As the not-so balanced budget passed in the legislature earlier this week, another important document was also tabled in the House that did not receive the attention that it should have. The 2002 Annual Report on Access & Privacy prepared by the Manitoba Ombudsman's office was quietly presented to the Legislative Assembly with little to no discussion on what the 35-page report consists of.

The Ombudsman's office is responsible for promoting "fairness, equity and administrative accountability through the investigation of complaints by an independent and non-partisan Officer of the Legislative Assembly." Within this mandate, arguably one of the province's most important pieces of legislation falls under the responsibility of the Ombudsman and that is to investigate complaints under the Freedom of Information & Privacy Protection Act (FIPPA).

Freedom of Information laws were first introduced in Manitoba in 1988, and have since become an important tool to pry open the closed doors of government, particularly in the era of sponsorship scandals and billion dollar boondoggles. Unfortunately, once the Parthenon of government accountability, Manitoba's access to information laws have been reduced to rubble by years of neglect and government sabotage. When the Filmon government passed amendments in 1997 - taking the information laws back into the dark ages - Gary Doer described it as "the worst legislation in North America." Fast forward to 2004 and the NDP government is finally having a review of the legislation which will hopefully usher in a new era of government accountability.

Even with a review in place, Barry Tuckett, Manitoba's Ombudsman, had some critical words for the government's commitment to FIPPA: " . . . this is not always evident especially when the process is subject to delays, to questionable denials of access or to breaches of personal information privacy, due diligence has not been done." In 2002 alone, 243 access and privacy files were opened by the Mr. Tuckett's office, 123 were closed and the remainder were carried over to 2003.

Although the number of complaints is a minor reduction since previous years, the Ombudsman's recommendations to improve quality and timeliness of access to information are falling on deaf ears. But part of the problem is denial of access to information by a bureaucrat with little to no explanation - this is what generates so many complaints. The Ombudsman's Annual Report even goes as far as drafting an outline for bureaucrats responsible for responding to information requests and a privacy compliance tool.

Some bureaucrats feel that certain information requests may embarrass the government, such as when a request was made for Oscar Lathlin's attendance for Treasury Board meetings. The request was denied based on a provision in the Act that allows for Cabinet secrecy. Cutting through the rhetoric, Mr. Lathlin likely had a poor attendance record and did not want to be embarrassed publicly for it.

Freedom of information is a fundamental democratic right which enhances timely access to substantive critical government information necessary for the full discussion of policy proposals and for holding governments to account for their actions, inaction and performance. The guy calling the shots in Manitoba is telling us there is a problem but the problem is with a government carrying a rubber stamp embossed with "Access Denied."