万锦市藏匿体育馆报告岂有不公开之理

追求万锦市体育馆项目的透明化的万锦居民，一直努力寻求市府公开体育馆顾问报告。但万锦市长和市议员以商业机密和保密性为由，断然拒绝公众的要求。Bob Mok在其评论文章中指出，市府隐瞒相关报告的理由根本经不起公众质询与挑战。

Markham’s residents seek transparency on city’s  Arena  project, and demand the city to release the Arena consultants’ report.  But the public demand are squarely rejected by the mayor and city councillors, citing trade secrets and confidentiality. But Bob Mok writes in his op-ed that the city’s reasons for hiding the reports are unable to stand up to the public scrutiny. 
                                                   

在2015年2月10日举行的万锦市议会会议上，逾百名万锦居民热切期待着尽快对公布揭露耗资$72.6万元的体育馆顾问报告作出决议。但此次议会却演变成一场闹剧。

The Markham City Council meeting on Feb 10, 2015 attended by over 100 residents eagerly awaiting a resolution to the release of the $726,000 worth of Arena consultants’ reports turned into a farce.


在大约两年前有关万锦市体育馆的辩论达到高峰时，“公开体育馆报告”的动议首次被延期，此后其又被转移到闭门会议上讨论，以期避开公众质询而寻求“补充意见”。但该动议延期的结果却连同“体育馆”这个词一起渐出，再不会在公开场合出现。

Almost two years ago and at the height of the Arena debate, the “Release of arena reports” motion was first deferred then transferred to in-camera sessions to seek a “second opinion” behind public eyes. The results of this deferment faded away along with the “ARENA” word and never to be uttered again in public.


鉴于万锦居民决不会善罢甘休，并会对公布报告穷追猛打，市长和市府律师一致拒绝公开相关文件的做法令人感到困惑。

The Mayor and the City solicitor’s collective intransigence on the release of these documents are baffling, given the inevitability and possible calamity of further onslaught from the residents.


让我们来看看市府的双重论据——“商业机密”和“机密信息”。由于“专利保护”只能维持20年，可口可乐公司曾以“商业机密”为由严守其配方秘密。如果说这一报告和所谓的商业机密可能挂的上边的话，可能就通过体育场里安装的那些可乐机吧！

Let us look into the twin arguments of “Trade Secrets” and “Confidential Information”. “Trade Secrets” is what Coca Cola used to keep its formula away from competitors since “Patent protection” only last 20 years. Maybe the remote connection to these reports is that an Arena will have some Coke machines installed on its premises?


如果透露信息者或第三方公开相关信息，“机密信息”就不再具保密性。有一种观点认为内幕人士不应该通过不当公开信息摆脱其保密义务， 而另一种观点则认为一旦有信息外泄保密义务就彻底消失。鉴于市长及其手下曾此前经精挑细选而披露相关报告中的部分信息，而现在又根据市府律师的建议以“机密信息”为由拒绝公开相关报告，那么上述普遍原则是不是并不可应用其身呢？

“Confidential Information” may stop to be confidential if it is later publicly disclosed by the confider or a third party. One view is that the confidant should not be able to relieve itself of the duty of confidentiality by wrongfully making the information publicly known. Another view is that an obligation not to disclose is broken for all when the bird has flown. So, does this not apply to the Mayor and his staff when they cherry-picked and disclosed information from the subject reports earlier on and are now hiding behind the shield of “Confidential Information” as recommended by the City Solicitor?


有人猜测市府拒绝公开相关报告，是因为一旦向公众和/或体育馆支持者公开其中包括战略措施谈判的细节和建议则有可能会引发法律诉讼。除此之外的另一种可能性就是市府在过去两年中一直在误导公众，并向居民提供虚假消息。

One speculation for this resistance to release is that details and recommendations on strategic approaches to negotiations were included in these reports and they will trigger law suits once revealed to the public and/or the arena promoter. The only other possibility is that the public was misled all along for two full years and that misinformation was communicated and dissimulated to the residents.


由于报告很多，因此有些无需依法保密的部分可以被公开，而那些包含市府及其律师的法律观点部分则可根据情况缩减。

There are many reports so those parts that are not required by law to be kept confidential should be released and those with legal opinions between the City and its solicitor(s) should be redacted where applicable.


可市府连缩减的报告都拿不出来？难道这些体育馆报告比那份包含更多国家安全关注和宗教影响的的美国UFO蓝皮书计划档案更机密？可就连这类档案文件都已在缩编后通过《知情法》公诸于众！

Is there nothing a redaction will not accomplish? Are we saying that these arena reports are more secretive than the Project Blue Book files on UFO’s in the United States which carried more national security concerns and religious implications? Even those files were released by Free of Information Act after redactions!


在2013年10月有关体育馆的调查中，10763名受访者中有10356人（(96.2%)要求公开耗费纳税人金钱而撰写的体育馆报告。

In the October 2013 arena survey, 10356 out of 10763 respondents (96.2%) demanded the arena reports paid for by tax dollars to be made public.


在2月10日会议一开始，大约有10位居民作为代表就这一问题发表看法，结果他们一致支持公开报告动议。由于体育馆项目已在去年6月正式“终止”,似乎大部分市议员也都愿意支持公开相关报告。

The meeting started off with around ten (10) residents giving deputations on this matter and they were all supporting the release motion. There was an atmosphere that a major of Council members were readied to finally release the reports since the arena project has officially “expired” last June.


然而在市府书记长（Kimberly Kitteringham）对《市资讯自由和隐私保护法》(MFIPPA)介绍后，市长裁定公开相关报告的动议“有违规则”。期间市府律师康拉德也就此问题进行了长时间论述，在此之前康拉德已将市议员雷亚在未当选市议员前提出的两宗引人注目的上诉提交信息和隐私专员(IPC)。雷亚早在两年前就开始申请公开相关报告，但信息和隐私专员至今仍未作出最终决定。

Instead, the Mayor ruled the motion to release these reports “Out of order” after a presentation from the City Clerk (Kimberly Kitteringham) on the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection Privacy Act (MFIPPA). There were lengthy discussions with the city solicitor Catherine Conrad who passed the responsibility onto the information and privacy commissioner (IPC) on two outstanding appeals that were made by Councillor Karen Rea before she became a member of council.  The application by Councillor Rea started two years ago and a final decision has still not been rendered by the IPC.


纳税人为这些报告付了费，他们就有权知道报告的内容。而这也是市府向居民展示其透明度的大好机会，毕竟当局此前积极推进被严加保密的体育馆项目时已经令市府民望受损。但市府已经错失和解良机。许多居民在离开会议厅时高喊“无耻，无耻，无耻”。但此事并非就此了结。

The taxpayers paid for these reports and they have a right to know of their contents. This is a chance for the City to demonstrate its transparency to the residents after all the damages done during the previous effort to promote the Arena project when it was shrouded in secrecy. The opportunity for a reconciliation process was missed. Many resident left with cries of “shame, shame, shame” as they departed the Council chamber. We have not seen the end of this issue.


但是在两年前有关兴建体育馆建议的辩论达到白热化时，同样的“公开体育馆报告”动议并未被裁定“有违规则”。而当时的主事者和现在一样，仍是市长、市府律师和是书记长，那么究竟是什么发生了变化？如果他们当时不知道《市资讯自由和隐私保护法》的规定，那么就不难断定他们的不称职。如果他们知道相关规定，那么为什么当时没有阻止相关动议并裁定其“有违规则”？ 这还是留待各位读者自行判断吧！

The same “release the arena reports” motion was tabled two years ago at the height of the Arena proposal debate and was not ruled “Out of Order”. The controlling players were the same – the Mayor, the City Solicitor, and the City Clerk so what has changed? If they were not aware of the MFIPPA requirements then, it would infer that there may be an element of incompetence. If they were aware of it, then why did they not stop that motion and rule it “Out of Order”? I will let the readers come to their own conclusions.