear and very limited system of appeals.”

“The draft Policy does incorporate a number of civil society recommendations, including an emphasis on accountability to stakeholders and an override of exceptions where this is mandated by a legitimate interest”, said Elizabeth Summers, Infrastructure Policy Manager, Bank Information Center. “However, among other problems, the Policy should aim to harmonise standards for openness across all of AIIB’s operations and include a list of documents that will be disclosed on a proactive basis.”

The CLD/BIC Comments are available here: Comments on the Draft Policy on Public Information of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, while notice of the consultation and draft Policy are available at: https://www.aiib.org/en/policies-strategies/operational-policies/public-consultation/index.html.

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+1 902 431-3688
www.law-democracy.org                                  
twitter: @law_democracy

Elizabeth Summers
Infrastructure Policy Manager
Bank Information Center
Email: esummers@bankinformationcenter.org
+1 (202) 624-0622
www.bankinformationcenter.org

Information Commissioners from Sri Lanka and India undertook a mission to Mexico’s National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection (INAI), the oversight body in that country, last week to exchange best practices and experiences regarding oversight of the right to information. During the technical visit, on 7-8 March 2018, they met with different local actors both within INAI and externally, while on 9 March 2018 they participated in a public workshop. The visit was organised by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) with the support of The Social Architects in Sri Lanka, and a former Information Commissioner of Canada also participated.

 “The rich exchanges that took place during this visit will hopefully contribute to the strengthening of each participating commission’s work,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “This visit demonstrates the benefits of South-South knowledge exchanges to building capacity to overcome right to information challenges.”

During the technical visit, INAI showcased information about its insitutional arrangements and practices. Representatives of civil society and regulated entities in Mexico also shared their persepectives regarding the implementation of  the right to information. During the workshop, titled Information Oversight Bodies in North America and South Asia: An Exchange of Views, participants discussed the systemic strengths and weaknesses relating to oversight of to information in each of their countries and shared ideas about how to create truly open public administrations or transparency by design.

For further information, please contact:
Portia Karegeya
Legal Officer
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: portia@law-democracy.org
+1 4243258650
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

The Centre for Law and Democracy issued a letter to British Columbia’s Minister of Citizens’ Service, Jinny Sims, copied to the Premier of British Columbia, John Horgan, commending their announcement that consultations will be planned to discuss amending the British Colombia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) from 26 February to 9 April 2018.  CLD urged that the consultation be followed promptly with concrete law reform proposals, and that the practice of posting online publicly the texts of access to information requests even before they have been responded to be stopped in order to avoid having a chilling effect on certain types of uses of FIPPA, in particular for investigative journalism. The letter is reproduced below and can be accessed here.

Honourable Jinny Sims
Minister of Citizens’ Services
PO Box 9068
Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC
V8W 9E2

CC:
Honourable John Horgan
Premier of British Columbia
PO Box 9041
Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, BC
V8W 9E1

28 February 2018

Dear Minister:

We are writing to commend you for announcing, on 26 February 2018, that you are planning to host consultations on amending the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), running from that date until 9 April.

CLD believes that it is high time to amend the FIPPA and that these consultations are, therefore, very timely. According to our assessment, FIPPA earns only 97 points out of a possible 150 on the RTI Rating (see https://www.law-democracy.org/live/rti-rating/canada/). This puts it in second place in Canada, down from first place following the 2015 reforms in Newfoundland which vaulted that province into top position nationally. But British Columbia only ranks 37^th place when compared to other countries around the world, just behind Russia. Major reforms are clearly needed.

Law reform, especially on public policy issues, should always be the subject of consultation. But these issues have been studied and discussed for literally decades and we know – and experts largely agree on – what needs to be done. This is true across Canada as well as specifically in British Columbia, where public consultations by a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly in the fall of 2015, to which CLD contributed (see our submission), led to a comprehensive report in May 2016 containing 39 concrete recommendations for reform.

The urgency of this matter is informed not only by the facts that reforms are long overdue and that extensive consultations on this matter have already been held. Moving forward promptly with these reforms can help avoid a situation we have witnessed all too often in Canada, namely that pledges to reform access to information laws fall by the wayside or get substantially watered down if they are not implemented early in the mandate of a new government.

We therefore urge you to follow consultations promptly with concrete law reform proposals. CLD will support this process by providing inputs into the process. We hope that British Columbia can once again claim top position in Canada regarding access to information, a key issue for democratic engagement.

Finally, we understand that the practice of posting online publicly the texts of access to information requests even before they have been responded to, which was established by the previous government, remains in place. This practice has been widely criticised and, for fairly obvious reasons, exerts a chilling effect on certain types of uses of FIPPA, in particular for investigative journalism. Ending this practice, which is rare if not unknown not only across Canada but also around the world, requires neither consultation nor legislative action. We urge you to bring it to an end as soon as possible.

Yours truly,
Toby Mendel
Executive Director

For further information please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD)
toby@law-democracy.org
902-431-3688

Canada’s proposals to reform its Access to Information Act, Bill C-58, which have now been passed by the House of Commons and are before the Senate, can only be described as massively disappointing. The Government has completely reneged on its promises to extend coverage of the Act to the Prime Minister, Ministers, Parliament and courts, and delivered only partially on other promises, such as to abolish all fees and give the Information Commissioner order making powers.

“In September, CLD joined over 60 other Canadian organisations and individuals calling on the government to scrap Bill C-58 and to come up with proposals that represent a serious attempt to address the crisis undermining our right to know ”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “Unfortunately, that did not happen and the House of Commons has failed to make meaningful changes to the extremely weak government draft.”

CLD’s latest analysis of the Bill, released today, shows that almost none of the issues raised in our earlier assessments have been addressed in the current version of the Bill. Indeed, we identify only one notable improvement over the original draft. The current analysis updates our June 2016 submission at the start of the reform process, setting out what we believe needs to be changed in the Act, and our June 2017 analysis of the Bill originally tabled in Parliament.

Canadians have been waiting, quite literally, for decades for proper reform of the Access to Information Act. The last chance for this to happen at this point is if the Senate takes its job seriously and introduces major changes to the current version of Bill C-58.

The CLD analysis is available at: Note on Bill C-58 amending the Access to Information Act

For further information, please contact:

Portia Karegeya
Legal Officer
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: portia@law-democracy.org
+1 424 325-8650
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

Leading civil society groups, media lawyers from around the country and international experts met on 27 January 2018 to discuss proposals to reform laws which restrict freedom of expression online. Over the last few years more than 100 cases, mostly for defamation, have been brought under these laws, involving journalists, political actors and human rights defenders. The aim of the workshop was to agree on media reform proposals that will limit abusive cases and support Myanmar’s transition to democracy.

“It is very important to try to generate consensus among civil society organisations regarding proposals to reform laws which are being used to restrict freedom of expression online,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “This workshop provided an opportunity for participants to discuss very concrete law reform proposals.”

The workshop focused on three laws in particular, the 2004 Electronic Transactions Law, the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the 2013 Telecommunications Law. A set of concrete draft proposals for reform of the most problematical provisions in these laws was discussed at the workshop, with participants putting forward ideas for further development of the proposals.

The event was organised by Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network (MMLN) and the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), with support from International Media Support (IMS) and FOJO Media Institute. It took forward earlier discussions on the issue, including a workshop hosted by MMLN and CLD on 9 December 2017. The workshop was followed by a General Assembly meeting of MMLN members.

“MMLN has made enormous progress in the three years since it was founded with support from CLD and IMS,” said Than Zaw, (then) Secretary of the Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network. “We sucessfully elected a new Executive Committee, which provides us with an opportunity for renewal and the involvement of both old and new members in running MMLN. MMLN will continue to develop the proposals to reform these three laws and, together with civil society groups and journalists, we will then advocate for law reform.”

Digital Content Reform proposals [English]
Digital Content Reform proposals [Burmese]

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+95 (0)944 155 7724
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

Than Zaw Aung
Deputy Chair
Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network
+95 9 795586316
thanzawau@gmail.com

The Digital Security Guide for Journalists was launched today in Yangon. The Guide is a simple, accessible tool to help journalists protect their communications and digital devices against hacking, surveillance and other forms of digital harassment. It was prepared by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) in collaboration with International Media Support (IMS), FOJO Media Institute and the Myanmar Press Council (MPC).

“Given the high risk of attacks, journalists around the world need to put in place at least basic digital security measures,” said Toby Mendel, Executive, Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD). “This Guide, available in both English and Burmese, provides working journalists with hands-on tools about how to protect themselves against digital attacks.”

“Enhancing digital security for journalists is a priority for the Press Council,” said U Thiha Saw, Secretary of the Myanmar Press Council. “The MPC will do its best to make sure that as many journalists as possible can access this Guide, which provides them with simple and practical advice on how to protect themselves online.”

The launch event was attended by some 50 journalists from around the country, including a number working for ethnic media outlets. It is just the first step in disseminating the Guide, which organisers hope will be widely shared and disseminated in both electronic and physcial versions.

The Guide is available in English and Burmese at:

Digital Security Guide [English]
Digital Security Guide [Burmese]

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+95 0995 096 0849
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

U Thiha Saw
Secretary
Myanmar Press Council
+95 095037571
executivedirector@mjimyanmar.org

The Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network (MMLN) and the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) organised a workshop with civil society groups and lawyers from across the country on 9 December to discuss reform of laws which restrict freedom of expression online, including the Electronic Transactions Law, Official Secrets Act, Telecommunications Law, News Media Law and certain provisions of the Penal Code. Numerous cases have been brought under these laws, most of which were brought for political purposes.

“A wide range of actors have long recognised the need to reform these laws,” said Toby Mendel, Executive, CLD. “This workshop was important inasmuch as we are moving forward to develop concrete reform proposals.”

Participants, including leading local and international legal experts, discussed concrete proposals for reforming these laws. Some of the proposals were far-reaching in nature, including repeal of most of the 1923 Official Secrets Act. The proposals will be further refined for future advocacy work aimed at getting government and parliament to move forward to amend the laws.

“Lawyers from MMLN have defended several of those who were charged in recent years under the provisions we discussed today, such as section 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law,” said Than Zaw, Secretary of the Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network. “Reforming these laws is essential to protect freedom of speech.”

A detailed legal analysis of the problematical provisions is available in English and Burmese at:
Myanmar: Regulating Digital Content [English]
Myanmar: Regulating Digital Content [Burmese]

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+95 (0)995 096 0849
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

Than Zaw Aung
Secretary
Myanmar Media Lawyers’ Network
+95 9 795586316
thanzawau@gmail.com

The Centre for Law and Democracy kicked off a new right to information (RTI) project in Pakistan today with a public presentation on the benefits of RTI. The project aims to provide support to information commissions and local government actors in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces of Pakistan with a view to improving implementation of RTI there. It is being undertaken as part of the Support to Local Governance Programme being run by the official German technical cooperation organisation, Deutsche Gesellshaft für Internationale Zusammenartbeit (GIZ) GmbH.

“This is an exciting project inasmuch as we are working directly with a range of key actors to improve implementation of the RTI laws in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces, which are among the strongest anywhere in the world”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “We also hope to develop more robust tools to assess implementation, something which is sorely needed.”

The talk, at Beaconhouse National University (BNU), focused on the benefits of RTI with a view to trying to get more people engaged on the demand side through making requests for information. The event also included presentations by the Deputy Director of the Punjab Information Commission, local NGO the Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives (CPDI), GIZ and BNU staff.

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+1 902 431-3688
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

The Centre for Law and Democracy has prepared an analysis of the Pakistan Right of Access to Information Bill. The Bill, passed last week by the Pakistani National Assembly, is identical to the version passed by the Senate in May 2017. The Bill earned 105 points on the RTI Rating. This is far better than the right to information law currently in force, the 2002 Freedom of Information Ordinance, but far weaker than the groundbreaking laws adopted by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab provinces in 2013.

“The modest nature of the current Bill can only be described as disappointing”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “Given the bold initiatives in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, we had been hoping for something more ambitious.”

The Bill improves on the 2002 Ordinance in a number of areas. These include having a much broader scope in terms of the bodies covered, establishing much more user-friendly procedures for making and processing requests, providing for a narrower set of exceptions to the right of access and putting in place stronger measures to promote proper implementation of the law. Importantly, it also establishes a dedicated oversight body, the Commission on Access to Information.

At the same time, the Bill suffers from a number of weaknesses. Some of the more important of these are:

• It only applies to citizens and covers a narrow range of types of information.
• The regime of exceptions to the right of access is significantly overbroad, including because it lacks a public interest override.
• The independence of the oversight Commission is not sufficiently protected.
• Public bodies are not required to report annually on what they have done to implement the law.

Click here for CLD’s analysis of the Right to Information Bill
Click here for the Pakistani Bill

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+1 902 431-3688
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

The Centre for Law and Democracy is this year celebrating International Right to Know Day, 28 September, by undertaking a few different activities. We are hosting an Ask Me Anything on Reddit on the theme of the Day, with support from colleagues in Argentina (CELE), South Africa (ODAC), Spain (AIE), Tunisia (GoAct) and Uganda (Catherine Anite). In previous years, we have had a huge response to these events.

We are also launching our report, Canada: Civil Society Parallel Assessment of Compliance with Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 16.10.2. The report, based on a methodology prepared by FOIAnet, assesses the performance of ten Canadian public authorities in terms of implementation of the right to information. The methodology, as well as reports by other FOIAnet member organisations in countries around the world, can be found at: http://foiadvocates.net/?page_id=11036.

“Our assessment shows that the ten public authorities did reasonably well in terms of proactive disclosure and institutional measures (such as appointing information officers)”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “But they did a lot less well when it came to responding to requests for information, which is at the heart of any right to information system.”

Finally, CLD has spearheaded a joint letter signed by some 35 organisations and 25 individuals to Scott Brison, President of Treasury Board, about the unacceptably weak proposals of the government, in the form of Bill C-58, to reform Canada’s right to information law, the Access to Information Act. Treasury Board is the ministry which is responsible for the right to information in Canada. Despite bold promises by the government to make public authorities “open by default”, the proposals address only one of the demands of civil society for reform of the Act, namely by giving order-making powers to the Information Commissioner. They fail to address other issues such as long delays in processing requests and a significantly overbroad regime of exceptions. Bill C-58 even fails to implement the government’s long-standing promise to expand the scope of coverage of the Act to Ministers’ offices and courts.

CLD’s report on implementation of SDG16.10.2 is available at: https://www.law-democracy.org/live/parallel-report-on-canadas-compliance-with-sdg-16-10-2/

The joint letter to the Canadian government on its proposals to reform the Access to Information Act is available at: https://www.law-democracy.org/live/letter-to-the-president-of-the-treasury-board-demanding-access-to-information-reform/

Bill C-58 is available at: https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-58/.

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+1 902 431-3688

www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

The Centre for Law and Democracy has assessed the compliance of ten Canadian public authorities with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 16.10.2, which is: “Adoption and implementation of constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information”. The methodology behind the assessment was developed by the Freedom of Information Advocates Network (FOIAnet) and assessments are being conducted by different FOIAnet members in a number of countries around the world. CLD has produced a report summarising the results of the assessment, Canada: Civil Society Parallel Assessment of Compliance with Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 16.10.2.

Click here for the Report
Click here for information about the FOIAnet methodology and other assessments

“The ten public authorities covered in this assessment did fairly well in terms of proactive disclosure and institutional measures (such as appointing information officers)”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “But performance was much worse on the part of the assessment which involved responding to requests for information.”

In terms of requests, three authorities – namely Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Parole Board of Canada – did excellently. However, all of the others – namely Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Elections Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Public Safety Canada and Status of Women Canada – had at least one ‘fail’ rating among the two or three requests that were made to them.

The wider goal of the exercise is to ensure that the assessment of compliance with this SDG Indicator is accurate and fair, and benefits from civil society input. The FOIAnet methodology focuses only on the second part of the Indicator, namely implementation of guarantees of access to information. We already have good information on the adoption of access to information laws through the RTI Rating (www.RTI-Rating.org) developed by the Centre for Law and Democracy and Access Info Europe.

Based on the assessment, CLD made the following recommendations in the report:

• Public authorities should aim to move from ‘partial’ to ‘full’ ratings for all categories of proactive disclosure.
• All authorities should provide training to their staff on access to information.
• For electronic requests, information should be sent as email attachments rather than via flash drives or disks sent by mail.
• All public authorities should allow for the $5 application fee to be paid electronically rather than requiring requesters to mail cheques to them.
• More needs to be done to ensure that requests are answered within the time limits.

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+1 902 431-3688

www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy

On International Right to Know Day , The Centre for Law and Democracy joined a global coalition of civil society organisations and concerned citizens committed to ensuring a strong access to information (ATI) system in Canada to issue a letter to the President of the Treasury Board, Scott Brison, calling on him to withdraw the government’s inadequate Access to Information Act reform legislation, Bill C-58 and come forward with a bill that would address seriously the broken access to information system. We have reproduced the letter below.

28 September 2017

We are writing to you as Canadian and international organisations and individuals who are committed to ensuring a strong access to information (ATI) system in Canada.

Today is International Right to Know Day, a date when groups around the world celebrate the importance of freedom of information to both democracy and good governance. Yet there is little to celebrate in Canada. Canada’s access to information system is broken, putting at risk citizens’ fundamental right to hold their government accountable.

The Access to Information Act (ATIA), now nearly 35 years old, is in desperate need of major reforms to reduce delays and provide for an effective right to access information held by public authorities. This challenge calls for bold and thoroughgoing reforms to the ATIA to align it with international standards and better practice in other countries.

Unfortunately the government’s proposed ATIA reform, Bill C-58, comprehensively fails to meet this challenge. Indeed, this long-awaited bill fails to address a number of serious problems in the Act, including the vastly overbroad regime of exceptions, the broad discretion of public authorities to delay in responding to requests, the absence of any duty for public authorities to document important decision making processes, and the limited scope of coverage of the Act. In some areas, it even weakens the current rules.

Canada is ranked a miserable 49th out of 111 countries on the RTI Rating, a global methodology for assessing the strength of a country’s legal framework for the right to information (RTI). Bill C-58 would only lift Canada three positions to 46th globally, according to an analysis by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD). We can and must do better. A healthy and effective access to information system is critical to free expression, public participation and holding government to account. By introducing legislation of such inadequacy the government is failing these basic values.

We call for Bill C-58 to be scrapped, and for government officials to be tasked with crafting a bill that takes seriously the crisis undermining our right to know. The resulting bill must, at bare minimum, include the following changes:

BARE MINIMUMS FOR REFORMING THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION SYSTEM

• Deliver on the promise to expand the scope of the Act to cover the Office of the Prime Minister and Ministers’ Offices by allowing individuals to make requests for information from these bodies, as they may do with other public authorities, while retaining the proposed proactive publication obligations.
• Introduce a formal duty to document for public authorities, and require them to preserve records of their decision making.
• Put in place a robust system for limiting the discretion of public authorities to extend the time limits for responding to requests and formalise in law the fee waivers contained in the May 2016 Interim Directive on the Administration of the Access to Information Act.
• Ensure that exceptions and exclusions to the right of access are narrowly defined and subject to both a test of actual harm and a mandatory public interest override.
• Give the Information Commissioner binding, enforceable order powers over all complaints regarding requests for information. This was one of the few significant reforms included in Bill C-58, and it should be retained.

The public has the right to obtain the information they need to participate meaningfully in democratic processes, while also holding Canada’s public officials and Members of Parliament accountable. The current system signally fails to meet minimum standards, and Bill C-58 will not fix it. The government should withdraw Bill C-58 and present Canadians with a bill that addresses seriously the broken access to information system.

For further information please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD)
toby@law-democracy.org
902-431-3688

Duncan Pike
Campaigns and Advocacy Coordinator, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
dpike@cjfe.org
416-787-8156 x203

Signed,

Organisations: 

1. AMINA Corp.
2. Amnesty International Canada (English Branch)
3. Atlantica Party
4. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA)
5. British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (BC FIPA)
6. Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ)
7. Canadian Association of Professional Academic Librarians / l’association Canadienne des bibliothécaires académiques professionnels
8. Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC)
9. Canadian Federation of University Women (CFUW)
10. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)
11. Canadian Taxpayers Federation
12. Canadians for Accountability
13. Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD)
14. Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Regina
15. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
16. Ecology Action Centre (EAC)
17. Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec (FPJQ)
18. Greenpeace Canada
19. International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
20. Isomer Design
21. Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
22. Ligue des droits et libertés
23. MiningWatch Canada
24. OpenMedia
25. Open North
26. Our Right to Know
27. Pen Canada
28. Privacy and Access Council of Canada — Conseil du Canada de l’Accès et la vie Privée (PACC-CCAP)
29. Publish What You Pay Canada
30. Queer Ontario
31. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
32. Research and Education for Solutions to Violence and Abuse (RESOLVE), Saskatchewan
33. Rideau Institute
34. RightOnCanada.ca
35. Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association (RMCLA)
36. Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
37. Voice of Women for Peace  (Salt Spring chapter)
38. Voices-Voix

Individuals:

1. Elizabeth Ball, Academic Librarian (retired)
2. Donna Bowman, Librarian
3. Bruce Campbell, 2016 Law Foundation of Ontario, Leadership in Justice Fellow
4. Stephen Chapman, Isomer Design
5. Ann D. Cooper
6. Phyllis Creighton, Order of Ontario
7. Lisa Di Valentino, Law and Public Policy Librarian, University of Massachusetts
8. Mary Francoli, Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University
9. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa
10. Dr. Brydon Gombay, Community Psychologist
11. Carla Graebner, Librarian for Research Data Services and Government Information, W.A.C. Bennett Library, Simon Fraser University
12. Larry Hannant, PhD historian, University of Victoria
13. Dr. Steve Hewitt, Senior Lecturer, University of Birmingham
14. Laverne Jacobs, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor
15. Vincent Kazmierski, Associate Professor, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University
16. Gregory S Kealey, Professor Emeritus, University of New Brunswick
17. Abby Lippman, Professor Emerita, McGill University
18. Claire McNeil, Dalhousie Legal Aid Service
19. Eugen Melinte, M. Eng
20. Sharon Polsky, MAPP, Data Protection Advocate & Privacy by Design Ambassador
21. J.M. Porup, Editor, MuckRock Canada
22. Marian Ramage, Brandon, Manitoba
23. Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law, University of Ottawa
24. Jacquelyn Shaw
25. Tania Thomas, Youth Services Librarian – Outreach to Newcomer Families, Surrey, British Colombia
26. Stanley Tromp, Journalist and Author

The Centre for Law and Democracy and similarly concerned organizations recently issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, urging Canada to accept a leadership role in the Open Government Partnership, an important forum for advancing transparency and accountability in government. We have reproduced the letter below.

10 July 2017

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to you as Canadian organisations and individuals who have engaged with the Open Government Partnership (OGP) within Canada and/or internationally and who believe strongly in the importance of the OGP as a forum for advancing transparency, accountability and civic engagement.

We are aware that Canada has been considering playing a more active role in the leadership of the OGP first by acting as a support co-chair for one year and then as the lead country chair for another year. We are also aware that the OGP requires a decision on this imminently, while Canada has been delaying its response.

We urge Canada to take on this important role within the OGP. Although many of us have asked Canada to do better in some of the areas of focus for the OGP, at the same time we are conscious that Canada is well poised to play a leadership role within the organisation. Indeed, Canada is enjoying an unprecedentedly strong global reputation at the moment, and becoming the lead country chair would build on that in ways which would benefit both Canada and other members of the OGP. Globally and within the member countries of the OGP, civil society space is shrinking, and Canada’s leadership to promote inclusion and high quality participation, both at home and abroad, can be of great value to the initiative.

Other countries have made their contribution by acting as chair and it is now Canada’s turn to step up and take on this important global support role. We are willing to work with and support the government in this.

We look forward to hearing a positive announcement from Canada regarding the OGP chair position very shortly.

Signed,

Organisations:

1. Canadian Taxpayers Federation
2. Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD)
3. Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada (LRWC)
4. Open North
5. Pen Canada
6. Powered by Data
7. Privacy and Access Council of Canada – Conseil du Canada de l’Accès et la vie Privée
8. Reboot
9. Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association
10. Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
11. Voices-Voix

Individuals:

1. Ana Brandusescu, Researcher, World Wide Web Foundation
2. Merlin Chatwin, Open Government Consultant, Researcher
3. Rob Davidson, Open Data Institute Ottawa
4. Mary Francoli, Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University
5. Jury Konga, Open Knowledge Canada Ambassador
6. Tracey P. Lauriault, Assistant Professor, Critical Media and Big Data, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University
7. Panthea Lee, Co-Founder & Principal, Reboot
8. Don Lenihan, Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, Canada 2020
9. Lindsey Marchessault Open Contracting Partnership
10. Heather Morrison, Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa
11. Daniel J. Paré, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, School of Information Studies, and Institute for Science, Society and Policy (ISSP), University of Ottawa
12. Sharon Polsky MAPP, Access & Privacy Advisor
13. Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law, University of Ottawa
14. Claire Schouten, Senior Program Officer, International Budget Partnership
15. Mary-Doug Wright, Information Specialist/Consultant, Apex Information
16. Geoff Zakaib, Executive Director, Open Calgary

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is currently conducting a consultation on its proposals to reform its right to information policy, the Public Communications Policy 2011. An submission to the consultation by CLD concludes that, after important advances at the ADB in 2005 and 2011, the current Draft Consultation Paper can only be described as disappointing. There are few innovations over 2011 and, in the most problematical area, namely the regime of exceptions, there are even some rollbacks.

Click here for the Comments
Click here for the draft Policy

“The ADB showed important leadership among international financial institutions in the 2005 and 2011 reforms of its information policy”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “If it wants to maintain this tradition, it will need a much bolder vision for the new policy.”

In a disappointing development, the ADB is proposing to replace a limited exception to protect good relations with States and inter-governmental organisations with a rule that gives all third parties a blanket veto over the release of information. Other areas of concern include:

• The lack of any formal commitment to provide assistance to requesters and, instead, a rule that “unreasonable” or “blanket” requests can be rejected.
• No overall time limit for responding to requests.
• Exclusions of whole categories of records rather than protecting interests and other exceptions which do not depend on protecting interests against harm.
• A discretionary and limited rule for disclosing information in the public interest, alongside another discretionary rule for withholding information in the public interest.
• Limited grounds for requesters to lodge appeals.

CLD has called on the ADB to introduce substantial changes to its current draft proposals before finalising the policy.

For further information, please contact:

Toby Mendel
Executive Director
Centre for Law and Democracy
Email: toby@law-democracy.org
+1 902 431-3688
www.law-democracy.org
twitter: @law_democracy