Barriers to free expression under Harper regime exposed in report by Canadian journalists

“…continuing concern for a number of analysts is the culture of secrecy in the federal government…”

No 744 Posted by fw, May 11, 2013

On May 3, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJPE) released its annual Review of Free Expression in Canada. The 48-page CJPE report is filled with useful information, not only about surveillance and whistleblowing, but also about the state of our Access to Information and Privacy laws – along with hints about how to get around bureaucratic roadblocks and to use those laws as effectively as possible. You can access and download the complete CJPE report by clicking on Review of Free Expression in Canada, 2012-2013.

Included in the Review is one of CJPE’s staples, the Report Card, which provides an overview of the free expression landscape in Canada over the past year. Always controversial, the grades are met with varying reactions.

Here is a reformatted reprint of CJFE’s Report Card 2012-13. To access and download the original PDF version, click on the linked title.

Free speech rights should be robust, comprehensive and equally enjoyed in all parts of Canada

Parents faced with a child’s report card featuring both A’s and F’s might understandably think the teacher had mixed up the grades with those of another student. But free expression in Canada truly does span the spectrum from head of the class to flunking out.

As always, we look at one of the most important components of free expression: access to information, where it is obvious that Canada is falling behind, not only when measured against the standards we set for ourselves, but also in international studies that compare us to others.

The vital link between free expression and access to information was underlined this year by the information commissioner’s significant decision to investigate seven federal departments because of
alleged muzzling of government scientists.

But it is clear in other areas—for instance, Quebec’s anti-SLAPP law or the federal government’s creation of the Parliamentary Budget Office—that we understand what should be done. We need only look within our borders for solid examples of best practices in every area of free expression. And yet, just as one province moves forward, another one takes a step back, and we are left with a patchwork of laws and policies across the country.

CJFE believes Canadians deserve the same robust rights, no matter which part of the country they live in. It only makes sense to strive for greater consistency and implement our best legislation and policies in every province and territory. After all, it was not just one province or territory that spoke out against the Internet surveillance bill, C-30—it was Canadians across the country working together. We can and should learn from each other.

*****

GRADES

D — ACCESS TO INFORMATION & THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

It’s somewhat of a balancing act this year. There are good reasons to go even lower than last year’s failing F: Canada’s increasingly archaic Access law was ranked 55th out of 93 countries with such laws; the muzzling of government scientists was so bad that Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault had to launch an investigation; the statistics on delays and redactions/exemptions got worse; and the Harper government’s culture of secrecy did not improve. But there were also a few tiny signs of hope: in 2014, the government plans to make summaries of completed requests searchable across all departments; 13 of 18 federal institutions that were performing poorly are now doing better; a pilot project will test the value of offering online requests and payment; and Legault is pushing for the reform of the 30-year-old Act. We could have given another failing grade, but rather than repeating this dismal year, we hope the federal government will heed the many voices calling for change. For more on access to information, see page 8.

C– THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Another middle-of-the-pack grade here. On the one hand, the federal government withdrew its controversial Internet surveillance bill under pressure from digital activists. A huge victory for privacy advocates in Canada, this decision could be seen as a positive step toward a government that’s willing to listen to its citizens’ concerns. For an analysis of Bill C-30, see page 32.

On the other hand, there was nothing to applaud in the government’s response to Edgar Schmidt, a Justice Department lawyer who blew the whistle on his employer, claiming that it was acting unlawfully by setting the bar ridiculously low when assessing whether a piece of legislation is inconsistent with the Charter. The government suspended Schmidt without pay and attempted to have his case dismissed before even filing a defence. Whether or not Schmidt is correct in his analysis, surely the federal government’s duty is to listen to its counsel and respond if warranted. For more on whistleblowers, see page 28

F — THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS (DFO)

This department deserves special mention for its zeal in muzzling scientists, controlling its message and keeping critical information away from the public. The DFO would not allow Kristi Miller, a DFO researcher and peer-reviewed author of a study about salmon diseases, to speak to the media about her work for two full years. The DFO is also one of the departments under investigation by the information commissioner for muzzling its scientists, and international researchers might pull out of collaborative research with DFO scientists because of severe limits on publication. For more on the muzzling of scientists, see page 14.

A — THE PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICE

At the opposite end of the classroom spectrum was the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). For the past five years, former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page and his staff—in particular Mostafa Askari, Chris Matier and Sahir Khan—made an important contribution to the discourse in Canada about access to information, transparency and accountability of govern­ment. At a time when many who work for the government have been muzzled or forced to speak only the official line, Page made it his duty to tackle difficult and controversial issues with integrity and conviction, and to communicate to Canadi­ans much-needed information about these issues. Unfortunately, despite the excel­lent work, Page’s appointment has not been renewed. Instead, the government has appointed an interim parliamentary budget officer with far less experience. Nor is there any evidence the government is willing to give the PBO the status of an inde­pendent officer of Parliament, like the auditor general, which would enable it to truly hold the government to account.

C — THE SUPREME COURT

A middling grade for a middling year for a court that appears intent on finding and sticking to the middle of the road. No new ground was broken for free expression, and in at least one major hate speech case, Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. William Whatcott, the Court had a real opportunity to bring important change to how hate speech cases are adjudi­cated, but instead rendered a disappointingly timid decision that changed very little. A powerful institution with the opportunity to implement strong protections for free expression rights in this country, the Supreme Court is failing to live up to its potential. For more on hate speech, see page 21.

A – ANTI-SLAPP AND THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC

SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) are used to silence dissent by consuming the energy and financial resources of critics. For instance, developers have used them to silence people objecting to a proposed project. That is what’s clear about the subject. The rest is more complex. Four years ago, the Quebec National Assembly, citing the importance of free expression, passed a law prohibiting the use of such legal manoeuvres. For that, Quebec politicians deserve a belated grade of A. Unfortunately, a study of the first two years of the new law shows that Quebec courts have been reluctant to dismiss SLAPP cases at an early stage.

F – ANTI-SLAPP AND THE REST OF CANADA

Meanwhile, the rest of the country lags far behind. There is no anti-SLAPP legisla­tion in any other province or territory. Four provinces have had discussions about the problem and one, Ontario, even struck an advisory panel, which recommended the creation of legislation, but three years on there has been no progress. Legislatures in the rest of Canada receive a grade of F for their lack of action. For more about anti-SLAPP legislation, see page 28

*****

KUDOS & MUZZLES

Kudos

• Democracy Watch and the Environmental Law Clinic of the University of Victoria for their report Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy?, which asked federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault to look into the government’s muzzling of scientists. Legault has agreed to investigate.
• Elizabeth Denham, British Columbia’s information and privacy commissioner, for her work in pushing the provincial government to document key decisions and keep a record of its actions, and furthermore, to make this “duty to document” a requirement through legislation. She has spoken out against the widespread practice of “oral government” and the use of private email and phones for public business.

Muzzles

• The legislature of Prince Edward Island, for turning down a request for any information about its own $6-million budget, which covers spending by the offices of the speaker, government members and the opposition (the legislature is not covered by P.E.I.’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act). Perhaps the politicians believe that their spending is a private matter.
• Jean Charest and Quebec’s Bill 78, for a draconian approach to handling student protests over tuition increases. Stripping citizens of their rights to free assembly and free expression is no way to respond to public protests and outrage.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Large-scale public protests in Japan against secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership

“If TPP advances and is implemented it will destroy the American social system,” says former Japanese politician

No 742 Posted by fw, May 09, 2013

“Unfortunately, most people have never even heard of the TPP in America. Our corporate media sure isn’t telling us anything about it…. Sure we can sign petitions but most are ignored. AND President Obama has something called “fast track authority”, left over from what Rahm Emmanuel helped Bush get. From what I understand he can quietly sign this thing and the next day, it’ll be in our faces. Get ready, by the time people realize that our sovereignty has been taken away, it’ll be too late.” —Visitor’s comment posted to Real News website

The Japanese are up in arms over the proposed TPP deal. Some of their concerns are highlighted in the following post. Meanwhile, Harper is doing his best to keep Canadians in the dark about the impact of TPP. According to Toronto Star reporter, Michael Geist,  “[A] November 2012 email to government officials noted that their access to TPP texts was conditioned on ‘Secret’ level clearance, an acknowledgement that all texts are watermarked and can be traced back to the source, and confirmation that no sharing within government is permitted without prior approval.” This is why no one not in Canada’s tiny trade policy club knows the slightest thing about the TPP or Canada-European Union free trade deal, even though both will impact policy across dozens of departments. Source: Business lobbyists ride inside track of Conservative trade agenda, Stuart Trew, rabble.ca, May 6, 2013

Returning to the Japanese reaction to TPP, watch the 8:42-minute video report and read the accompanying transcript below. Or click on the following linked title to access the original broadcast.

Japanese Movement against TPP Growing, Michael Penn reporting for The Real News Network, May 7, 2013

TRANSCRIPT

Critics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership say it’s an attempt to impose an American system on Japan and would threaten Japanese public healthcare system -   

Michael Penn, Tokyo — The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, may not yet be a household topic of discussion in the United States and many other countries, but it has been one of the most prominent political issues in Japan for several years. The debate over whether or not Japan should enter the TPP negotiation process has divided major political parties and led to large-scale protests, especially from Japan’s agricultural sector. Indeed, in the Japanese media and elsewhere, supporters of TPP have painted the issue as mainly a conflict between the interests of the urban, modern sectors of the Japanese economy and the backward, inefficient farmers, who they say are only interested in maintaining high tariff protection against foreign foodstuffs, especially rice.

Protesters — Participation in TPP negotiations is a violation of the government’s campaign promise!

Penn – But this is only a caricature, as in fact there are plenty of voices in urban areas who fear the economic effects of trade liberalization:

Protester — Foreign laborers could come into the country; not only the workers, but the companies too. The fact that they are foreigners is no problem. We are worried about the effect on wages. For skilled Japanese craftsmen, we worry this will be used to bid down the money we make.

Penn – Others point to deeper implications arising from TPP, which they see as far more than another free trade agreement. Nobuhiko Suto, until recently a House of Representatives lawmaker, is a leading Japanese critic of TPP.

Nobuhiko Suto, Former Representative, Democratic Party Of Japan — What we really fear has nothing to do with trade and economy but with ethnic diversity. Local and regional variations may be deeply affected by this systemic change. When I first learned of this fact, I wanted to know more, but the negotiations are secret. My studies led me to understand that TPP is not trade liberalization but systemic liberalization. Put simply, they want to take the U.S. system and make it operate across the Pacific region.

Penn – Outside of the agricultural sector, some of the deepest fears that Japanese have about TPP regards what it will mean for the nation’s excellent system of national health care.

Suto – It would destroy our health insurance system. This is not because America intends this result. When the U.S. insurance companies enter our market, they will focus on profitable sectors. But Japanese health insurance depends on pooling together profitable and other sectors. The U.S. companies would go after cancer and other specialized medicine to make their profits, and this would leave out poor people who can’t pay and would destroy our insurance system.

~~~

Penn – Do you want American health insurance?

Protester — No!

Penn – Why not?

Protester — They are money-crazed! We have the best system now. Japanese have universal insurance and the U.S. does not. that’s why it is no good. The U.S. system isn’t fair and favors the rich. We don’t need it here in Japan!

~~~

Penn – Another area of deep concern among those Japanese who have studied the TPP issue at some length is the international harmonization of patent laws and intellectual property rights. There is a fear that the United States wants Japan to adopt a new system of rules that will unfairly pour money into the pockets of American corporations.

Suto – The U.S. way of thinking is that those who develop original technologies should profit. To take an extreme example, consider the case of someone developing some new software. Well, originally you need screens to see what the software does, meaning it is based on TV. That means any new software technology is originally based on television technology. Going further back, all television technology is based on the mastery of electricity. That means that they want Japanese software developers to pay money to Thomas Edison. I’m being facetious, but this is the kind of idea the U.S. wants us to base patent laws upon.

Penn – Suto asserts that the Japanese government’s strong attachment to TPP has less to do with a rational assessment of its own national interests and is more connected to the fact that conservative political leaders like Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have been duped by Washington’s so-called “Japan Handlers” into seeing TPP as a strengthening of the U.S.-Japan military alliance.

Suto – Even if TPP has no economic merits for the Japanese economy, Prime Minister Abe would still want to join on alleged national security grounds. There are a lot of people in Japan who accept this reasoning all too easily. But I believe this is quite a dangerous way to approach this issue.

Penn – In the end, however, Suto believes that the TPP process will fail, first of all because it will prove impossible to match so many different kinds of economic systems in the Pacific region, but also because the United States itself will reject TPP when its full implications become clear to local leaders and to the general public.

Suto – What really surprises me about TPP, and I might add ISD as well, is that if TPP advances and is implemented it will destroy the American social system. Take as an example the United States’ federal system of government. Since its founding, the states had their power and formed “The United States of America.” But under the TPP regime the power of individual states would evaporate. Right now you have cases in which one state has the death penalty but the next doesn’t, or maybe this state here allows people to buy alcohol and the other doesn’t. TPP would take these kinds of powers out of the hands of state governments. You could have foreign liquor companies suing states that try to restrict sales of alcohol. Up until now, such a thing couldn’t happen, and quite naturally so. TPP would break down the United States’ own independent system.

So when it comes to TPP, I think you’ll see their own citizens’ groups rise up against it. And when the Americans themselves begin to figure out the strange things entailed by TPP, their own opposition will grow. And so, finally, I believe that it will not be enacted.

Penn – Some well-informed observers in Japan believe that TPP is so ambitious and its consequences would be so profound that it is likely to ultimately collapse under its own weight, even with the powerful political support it currently enjoys.

SEE ALSO

• TPP: Corporate Power Tool of the 1%, excellent briefing published by Public Citizen, probably in 2012. Threats posed by TPP include: Power to corporations to attack nations; Threats to public health; Bye “Buy America” and jobs; Undermining food safety; Curtailing Internet freedom; and Banksters’ delight.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Canadian Jewish activists protest Canadian Jewish lobby’s support for Israel’s violence, injustice and repression

No 740 Posted by fw, May 08, 2013

Thanks to Independent Jewish Voices — Canada (IJV) for this brief news item. For those who may not be familiar with this national human rights organization, IJV’s mandate is “…to promote a just resolution to the dispute in Israel and Palestine through the application of international law and respect for the human rights of all parties.”

More about IJV

We are a group of Jews in Canada from diverse backgrounds, occupations and affiliations who have in common a strong commitment to social justice and universal human rights. We come together in the belief that the broad spectrum of opinion among the Jewish population of this country is not reflected by those institutions which claim authority to represent the Jewish community as a whole. We further believe that individuals and groups within all communities should feel free to express their views on any issue of public concern without incurring accusations of disloyalty.

By way of background to this post, IJV showed up in protest at the First Annual Western Regional Policy Conference organized by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. The events was held in Vancouver on Sunday May 5, 2013. Here’s the news item explaining why IJV picketed this event –

Vancouver activists protest Israel Advocacy lobby, by David Mivasair, IJV Vancouver, published by ijvcanada.org, May 6, 2013

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is the right wing, Conservative party ally that replaced the former Canadian Jewish Congress.

Together we [IJV] created a presence for about an hour outside the building where the CIJA conference was and engaged people in conversation including several who were at the conference.

Subjectively, my sense is that it was well worthwhile to simply create a protest against CIJA doing business as usual. 

The simple fact that we were there meant that the assumptions implicit in CIJA’s perspective were being challenged.  I think this is important and hope that we will continue to do at least this much.

Through our various social media connections we had [an] impact far beyond as people learned about this Jewish protest against CIJA and its support for Israel’s violence, injustice and repression.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.