|
James Wallace, Friday, March 09, 2007 - Queens Park -
Osprey News Network
Public routinely kept in dark, Osprey survey
shows
Secrecy, stone-walling, manipulation and ignorance within
Ontario institutions is undermining fundamental public
rights to hold government accountable, a four-month survey
by Osprey Media newspapers has found.
In many cases, municipalities, police forces, hospitals,
universities and provincial bodies supported by taxpayer
dollars routinely deny, reject, delay or challenge requests
for information that should be public and easily accessible.
For example, police in Cornwall refused to identify a
high school that had been vandalized by two teens on the
grounds the school was “like a victim” and police are
not required to identify victims of crime.
Such concerns are familiar to Brian Beamish, Assistant
Commissioner Access at Ontario’s Office of Information and
Privacy.
Beamish said the findings of the Osprey survey come as no
surprise to him and called on public institutions across the
province to “embrace the spirit of openness” contained
within Ontario’s Freedom of Information Act.
“There are definitely situations described (in the
Osprey survey) where out expectation would be that
information would be disclosed even without the need for a
formal FOI request,” Beamish said.
“They seem quite clear these are situations where
information should be made freely available to the public as
a matter of course,” he said.
Premier Dalton McGuinty also expressed concern at the
failure of some public institutions to readily release
information to the public and told Osprey News he’ll
consider bringing hospitals, which are currently exempt from
FOI legislation, under the umbrella of the law.
“The message I want to send to everybody who falls
under the gambit of our freedom of information legislation
is that it actually at the end of the day strengthens us,”
McGuinty said.
“When we make ourselves more transparent we end up
being more accountable and that inspires more confidence on
the part of the public,” he said.
Ontario’s opposition politicians said the Premier
should practice what he preaches.
Both Conservative leader John Tory and NDP leader Howard
Hampton, accused the Liberals of using delays and denials
and outright manipulation to frustrate information requests
they make to the province.
Conservative requests for one cabinet minister’s
expenses were delayed for almost a year while the NDP has
all but “given up” making FOI requests.
“It is part of a pattern of stonewalling and
manipulation of these requests that’s going on I think
routinely throughout the McGuinty government,” Tory
said.
Tory called for “a full-scale review of the act and how
it operates” including a review of fees for information,
broader disclosure of government contracts and greater use
of the internet to routinely post expenses and other public
information.
“The system is not working,” Tory said. “This kind
of stonewalling, this kind of abuse of practice is making a
farce of the system.”
The right of the public to scrutinize government is one
of the cornerstones of Canada’s democracy.
Our political leaders and bureaucrats are held
accountable not only by Opposition politicians and public
watchdogs but by citizens themselves and the media.
Scrutiny is the price tag that goes along with public
funding for public programs and services.
“It’s important so that people have knowledge of
what’s going on in their community and they can make
decisions, everything from whether to move into an area
based on the crime rate or what school their kids should go
to because of class sizes,” said Lou Clancy,
vice-president editorial for Osprey Media.
“This is basic information that should be available to
all,” Clancy said.
However, the Osprey survey found basic information
ranging from sewage discharges to audit reports and even
local workforce data are routinely denied.
Key findings of the four-month survey include:
- Information requests for routine information by citizens
and journalists are frequently denied or fought by a
broad range of public bodies;
- Ontario’s FOI laws are often misused to deny
information requests and some institutions including
police routinely and abusively use special circumstance
exemptions as a broad shield to fight requests;
- Officials at many provincial agencies are either
ignorant of their FOI responsibilities or show an
alarming lack of respect to the process and applicants
seeking information.
Some examples from Osprey survey
The four month Osprey survey of Ontario public
institutions found numerous examples of public agencies
that routinely deny, restrict or block access to public
information. Examples that raised concerns include:
- A Peterborough Crown refused to reveal why assault
charges were withdrawn against a prominent county
warden and township reeve in exchange for a peace
bond;
- Five doctors resigned their privileges from the
Sarnia’s Bluewater Health. The hospital
administration refused to reveal their identities
despite potential impact on patient care;
- A retired separate school principal in Sault Ste.
Marie is investigated by the police for alleged theft
of money to feed a gambling habit. The school board
refuses any comment saying it’s a personnel matter;
- The Niagara Region social services office moves from
downtown St. Catharines to a site on the edge of the
city. The department director tells the Standard the
lease is cheaper, but refused to reveal by how much;
- The Kingston Whig Standard requested a copy of an
audit of the local District Immigrant Services office
after its president was forced to step down and the
agency had all its federal funding pulled. An FOI was
filed but the paper was asked to pay a $1,000 bill for
the information it wanted;
- At the first board meeting of the Erie St. Clair
Local Health Integration Network in November, a
Chatham reporter requested information on the
board’s proposed Integrated Health Service Plan,
basically the blue print that would be used to manage
health care in the region. The information was
denied;
- Trent University refused to make public any details
about a lease deal it made to build a generating
station on public land with a private company on the
grounds it was protecting the interests of the
company. An FOI request was denied;
- Collingwood police refused to identify a Stayner man
charged with child pornography and would give no
explanation for keeping his identity secret;
- The Fort Erie Times faced ongoing delays after
requesting information on sewage discharges following
a snowstorm. The paper was forced to file an FOI to
get the information;
- Queens University refused to reveal what type of
animals it uses in lab for fear of public backlash;
- Northumberland OPP refused to reveal the name of a
taxi company raided in a drug bust and accused of
having its drivers pedal drugs to fares;
- A Peterborough Catholic school board met in a closed
session to discuss fair play policy and hear public
complaints about coaches not playing students fairly
on the grounds it was a “personnel” issue;
- Niagara city hall released expenses for city
councillors but refused to do the same for department
heads. The city insisted the Review file an FOI
request but warned the paper would incur substantial
charges;
- Ontario’s Ministry of Labour investigated the death
of an employee from a Milton-based company at a local
lumber store but wouldn’t reveal who died;
- Petrolia council is repeatedly secretive about details
surrounding a major oil spill, renovation work at the
arena, its community centre and the dropping of the
YMCA as manager of the community centre;
- A Brantford-area woman requested a copy of the bylaws
for her local hospital, the Willet, which is merging
with another facility' but was told she couldn’t
have them;
- The Peterborough police commission refused to name a
board member who was the subject of a complaint. It
turned out it was a city councillor;
- Brock University denied a request for a copy of a
study on student cheating on campus. A professor
provided some information but a reporter ended up
getting a copy online;
- Police and school board officials in Kingston refused
to release details surrounding the death of an
eight-year-old boy at a local school. No details are
forthcoming until the Whig Standard wrote an editorial
demanding answers into the tragedy.
Ed Arnold, managing editor of the Peterborough Examiner,
said public scrutiny of public spending, programs and
services are critically important to the public interest and
answer basic questions such as Why are taxes going up?
Where do public dollars go? Have public officials misused
public funds or lined their own pockets at public expense?
Questions ranging from how long it takes an ambulance to
show up at your front door if needed to the results of
public health inspections on local restaurants all depend
upon the free flow of information from government to the
public, Arnold said.
And it is also information the public is entitled to
know, he said.
“It's your money, your government, your business and
any boss worth their weight is going to expect to be able to
have information that he owns easily available to him or
her,” Arnold said.
“When they refuse the media information or make it
difficult to get information, they are refusing to tell the
reader, the taxpayer, the public,” he said. “They are
refusing to give it to the people they serve...their
bosses.”
“The question all of us should ask is why?” he said.
“We paid for it, we own it. Let us see it.”
Instead, the Osprey survey found numerous examples of
cases where bureaucrats denied information, delayed its
release or didn’t believe they had an obligation to
release information.
Examples of questionable practices found in the survey
ranged from a refusal by Niagara municipal officials to
release bureaucrat expenses to the refusal by police and
school board officials in Kingston to offer any explanation
into the death of an eight-year-old boy at a local school.
Beamish, who hears appeals on Freedom of Information
requests that are fought by public bodies, said there’s a
real discrepancy across the province in how various agencies
and institutions handle FOI issues.
“Part of that may be the fact at the municipal level
you’ve got literally hundreds of these offices,” Beamish
said. “You’ve got municipal corporations, police
services boards, school boards, the whole gamut.”
“Some are quite good at providing information on
request but I think it’s also fair to say some really
haven’t embraced the spirit of openness that’s described
in the act and not only do not make information available,
but when faced with a formal FOI request rely on exemptions
they shouldn’t be relying on,” he said.
Beamish has recently grown concerned about the failure of
public institutions to release information on public
contracts.
Tens of billions of dollars in public funds are awarded
annually in this province by public institutions that refuse
to release information about the contracts and even
contribute to secrecy by agreeing to keep contract details
private.
British Columbia and New York State, to cite two
examples, post details of public contracts on websites but
companies in Ontario commonly enter the contracting process
with an expectation of confidentiality.
“The government could probably clarify that with a
stroke of a pen and simply say if you want to bid on a
government contract and you are the successful bidder, you
should not expect any confidentiality in fact just the
opposite,” Beamish said.
“Our point is there needs to be accountability for
public expenditures and that includes disclosure of
contracts and financial details of government contracts for
goods and services,” he said.
“I don’t know how you can have accountability for
government expenditures if people can’t examine what those
expenditures are and who’s receiving them.”
Expense accounts are another area where information
requests are routinely fought, he’s found.
Recent revelations of abuses at Hydro One, provincial
Children’s Aid Societies and some school boards underscore
the need for scrutiny.
“I think the sophisticated institutions understand they
need to be accountable for expense account expenditures,”
Beamish said.
“That message may not have gotten down to some of the
smaller institutions and the ones that don’t get
(information requests) on a regular basis.”
Ontario’s Liberal government, meanwhile, has expanded
FOI legislation to include universities, given the
provincial auditor authority to review municipal and school
board spending and significantly reduced response times for
FOI request.
McGuinty, who personally appealed in a June 2004 letter
to provincial bureaucrats to “strive to provide a more
open and transparent government,” acknowledged compliance
isn’t as good as he’d like.
“I’m pleased with the progress we’ve made and
there’s more to be done,” he told Osprey News.
“We just have to achieve a greater penetration in terms
of a level understanding and a level commitment on the part
of all these persons working in public bodies and public
agencies,” he said.
*James Wallace is Queen’s Park bureau chief for Osprey
Media. Contact the writer at www.ospreymedia.ca
Secrecy subverts Ontario's FOI laws,
opposition says.
James Wallace
Saturday, March 10, 2007 -
Queens Park - Ontario's opposition leaders are calling
for change to this province's Freedom of Information laws
and practices.
So frustrated, have the NDP grown with repeated,
fruitless attempts to obtain documents to help them
scrutinize the current Liberal government and its programs
that their leader, Howard Hampton, says his party has "all
but given up" filing information requests.
John Tory, the Conservative leader, not only believes
there is direct, willful "political manipulation" of
Opposition information requests by the government but even
that provincial officials routinely violate freedom of
information laws to shield information that might embarrass
the government. The current system, Tory insists, is a
"farce" and needs to be overhauled. They are serious
allegations. Routine requests for information from the
Opposition have taken as long as a year to process and
requested documents are commonly denied, editedor blacked
out. "I even complained to the province's information and
privacy commissioner earlier this year that I felt
politically sensitive requests were being handled
differently than other kinds of requests," Tory told Osprey
News.
Here's an example. In June 2005 Conservative researchers
asked for the cell phone bills of then Transportation
Minister Harinder Takhar and his staff. Takhar had been
accused of violating cabinet rules that require ministers to
put business assets into a blind trust and strictly forbids
them from being actively involved with their business. The
Opposition suspected that if Takhar in fact was breaking the
rules his cell phone bills would implicate him. And if that
was the case, it would almost certainly cost Takhar his
portfolio and embarrass the government.
It should have been a simple matter to obtain and release
the cell bills. Instead, the government imposed a $29,193
bill to process the request and delayed delivering the
information for a year. Email correspondence subsequently
obtained by the Conservatives suggests government civil
servants and the minister's political staff collaborated on
what information should be released. That, certainly, is
Tory's view. In one email, the ministry FOI officer asks
for direction on how to respond to potential questions on
why the minister's office spent $23,293.70 on cell phone and
blackberry bills over 20 months and why so much information
was being "protected" from release. "If I could get the
'spin' on these issues today, that would be great," the
bureaucrat wrote in an August 2005 email. When the cell
bills were released a year later, vast portions detailing
phone numbers were blacked out, either to "protect the
personal privacy" of individuals who called the minister or
to protect the "economic and other interests of Ontario." In
any event, the attempt to shine light on the minister's
activities was thwarted. Takhar, in the meantime, stopped
using a government phone.
The NDP has had similar experiences. Hampton tried to
find out how the government calculated its $1.5 billion
projected cost for hydro consumers to switch over to smart
meters. The actual cost, private sector experts told
Hampton, would be double or triple that amount. "When you
try to get information on costs, they just refuse to
answer," he said.
The situation is not entirely black and white.
Ministry response times to FOI requests have improved
under the Liberals and were problematic under both the
former Conservative and NDP governments. Premier Dalton
McGuinty has also personally written public servants and
asked them to disclose information "unless there is a clear
and compelling reason not to do so." The Premier's office
declined to comment on the specific allegations raised by
the opposition.
Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence to suggest
secrecy and manipulation are widespread within government.
During a four-month survey of Ontario's public institutions,
Osprey Media newspapers found a culture of secrecy permeates
many publicly-funded bodies in this province. In a story
published this week, Osprey journalists found politicians
and civil servants routinely subvert freedom of information
laws, resort to stone-walling and manipulation or are
outright ignorant of their obligation to disclose
information collected on behalf of and in the service of the
public.
Change is needed.
"I've long been an advocate of what Sweden does," Hampton
said. "There everything is public and the onus is on
government to say why information should be kept
secret."
Tory has similar views and wants government information,
including contracts, posted on the internet. "In Ottawa,
they have a system in place now and have had for several
years where ministerial expense accounts are posted on the
internet 30 days after their paid," he said.
The Ontario government spends $80 billion of your dollars
annually.
With an election coming this fall, government secrecy may
not make it on the list of top voter concerns. It is and
should be, however, one of the most compelling concerns on
your list when MPPs next ask for your vote.
James Wallace is Queens Park bureau chief for Osprey
Media. Contact the writer at www.ospreymedia.ca .
|