When silence is not golden
Politicians show little respect for public’s right to know
We are drawing to a close of Right to Know Week in Canada — or as it’s better known by those lost in the labyrinth of Alberta’s Freedom of Information laws, “Right to No” Week.
Given the events of the past few days, maybe it should really be called “Right to No Comment” Week.
Just ask Rona Ambrose, federal minister for status of women. Seriously, try to get her to comment on anything. She is, according to her press secretary, “unavailable.”
Ambrose ducked under the cone of silence after voting in favour of a private member’s motion on Thursday to study the issue of when a life actually begins. The motion was, in effect, a back-door way to resurrect the abortion debate in Canada.
Given that most Canadians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, really don’t want to resurrect that debate, it was no surprise the motion was handily defeated 203 to 91. However, it was something of a surprise that as many as 91 MPs voted in favour of it. And it was an absolute shocker that one of those would be the minister responsible for the status of women.
Ambrose gave no explanation, not even a hint, of her intentions beforehand.
Afterwards, she offered a vague tweet: “I have repeatedly raised concerns about discrimination of girls by sex selection abortion: no law needed, but we need awareness!”
I would suggest that when the status of women minister votes to reopen the abortion debate, she should explain herself in a medium that’s not restricted to 140 characters or less. And she might want to offer an explanation that’s not a red herring.
Consequently, it’s no surprise that critics are now accusing Ambrose of betraying women and their right to reproductive choice. They are demanding she resign or, failing that, be fired. Her friends, and even some of her critics, have praised Ambrose’s work on the status of women file. But no matter what she’s done in the past, it will be overshadowed or coloured by what she did on Thursday.
Why did she do it? Didn’t she know the furor it would cause? If she really does think “sex selection” abortions are a serious problem, why doesn’t she explain that in detail? In short, would she please comment?
So, I phoned Ambrose’s office.
“The minister is unavailable at the moment,” said her press secretary, Amber Irwin.
No problem, how about later?
“As I’ve just told you, the minister is unavailable.” Tomorrow? Next week? “The minister is unavailable. Thanks so much.”
Irwin referred me to Ambrose’s comments in question period on Thursday. But those were off-topic platitudes about how “this government has an incredible track record of standing up for Canadian women and girls. We have increased the funding to the status of women to its highest point in Canadian history.”
Nothing to explain why she voted the way she did.
If Ambrose voted as a matter of conscience, she should say so. If she really thinks she was voting in the best interests of Canadian women, she needs to explain how.
Instead, the only comment from her is none at all, via a press secretary: “The minister is unavailable.”
If Ambrose and her supporters believe she is being treated unfairly by critics, that her intentions are being distorted by the media, she has no one to blame but herself. She cannot simply commit a drive-by vote in the House of Commons and then run for the exit afterwards.
In honour of “Right to No Comment” week, I offer another sterling example.
Alberta’s Human Services Minister Dave Hancock had this to say after meeting this week with his colleague, Agriculture Minister Verlyn Olson, to discuss whether the province will finally fulfil Premier Alison Redford’s commitment to protect the province’s paid farm workers under occupational health legislation: “We’re in the process of discussing what needs to be done, how far, how fast, what process, and we will bring something forward through our policy development process to caucus and cabinet in the next little while and then see how that impacts either regulatory or legislative reform.”
As always, Hancock was thoughtful, polite and articulate — and sounded like something out of the old TV series, Yes, Minister.
Is he personally pushing to fulfil the premier’s commitment?
“We need to be thoughtful, we need to go through it on a methodical basis with respect to workers’ compensation, with respect to occupational health and safety, with respect to workplace standards and say ‘Is there any good reason why this should not apply to a farm?’ ”
You can dress it up and take it out dancing — but it’s still just a frustratingly fancy way to say “no comment.”