Public perusal prohibited.
We hear a lot of talk about public-private partnerships these days. They have come into vogue since the Liberals took power in 2001. In many ways, they make sense … why does the government have to provide services that the private sector is capable of doing? And, hopefully, the private sector can do the same with less money, although that opens a different can of worms.
I want to get back to ‘public perusal prohibited.’
Prince George Omineca MLA John Rustad was part of an all-party committee that reviewed the Personal Information Protection Act. The committee focused on many of the new challenges facing us as we try to protect our personal information … the Internet etc. It should be interesting to see what the committee comes up with and how our privacy laws are changed, if at all.
Okay, now I’m getting back to ‘public perusal prohibited’ … honest.
While there are benefits to public-private partnerships, one huge drawback is the ‘public’ is shut out of the process. The public, in these cases, is the government, not you and I, the public.
One of the Liberal exercises when they came to power, was to shut down many senior care homes across the province, saying they were in a terrible state of disrepair. They probably were. The result, though, was to replace them with privately-run facilities. The new home going up at 20th Avenue and Victoria Street is a prime example.
Journalists are always trained to ask the five Ws for a story and, when dealing with government, to also ask “how much?”
So, when one of these public-private partnerships for a seniors care home was awarded, I asked the question: “How much money will the private company receive every year to run the home?”
Valid question. The private business is being paid with public dollars and in these days of government transparency, the public has a right to know where their dollars are being spent and whether there actually are any cost-savings in these public-private partnerships.
I hit a brick wall. No one would divulge that information. It’s private, I was told.
I launched a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The company, Retirement Concepts, which is in the news these days for alleged neglect and abuse of residents, fought the request bitterly. It argued that it is a private business and dollar amount of its contract with Victoria is nobody’s business. It argued that it was a highly competitive business, even though its only customer was the government, and that divulging such information would give its competition an unfair advantage.
I argued that when the government awards a paving contract, the amount of the contract tender is always divulged and, if members of the press really want, they can easily find out who else bid and what their bids were. This should be no different.
Not so. It took more than a year for my request to work its way through the process. In the end, I was given a copy of the contract with all the portions relating to money blacked out.
So much for freedom of information.