While most national politics headlines have focused on the machinations of the political right (wake us up when it's over), stories about Canada's antiquated Access to Information Act have generated little public debate. That's too bad since a strengthened Access to Information law is essential to ensure more open government.

The Access to Information Act came into force on July 1, 1983. It remains unchanged to this day. Furthermore, it has not lived up to the rhetoric that accompanied its introduction. Then communications minister, Francis Fox, testified before the Justice and Legal Affairs committee that studied the bill before it became law.

Fox said, "it will create opportunities for a more informed dialogue between public leaders and citizens -improve the nature of government decision-making by allowing greater input from the private sector. Finally, it will impose on Ministers and officials a greater degree of accountability and of responsibility for their actions and their decisions."
But reality has not met expectation.

Ask any researcher, journalist or taxpayer advocate that has tried to obtain critical information under the Access law. The chances of buying a winning 6/49 ticket are better!
Government departments have 30 days to respond to a request, which any Canadian can file with a simple $5 fee, and in most cases the request must be filled within 90 days. But requests for extensions are common and compliance with many other provisions of our access law is spotty at best. Document copying charges and computer search times to fill requests vary widely amongst departments and agencies.

Disclosure of other information is haphazard. Example: Canadians have a right to know what businesses are repaying government loans -in the ballpark of hundreds of millions of dollars - on time and which ones aren't. Some agencies release this information while others do not.

Of course, the access law does not apply to all operations of government as privacy concerns sometimes prevail. But a review commissioned by the government itself revealed that the scope the federal access law is too narrow compared to most provincial jurisdictions and woefully inadequate when stacked up against similar laws in, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K and the U.S.

For example crown corporations such as the CBC, Canada Post and the Export Development Corporation (EDC) are all exempt from the law for no valid reason. Ditto for the administrative operations of the House of Commons and Senate.

As noted above, summer headlines point to a review of the Act. But this is another fiasco as well. Ottawa commissioned one study where the report author only spoke with bureaucrats. On another front, the Public Policy Forum (a reputable group, to be fair) held consultations with users of the Act, but they were private with mere "summaries" of the discussions to be made public.

Into this black hole of accountability and transparency stepped backbench Liberal MP, John Bryden, a tireless crusader for open government. He and a baker's dozen of his colleagues (from all parties) will hold public hearings this fall on overhauling the Act. But isn't this usually the job of a parliamentary committee Yes it is, but that would be transparent, accountable and democratic, and the government will have none of that.

Indeed, Government House Leader Don Boudria has written to Bryden to say that government officials will be dissuaded from attending.

No wonder the Information Commissioner, John Reid, has sounded the alarm about a "culture of secrecy" in several annual reports to Parliament. His fears about the government's intent to choke off more information from the public domain by further restricting the access law seem to be well founded. Of course we won't know this until it's too late, these discussions will no doubt happen behind closed doors.