Access failures

With access to information already in the news due to last week's mudslinging over the disclosure of requesters' names, let's take a closer look at the Canadian Newspaper Association's report on treatment of requests across the country:

Over a period of two months, 60 journalists from 39 newspapers across the country visited city halls, police forces, hospitals and federal government offices to document how public officials respond to requests for public information.

While responses from government officials varied widely across the country, there was a disturbing inclination toward secrecy in many government offices, the audit found.

Basic questions about health-care spending, crime, pesticide use and emergency preparedness posed to government officials were denied in 31 per cent of cases, despite the fact the information requested was not controversial and should be readily available...

Statistics on reported crimes and resolved cases — figures that are widely published in cities such as Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal and Ottawa — were shrouded in secrecy in other places.

In Pembroke, for example, police officials wanted $1,200 for the information. In Laval, it took 39 days, repeated calls and arguments with officials to get an incomplete answer. In all, close to 30 per cent of requests for the crime numbers were denied or slapped with fees...

Each request for information began with a visit to a government office, hospital, health district or police station, where reporters — acting as citizens but not concealing their identity as journalists — simply asked for the information.

In the 112 in-person visits, 46 resulted in records being disclosed — a 41-per-cent success rate.

The remaining 66 requests went to Stage 2 of the audit — formal written requests for the information under the appropriate provincial or federal information law.

In 35 cases, the information requested was partly or entirely denied, or there was no response within the legislated time limit.

Some delay could be far more easily forgiven in the case of requests for more complicated information, or if access to information legislation hadn't been around for decades. But there's no excuse at all for a failure to respond to requests for such simple data.

After all, the only way the information wouldn't be readily accessible would be if the office itself didn't have any document summarizing such a simple concept as crime rates or bonuses paid. Which seems highly implausible - and if true would suggest that a failure to respond to access requests is the least of the office's problems.

While some may suggest that the treatment of requests isn't likely to hold public attention, the information which can be revealed - or hidden - depending on the process applied can easily prove far more substantial. And when even the CNA's simple requests face barriers in current departments, there's all the more reason to wonder just what's being hidden when more complex requests are denied or ignored.