‘Vexatious’ bill maligns motives, breaks promises

The audacity of federal Liberal promises often seems surpassed only by the government’s audacity in breaking them: The entire electoral system was to be radically overhauled, only now it’s staying the same; the middle class was to be saved from a non-existent crisis, only now it’s to be grateful for barely existent tax cuts and some very existent tax hikes; the budget was to be balanced by 2019-20, only now it’s projected to be balanced by never.

Not until this week, though, has the government been so bold as to demonstrate the necessity of a promise it made by going back on it.

Government should be transparent, in part so that people may see for themselves whether its words line up with its actions; for such a highminded principle did the Liberals promise to make sweeping changes to the Access to Information Act. Only now, they’re declining to line their actions up with their words, tinkering with the Act in ways that minimally increase transparency and overhauling it in one way that causes great harm.

By declining to fulfil their commitment to open government, they illustrate its importance.

It’s an innovative piece of performance art from a government that prefers its performances to be captured by the professional photographer accompanying the prime minister on his morning jogs. But do not dare question the spontaneity of the images, lest your question be described as vexatious.

This is the bill’s major attack on transparency: Departments can deny Access to Information requests if they consider the request “vexatious” or claim it would “unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution.”

“Vexatious” means, as far as I and the Oxford dictionary are aware, to “cause or tend to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.” One might think all inquiries worth making of a government would vex it. As for interference, interfering with the operations of a government institution whose operations can’t withstand scrutiny is the point of making inquiries.

The government wants what it wants. And others want to hold it to account for its promise that it will be held to account. The government finds this vexing and interfering.

Broken promises are rarely so unpardonable. Whether a promise ought to be kept or ought to never have been made, it may be broken for any number of reasons. Perhaps there wasn’t enough information available at the time it was given. Perhaps the information was available but the context wasn’t properly understood. Or perhaps one party doesn’t have the abilities it thought it did, or the strength to see the promise through.

It’s a painful moment, being forced to confront the limits of foresight, reality or character. Do not believe, though, that the government is having such a moment.

Rather than merely break a promise, and not content even to take action that in the coldest and most calculating fashion is intended to make it easier to break more, the government maligns the motives of those who seek to hold it to its word on any matter important enough to cause it frustration.

This isn’t the sort of broken promise that should be forgiven. Forgiveness isn’t being requested; an accusation is being made. The accusation is designed to head questions about the accuser off at the pass to prevent inquiries from turning up facts embarrassing to itself, which might turn into accusations annoying to itself, which might interfere with “the operations of the government institution,” otherwise known as “whatever we would prefer you not to know about.”

And the terrible thing — the vexing thing — is that it might work.