The latest study that puts Canada dead last in an international comparison of freedom-of-information laws should come as no surprise to anyone who has paid any attention to Ottawa for the past several years. Attributing the failure of the Access to Information Act to low use, low political support and a weak Information Commissioner, the authors state that political will is of the upmost importance in determining whether freedom of information policies are successful.

“Above all, an effective FOI regime requires strong government commitment and political will. Officials cannot do it on their own. Given strong political support, it is much easier to put other supportive factors in place.”

Truth be told, the statistical analysis done in the scientific paper only deals with the first three years of implementation for the respective freedom of information regimes. However, the researchers were quick to point out that both the Canadian electorate and its government seemingly had little time for it. And who can blame the average Canadian journalist or concerned citizen for not wanting to use the antiquated system these days? Still stuck in the pre-digital age, the requests that do manage to make it into the underfunded system are routinely denied as an astounding 86% of the freedom of information requests do not receive full disclosure.

This was all supposed to change when the Conservative Party of Canada defeated the Liberals after the Sponsorship Scandal broke out…ironically enough due to an Access of Information request. However, the inadequacies surrounding the legislation promised to be remedied by the Conservatives have largely been left unrepaired. Some of the more notable shortcomings that remain include the information commissioner’s inability to compel the government to release documents, the far-reaching powers granted to ministers to withhold records on internal decision-making processes & deliberations as well as the exclusions from the act of about a hundred governmental bodies.

This ambivalence to certain campaign promises would hardly be earth-shattering news if it weren’t for the current government’s widespread secretive approach to governance. From the excessive secrecy surrounding the Afghan Detainee Documents to the Helena Guergis / Rahim Jaffer / Patrick Glemaud affair, the majority party shields itself from criticism by simply not disclosing any information. In order to avoid political missteps, the PMO muzzles civil servants and cabinet ministers, reporters are blackballed after posing tough questions. Legitimate questions can only hope to get e-mail answers from public relations staff instead of having access to live interviews with real experts.

But this is not meant to be an exercise in political rhetoric. All recent Canadian political parties insisted on protecting their deepest, darkest secrets. And why wouldn’t they? A political party has a duty to their party members to being elected, so why would they intentional shoot themselves in the foot?

But that’s the whole point. It is the public that must demand for a more transparent government while there is a political appetite for it. Back in the 1980s, a stumbling economy, the nightmare surrounding the 1982 Constitution Act and a RCMP scandal prompted the Trudeau government to pass the initial Access to Information Act in order to deal with the intense public scrutiny. Has the Canadian citizen reached the tipping point to demand more openness from their government? Could the historic April 27th, 2010 vote forcing the minority government to release against its wishes documents of Afghan detainees prompt a similar upheaval relating towards transparency? Perhaps, but why should the civil rights movement care?

It was government secrecy that kept Maher Arar, the Syrian Canadian who had been tortured near Damascus, in the dark as to the reasons for Canadians abandoning him in a hostile situation. It is government secrecy that has blasted whistleblowers like Richard Colvin for completing their jobs with due diligence. It is government secrecy that inexplicably allows Omar Khadr to remain in Guantanamo Bay.

If knowledge is power and ignorance is bliss, it would seem the federal government wants us all to be blissfully powerless. Journalists can’t get basic information from the government, and as a result, Canadians can’t hold the government accountable. Unaware of the travesties occurring as a result of governmental decisions, Canadians will passively sit on the sidelines as they continue to happen, and only after years of prodding will any tangible amount of information related to these events appear in mainstream media. When the information commissioner is continually stifled by every inquiry into touchy areas of government, will other means of divulging information become more acceptable to Canadians? Will ethically questionable organisations like WikiLeaks fill the information gap?

Whatever the case may be, just as the report stated, there must be political support for any improvement in government transparency and freedom of information regimes. And civil right groups must become a part of this push if they want to see any accountability towards Charter violations.