Over the past week, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced reforms to the province’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) which will exempt his office, as well as his cabinet ministers, from having to respond to records requests. While he has claimed these amendments are necessary to safeguard sensitive information from hostile Chinese spies, the truth is that these moves are more in line with China’s approach to government than what Canadians expect from their leaders.

Access to information about matters of public importance is a constitutionally protected right under Section 2(b) of the Charter, and a fundamental pillar of democratic governance. Freedom of information requests are also a critical tool for journalists and watchdog groups to uncover corruption and mismanagement.

From Bev Oda’s loose spending habits to Peter MacKay’s use of military helicopters for private fishing holidays, there is long list of government scandals which were uncovered by freedom of information requests. The potential for journalists to dig up stories like these is a far likelier explanation for the proposed reforms than the specter of looming communist infiltration.

Contrary to what the Ford government is claiming, a decision to exclude cabinet entirely from the freedom of information rules would make Ontario an outlier. New Brunswick, Manitoba, Quebec, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador all include cabinet records within the ambit of their respective laws. Although every freedom of information law provides some protection for cabinet confidentiality, in more progressive laws this is narrowly limited to information whose disclosure would actually harm the deliberative process, and some laws even mandate that the information must be disclosed once a decision is reached.

Premier Ford is not wrong to suggest that FIPPA is badly in need of modernization, and there are plenty of examples from across Canada and around the world for how better systems operate.

In 2015, Newfoundland and Labrador amended its access to information rules to expand the availability of cabinet records. Internationally, there are many countries which mandate that information should be delivered within 10 working days, or that it should be provided free of charge. Either change would be a significant step forward for Ontario. But in an era where democracies around the world face an unprecedented challenge from rising authoritarianism, jettisoning core Charter values for the sake of political expediency is a dangerous and short-sighted move.

Against the importance of transparency for democratic governance, Premier Ford’s excuses to keep his records secret are laughable. He claims that he regularly receives confidential health and personal information from his constituents. But the premier was not elected to serve as the province’s therapist or confessor.

While Ontario’s freedom of information rules already contain exceptions for material whose disclosure would create an unreasonable invasion of privacy, a better solution if the premier insists on using his official phone to engage with constituents on private matters may be for him to pursue his true calling elsewhere. In a democracy, transparency is a fundamental aspect of accountable public service: if the premier is not comfortable with this, he should seek another line of work.

Michael Karanicolas is a professor of constitutional law at Dalhousie University, and the James S. Palmer Chair in Public Policy and the Law.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.