"It's
a mistake to assume that government is competent."
Rafe Mair's Axiom Number One
"The
basic forecasts were submitted in written form - pro forma
financial statements - with fairly high level revenue and
expense categories. We did the comparative analysis and
contacted the ministries for explanations of increases.
The responses were mostly verbal. We did not receive any
correspondence dedicated to an explanation of the revenue
variances."
Manager, Fiscal Planning and Integration, Treasury Board
Staff in an email dated October 26, 2006 to the Manager,
Information and Privacy, Ministry of Finance
Table
1.1 in the First
Quarterly Financial Report 2006-2007 released by Minister
of Finance Carole Taylor on September 15, 2006 included
a line showing an increase of $109 million to the province's
bottom line this year, $115 million next year and a further
$63 million two years from now, a
total increase of $287 million over three years, due
to higher than expected "own-source" revenue from
school districts and health authorities. Table 1.1 summarized
the changes from February's budget; the increase of $109
million this fiscal year represented 10.7% of the net increase
in total revenue shown for this fiscal year. In other words,
it's important. Government routinely makes what it characterizes
as "major" announcements over amounts much smaller
than $109 million in one year, $287 million over three years.
After
three months of chasing the Ministry of Finance with freedom
of information requests, it turns out that an email admits
that the Ministry of Finance has no documentation on the
details behind the $287 million increase. In terms of policy,
own-source revenue for school boards and health authorities
includes the controversial school fees that were ruled illegal,
and the revenues received by health authorities for providing
uninsured services, not to mention the revenues gained from
violating the Canada Health Act when private patients paid
to queue jump. Wouldn't you think that the Ministries of
Health, Education and Finance would want to know something
about the details behind estimates of own-source revenue
for school boards and health authorities? It is more comforting
to think that the government is withholding information
and violating the Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act than it is to think that they don't know
what they're doing.
Three
months between initiating a request and ultimately receiving
a package of documents is relatively quick in getting information
out of the Campbell government, even though the time limit
in the Act is 30 working days. When a complaint was sent
by registered mail to the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner on December 18th, I received a reply
by email on December 21st. By December 28th the file was
closed with a promise that the documents were in the mail;
they were received on January 2nd. The Freedom of Information
Commissioner is certainly keeping his word on expediting
the processing of requests that amount to "deemed refusals".
In addition
to my original freedom of information request, when the
time limit was extended because the Ministry of Finance
said it had to consult with other public bodies, I submitted
a further request for all documents that were part of that
consultation. That request yielded far more useful information
than the first request; it contained a package of emails
which showed sincere efforts by staff in the Ministry of
Finance to answer my request for information, including
an email which claimed that the $287 million variance in
revenue was accepted with no written documentation. There
are several possibilities that could explain how a $287
million change in revenue over three years could be important
enough to warrant its own line in the First Quarterly Financial
Report yet not important enough to be documented, including:
1)
incompetence,
2) an attitude that $287 million isn't important, or "material"
as the accountants say,
3) a less than complete search for documents, or
4) a culture that intentionally fails to create paper trails
on matters of important public policy so as to avoid capture
by Freedom of Information Requests.
Lack
of materiality might be the government's best defense, but
that is inconsistent with the inclusion of own-source revenue
in the First Quarterly Report. When you think of it that
way, Mair's Axiom Number One might not be so bad after all.