2024 (Jun) – The District and council refuse to allow the public to view secret Kasian report

Central Saanich councilors have refused to comment or discuss a secret report commissioned by the District that, according to them, was the basis of determining that the current municipal building on Mount Newton Road was inadequate and that a new multi-story municipal complex was needed. Supporting their silence, they cited provincial Community Charter legislation that protects them from having to reveal conversations, and tabled reports, held during secret in-camera sessions.

Indeed, legislation does protect in-camera meeting discussion, and generally, with good reason. For municipal bodies especially, it is important that members of a council be able to freely discuss important matters behind closed doors to fully debate issues before them, without concern that their comments will be quoted and distributed to the public. Being able to privately state a position and possibly arrive at compromises, or not, enables building consensus and solid positions before presenting those position to the public.

HOWEVER, while it is also legal that voting on major decisions, such as the expropriation of private property on Hovey Road, can be done in-camera, doing so doesn’t mean it’s right. Many in the community feel that prior to searching for a suitable alternate site, the District should have clearly explained to the community why the Mount Newton Road building is deemed inadequate and why a new building was needed. Supposedly, that information is in the secret report, but the District decided that the public, who paid for the report, have no right to view it.

Continued efforts by citizens challenging the decision to deny public access to the Kasian report have been met with continued obfuscation by the District. The latest being comments that ‘some 28 pages worth’ of the report had been made available and, that ‘to protect third party information and business interests’ the careful redaction had been necessary. One must note that 28 pages represents only a fifth of the report yet the report remains fully redacted. One must also question how any professional consultant would so fill their report that four fifths of it is commentary on 3rd-party business information requiring protection through redaction. It is right to remain skeptical of the veracity and validity of the District’s continued withholding of answers to legitimate questions about the report’s content by continuing to retreat behind blacked out pages, in a report paid for by the public.