21
When journalists from across Canada asked government officials for 85 public records ranging from court documents, to local water-quality reports, to federal food-safety warnings, the answer was no nearly half the time.
Even after filing formal written requests under information laws, journalists were still unable to pry basic public records from government filing cabinets in 41 per cent of cases.
Findings from the third annual National Freedom of Information Audit illustrate how government secrecy undermines the public's right to know, says Anne Kothawala, president of the Canadian Newspaper Association, which conducted the audit.
“Year after year, newspapers show through this exercise that many Canadian governments have a flawed understanding of the importance of transparency to the democratic system,” she said. “But transparency is exactly what underpins the accountability principle at the heart of it all. You can't have one without the other.”
Over a period of two months, more than 40 journalists visited provincial court offices, federal government departments and city halls documenting how public servants respond to requests for public information.
Those responses varied widely across the country, pointing to a patchwork of policies, legislative interpretations and government staff training levels that make the process unpredictable and confusing.
“A lot of people are very frustrated,” said Michael Dagg, an Ottawa-based researcher who files hundreds of information requests a year on behalf of clients. “Recently a client paid fees in the thousands of dollars for records and the department then said they were giving themselves an extension of 365 days.”
Mr. Dagg said Canadians face a culture of secrecy in government.
“[Information] requests are a bit like mosquito bites. Until there are thousands and thousands of them, the system won't change. The problem now in Canada is we don't have enough requests. There's not enough pressure on the system.”
This year's audit results were consistent with the previous two audits, in which reporters had an equally difficult time accessing similar public records.
The most easily obtained information this year was court records on criminal cases, where documents were released 70 per cent of the time.
But even there, reporters had wildly differing experiences.
Each visited courthouses and asked for documents that lay out the charges against accused persons in criminal cases. Some court officials provided the documents on the spot. Others advised that the wait would be as long as six weeks. Some reporters were asked to fill out forms. Some were asked to pay fees.
In Ontario, results were all over the map. In Kingston, St. Catharines and Sault Ste. Marie, the information was provided in minutes. But in Timmins, a reporter was told it would take up to 15 days to get a copy of an indictment against an accused and charged $2 for a photocopy of his own request.
A reporter visiting the Newmarket courthouse was told it would take three to six weeks to provide the information. In Sarnia, the information on an accused was provided but copies were refused on the basis that “it's policy. It doesn't go out to the public.”
In Kitchener, a reporter was told it could take up to two weeks and cost $2 a page. When she asked why she couldn't see the information immediately, court staff replied: “Because I don't have time to get them for you.”
Because the courts are not subject to freedom-of-information legislation, reporters had no recourse if access was delayed or denied.
Court officials in the rest of the country were also inconsistent in deciding about release of records. In Corner Brook, the information was provided quickly. In Edmonton, a reporter was charged a $10 search fee and got the records three days later.
Some of the most difficult records for journalists to obtain related to surplus Crown lands. The information was released in full in only 48 per cent of cases, the audit found.
In Montreal, an official at the Longueuil City Hall refused a request for such a list on the basis that one did not exist and that, under Quebec's access legislation, she did not need to create one. In Ontario, a reporter in Timmins never obtained the records despite two visits to a provincial office requesting the documents.
In Saskatoon, staff at the Information Services Corporation of Saskatchewan laughed when asked for information on Crown properties, saying it would take “forever to compile” and they were not willing to do it. The reporter was later referred to another provincial department, where an official initially promised to release the information but did not follow through. A formal FOI request was required to get it.
Ann Rees, who published an in-depth series of stories in 2003 on public access to government-held records and is now researching a doctorate at Simon Fraser University on the subject, said delays are increasingly common, especially for requests made by the news media.
That's due in part to more aggressive “surveillance” of potentially embarrassing requests by government public-relations officials, she said. “The spin doctors are keeping a very close watch on media requests, and there is a big question about how far public relations has led to interference.”
Requests for records on sewage discharges from municipal sewage-treatment systems were quickly fulfilled in cities including Vancouver and Brantford.
But the story was different in many other cities.
A Calgary reporter had to file a formal request under provincial FOI legislation after failing to get the records informally. In response to the request, the provincial government issued a fee estimate of $581.35 for the records.
A request for sewage-treatment records in Hamilton inspired a city staff worker to curtly declare that she couldn't let a member of the public see the documents. The reporter was told to file a formal information request. In Windsor, a reporter was bluntly told: “Those records are not given out to the public.”
Requests for records at the federal level also ran up against some high brick walls.
An attempt to obtain energy audits and fuel bills at 24 Sussex Dr. required a formal request and then a $35 fee to search for the records. Two months later, the records had still not been released.
It took three months for the federal Canadian Food Inspection Agency to release records on health warnings related to rice cracker products and sparkling water – two months beyond the legislated 30-day deadline.
Robert Cribb is a reporter for the Toronto Star With a report from Fred Vallance-Jones, assistant professor of journalism, University of King's College, Halifax
