Reinventing the wheel and keeping it secret

According to a provincial government news release, the Premier announced something new today: the “Research & Development Corporation (RDC), a new Crown entity for improving the province’s research and development capacity.”

Problem One:  it isn’t new.

At some point in the distant past, the legislature passed the Research Council Act which created an agency to fund research and development.  The thing is old enough to be included in not only the 1990 consolidation of provincial statutes but in the 1970 one as well.

The purposes of the council, as established long ago, are to research into just about anything anyone can think of with respect to the local economy and society and to take whatever steps are necessary to support both the research and potentially the fruits of research.

Last December, the legislature passed a new bill to create a research and development council.  The new legislation isn’t in force by the way, so the announcement today was completely bogus on that front as well. 

But aside from those extra two words in the title, the new bill doesn’t do much that the old one didn’t.

Problem Two:   the research and development council act, passed in December, copies almost word for word the sections of the energy corporation bill and thereby that makes pretty well everything connected to the council exempt from the province’s open records laws based solely on the decision of the cabinet-appointed Rhodes scholar who runs the thing.

That isn’t sarcasm, incidentally.  The guy is yet another Rhodent appointed by the province’s chief Rhodes beneficiary.  

Public money – to the tune of $25 million is going in – but what happens to will remain a state secret.  Not only are the fruits of research to be hidden from the people who paid for it but the new corporation can hide just about everything related to its own operations.

The information and privacy commissioner and anyone else who would normally examine a secrecy decision by a government body are directed by this bill to uphold the corporation’s decision on keeping secrets.

The old corporation had a mandate to publish research results, incidentally, which is pretty much consistent with the idea of making ideas available so the private sector can develop them and make something out of them.  Academics publish the results of their research so their peers can either profit from it for their work or tear into it and find the flaws. 

Not so in the brave new world of the research and development council.

Everything will  be secret except for whatever trivial bits of information the people controlling this enterprise – cabinet appointees all – deign to tell the nasty little proles who are footing the bill.

The cabinet gets to appoint the chief executive officer and the staff hiring must all be approved by the minister.

But even though this new version of the research council legislation was just created last December – and the bill isn’t in force yet -  the government is already making amendments.  The government bill exempts the new entity entirely from the Corporations Act and gives cabinet the power to pick a name for the council (it went from being the Research and Development Council to a name to be chosen later). 

The tenure of board members has changed as well for some inexplicable reason. Here’s the December version of section 7(1):

7. (1) Members of the board shall be appointed for a term of 3 years but may be removed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for cause.

Here’s the May version:

7. (1) Members of the board, whether appointed before or after this Act comes into force, shall be appointed for a term of up to 3 years but may be removed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for cause.

Anyone want to venture what difference the change makes?

To help you out, here’s the provision of the bill under which the current members of the council were appointed (remember that the new bill isn’t in force yet):

4. (1) Members hold office for a period of 3 years from the date of their appointment.

What we have here is yet another example of policy recycling by an administration that has been surprisingly bereft of any original ideas since 2003.

On top of that we have a government which can’t seem to sort out its own legislation.  We had three versions of the energy corporation bill in each of three years and here again we have a piece of legislation that hasn’t even been proclaimed and yet is being altered already.  Both of those things suggest serious problems in the policy-making processes of government.

And if all that wasn’t bad enough, we have yet another example of a government that talks a great deal about openness, transparency and accountability but seems to do exactly the opposite.

Where is the novelty, where is the innovation in any of that?

What a way to start out what is supposedly a bold, new venture to come with some original ideas.

-srbp-

Locking the barn door: prisons report version

The provincial justice minister released a report on Monday into the provincial prison system.

The hard copies handed out to reporters had sections blacked-out for various reasons. Those copies made it impossible to see the words that were redacted, to use the popular phrase.

The electronic version wasn't quite as effective.

Somehow, the blacked-out bits of the pdf didn't really remove the words. They merely masked them. As CBC discovered, if you copy the text and then paste it into any simple word processing software - like say Notepad - the words covered by the black boxes magically appear.

The original electronic version was available until after lunch. It's now been replaced by a version that has puts bits of punctuation in place of the excised words if you block copy the bits including the black redacted strips.

Never fear.

CBC has posted a copy of the report as it originally appeared so people can get the originally released version.

Inferring from context, it is possible to see in some instances that the excised sections of the report deal with security in the prisons.

Others are odd.

Like this bit from the second version released by the justice department:

One of the persons interviewed stated ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, spoke of the
atmosphere of mistrust and stated that “the environment is such that you have to be
careful who you tell things to.” Several times during the Panel’s interviews with --
---------------------------- referenced what -- perceived to be the lack of support from
“the hill”, noting that he had files of documentation that would support --- claim.

Look at that last bit: "...referenced what -- perceived to be the lack of support from 'the hill', noting that he had files of documentation that would support --- claim."

"What [blank] perceived" and "would support [blank] claim" suggest that the words chopped here somehow make reference to an individual. Under section 30 of the province's access to information law, government can't disclose information on particular individuals in certain circumstances.

Now, we've seen already bizarre examples of how the government secrecy apparatus - D.B.A. "access co-ordinators" - interprets this section. Documents summarizing information already in the public domain were edited to exclude the name of a judge involved in a trial, for example. Information about public servants acting in their capacity as public servants are to be left in but people who aren't public servants are omitted.

This became clear in testimony by Renee Pendergast at the Cameron Inquiry on the issue. Pendergast is no average bureaucrat. At the time of the issues under review by madam Justice Margaret Cameron, Pendergast was the access co-ordinator for Executive Council. She's since returned to her usual job vetting access requests for the department of justice's access co-ordination section.

COFFEY , Q.C.: After the matter passed through - - while the matter was passing through your office , his name was redacted in relation to - - in a briefing note , a government briefing note referring to the fact that some matter was ... this particular matter was before him and the status of it at the time , and his name was redacted. Could you tell the Commissioner, please , what the rationale is that would have someone like Judge Thompson's name redacted in these circumstances from a Cabinet briefing note?

MS. PENDERGAST: And I realized that that name was done when we had done our pre - interview , and I can assure Madam Commissioner that that was done in error. His name would have been left in. I'm assuming it was because I really did not know who he was at that time , and I redacted it under those circumstances , but under normal circumstances , if I had realized who he was , his name would have been left in.

COFFEY , Q.C.: Can we actually bring up - -

THE COMMISSIONER : I'm sorry , did I misunderstand what you said earlier. I thought you were saying that even though it might seem frankly silly to some of the rest of us , your interpretation of the legislation was that if the information contained a name which was other than a civil servant presumably conducting their business , that would be deleted. So why wouldn't Justice...

MS. PENDERGAST: Because , I guess , we considered him for him to be a Judge at this point , and his name would be allowed to be left in. He wouldn't be considered to be a - - like , would he be affiliated - - and I'm not sure if he's a provincial judge or - -

THE COMMISSIONER : No , and believe me , he would not consider himself to be affiliated with the Department of Justice.

MS. PENDERGAST: . Yeah , yeah , so - - and I don't know that. That's the reason why chances were his name was released - - was withheld.

COFFEY , Q.C.: And just in relation to that because that was the way when Ms. Brazil was asking about it , you did indicate that , well , if the vetter as it were , in your position - -

MS. PENDERGAST: Uh - hm.

COFFEY , Q.C.: did not understand that a particular name was that of a civil servant , then the name went?

MS. PENDERGAST: And we would double check some of them if we weren't sure , absolutely.

COFFEY , Q.C.: But - - that's the criteria , if it's not a civil servant - -

MS. PENDERGAST: It's withheld.

COFFEY , Q.C. : 23 Q. Withheld.

Okay.

So in the section from the prisons report, this particular individual or individuals covered by the excised portion would be public servants speaking in their capacity as public servants.

Odd that their views are removed - odder still that it's only in part - and in that last sentence the clipping relates words that function as the subject of the verbs involved are also plucked out.

Maybe they were proper names, one might think, as in "Mr. Jones perceived" and "Mr. Jones' claim". If that was the case, then the word "he" that appears in between ought to have be chopped as well since that word also tends to identify the gender of the informant.

Read the CBC version using the Microsoft magic decoder and you discover that no proper names appear at all.

There's another head-scratcher in another section that deals with concerns among prisons staff about the lack of appropriate recognition given to a staff rowing team. The excised bit is completely mystifying since it contains no information on the security of the prison system, does not tend to identify third parties - i.e. people who aren't public servants - and generally just carries on the narrative of the issue which is left in. If problems with morale and the causes of said problems or irritants related to it are left in the document, it makes one wonder by what truly insane line of reasoning the excised bits were chopped.

Now the prisons report has more than enough in the public versions to give people cause for concern. The redaction weirdness comes - unfortunately for the current administration - at a time when their are renewed questions about its commitment to openness and transparency. They talked a good game while in opposition but, as the Cameron Inquiry and a recent set of articles in The Telegram show, the actual performance falls far short of the mark.

Some of the access problems may well have to do with bureaucratic inertia. Your humble e-scribbler has been lied to by one access official. In another case, in response to a simple request sent to obtain information in exactly the manner described by the government's own policy statements - low cost and informal - your humble scribe met with the request being shunted to the access co-ordinator who, in turn insisted that the request had to be made on the appropriate form and would be dealt with only after the appropriate fees had changed hands. That isn't government policy but the co-ordinator knowingly insisted on it merely as a means of frustrating a simple request.

In largest part though, one is tempted to point to the tone at the top as being the culprit. Public servants do not like to disclose information, as a rule. They like to find ways to hold things secret. That's a characteristic of bureaucracies the world over since the people in the bureaucracies know that information is power.

They are encouraged in the zeal for secrecy by episodes like the one in a tussle between the auditor general and the Premier over access to cabinet documents related to the cable deal. The Premier invented excuses to avoid disclosing the documents to the person he appointed to review the affair. He then relented, admitting in the process in effect that his earlier excuses were lacking in substance. later still, we saw the changes to the access to information that would - in effect - block members of the public finding out how much toilet paper the province's energy corporation buys at any given time let alone what contracts it enters into.

In the prisons report case, the government censors wound up locking the door long after the information horse had bolted. Nevertheless, their cock-up does give some insight into how the system works. Looking at the redacted version and the inadvertently unexpurgated copy of the report, one cannot see any obvious, legitimate reason for withholding any of the bits that were excised. If anything, the bits hidden under the black bands reinforce the points made throughout the report and left there for the public to see.

They were cut, though and the people of the province weren't supposed to see them.

You have to wonder why the decisions were made to chop those bits in the first place.

And if this is the sort of stuff they deem unworthy of telling you, you really have to wonder what else they are keeping secret.

-srbp-