SUNSHINE IN THE CITY? A decision to disclose the salaries of Saint John city employees has brought into relief some of cultural and legal limits to freedom of information in Canada.

Coun. Greg Norton had initially wanted to release the name, title, salary and other benefits — including overtime and severance payout — of each of those employees.

In response, city solicitor John Nugent advised the provincial Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act would only allow the municipality to publish an employee’s salary range.

But that wasn’t the only concern with Norton’s proposal.

The Telegraph-Journal reported Couns. Susan Fullerton and Donna Reardon were worried about the cost of such a sunshine list — an issue that was also raised by the federal government to oppose Liberal efforts to reform the Access to Information Act.

Reardon, according to the newspaper, also questioned whether there was a need for such information, since the city already discloses the total amount it spends on those salaries.

Moreover, the Telegraph-Journal quoted Fullerton as saying, “The citizens’ right to know battles with the citizens’ desire to know and we’ve got to figure what is a need to know and what is plain voyeurism.”

Such sentiments were even shared by Kurt Peacock, one of the newspaper’s columnist.

Peakock expressed support for the sunshine list but wrote “an inventory naming every single junior employee on the payroll just seems like too much information.”

He explained, “Nosey neighbours may find a complete employee list of salaries to be an exciting read, but I don’t think the taxpaying public needs to know just which administrative assistant makes $32,000 a year and which one makes $55,000.”

But what Fullerton and Peakcock don’t appear to fully appreciate is that information needs are often circumstantial, making it perilous to circumscribe the public’s right to know.

After all, a $23,000 difference in pay between administrative assistants could be an indication of favouritism or discrimination — an issue for public concern rather than just neighbourly nosiness.

Nevertheless, even if Saint John city councillors wanted to show that difference they couldn’t for legal reasons. And, in the end, Norton’s sunshine list was darkened, with the  council unanimously agreeing to release a salary report similar to the one published by the New Brunswick government, which list salaries for employees making more than $60,000.

That provincial government report also lists those who received retirement allowances and severance payments worth more than $10,000. But, again, ranges for those payments are given rather than specific amounts.

OPENNESS IN DEFEAT Failed Non-Partisan Association mayor candidate Kirk LaPointe may have lost his bid to bring greater openness to Vancouver’s city hall. But Self-Counsel Press, the publishing company LaPointe leads, will be making governments across Canada more open to everyone.

In a tweet, Canadian Press’s Jim Bronskill announced Your Right to Know: How to Use the Law to Get Government Secrets — a book released by Self-Counsel — is “coming soon to bookstores.” Bronskill co-wrote the book with CBC News’s David McKie.

DEMAND CONTROL Earlier, I wrote about how a proposed Liberal fix to Canada’s broken access to information system would preserve most of the hiding spaces government uses to keep records from the public. But that’s not the only problem with party leader Justin Trudeau’s Transparency Act.

The Grits have touted the fact the bill would eliminate all access to information fees, except the $5 charge for filing a freedom of information request. That’s an unusual exception because only seven of the 13 provinces and territories currently have such an application charge. Moreover, according to the Centre for Law and Democracy, those fees “runs counter to international standards.”

So why keep it? Well, the centre has stated that “some in government view these fees as a way of deterring information requests,” with the Harper administration having proposed an abortive hike “in order to control demand.” But whether Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is of a similar mind remains to be seen.

SQUIBS

• “Incoming Hamilton public school trustees are being asked to tape most of their closed-door meetings to ensure there’s no dispute about what was said and show they’ve got nothing to hide,” according to the Hamilton Mountain News.

• British Columbia’s information commissioner has backed the City of Abbotsford’s refusal to release the legal costs associated with removing a homeless camp. The province’s attorney general Suzanne Anton had earlier said she doesn’t think the public should have a right to know what lawyers working for the government are making.

• Squamish Mayor Patricia Heintzman has told the Vancouver Sun she’ll be “more proactive” about involving the community in government after her predecessor’s council was criticized for being too secretive.

• CBC News reports that legal experts say Alberta’s Law Enforcement Review Board is “ignoring both its mandate and a court ruling by refusing to release records which detail questionable actions taken by the province’s deputy attorney general.”

• The Chronicle Herald reports the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada has stated some police records about the 1990 death of a teenager following a police raid were destroyed. But when a request was filed for information about that statement, 414 of the 446 pages provided were completely blank.

• In a column on the Harper administration’s decision to ignore calls to reform the Access to Information Act, University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist writes that if the Conservatives’ consultation on that issue has been “little more than theatre, claims of open government or open dialogue mean very little.”

Have a news tip about about the state of democracy, openness and accountability in Canada? You can email me at this address.

TORIES TRAMPLE TRANSPARENCY BILL The Conservative government has claimed it only charges “minor additional fees” to access its records and that the country’s information commissioner doesn’t need additional powers  — despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

Tory MP Dan Albas made those comments on behalf of the government in response to a Liberal bill that would partially fix Canada’s broken freedom of information system.

The bill, entitled the Transparency Act, would eliminate all access to information fees, except the $5 charge for filing a request.

Freedom of information advocates have criticized some of the government’s fee estimates, which can total hundreds, thousands or even over a million dollars.

The bill would also give the information commissioner the power to order the release of records the government has withheld.

The current commissioner, Suzanne Legault, has repeatedly asked for that power, which some provincial access watchdogs already possess, along with a mandate to educate the public about freedom of information issues.

But Albas quoted former commissioner John Reid as saying, “There is no evidence that order powers would strengthen the right of access, speed up the process, or reduce the amount of secrecy.”

The parliamentary secretary also said eliminating access to information fees would “not show respect for the tax dollars of Canadians,” adding that 99.5 percent of requests are “fulfilled at no direct cost” beyond the initial $5 application charge.

Nor, according to Albas, were the Conservatives supportive of the Liberal bill’s proposal that the government provide a “detailed explanation” when it refuses to release a record.

The reason: such a requirement “would add an unnecessary burden on the entire access to information program across the government.”

SUNNY WAYS? In an online advertisement released this week, the Liberals claimed their Transparency Act “will raise the bar on openness in government” — even though that legislation would preserve most of the hiding spaces used to keep information from the public. But I also wonder whether party leader Justin Trudeau will be able to hit that low bar if he becomes prime minister.

The reason: in his editorial this week, CTV’s Don Martin said a “freakish tilt toward ruthless control is developing” behind Trudeau’s “sunshine disposition.”

Among the examples Martin cited was “the fixing of Liberal nomination battles to protect Trudeau’s star recruits” — despite an earlier commitment to have open nominations.

The Grit leader has also said MPs “should be community leaders, free to express their constituents’ views and free to work with members of other parties to develop solutions to Canada’s challenges.”

But, according to Trudeau, non-incumbent Liberal candidates who become MPs will be “expected to vote pro-choice on any bills.”

Moreover, those candidates are being screened for their opinions on social issues to ensure they are “consistent with the Liberal Party as it is now, as it stands under my leadership and under the feedback we’re getting rom Canadians across the country.”

While neither of these inconsistencies has to do with open government, in my experience politicians who want this kind of control are also strangers rather than friends to freedom of information.

Which means Trudeau’s promises to bring more sunshine into government may be as fleeting as those made by Conservative leader Stephen Harper before he became prime minister.

CANADIANS COMMENT ON ACCESS ISSUES The Ted Rogers School of Management at Ryerson University has released the country’s “first ever” poll on political leadership ethics. But the poll also has a lot to say about Canadians think about government openness and accountability. According to the study:

• 48 percent think politicians frequently misuse government powers to silence critics;

• 47 percent think politicians frequently lie to Parliament, the media or the public;

• 45 percent think politicians frequently limit the media’s access to elected officials;

• 81 percent support laws to increase transparency in government as a way of reducing ethics breaches in Canadian politics;

• 68 percent supporter better protection for whistleblowers as a way of reducing ethics breaches in Canadian politics;

• 33 percent trust journalists, with public servants, police officers, judges and doctors being considered more trustworthy; and

• respondents think whistleblowers, the police, voters, party leaders, ethics commissioners and auditors general all have more responsibility for policing political ethics than the media.

The study was conducted online by the Gandalf Group using a nationally representative sample of 1,039 Canadians. The margin of error is 3.1 percent.

TRACK AND MAP RIGHT TO KNOW THREATS A coalition of civil liberty groups have built what could be a powerful weapon in the fight for more freedom of information in Canada.

Last week, those groups launched an online tool that allows Canadians to file reports of censorship across Canada, including “limits on the right to information.”

Once approved, those reports then appear on Censorship Tracker’s map, showing how censorship “plays out across all provinces and territories, and how it changes over time.”

But the success of that project, which is being led by PEN Canada, will partially hinge on whether Canadians actually participate in it — as I did last week when I submitted a report on a now overturned decision to bar journalist Linden MacIntyre from appearing on the CBC News Network.

However, Censorship Tracker partners, which include the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, will also be updating the site.

SQUIBS

• Former senior oil executive Alan Detheridge hopes Canadian lawmakers will resist “pressure from the oil industry” to weaken a proposed new law that require “oil, gas, and mining companies in Canada to disclose their payments to governments around the world.” (hat tip: IntegrityBC)

• The Canadian Press reports NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus has sent a letter to Treasury Board President Tony Clement, accusing the government of “starving the Access to Information system of cash, hiding documents for political reasons, and backpedalling on promises to reform the 32-year-old access law.” (hat tip: Ian Bron)

• Suzanne Legault, Canada’s information commissioner, has released a report showing Transport Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development had the lowest completion rates for access to information requests in fiscal 2012/13. (hat tip: Bob Mackin)

• iPolitics columnist Devon Black thinks there should be a cap on access to information fees, penalties for “unreasonable delays” in releasing government records and adequate funding for the country’s right to know watchdog. (hat tip: Ian Bron)

• “Some provinces are taking steps to let the public know when agencies have failed to act on recommendations stemming from coroner’s inquests and fatality inquiries,” according to Postmedia News.

• Global News online politics reporter Laura Stone writes that justice department records released via an access to information request blacked out the name of the executive director of a victims services’ organization — even though that name can easily be found on the Internet.

• According to the Toronto Star, “It’s nothing short of outrageous” that Toronto’s Pan Am Games is demanding more than $4,000 for “internal communications and emails concerning the status of 10 new sports facilities under construction, and on any delays, over an 18-month period.”

• Alberta’s Wildrose Party is promising to “provide easier and more affordable access to Freedom of Information requests” and “dramatically improve whistleblower legislation” as part of a policy packaged focused on “strengthening democracy and ending entitlement.”

• The Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s prairie director Colin Craig reports the Saskatchewan government responded with 72 pages of information, 66 of which had been blacked, when it was asked for information about the financial impact Canada’s aging population would have on the healthcare system.

• The Vancouver Sun’s Chad Skelton lists 53 provincial government bodies that were “transparent and quick” in response to his request for public sector salary records.

• Even though Mayor Gregor Robertson and his secretive administration was re-elected, journalist Stanley Tromp argues Vancouver voters have “spoken out for open government.”

Have a news tip about about the state of democracy, openness and accountability in Canada? You can email me at this address.

“All media requests are not equal.”

Journalists from small, alternative and independent media outlets have long believed that’s why they get no response or a delayed response when they contact the government for information. That can make it more difficult for them to break stories, frustrating the public’s right to know.

But it’s also an adage you’d never, ever expect to see the government write down – until spin doctors at Citizenship and Immigration Canada did exactly that in a document I obtained via a recent access to information request.

Was it a pique of honesty that led them to put those words in black and white, an error or just plain indiscretion?

Well, according to a department representative, the document – a 16-page draft guide prepared for citizenship and immigration’s spokespeople – was never approved and doesn’t reflect how media requests are actually handled.

But, even with that caveat in mind, the guide may give us a glimpse inside the mind of a government spin doctor.

It states, “Inquiries received from major media outlets must receive greater attention and effort…than calls received from minor media sources or student journalists.”

Similarly, “calls from major international media outlets (i.e. Wall Street Journal, CNN, The New York Times) as well as calls on sensitive issues,” demand even more attention.

In other words, according to the guide, the department should give more help to foreign reporters – and their audiences – than some Canadian reporters.

But, in an email, citizenship and immigration media relations advisor Nancy Caron used capital letters to stress the “DRAFT” nature of that document.

The first page of the document stresses the same thing, adding “procedures are constantly evolving to meet changing circumstance.”

It then goes on to state that the guide is simply meant to provide “a snapshot of where we are today. It reflects how the DG of communications, the Director of Ministerial Events and Media Relations and the Minister’s Office wish us to process media calls.”

Nevertheless, according to Caron, the document was “never presented to, nor approved by CIC’s management.”

Indeed, she stated her department “provides all media outlets with the same service level and attention. Media requests are triaged and addressed based on deadlines for publication…In fact, in the first quarter of the current fiscal year, 90.7% of journalists’ deadlines were met, regardless of their outlet.”

But journalists I spoke with say the “all media requests are not equal” approach matches their own dealings with the federal government.

Jeremy Nuttall, national reporter for the online magazine The Tyee, has said that, “Forget about the back burner, it feels like you’re not even on the stove.”

An example: back in 2012, when Nuttall was freelancing for The Tyee and covering the government’s controversial decision to approve the use of temporary foreign workers by HD Mining International Ltd. in British Columbia.

He said the citizenship and immigration “answered at first…then darkness” when the story “heated up.”

“I’ve worked for larger places and there is more of an effort [by government] to get your replies,” said Nuttall, who has also reported for the Canadian Press, CBC News and the Globe and Mail.

Parliament Hill freelancer Justin Ling said he’s had similar experiences. “I’ve been doing a lot of stories for Vice News recently and I can tell you the departments don’t care about Vice News,” he said. “It’s not their demographic, they just don’t give a shit.”

“The departments definitely have targeted approaches based on who you are calling from and who you are,” continued Ling, who has written for the Globe and Mail, the National Post and Maclean’s.

“The consequence is that it reinforces the consortium of news outlets that people go to for news. It’s unfortunate.”

It is – especially at a time when those outlets are on the decline, with journalists outside the “consortium” trying to investigate stories the mainstream no longer can.

By treating those journalists as second-class reporters – either in policy or in practice – the government is once again frustrating the public’s right to know.

Because if members of the fourth estate can’t get the information they need from the government, neither can Canadians – keeping voters in the dark and their elected officials unaccountable.