Children’s Minister Tom Christensen says it was a mistake. Yes, his ministry violated freedom of information law and tried to hide reports that children who had been sexually abused weren’t getting needed help. But it was an honest error, he says, not an attempt to avoid the release of embarrassing information.

You decide. Back in June 2007, Times Colonist reporter Lindsay Kines filed a freedom of information request with the Ministry of Children and Families. There were signs of problems with a program that was supposed to help children who had been sexually abused. Kines wanted to know if the problems were real and what, if anything, the ministry had done about them.

It took three months, but he got a response to the FOI request. The material included a report based on a 2006 review of the sexual abuse intervention program. The report was heavily censored, with paragraphs and pages whited out. The ministry said it was keeping much of the report secret because it was advice to the Children’s Minister.

Kines is a persistent reporter. He dug up an uncensored copy of the report. And he found that the censorship didn’t appear to involve advice to the minister.

Instead, almost anything critical or that revealed problems in services for children who had been abused was kept secret. Positive comments were left untouched.

The ministry hid the report’s finding that agencies working with sexually abused children “were unanimous in their view that program funding is insufficient.” It removed the finding that the program is a “critical element” of service to children, “deserving of a more explicit focus.”

And it censored the passage that reported “pervasive view among providers that the program has been neglected by government decision makers over the past several years.”

Christensen said he didn’t know anything about the censorship. Kines sent both reports to Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis and asked him to investigate the way his request was handled.

Loukidelis has reported. The censorship wasn’t justified, he found. He called the ministry’s decisions on what to keep secret “perplexing.” Information that was critical was generally hidden; the same types of information, if positive, were left untouched. The result was a falsely positive impression of the program.

And Loukidelis also noted that the ministry had failed to fulfil another part of its obligation. While freedom of information law allows government to keep some things secret, it doesn’t require secrecy. Government is supposed to consider whether the principle of openness really needs to be abandoned.

Christensen said it was all a mistake. Staff have been added and training improved. The failure was an aberration.

But how can the public rely on that? And what impact does a system of flagging “sensitive” requests – from journalists, political parties and interest groups – for special treatment have on the process. Earlier this year, Loukidelis raised concerns that government was discriminating against environmental groups using the freedom-of-information process, charging more and moving slowly on their requests.

Aberration, or a culture of secrecy?