OTTAWA—The federal government isn't taking seriously the reforms needed to remove secrecy from all levels of government in Canada, according to federal information commissioner John Reid.

He was speaking at a special conference the Canadian Newspaper Association (CNA) convened here yesterday to examine the Access to Information Act, which governments haven't abided by, provoking harsh criticism in recent months.

The act is intended to ensure transparency in government, so Canadians can see the rationale behind government decisions.

But a test of the freedom-of-information laws the CNA sponsored earlier this year found political interference and the bureaucracy's culture of secrecy to blame for governments' frequent denial to release information that those laws stipulate the public has a right to know, especially when media make the request.

Both Reid and the CNA have called for changes to the access-to-information laws to ensure such refusals cannot be made.

Although the federal justice ministry has promised a new bill this fall, Reid points to Prime Minister Paul Martin's proposal to merge the two roles of the information commissioner and the federal privacy commissioner into one and questions just how committed Ottawa is to making those reforms.

"It might cause a cynical person to believe that the government has thrown a merger idea on the table now, merely to justify stalling the reform process until the next election," said Reid, who went on to say Martin's proposal is misguided.

The CNA yesterday called on Reid to formally and urgently investigate the way governments put up barriers when the media requests information.

"Freedom of information and freedom of the press are two freedoms hewn from the same stone," said Anne Kothawala, president and CEO of the CNA.

"To impede one is to frustrate the other. To deny access is to prevent us from playing the watchdog role that citizens tell us is our core function and their main expectation from us."

The Commons committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics earlier this year asked Reid to provide them with a draft bill outlining the reforms he would like to see adopted. He outlined the general framework of that bill yesterday.

Reid warned that access to information is under serious threat in Canada. It is therefore vital that the pressure is kept on the federal government to reform access to information, especially during the upcoming federal election campaign.

He also urged pressure on Justice John Gomery, who is preparing his report on the federal sponsorship scandal, which will include recommendations intended to make governments more transparent to prevent future misuse of public funds.

Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian’s latest annual report comes across as a tough-minded review of much that still needs to be done - and the small gains being made - to win access to government information for Ontario residents.

Cavoukian calls on the government to open the doors on hundreds of organizations that receive billions of taxpayers’ dollars each year by including them under freedom of information legislation. She warns that Ontario, once a leader in access to information law, is falling behind many areas of the country by failing to expand on its original commitment.

But she does praise the government for having started the process to fold universities into the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, making them more accountable to the public.

The mixed review continues. Cavoukian delivers a mild scolding for an eight-per-cent dip in the “compliance rate” by provincial ministries compared to 2003, but notes the overall rate was dragged down by the disastrous performance of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, which managed to reply to only 40.6 per cent of information request within 30 days. Pull the bad apple out of the mix and compliance jumps to 89 per cent from 69 per cent.

The commissioner’s report and recommendations are, as usual, necessary and should be followed. But they are also more than a bit of a sham.

Cavoukian is not to blame. She reports in the context of the framework laid out for her office, and has consistently pushed for more openness from both provincial and municipal governments.

However, as a recent national investigation by Canadian Newspaper Association (CNA) members showed, compliance rates are not a measure of how well the system works. Freedom of information is all about attitude. If the public servants who control the paperwork aren’t interested in really making it work – rather than just staying barely inside the rules while stonewalling furiously – “compliance rates” are just empty figures.

Reporters from 45 newspapers, including The Examiner, exposed that hypocrisy by asking federal, provincial and municipal offices to provide simple, basic information: stuff like average class sizes and the total number of hours of overtime worked by police officers during the past year. All of it was clearly public information within the definition of access laws.

But only 32 per cent of the time did a public servant say, yes, that’s public information, here it is. Even after formal applications were filed, only 62 per cent of the requests resulted in a partial release of the information.

Under the measure used by the privacy commission, those results could have translated to a 100-per-cent compliance rate. As long as a response to each application came back within 30 days, regardless of what it said, the perfect standard would be met.

The real test of how open governments are is what is released, and how much effort is required to get it. And that comes down to the civil service’s position on the balance between the legislation’s two information concerns: freedom and privacy.

Public employees are typically more interested in protecting privacy. Officials from both the local hospital and Children’s Aid Society, asked about Cavoukian’s call for to have their organizations included in the act, immediately said they would have concerns about protecting the privacy of patients and clients.

The right to privacy is, of course, important. But there is no evidence it is being abused. Last year, 33,577 requests for information were filed with municipal and provincial bodies. In 12,456 of those cases, the request was refused under an exemption for personal or private information. By comparison, 128 complaints were filed over improper release of private information.

The news is not all bad. Commissioner Cavoukian is doing a good job of keeping the need for better access to information in the public eye. And the provincial Liberal government has taken positive steps, like applying access to information law to universities. Some ministries and agencies have become very open to giving the public its own information.

But what the CNA investigation made clear is that until attitudes within the bureaucracy as a whole change, a lot of paper will continue to be shuffled in what is ultimately an effort to keep the public shut out.

TORONTO, June 16 /CNW/ - Warning that a "culture of secrecy" within government bureaucracies threatens democracy, Anne Kothawala, President and CEO of the Canadian Newspaper Association (CNA), today urged members of the Parliamentary Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to bring political pressure to bear so that Canada's outdated Access to Information Act is modernized to ensure transparency and accountability in government.

The CNA's appearance before the Committee follows the release last month of the Association's groundbreaking national audit of Canada's freedom of information systems, which found compliance with access to information laws severely wanting at all levels of government. The audit gave 75% of federal departments sampled a failing grade for incompliance, and concluded that the public's right to government information that has an impact on our lives is in failing health.

"You are in a unique, and I would even say historic, position of being able to take action to right the wrongs that helped produce the sponsorship scandal and the Radwanski affair," Ms. Kothawala told Committee members. "Despite repeated promises over the past two decades, political leaders walk to the brink of a firm decision to strengthen access law, only to retreat. So we are looking to you to help get the job done."

Revelations about the failure of freedom of information systems have already produced results. In reaction to the CNA audit, federal Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler, told journalists attending the recent CNA annual conference that he will introduce a bill to amend the Access to Information Act this fall, if the Standing Committee on Access to Information has not submitted its own draft by then. Also prompted by CNA's work, Conservative leader Stephen Harper issued a strong statement of support for access reform, embracing many of the CNA's key recommendations for change.

Problems highlighted in more than 200 stories carried by newspapers across the country have provoked a groundswell of support for measures to enforce access rights guaranteed under Canada's information laws. Elected officials at all levels of government have pledged to make improvements, including the Government of New Brunswick which is undertaking an internal review of its freedom of information regime after receiving a 25% failing grade in the audit. Prompted by problems uncovered in audit, in which municipal officials refused a request for information on a street paving program, the City of Fredericton announced this week it will redraft its communications strategy.

In Ontario, Sarnia Mayor, Mike Bradley, was so appalled by the local results of the audit that he is calling on Premier McGuinty to conduct a review of the province's Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. The Chatham- Kent Police Service and the St. Clair Catholic District School Board have pledged to educate staff on the need to quickly provide information to the public. And in Saskatchewan, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Gary Dickson, told the Saskatoon Star Phoenix that the province's information laws are "tired and tattered." "Clearly there is a need to open up the act and go in and amend it," he said.

The CNA received praise from Federal/Provincial/Territorial Information and Privacy Commissioners, meeting at a national summit in Ottawa on June 10, following a speech by Ms. Kothawala outlining the audit results. She encouraged Commissioners to support the CNA's proposals to reform federal access to information legislation that will strengthen Canadian democracy. The recommendations are contained in "In Pursuit of Meaningful Access to Information Reform", available on the CNA web site.

The CNA has also earned high marks from outgoing federal Information Commissioner, John Reid, who credits the Association with raising awareness of the federal government's dismal track record for responding to requests for public information. The Information Commissioner's annual reports have repeatedly called on political leaders to take steps to eliminate the "culture of secrecy" that has taken root in government.

For further information: David Gollob, Vice President, Public Affairs, Canadian Newspaper Association, Tel: 1-800-536-7993, Cell: (613) 298-9288, dgollob@cna-acj.ca

Canada's information culture is truly backward. A team of 89 reporters from 45 newspapers blitzed federal and local government offices across the country with simple questions -- on class sizes, police suspensions, restaurant inspections and the like -- and were turned away with alarming frequency. In a tyranny, this wouldn't be surprising. But in a modern democracy?

In New Brunswick, a police official refused to turn over records showing how many officers had been suspended for misconduct. "It isn't going to make us look very good." In Prince Edward Island, a school-board official wanted to know why someone wanted records on class sizes. The reporter wasn't able to obtain the records. In Toronto, a resident (not part of the newspaper audit team) wondered why local parks were poorly maintained and asked officials for an accounting of spending. The city told her its search for those records would cost her $12,960.

The information requested in those examples is hardly the stuff of cabinet secrets. It's basic information that Canadians want and need to know to be effective in their roles as citizens, taxpayers and parents. They shouldn't have to jump up and down, take out a second mortgage or submit to a grilling under hot lights before receiving a reply. Access-to-information laws that have spread across the country in the past two decades were supposed to ensure that such information is made public when requested.

But a law is sometimes easier to change than a culture. And many governments have an obstinate, proprietary culture about the information they possess. "Who the hell are you?" seems to be the prevailing attitude in much of Canada. At the federal level, of eight requests that the audit team made through the Access to Information Act, only two won the release of records within the 30-day statutory period for responses. Six agencies did not reply. In PEI, seven requests for information on road repairs, police conduct or school violence were rebuffed, and two requests were met with demands for high fees. No requests were answered. In Alberta, on the other hand, 93 per cent of requests received a full or partial answer. WhetherAlberta's populist streak extends right into the halls of government or whether there is some other cultural difference at work, the province's example is worth emulating.

Access laws have been used to good effect in recent years. The Globe and Mail broke the $100-million sponsorship scandal using those laws. The ballooning costs of the federal gun registry became known because of them. Good governance requires openness.

Why is that point not more widely understood and accepted? Federal Information Commissioner John Reid says nothing has undermined the right of access more, in the past 20 years, than the "disdain" shown for it by prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney, a disdain that spread through their offices, the Privy Council offices and those of the senior bureaucracy. But what explains the stonewalling at the country's school boards, police departments and city halls? Again, lack of leadership from elected officials and civil servants.

It's shameful, really, the way Canadians are expected to plead for information that rightfully belongs to them.

St. John's city council meets in a Telegram file photo. City council brought in a freedom of information bylaw more than a decade ago. A national audit of open-records laws showed Gary Hebbard/Telegram file photo encouraging results for Newfoundland and Labrador - a grade of B - but revealed that there is still work to be done.

In Kingston, Ont., a public-health employee told a person requesting restaurant inspection records that they'd have to go to court first.

A citizen asking for information on municipal employee sick days in Edmonton was told such records are private.

City officials in Summerside, P.E.I., decided information about police complaints and suspensions cannot be released to the public.

In Peterborough, Ont., a request for water test results inspired an official to declare: "I'm not interested in giving that up."

And in St. John's, a city employee said sick leave statistics for council workers were likely covered by privacy laws, and not available to the public.

Employees asked five separate times why the requester wanted the information, and wouldn't talk at all until they were informed of the citizen's name and "who they are with."

The St. John's city employees then said compiling the information would cost $1,515. They later relented and provided it free of charge.

Time and time again, requests for public records in the country's first national audit of government openness were met with denials, excuses and, in some cases, outright hostility. Yet in each case the information was supposed to be readily available.

Reporters, who asked for the information as citizens, faced many barriers in their attempts to gain access to records documenting everything from government spending to schoolyard bullying to police conduct.

Among the most common challenges were:

• outright denials of information that should be routinely available;
• high fees for accessing records that should be available for free or at nominal cost;
• a bureaucratic maze of unanswered calls and unhelpful officials;
• a lack of understanding in many government agencies about public-disclosure responsibilities;
• officials demanding, contrary to law, to know the requester's identity and purpose for requesting the records before agreeing to release them.

Municipal records of restaurant inspection records were among the most difficult to obtain.

In Ottawa, a request for the names of restaurants that had violated health-and-safety standards prompted officials there to calculate a detailed price for the information: $1,367.50.

In Charlottetown, the same question produced a fee estimate of $850.

In St. John's, the provincial Department of Government Services attached a $600 price tag to the request.

Saskatoon public-health officials rebuffed the question, saying it was only available to those who could provide evidence that they were purchasing the restaurant.

And, in Kingston, a city official said the information would not be released without a judge's subpoena.

Tony Button, director of administrative services for the Kingston area health unit, said last week subpoenas are not required to access eatery inspection records.

"Whoever (said) you need a subpoena is completely wrong," he said. "You need to make a request under (freedom of information law) and the issue can be resolved pretty quickly."

In all, only 23 per cent of requests for restaurant information were released on the first visit to a municipal department. That figure rose to 49 per cent after reporters filed a formal freedom of information request.

By contrast, restaurant inspection information is freely posted for diners in Toronto on a city website and in eatery windows - a public disclosure system that was launched in 2001 following a newspaper investigation into secrecy around food-safety inspection records.

Law enforcement records were also difficult to obtain, according to audit results.

Only 28 per cent of visits to police stations across the country turned up records on police complaints and suspensions. Formal written requests lifted that figure to slightly more than 60 per cent. No police department would provide data on officer sick days when reporters first asked for the records. After reporters filed official requests, the records were released in 47 per cent of cases.

When a request for records of police complaints and suspensions was denied in Summerside, P.E.I., a reporter filed a formal written request for the information along with a $5 application fee.

The city's written response was categorical: "Please be advised that the municipality of the City of Summerside and its departments including Summerside Police Services, are not covered by this Act, or its regulations, and therefore we are not required to release the information you requested."

Summerside Police Chief Ian Drummond said he didn't have a problem

releasing the information, but was overruled by a city attorney.

"The (city) attorney had some hesitation on releasing that information and in what context it would be used."

P.E.I. fared worst in the national audit, with all nine requests for records denied - a result that could reflect the fact that the province's information law was only adopted in 2002, said Drummond.

"It's just new here. Maybe that has something to do with the hesitancy. Once we have more experience, we should catch up."

City of Victoria police grilled a reporter looking for complaint and suspension information, asking what she intended to do with it and why.

"The general attitude that you get is that you have no right to this," says Judith Lavoie, the Victoria journalist who made the request.

"You're made to feel very unwelcome."

Deborah Taylor, an analyst with Victoria Police Department's freedom of information branch, said the level of personal information requested determines what can be released.

"All the information would have to be presented before a decision could be made."

According to information laws in Canada, the identity of the person making a request is not relevant to the release of public records.

But many government officials don't understand that, says John Reid, the country's federal Information Commissioner.

"Governments don't spend any time or energy or money training people. (Bureaucrats) don't understand the legislation and don't understand the processes."

Requests for water test results also met a bureaucratic brick wall in most areas of the country.

Only 34 per cent of requesters obtained any information on a visit to government offices. That rose to 59 per cent following formal requests.

Officials with Ontario's Haliburton Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health Unit told a reporter that water quality tests for the region are private and cannot be released to the public.

"I asked for the public results and (an official) said, I could possibly get a summary of information, but I'm not interested in giving that up‚" recalls Steve Ladurantaye, city editor of the Peterborough Examiner, who posed the question as a citizen and later attempted to file a formal request to obtain the records.

"(An employee) told me that she would not accept the (written request), and it's not the health unit's responsibility to release that information to me. I asked repeatedly why I couldn't file a request. She had no answer other than, 'I couldn't.' "

Chandra Tremblay, a spokesperson for the health unit, said the incident stems from confusion.

Water test results are public in the region, north of Toronto. But the records are maintained by local municipalities rather than the region.

"It was probably a misunderstanding of someone not knowing what can or cannot be done," she said. "We don't keep that information, but we refer people to where they can get it. It's probably (a staff person) who wasn't familiar with that, which is unfortunate."

- With files from Rob Antle.

TORONTO, May 28 - For Canadians trying to get answers about how governments make decisions affecting their daily lives, odds are high that their requests for information will be denied. Success in accessing public information can depend on where you live, who you are, and how much money you are prepared to spend. That's among the findings of a national audit of Canada's freedom of information systems conducted by the Canadian Newspaper Association. The results were released today in 45 newspapers across Canada.

The CNA study found that while the federal government as well as Canada's provinces and territories all have freedom of information legislation, in many cases compliance with these laws falls short. The CNA collected the experiences of reporters from 45 newspapers in ten provinces, acting as private citizens, who tested how bureaucrats obey laws guaranteeing the public's right to know in their communities. Reporters visited city halls, police forces, school boards and federal government offices seeking public records on such routine matters as employee sick days, classroom sizes and road repairs. Government officials granted the information requested in just 32 per cent of in-person visits. Even when reporters paid fees for formal access requests, the information was fully or partially released in only 62 per cent of cases.

"This audit provides documentary evidence of something that newspapers have long suspected and we now know to be fact," said Anne Kothawala, President and CEO of the Canadian Newspaper Association. "The public's right to government information that has an impact on our lives is in failing health, and will get worse unless we start fixing it."

Problems of red tape, poor disclosure, prohibitive fees, and incompliance with statutory time limits for responses can be found across all levels of government, although some jurisdictions perform better than others. Information that is free of charge in some provinces and municipalities can cost thousands of dollars in others. Reporters found huge inconsistencies in freedom of information policies across the country, ranging from poor disclosure in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to a 93 per cent response rate in Alberta , which updated its freedom to information laws in recent years.

"Provinces that have better access laws show better results," observed Ms. Kothawala. "Perhaps this is not a coincidence."

A disturbing trend identified in the audit was the degree of questioning by bureaucrats aimed at people requesting information. In some cases, officials became more forthcoming once they learned the person seeking information was a reporter. Canada's information laws stipulate the identities of those making requests and their reasons for wanting information need not be provided to access public records.

About the Canadian Newspaper Association

The Canadian Newspaper Association is the voice of Canada's daily newspaper industry. We promote the positive reputation of newspapers as an essential medium that benefits all Canadians, and as an effective vehicle for advertisers. The CNA is a vigorous champion of journalistic freedom and democratic reform and is a valued source of industry information, trends and best practices.

For more information:
David Gollob
Vice President, Public Affairs
Canadian Newspaper Association
Cell: 613-298-9288
dgollob@cna-acj.ca

Access laws are supposed to help Canadians get information from government. But a cross-country audit has found many agents of government are just saying no

Canadians seeking basic government information about class sizes, restaurant safety or police complaints are up against a culture of secrecy, a national audit of openness shows.

In the country's first-ever practical test of transparency, reporters visited city halls, police forces, school boards and federal government offices across Canada to test how bureaucrats administer laws protecting the public's right to government information. They found a confusing patchwork of policies across the country.

Officials handed over records to just one in every three requesters who came in person. The rest remained locked tight in government filing cabinets as applicants were told they had to file time-consuming - and often expensive - formal requests under provincial or federal access laws.

Jutta Mason is one citizen who knows only too well the frustrating labyrinth of information laws.

Concerned about the lack of maintenance at a park in her west-end Toronto neighbourhood, she and others in her community began asking for an accounting of the city's parks budget more than two years ago.

Mason wanted to know how the parks and recreation department spends money, why some playground equipment was being removed and why there never seemed to be any money to pave the pathways where baby strollers, bikes and wheelchairs get stuck in the mud.

When she and her neighbours asked city hall, they were told they would have to file a formal freedom of information request. They've filed several requests since 2003. But most of their questions remain unanswered, Mason says.

Most formal information requests - more than three-quarters - are filed by citizens and businesses, federal statistics show. Media requests account for about 10 per cent and other organizations, such as labour unions, file close to 15 per cent.

In January, the city sent Mason a price tag of $12,960 for access to records of city spending on playground repairs. Mason made a formal appeal to have the fee waived in the public interest. The city denied that appeal last month.

"I've been stonewalled repeatedly," Mason says. "The fact is they really have been remarkably unco-operative. With massive amounts of effort, you get pretty small results. But you have to get so skilful at asking the questions. If you're just starting out, you're up the creek. You get frustrated and give up."

Suzanne Craig, director of access and privacy with the City of Toronto, says the high fee demanded for the records reflects the workload it would place on staff.

"This is an example of someone wanting to get information and an example of our organization following what we have in place," says Craig, who acknowledges that seeking information under current laws can be frustrating.

"I put myself in the position of any citizen. Anyone who knows the legislation hopes that life can be breathed into it."

Mason's experience was typical of the findings from a national audit organized by the Canadian Newspaper Association and made public today .

In a test of how bureaucrats administer laws protecting the public's right to know, 89 reporters from 45 newspapers across Canada asked - as private citizens - for routine public records on everything from school bullying incidents to road repair schedules.

Government clerks handed over records in only 32 per cent of in-person visits.

Even when the reporters then filed formal access requests, only 62 per cent of applicants ultimately won at least partial release of the basic public information.

As with many citizens who attempt to navigate the complicated and often adversarial process of obtaining public records, requesters in the national audit were confronted with an array of barriers, from fees that reached into the thousands of dollars to bureaucratic intransigence to outright denials.

"There's still a very strong culture of secrecy in these organizations," says federal Information Commissioner John Reid. "They all run on the basis of loyalty and that means not rocking the boat."

The picture did vary across the country.

If you live in Prince Edward Island, you face a particularly high wall around government information, the audit shows. Applicants were unsuccessful in all nine attempts to obtain public information on school violence, police conduct or road repairs.

"There must be an easier way to get information that I would think, as both a parent and a reporter, should be available," says one P.E.I. applicant who failed to obtain records on class sizes and incidents of bullying from one of the province's school boards.

"First, getting questioned at the school board office about why I wanted the information, then, leaving my name and getting no reply and calling again looking for the appropriate person to get me the information I wanted, right down to the (formal) request allegedly going astray."

Alan Kennedy, superintendent of P.E.I.'s Western School Board, says his board tries to be responsive to parents' questions about class sizes.

"I would like to know why you want it. You have to understand the context of school class sizes," he says. "But we try to provide that information."

If you're looking for information on how many police officers have been suspended for misconduct in New Brunswick, best of luck.

A police official in Fredericton denied the information to an applicant on the basis that "it isn't going to make us look very good."

A New Brunswick Police Commission official later told an applicant the information is confidential, adding: "I am not prepared, and the commission is not prepared, to give that information out."

Your chances of accessing public records are dramatically better if you live in Alberta, where at least some information was provided in 93 per cent of cases. Manitoba officials were almost as forthcoming, releasing at least some records in 87.5 per cent of requests. Saskatchewan was the only western province to get a failing grade when it came to accessing government records.

The greater openness in Western Canada is partly a function of newer laws and greater support among top officials and politicians, Reid says.

"The western provinces have this concept of populism and whatnot, and that pays of in terms of making things available." The results show that provinces that fared poorly in the audit - such as P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick - are choosing the most expensive way of handling public disclosure of records, Reid says.

That's because routine release of records is far cheaper than the bureaucratic workload involved with fulfilling a request under information laws, he says.

"It tells you that Alberta and Manitoba are running very efficient systems and so, therefore, their costs are going to be significantly lower. And Prince Edward Island has opted for the most expensive process.... The way you make it more efficient is by answering people's questions."

Inconsistencies in how officials followed disclosure rules were evident even within provinces.

In Ottawa, for example, an applicant was told it could take months and more than $1,000 in fees to obtain restaurant inspection records. In Toronto, such information is posted on a website.

Of eight requests submitted to federal government departments, all through the Access to Information Act, in only two cases were records released within the 30-day statutory period for responses. The other six agencies didn't reply.

According to the audit, the easiest information to get tended to be the least controversial. About half of the requests for information on road repairs and class sizes were released informally after one or more visits to the public counter at city halls and school boards. On the other hand, slightly less than a quarter of informal requests for a restaurant inspection report got results. And none of the requests for the number of sick days taken by police officers was satisfied through an informal visit.

When the informal route didn't work, reporters filed formal freedom of information requests, using the appropriate federal, provincial or municipal legislation.

That pushed up the success rate. But still, less than half of the requests for information on police sick days resulted in the release of any information. Even the least controversial requests, for road repair information and class sizes, were ultimately unsuccessful a quarter of the time.

Among the audit findings that surprise Reid was the degree of questioning bureaucrats directed at people requesting information, including who they were and why they wanted it.

Information laws across the country say the identity of those making the request - and their reasons for wanting information - should not be a factor in decisions about disclosure of public records.

"It raises a big flag for me," he says. "There may well be some backside protection going on here. ... Everybody's law says you're supposed to get it without question. It doesn't matter who you are. ... The office is there to serve you, not the other way around."

The results also reveal differences in compliance between rural and urban areas.

Reporters working for papers with weekly circulations of less than 100,000, for example, got their information only 47 per cent of the time.

Those from papers with weekly circulations of 100,000 to 500,000 were successful 65 per cent of the time. Those from larger papers, with weekly circulations of 500,000 to 1 million, got records 87 per cent of the time.

The six largest papers, with weekly circulations in excess of 1 million, got records 57 per cent of the time, but that average was influenced by a relative lack of success with requests to federal agencies, which were handled by the largest papers.

The freedom of information audit, the first of its kind, was a joint project by newspapers across the country, organized by the Canadian Newspaper Association.

It was carried out by 89 reporters from 45 newspapers in 10 provinces.

Acting as interested, private citizens and following the same initial procedures, the reporters made requests at different public offices in an effort to determine how well government officials were obeying information laws.

THE QUESTIONS:

City Hall

When is the city going to repair (a street in my community)? May I have a copy of the priority list for road-repair projects in (my city/town) for this year?

How many employees work for the municipality?

Can I get a full report of sick days in 2004 for all municipal workers, by department and day of week?

Law enforcement

Number of public complaints filed against the local police service in 2004.

Number of officers placed on suspension (paid or unpaid) in 2004 and the reasons.

Number of sick days and amount of overtime logged by officers in 2004.

Public Health

How many local restaurants violated or failed to comply with health and safety standards in 2004? Provide a list of them, including all those charged or issued with warnings.

Is (name of a local restaurant) safe to eat in?

How many tests of drinking water in (this area/region) failed to meet provincial safety standards for drinking water?

Education

What are the classroom sizes, grade by grade, at (name of a local school) as of Jan. 31?

How many incidents of violence and bullying have been reported at (the same local school) to the school board since the start of the 2004-2005 school year? How does this compare to the average?

Federal departments

How much did your department spend in the last budget year on sick leave and temporary personnel?

Please also state the number of employees and total payroll of your department

The first requests were made in person and, if the reporters were so directed, by phone.

If unsuccessful, these attempts were followed up by the reporters with the forms, fees and letters required by access-to-information laws.

In Kingston, a public health employee tells a person requesting restaurant inspection records that he'll have to go to court first.

A citizen asking for information on municipal employee sick days in Edmonton is told such records are private.

City officials in Summerside, P.E.I., decide information about police complaints and suspensions cannot be released to the public.

In Peterborough, a request for water test results inspires an official to declare: "I'm not interested in giving that up."

Time and time again, requests for public records in the country's first national audit of government openness were met with denials, excuses and, in some cases, outright hostility. Yet, in each case the information was supposed to be readily available.

Reporters, who asked for public information as private citizens, faced many barriers in their attempts to access records documenting everything from government spending to schoolyard bullying to police conduct.

Among the most common challenges were:

Outright denials of information that should be routinely available.

High fees for accessing records that should be available for free or at nominal cost.

A bureaucratic maze of unanswered calls and unhelpful officials.

A lack of understanding in many government agencies about public disclosure responsibilities.

Officials demanding, contrary to law, to know the requester's identity and purpose for requesting the records before agreeing to release them.

Municipal records of restaurant inspection records were among the most difficult to obtain.

In Ottawa, a request for the names of restaurants that had violated health and safety standards prompted officials there to calculate a detailed price for the information: $1,367.50. In Charlottetown, the same question produced a fee estimate of $850. Saskatoon public health officials rebuffed the question, saying it was only available to those who could provide evidence that they were purchasing the restaurant.

And in Kingston, a city official said the information would not be released without a judge's subpoena.

Tony Button, director of administrative services for the Kingston area health unit, says subpoenas are not required to access eatery inspection records.

"Whoever (said) you need a subpoena is completely wrong," he says. "You need to make a request under (freedom of information law) and the issue can be resolved pretty quickly."

In all, only 23 per cent of requesters received restaurant information on their first visit to a municipal department. That figure rose to 49 per cent after requesters filed a formal freedom of information request.

By contrast, restaurant inspection information is freely posted for diners in Toronto on a city website and in eatery windows - a public disclosure system that launched in 2001 following a Toronto Star investigation into secrecy around food safety inspection records.

Law enforcement records were also difficult to obtain, according to audit results.

'The general attitude that you get is that you have no right to this'
Judith Lavoie, journalist

Only 28 per cent of visits to police stations across the country turned up records on police complaints and suspensions. Formal written requests lifted that figure to just more than 60 per cent. No police department would provide data on officer sick days when requesters first asked for the records. After reporters filed official requests, the records were released in 47 per cent of cases.

When a request for records of police complaints and suspensions was denied in Summerside, P.E.I., a reporter filed a formal written request for the information along with a $5 application fee.

The city's written response was categorical: "Please be advised that the municipality of the City of Summerside and its departments, including Summerside Police Services, are not covered by this Act or its regulations, and, therefore, we are not required to release the information you requested."

That response may reflect unfamiliarity with the law, which took effect in 2002. But experts say police records of this nature have a strong public interest and should be made available under routine disclosure policies.

Summerside Police Chief Ian Drummond says he didn't have a problem releasing the information, but was overruled by a city attorney.

"The (city) attorney had some hesitation on releasing that information and in what context it would be used."

P.E.I. fared worst in the national audit with all nine requests for records denied.

"It's just new here," Drummond says. "Maybe that has something to do with the hesitancy. Once we have more experience, we should catch up."

City of Victoria police grilled a reporter looking for complaint and suspension information, asking what she intended to do with it and why.

"The general attitude that you get is that you have no right to this," says Judith Lavoie, the Victoria journalist who made the request. "You're made to feel very unwelcome."

Deborah Taylor, an analyst with Victoria Police Department's freedom of information branch, says the level of personal information requested determines what can be released.

"All the information would have to be presented before a decision could be made."

According to information laws in Canada, the identity of applicants is not relevant to the release of public records.

But many government officials don't understand that, says John Reid, the country's federal Information Commissioner.

"Governments don't spend any time or energy or money training people. (Bureaucrats) don't understand the legislation and don't understand the processes."

Requests for water test results also met a bureaucratic brick wall in most areas of Canada.

Only 34 per cent of applicants obtained any information on a visit to government offices. That rose to 59 per cent following formal requests.

Officials with Ontario's Haliburton Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health Unit told a reporter that water quality tests for the region are private and cannot be released to the public.

"I asked for the public results and (an official) said, `I could possibly get (a) summary of information, but I'm not interested in giving that up,'" recalls Steve Ladurantaye, city editor of The Peterborough Examiner, who posed the question as a private citizen and later attempted to file a formal request to obtain the records.

"(An employee) told me that she would not accept the (written request), and it's not the health unit's responsibility to release that information to me. I asked repeatedly why I couldn't file a request. She had no answer other than, `I couldn't.'"

Chandra Tremblay, a spokesperson for the health unit, says the incident stems from confusion.

Water test results are public in the region, northeast of Toronto. But the records are maintained by local municipalities rather than the region.

"It was probably a misunderstanding of someone not knowing what can or cannot be done," she says. "We don't keep that information but we refer people to where they can get it." "It's probably (a staff person) who wasn't familiar with that, which is unfortunate."

The provincial and municipal access laws both contain strong purpose clauses that presume broad disclosure of government records. The Acts give members of the public a legal right to access government-held information, and require government bodies to apply any exemptions in a "limited and specific" way. The statutory entitlements are strong and clear; the challenge is in developing a culture of openness within government that reflects the underlying principles of the legislation.

When he was first elected in 1993, U.S. president Bill Clinton sent a memorandum to all heads of federal departments and agencies that characterized the U.S. Freedom of Information Act as "a vital part of the participatory system of government," and he made it clear to the leaders of his administration that "the existence of unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles has no place in its implementation." At the same time, his attorney general, Janet Reno, directed senior legal officers throughout the government to apply a presumption of disclosure when making access decisions. She made it clear that "where an item of information might technically or arguably fall within an exemption, it ought not to be withheld unless it need be."

The Ontario government's commitment to open and transparent government in its first throne speech was a very important symbolic first step in establishing a new culture of openness in Ontario. But that can only be the beginning. These good intentions must be translated into concrete action. We are calling on Premier McGuinty to go further and to issue an open letter to all ministers and deputy ministers that is similar in style and substance to the Clinton/Reno memoranda. In particular, it should emphasize the importance of Ontario's Acts in ensuring openness and transparency, and set expectations that information will be disclosed unless there is a clear and compelling reason not to do so.