How Freedom-of-Information requests can lead to great stories
Reporters use provincial and federal access-to-information legislation to hold governments to account and shine a light on issues of public interest.

TheStar.com
Sept. 9, 2017
Kenyon Wallace

This story is part of the Star’s trust initiative, where, every week, we take readers behind the scenes of our journalism. This week, we focus on how Freedom-of-Information requests can lead to public interest stories.

In order to hold governments to account and shine a light on issues of public interest, reporters have for years used provincial and federal access-to-information legislation.

For a fee of $5, these laws allow citizens to ask governments and various governmental organizations to provide information, such as emails, memos, and studies. The idea is that the public should be able to scrutinize the actions of government to ensure our democracy is functioning properly.

In practice, the laws are not without problems and observers and users of the legislation have long complained that it is an expensive system fraught with delays and bureaucracy. However, when it does work, journalists, acting for the public, can uncover valuable insights on how governments operate.

At the Star, Freedom-of-Information requests have led to stories about carding by Toronto police, how mayoral staff reacted to former mayor Rob Ford’sinfamous crack-smoking scandal, and federal government preparations for the ongoing NAFTA talks, to name just a few.

Recently, documents obtained by the Star’s transportation reporter Ben Spurr through a Freedom-of-Information request revealed how Ontario’s transportation ministry pressured Metrolinx to approve a new $100-million GO Transit station in Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca’s Vaughan riding. The documents also showed the ministry pressed for another station that would be part of Toronto Mayor John Tory’s “SmartTrack” plan with a price tag of $23 million.

The records Spurr uncovered consisted of more than 1,000 pages, including reports, briefing notes and emails between Metrolinx officials and transportation ministry staff that exposed how Metrolinx approved the stations — Kirby in Vaughan and Lawrence East in Toronto — even though an analysis determined they would decrease ridership on the GO system if built.

How did Spurr get the story? His curiosity was piqued in June 2016 when the Metrolinx board approved 12 new GO Transit stations but didn’t release detailed feasibility reports right away. It wasn’t until almost nine months later that the reports were made public. In the interim, Spurr had heard grumblings that research didn’t support the construction of Kirby station.

So Spurr filed a Freedom-of-Information request to Metrolinx in March 2017 asking for emails to and from then-CEO Bruce McCuaig that pertained to Kirby station, as well as any briefing notes prepared for senior staff about the station.

Metrolinx asked for $714 to provide the records, which was later reduced to $625. The Star ended up paying half of that, the agency waived the rest. Spurr received the documents in late August. While heavily redacted, the records also contained correspondence about the proposed Lawrence East station raising more questions for Spurr.

The records were eye-opening.

“Senior Metrolinx officials candidly discussed through emails what they described as the minister’s disappointment that stations they thought he wanted weren’t headed for approval. They also discussed performing an ‘alternative analysis’ that could see the two stations approved,” Spurr said. “I found this concerningbecause Metrolinx is supposed to be an arms-length agency.”

Spurr was also surprised to read emails showing that Metrolinx was blindsided when the transportation ministry sent draft press releases indicating the minister would announce new GO stations the Metrolinx board had already voted not to approve, namely Kirby and Lawrence East.

Despite what the documents revealed, the story didn’t go to print right away. In order to be fair to all the subjects of the story, Spurr alerted Del Duca’s office, Metrolinx and Mayor John Tory’s office and sent each a list of questions. “None of them answered my individual questions. They instead sent statements that addressed some points I had raised, but not all,” Spurr said.

Spurr quoted in his story an emailed statement from Del Duca’s office that said the station approvals were based on “initial business case analysis, extensive consultation with municipal and regional representatives, community engagement, and collaboration between the ministry of transportation and Metrolinx.”

Julie Carl, the Star’s senior editor of national and urban affairs and social justice, says sometimes, as in this case, requests reveal unexpected details that add new dimensions to stories.

“Ben’s story is a great example of this. His FOI request revealed the shocked reactions of Metrolinx officials when they found out the minister intended to announce the two new stations the agency’s board hadn’t approved,” said Carl.

At other times, the results of Freedom-of-Information requests provide only part of a story, meaning reporters have to rely on other sources to get a fuller picture.

“We may receive just part of the puzzle so we have to figure out the missing pieces,” she said, adding that doing due diligence before publishing cuts down on the odds the Star will get it wrong and ensures subjects of the story are given a fair amount of time to respond.

“We think this is so important — we phone, email, knock on their doors and leave letters explaining what we are doing and provide questions we would like them to answer,” Carl said.

“We give them every opportunity to have their say.”