<<

. 42
( 53 .)



>>

on Prisoner Abuse Allegations,” New York Times, October 22, 2004,
A4.
150. Steven Strasser, The Abu Ghraib Investigations (New York: PublicAffairs,
2004), 1“14 and 52. A second report on abuses at Abu Ghraib, prepared
by Major General George Fay and Lieutenant General Anthony R. Jones,
was also released in August 2004. Portions of the Fay/Jones report were
classi¬ed, but leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post
within days.
151. Hersh, Chain of Command.
152. The phrase was used by the Schlesinger panel: Strasser, The Abu Ghraib
Investigations, 33.
153. William Gibson, “The Road to Oceania,” The New York Times, June 25,
2003, 25.
154. Kim Zetter, “Downloading for Democracy,” Wired News, July 19, 2004,
Web edition: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64237,64200.
html.
155. Washington Post, “The CIA™s Prisoners,” July 15, 2004, A20.


4. Message discipline
1. Senior government of¬cials issued a press release describing Kelly™s posi-
tion, and agreed that they would con¬rm Kelly™s identity if it was guessed
by a journalist. Simon Rogers, ed., The Hutton Inquiry and Its Impact
(London: Politico™s Publishing, 2004), 126“127.
2. http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/.
3. Lord Hutton, Report of the Inquiry to the Circumstances Surrounding the
Death of Dr. David Kelly (London: The Hutton Inquiry, 2004), 144.
4. Rogers, ed., The Hutton Inquiry and Its Impact, 4“8 and 10“27.
5. Peter Riddell, Hug Them Close: Blair, Clinton, Bush and the “Special Rela-
tionship” (London: Politico™s, 2004), 215.
6. Anthony Sampson, Who Runs This Place? (London: John Murray, 2004),
82. For an early complaint about the Blair government™s preoccupation


260
Notes to Pages 83“86


with “message discipline,” see House of Lords Hansard, October 28, 1997,
Column 1026.
7. Iain Byrne and Stuart Weir, “Democratic Audit: Executive Democracy in
War and Peace,” Parliamentary Affairs 57, no. 2 (2004): 453“468, 458“
459, Committee on Standards in Public Life, Ninth Report, Cm 5775
(London: Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2003), 4.20.
8. Committee on Standards in Public Life, Ninth Report, 8.3, Government
Communications Review Group, An Independent Review of Government
Communications (London: Government Communications Review Group,
2004).
9. Evidence of Mr. Bob Phillis to the House of Commons Public Adminis-
tration Committee, January 22, 2004.
10. Nicholas Fraser, “To BBC or Not To BBC,” Harper™s Magazine, May, 2004,
55.
11. United Kingdom, Your Right To Know: The Government™s Proposals for a
Freedom of Information Act, Preface.
12. Jack Straw, House of Commons Debates (London: House of Commons,
1999).
13. Lord Chancellor™s Department, Annual Report on Bringing Fully into
Force Those Provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Which
Are Not yet Fully in Force (London: Lord Chancellor™s Department, 2002),
19.
14. Maeve McDonagh, Freedom of Information in Ireland: Five Years
On (Washington, DC: freedominfo.org, September 22, 2003 [Accessed
October 15, 2003]), available from http://www.freedominfo.org/reports/
ireland/ireland.pdf. On the controversy over the invocation of cabinet con-
¬dentiality, see Seamus Dolan, “The Penumbra of Cabinet Con¬dentiality
and the Irish Constitution,” The Galway Student Law Review 2 (2003):
136“151, 142“143.
15. Joe Carroll, “Spring Gets Cabinet Secrecy Poll in Hope of Changing Strict
Rules,” The Irish Times, December 5, 1994, 7.
16. Minister of Finance, Fifth Report on Freedom of Information (Dublin:
Ministry of Finance, 2003), Table 1.3. The following cases are noted by
McDonagh, Freedom of Information in Ireland: Five Years On.
17. FOI Civil Service Users™ Network, Review of Administrative and Procedural
Arrangements Governing FOI (Dublin: Department of Finance FOI Central
Policy Unit, 1999).
18. Information Commissioner of Ireland, Annual Report 2001 (Dublin,
Ireland: Of¬ce of the Information Commissioner, 2002), 18.
19. Emily O™Reilly, Address to the Second Annual Conference on Freedom of
Information of the School of Law, Trinity College, Dublin (Dublin, Ireland:
Of¬ce of the Information Commissioner, 2003).
20. Louisa Nesbitt, “Information Laws ˜Corroded Process of Government™,”
Press Association News, March 1, 2003.
21. Martin Rosenbaum, Open to Question: Journalism and Freedom of Infor-
mation (Oxford: Reuters Foundation Fellowship Programme, 2004).
22. Dail Debate, June 1, 2004.
´


261
Notes to Pages 86“87


23. Mark Brennock, “Journalists™ Exposes the Only Competition Discour-
aged,” Irish Times, July 5, 2003, 12, Karlin Lillington, “Openness and
Transparency of State Only Go in One Direction,” The Irish Times, August
22, 2003, 53. Rosenbaum, Open to Question: Journalism and Freedom of
Information, 13.
24. Rosenbaum, Open to Question: Journalism and Freedom of Information,
McDonagh, Freedom of Information in Ireland.
25. Information Commissioner of Ireland, Review of the Operation of the Free-
dom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 (Dublin: Of¬ce of the Infor-
mation Commissioner, 2004), 14“19.
26. Irish Examiner, “Govt Made FOI Concept “Almost Useless”: Labour,” Irish
Examiner, May 16, 2004.
27. In 1969, political scientist Denis Smith lamented that Canadian govern-
ment had been transformed into a “thinly-disguised Presidential system,”
without the bene¬t of a strong legislature to balance presidential power.
Denis Smith, “President and Parliament: The Transformation of Parlia-
mentary Government in Canada,” in Apex of Power: The Prime Minister and
Political Leadership in Canada, ed. Thomas A. Hockin (Toronto: Prentice-
Hall, 1977).
28. Andrew Osler, “Journalism and the FOI Laws: A Faded Promise,”
Government Information in Canada 17 (1999): http://www.usask.ca/
library/gic/17/osler.html.
29. A brief chronology is provided in Annex 8 of Access to Information Review
Task Force, Access to Information: Making It Work for Canadians (Ottawa:
Treasury Board Secretariat, 2002). See also Privy Council Of¬ce, “Dis-
cussion Paper on Freedom of Information Legislation,” in The Complete
Annotated Guide to Federal Access to Information, ed. Michel Drapeau and
Marc-Aur´ le Racicot (Toronto: Carswell, 2001), 47.
e
30. John Roberts, “Green Paper on Legislation on Public Access to Govern-
ment Documents,” in The Complete Annotated Guide to Federal Access
to Information, ed. Michel Drapeau and Marc-Aur´ le Racicot (Toronto:
e
Carswell, 2001).
31. The efforts to avoid the law were revealed following the investigation
of the handling of a 1997 AIA request made by Ethyl Canada. The case
is discussed in Information Commissioner of Canada, Annual Report
2002“2003 (Ottawa: Of¬ce of the Information Commissioner, 2003),
15“16.
32. Information Commissioner of Canada, Annual Report 1996“1997
(Ottawa: Of¬ce of the Information Commissioner, 1997), 63“72. The deci-
sion to destroy records became public knowledge following a public
inquiry in 1995.
33. Canada™s Federal Court later overruled the government. Canada (Infor-
mation Commissioner) v. Canada (Prime Minister), (1993) 1 F.C. 427.
34. John Crosbie, No Holds Barred (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and
Stewart, 1997), 300.
35. Liberal Party of Canada, Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada
(Ottawa: Liberal Party of Canada, 1993).


262
Notes to Pages 88“91


36. Donald Savoie, Governing from the Centre (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1999); Jeffrey Simpson, The Friendly Dictatorship (Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart, 2001).
37. The comment is made in an e-mail released to the author following an
Access to Information Act request to Canadian Department of Citizenship
and Immigration.
38. Donald Savoie, Breaking the Bargain (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2003), 164.
39. Alasdair Roberts, “New Strategies for Enforcement of the Access to Infor-
mation Act,” Queen™s Law Journal 27 (2002): 647“683, 653“654.
40. Alasdair Roberts, Statement to the MPs™ Committee on Access to Informa-
tion (Syracuse, NY: Campbell Public Affairs Institute, 2001).
41. Alasdair Roberts, “Retrenchment and Freedom of Information: Recent
Experience under Federal, Ontario, and British Columbia Law,” Canadian
Public Administration 42, no. 4 (1999): 422“451; Roberts, “New Strategies
for Enforcement of the Access to Information Act,” 654“658 and 670“
671.
42. Ann Rees, “Red File Alert: Public Access at Risk,” Toronto Star, November
1, 2003, A32. The following discussion draws on the same documents used
by Rees, as well as other documents obtained by the author through other
AIA requests. A more detailed discussion is provided in Alasdair Roberts,
“Spin Control and Freedom of Information,” Public Administration 83,
no. 1 (2005): 1“23.
43. Gomery Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing, October 14, 2004
(Ottawa, Canada: Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program
and Advertising Activities, 2004), 3672.
44. The practice of categorizing requesters actually began so that ministries
could provide a public report of the type of individuals using the disclosure
law. However, some departments re¬ned these categories, adding some “
such as Parliament, Political Party, Consultant, or Lawyer “ that are only
used for internal purposes.
45. Whether this bar on disclosure is always respected is uncertain. In
2001 the Information Commissioner fought a legal battle that hinged
on the question of how a PCO of¬cial had learned the identity of a
requester. Information Commissioner of Canada, Annual Report 2000“
2001 (Ottawa, Ontario: Of¬ce of the Information Commissioner, 2001),
114. It may also be easy for an of¬cial to guess the identity of a requester
once his or her occupation is disclosed: Alasdair Roberts, “Singled Out
for Special Treatment,” Media Magazine 10, no. 4 (2004): 16“17.
46. Again, this is an adaptation of a feature originally added for other reasons.
See Alasdair Roberts, “Administrative Discretion and the Access to Infor-
mation Act: An “Internal Law” on Open Government?” Canadian Public
Administration 45, no. 2 (2002): 175“194.
47. For further details on CAIRS, see Roberts, “Spin Control and Freedom of
Information.”
48. Frank Howard, “Information Commissioner Warns New Access Process
Will Stem Leaks,” Ottawa Citizen, July 3, 1992, A4.


263
Notes to Pages 91“95


49. Government Telecommunications and Informatics Services, Coordina-
tion of Access to Information Requests CAIR System: Replacement of
Current System “ Business Requirements (Ottawa, Ontario: Government
Telecommunications and Informatics Service, 1999), 1.
50. Rees, “Red File Alert: Public Access at Risk.”
51. Jonathan Murphy, “Your Candle™s Flickering, Jean,” Globe and Mail, May
17, 2002, A15.
52. Roberts, “Spin Control and Freedom of Information.”
53. Roberts, “Administrative Discretion and the Access to Information Act:
An “Internal Law” on Open Government?”
54. Roberts, “Spin Control and Freedom of Information.”
55. Evidence of Mr. Charles Guit´ to the House of Commons Standing Com-
e
mittee on Public Accounts, April 22, 2004.
56. Gomery Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing, October 14, 2004,
3667“3674.
57. Daniel Leblanc, “Globe™s Sponsorship Probe Led Ottawa to Invent Rules,”
Globe and Mail, October 15, 2004.
58. The case is discussed in more detail in Roberts, “Spin Control and Free-
dom of Information.”
59. For example: Robert Hazell, “Freedom of Information in Australia,
Canada and New Zealand,” Public Administration 67, no. 2 (1989): 189.
60. The lack of good evidence is noted by Dave Clemens, Requests Made under
the Of¬cial Information Act 1982: A Survey at the Agency Level. Master™s
Thesis, Degree of Master of Library and Information Studies (Wellington,
New Zealand: School of Communications and Information Management,
Victoria University of Wellington, 2001); Edward Adams and Andrew
Ecclestone, Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: Study
Visit to Australia and New Zealand (London: Department of Constitutional
Affairs, 2003).
61. Brian Ellwood, Report of the Chief Ombudsman on Leaving Of¬ce
(Wellington, New Zealand: Of¬ce of the Chief Ombudsman, 2003), 11 and
13. The Ombudsmen™s Annual Reports for 2001 to 2004 showed that about
40 percent of complaints relating to requests under the Of¬cial Informa-
tion Act came from journalists or parliamentarians and their staff.
62. Adams and Ecclestone, Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act
2000: Study Visit to Australia and New Zealand, 4. Another recent study
concludes that journalists in New Zealand are more active users of their
disclosure law than journalists in Australia, Canada, or the United States:
Stephen Lamble, “Media Use of FOI Surveyed,” Freedom of Information
Review 109 (2004): 5“9.
63. Marie Shroff, “Behind the Of¬cial Information Act: Politics, Power and
Procedure,” in The Of¬cial Information Act (Wellington, New Zealand:
Victoria University of Wellington, 1997), 20.
64. Adams and Ecclestone, Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act
2000: Study Visit to Australia and New Zealand, 10.
65. Nicky Hager, A Researcher™s View of New Zealand™s Of¬cial Information
Act: Comments to the International Symposium on Freedom of Information


264
Notes to Pages 95“98


and Privacy (Auckland, New Zealand: Of¬ce of the Privacy Commissioner,
2002).
66. James Buwalda, Report of an Investigation into the Department of Labour™s
Management of Information in Relation to Mr. Ahmed Zaoui (Wellington,
New Zealand: Department of Labour, 2003), 8“12.
67. Mel Smith, Report Upon the Actions of the Department of Labor in Regard
to an Of¬cial Information Act Complaint by Sarah Boyle, of the Of¬ce
of the Leader of the Opposition (Wellington, New Zealand: Of¬ce of the
Ombudsman, 2004), 29 and 38.
68. The Tampa controversy is discussed in: David Marr and Marian Wilkinson,
Dark Victory: How a Government Lied Its Way to Political Triumph (Crow™s
Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2003).
69. Patrick Weller, Don™t Tell the Prime Minister (Melbourne: Scribe Publica-
tions, 2002).
70. Ibid., 51“89.
71. Martin Chulov, “How FOI Became Freedom from Information,” The Aus-

<<

. 42
( 53 .)



>>