VANCOUVER— Scattered reports began to emerge on social media Friday night of a commercial airplane performing what appeared to be mid-air stunts over Puget Sound with two American fighter jets in pursuit.

Hikers and others out to enjoy the sunset recorded the scene on their phones, looking on in horror as the plane careened out of the air toward Ketron Island as the light faded from the sky.

The voice of the 29-year-old pilot, a Horizon Air employee named Richard Russell who had stolen the plane off the tarmac at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), can be heard on a heartbreaking recording of his communication with the Sea-Tac control tower. He expresses wonder at the beauty of Mount Rainier and the Olympic Range, and remorse for the pain he imagines he will have caused his loved ones on the ground.

Then, all of a sudden, the recording ends. Russell had crashed the plane into the island, according to airport authorities. He did not survive.

Promptly at 9:31 p.m. PST, a statement confirming the basic details of the incident had already been released by Sea-Tac on social media — a move reporters in Canada applauded for its professionalism and commitment to clarity.

A police description of Russell, early confirmation that no other passengers or crew were aboard during the flight and statements from airline officials were all soon to follow — as was the recording of Russell’s last minutes.

This example of transparent, rapid and complete communication with media and the public following a tragic and jarring incident demonstrates a vast gulf between how access to information is handled in Canada and how it’s handled in the United States, according to a Canadian information expert.

Sean Holman, associate professor of journalism at Mount Royal University in Calgary, said Canadian institutions take a “father knows best” approach to providing the public with information — an attitude that stands in stark contrast to the “public has a right to know” culture in the U.S.

“In general, Canada is far more secretive than the United States usually is,” Holman said in an interview. “In the United States, they’re very focused on ensuring people know what is happening, whereas a lot of public bodies here might be worried about the privacy implications of that (approach).”

Read more:

Authorities identify man who stole plane from Seattle airport and crashed into island

Airplane theft in Seattle shows potential dangers from airline workers

How the Toronto Star covers breaking news

Holman suggested more opaque communications policies might be designed to prevent sensationalistic reporting or crime-scene “gawking,” and protect civilian and institutional privacy. But not only does a higher level of transparency satisfy the human desire to understand and feel in control, he said, it prevents information vacuums that allow speculation and conspiracy to flourish.

And while privacy is most certainly worth protecting in some cases, said Holman, Canadian governments, agencies and Crown corporations have leveraged Canadians’ concerns around personal privacy to justify the creation of policies that relieve institutions of the democratic obligation to be transparent about their activities.

“At what point does privacy start interfering with the public interest?” he asked. “In Canada, we’ve seen circumstances where public bodies use privacy as an excuse to prevent accountability, to prevent the public from knowing things that they should know.”

Holman pointed to the current dust-up over whether the B.C. Liberals will release documents relating to their handling of the issue of money laundering throughout their 16 years in power as one perfect example of politicians standing on Canadian convention to prevent access to what should be a public record of a democratically elected party’s proceedings.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

On Friday, a letter from B.C. Attorney General David Eby was delivered to B.C. Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson requesting the Liberals waive “cabinet privilege” and hand over all documents relating to money laundering to aid in the current government’s efforts to “comprehensively end such criminal practices in B.C. casinos and throughout B.C.’s economy.”

But B.C. Liberal house leader Mary Polak accused Eby of “playing politics with a serious issue,” saying he should focus on pursuing those who have broken the law — although a statement from the party said the Liberals would consider his proposal to waive secrecy over documents from their time in office.

Cabinet privilege is a practice of Canadian governments that keeps secret the internal discussions and meetings between a government’s ministers.

And Holman, of Mount Royal University, calls this practice “insane.” It’s considered radical if not outright foolish to challenge cabinet confidentiality, he said, unless one reflects on what the practice means for the ability of the public to know what its elected representatives are up to.

“What, the public has no right to know what happens in government’s top decision-making bodies?” he asked. “That doesn’t make any sense … That is an insane premise for a democracy.”

The fact this practice is accepted as a normal part of Canadian political functioning, he said, is a knock-on effect of Canada’s prioritization of privacy over public interest.

And while the protection of the public from surveillance by the state — and from overzealous inquiry from fellow members of the public — is a treasured and valuable civil right, it is important to recognize that demanding greater transparency from governmental bodies does not automatically involve a curtailing of the privacy rights of average citizens, he said.

In fact, he said, the United States provides an example of a society in which the push-and-pull between an individual’s right to privacy and a governmental obligation to transparency is at the forefront of civic discourse.

Whereas Canada has a Privacy Commissioner to resolve private, corporate and governmental disputes over the release of information, in the United States, said Holman, this function is handled by the courts. As a result, he said, an entire community of professionals and advocates has formed around the issue of challenging the government to be more transparent.

And when that happens, said Holman, the right of the public to access to information “becomes a civil right. It becomes something you have to exercise, it’s become something you have to claim. It becomes something you’re forced to defend as opposed to what is a very Canadian thing to do, which is institutionalize accountability.”

And his advice is for members of the public and the media to refuse to accept absolute control of messaging and information by government as routine.

“We (need to) start recognizing and repeat as often as we can,” he said, “that what is happening in Canada when it comes to openness and lack of openness is not normal and should not be considered normal within a democratic society.”

With files from David P. Ball

Read more about: