GOVERNMENTS HINDER PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION
FROM THE REPORTS OF privacy commissioners to watchdog groups such as Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), government openness is a growing concern.
The CJFE has called on federal and provincial governments to improve their “dismal record” in responding to access to information requests from newspapers. Even where legislation exists to make records available to scrutiny, roadblocks are continually erected as reporters seek to track down information. Governments need to make more data available, and change the culture that has bureaucrats dragging their feet when newspapers request documents.
Canada’s access to information law ranks 59th out of 102 countries that have laws. We’re down from 51st just three years ago, the organization reports.
A study of 28,000 access to information requests revealed that 57 per cent of all data released was censored, and 18 per cent could not be found at all. In some cases, responses to access to information requests have been delayed more than a thousand days. The legal time limit is 30 days.
CJFE investigations into city halls, police forces, school boards and federal government offices find that officials are generally unwilling to divulge information even on simple matters such as class sizes and road repairs.
A deep distrust of the federal freedom-of-information law remains entrenched within government, despite Justin Trudeau’s promises of more openness and transparency. In that, he’s no different than his predecessor.
Journalists spend much of their time scrutinizing government records and attending meetings where background material is essential to following the thread of discussions. The absence of such documents muddies the process. As with closed meetings, reporters suspect the worst when decisions are made away from public view.
There are undoubtedly plenty of good reasons for elected officials to meet in private or to keep information to themselves. Personnel and legal matters, for instance, are sometimes confidential issues of no direct interest to the public.
By and large, however, journalists everywhere struggle with political infrastructures seemingly dedicated to keeping the public in the dark. Openness is an anathema to many in the political ranks, elected officials and administrators alike, who seek to keep information to themselves. This sad reality has spawned organized efforts by public groups, including journalists, to make government more transparent – see, for instance, Democracy Watch and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.
Of course, such obfuscation is more clearly evident in larger governments (and, in keeping with current trends, larger businesses whose executives have a vested interest in hiding the truth). This is not to say that local governments are bastions of openness. Given their size and relatively lighter agendas, however, there are fewer opportunities to impose blackouts on the press and, by extension, their readers.
Transparency is crucial to ensuring that elected representatives are politically accountable, an ideal check on power. Access to information is the cornerstone of democratic development.
Even when there is nothing to hide – a refusal to divulge information is not always associated with a cover-up – public officials tend to be stingy with the facts. This may be a proclivity for erring on the side of caution; newspapers, this one included, would have governments lean toward the other, more open side.