The results of a request we made for RoadSafetyBC documents shows clearly that the Government doesn’t want you to know how they decide your IRP. You may remember that the Government amended the IRP scheme to allow the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to rely on his own self-made evidence, called “technical materials” about a year ago.
When do citizens have the right to know the case against them? Isn’t that a principle of a fair hearing?
You may also remember that the Government wrote the law so that the Superintendent could do this in response to “issues raised by the applicant,” or in order to reject your evidence at the hearing.
Technical materials have a very broad definition in the Motor Vehicle Act. We wanted to know just what, exactly, the Superintendent intended to rely on so that we could be in the best position possible to defend your IRP. It’s just a simple principle of fairness that drivers in BC should have a right to know how they in the Government decide you IRP.
At the time, we made an FOI for the following:
Copies of all internal correspondence, research, memorandums, documents, emails, letters, and any record created by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles or RoadSafetyBC staff relating to “technical materials” for the purposes of immediate Roadside Prohibition cases, including but not limited to records related to the creation of technical materials, technical materials themselves, and discussion surrounding technical materials required.
As usual, the Government took long extensions and we did not receive the materials until yesterday.
The Government, in their search for records, turned up 229 pages of material. What we received were blank pages. The portion they disclosed to us was 49 pages. Of those 49 pages, 23 were completely blank, each with the notation saying that several pages were being redacted for some reason. The remaining pages included email headers, footers, and subject lines, but the content of the emails were redacted. The only material disclosed to us was not at all related to what we were seeking.
We should be surprised, but we aren’t.
A new spirit of openness?
The Government has been touting their new spirit of openness since the deleted emails scandal. We fail to see how there is any transparency in the Government, particularly when it won’t even disclose opinions it sought from the RCMP Forensic Laboratory because they might “harm intergovernmental relations.” Yes, science is harmful to Government. Two plus two is five.
And do you think we actually got the technical materials themselves? Nope. Nada. Zilch. Nothing was disclosed to us to give us any indication what material the Government wants to rely on in your IRP hearing.
Don’t you have a right to know?
Last week, we wrote about Kyla’s hearing where she argued the tribunal should have to disclose its internal knowledge. If they don’t have to disclose it for the hearing, and they don’t have to disclose it for the FOI process, when do citizens have the right to know the case against them? Isn’t that a principle of a fair hearing? The Government doesn’t think so.
This will most negatively affect people who are self-represented at the hearing, who don’t have a lawyer that is armed with their own technical materials, scientific studies, research, and scientific data to prove their case. The Government doesn’t want you to succeed. And they don’t want us to know what they’re relying on because they’re afraid we will either undermine its reliability or use it to defend our clients.
It’s shameful that this is the process set up to deal with your rights. The Government doesn’t want you to know how they decide your IRP.
In a later blog post we will explain our theories about why the Government is not providing us with the material we request. But for now we continue to fight every day for a fair system, openness, transparency, and justice.