Nova Scotia’s Freedom of Information Commissioner Calls for Legislation Withdrawal

Nova Scotia’s outgoing Freedom of Information Commissioner, Tricia Ralph, has issued a stark warning to the provincial government regarding proposed changes to the province’s freedom of information laws. In a letter to the government, Ralph urged the Progressive Conservative party to withdraw key amendments to an omnibus bill that she argues would undermine the public’s right to access government records and weaken government accountability. With her term ending, Ralph emphasized the risks these changes pose to transparency and the democratic process.

The controversial amendments, tabled as part of a broader bill, introduce measures that allow government departments to reject information requests deemed “trivial, frivolous, or vexatious.” Ralph criticized these changes as overly broad and inconsistent with freedom of information legislation in other parts of Canada. She also highlighted the potential burden placed on applicants, particularly a new requirement for requesters to provide “sufficient particulars,” such as precise times or locations, which could discourage people from seeking information. Ralph stressed the need for meaningful consultation with stakeholders and warned that proceeding without such dialogue could harm Nova Scotians’ access rights.

Legal and Democratic Concerns Over the Proposed Amendments

Toby Mendel, director of the Halifax-based Centre for Law and Democracy, echoed Ralph’s concerns, calling the amendments problematic and undemocratic. Mendel argued that allowing civil servants, rather than the independent information commissioner, to determine what constitutes a “vexatious” request could lead to legitimate requests being unfairly dismissed. He noted that only a small minority of requests are made with the intent to harass the government, suggesting that the new measures are unnecessary and disproportionate. Mendel also criticized the use of terms like “frivolous” and “trivial” as paternalistic, implying that government officials should not second-guess the motivations behind public requests for information.

The Centre for Law and Democracy director further warned that requiring applicants to include overly specific details, such as exact times or locations, could create significant barriers for individuals seeking information. Mendel emphasized that such requirements are unnecessary and serve only to make the process more difficult, potentially discouraging people from exercising their right to know.

Government’s Mixed Response to Criticisms

Premier Tim Houston has shown some willingness to backtrack on controversial elements of the omnibus bill but has refused to withdraw the proposed amendments to the freedom of information act. Earlier, Houston withdrew amendments that would have allowed his government to fire the auditor general without cause, following widespread criticism and a direct appeal from Auditor General Kim Adair. Those provisions would also have granted ministers the power to veto the release of her reports if they deemed it in the “public interest.”

However, during a news conference, Houston defended the proposed changes to the freedom of information law, calling them “reasonable and fair.” He argued that if citizens disagree with a department’s determination that their request is vexatious, they can still appeal to the information commissioner. Despite this, critics argue that the amendments erode the independence of the commissioner’s office and create unnecessary barriers to transparency.

Opposition and Advocacy Groups Raise Alarms

NDP Opposition Leader Claudia Chender has been vocal in her criticism of the proposed amendments, labeling them part of a broader “anti-democratic” trend by the Progressive Conservative government. Chender argued that the changes would allow government departments to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a “vexatious” request, a determination she believes should remain the sole responsibility of the information commissioner.

Chender also criticized other recent government decisions, such as scrapping requirements for regular reports on emergency room closures and removing fixed election dates. Additionally, she condemned a Tory fundraising campaign that asked supporters to donate to the party to help it “bypass the media,” a move she described as an attempt to undermine accountability and transparency. Chender reiterated her belief that taking away impartial information or imposing policies without consultation is undemocratic and harmful to the public interest.

Media Freedom Under Threat in Nova Scotia

The Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) has also joined the chorus of critics, condemning a recent decision by Premier Houston’s government to restrict journalists’ access to lawmakers. Previously, journalists could informally question government members outside the legislative chamber, a common practice in most Canadian legislatures. Now, they are being directed to a media room across the street, a change the CAJ describes as a direct attack on press freedom.

CAJ president Brent Jolly called the move a “bald-faced frontal assault on press freedom” in a province already criticized for its lack of transparency. Jolly accused the government of deliberately designing the new setup to force journalists into a difficult choice: cover legislative affairs or attend sanitized press conferences off-site. He warned that this change would undermine the public’s right to know, as journalists would be less able to hold government officials accountable in real time.

Calls for Withdrawal and Broader Implications

As the debate over these amendments continues to grow, advocates for transparency and accountability are urging the Nova Scotia government to reconsider its approach. Tricia Ralph, Toby Mendel, Claudia Chender, and the CAJ are among those who have called for the withdrawal of the proposed changes to the freedom of information act and the reversal of recent decisions that restrict press freedom.

The broader implications of these changes cannot be overstated. Access to information is a cornerstone of democracy, enabling citizens to hold their government accountable and participate meaningfully in public discourse. If the proposed amendments are enacted, they could set a dangerous precedent, eroding trust in government and undermining the principles of transparency and accountability that are essential to a healthy democracy.

In the coming weeks and months, Nova Scotians will be watching closely to see whether their government heeds these warnings and upholds its commitment to transparency and the public’s right to know.