Under wraps

There’s been plenty of press this week about the fact that families of the passengers on a Cougar helicopter that crashed while returning from the offshore have not been allowed to review a draft report on the crash that has been prepared by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB).

The families have been told they can’t have access, but at the same time, companies involved with building the helicopter and flying it have likely been given the draft, and asked for their input on the board’s final report.

Who is reviewing the report is confidential, a TSB spokesman has told the CBC, saying only that there are two groups of reviewers: those whose “performance or behaviour or products might be commented on in the report and who might see themselves as being adversely affected by the report,” and other reviewers who can comment on the science involved.

It might be surprising to some just how secretive the review process actually is.

In fact, if this newspaper were leaked a copy, we’d have to break the law to report on it.

This is from the act governing the board: “No person shall communicate or use the draft report, or permit its communication or use, for any purpose, other than the taking of remedial measures, not strictly necessary to the study of, and preparation of representations concerning, the draft report.”

But not only is the draft report confidential, so are any “representations” made to the board about the draft report. “Subject to other provisions of this act or to a written authorization from the author of a representation, no person, including any person to whom access is provided under this section, shall knowingly communicate it or permit it to be communicated to any person.”

It’s not some paper tiger, either.

The board is not above telling anyone with a draft report to back off: in 1999, The Telegram was told in no uncertain terms that continuing to reveal details from a draft report on a St. Barbe tanker explosion in 1997 could result in TSB legal action. Cease and desist, in no uncertain terms.

The reasons for the somewhat Byzantine system of having draft reports that even family members can’t see and comment on are simple: when you get right down to it, the TSB isn’t interested in who is at fault in an accident.

It is interested in preventing similar occurrences, and its reports — and its investigations — have to be considered in that light.

The TSB expects the companies involved to be an active part of that process, and allows them to review, comment on and, basically, suggest changes to the final report.

In the end, the TSB alone decides what changes to make before issuing a final report — and it is required to go back to anyone who has suggested a change and outline what, if any, part that change has had on the final report. The board wants the firms involved to feel free to participate in the process without fearing how their involvement will look to the public.

It is, however, cold comfort indeed to families trying to find out what happened, and why.

In an age when so many governments trumpet transparency and accountability, you have to wonder if the ends actually justify the means.