Using the Access to Information Act (ATI) I’ve tried to shine a light inside Health Canada’s “Skull and Bones” crypto-culture of concealment. These may help illustrate how things work, or not, at Health Canada.

I warn you though, public servants signal (I hesitate to say “communicate”) using an arcane, often impenetrable code. Remarkably, other public servants are paid to interpret this code, and have been so proactive and transparent as to make it available even to the public: Treasury Board Newspeak Dictionary.

• On 27 June 2012 I asked about the Order Amending Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (BZP and TFMPP) with ATI A-2012-00512. The interim response weighs in at over 2400 pages. There may be more I’m told.

• On 27 June 2012 I asked about the status of 3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV with ATI A-2012-00509 (23 MB, 83 pages). Further, in ATI A-2012-00508 (37 MB, 737 pages), I asked for everything that prompted Health Canada to adjust their position on MDPV. By 180 degrees.

  As you may recall, MDPV gained undeserved notoriety as the drug of choice among face-eating cannibals. Absolute drivel of course. Still, even though Health Canada signed off on MDPV years ago, proclaiming it legal as sea salt, here was an Opportunity for Political Grandstanding. Er, that is, Safeguarding our Children.

  Following what appears to be standard procedure, when the media take notice of any drug the first priority at Health Canada is naturally of the CYA sort, à la the Minister was unaware of the issue, if any, until quite recently and is thus held blameless; the burden of deflecting responsibility weighs heavy on the Ministry. The PMO, whence every Minister’s string doth spring, will confirm this is official policy… though I haven’t actually asked them yet.

  Next, consultants are hastily hired (i.e. Canada’s Economic Action Plan for former public servants earning over $250K) to conjure up support for the Minister’s decision… as soon as she is made aware of it.

  Spending millions is necessary, of course. Evidence must be picked with care—only the ripest cherries mind you—then burnished for weeks with whole cloth. Much weight is given to headlines and accounts in the popular press, escaping the bias for which peer-reviewed journals are famous. On occasion, guidance has been sought from YouTube. Tragically, tasseography has largely been discontinued, the victim of departmental belt-tightening.

  Still, since Health Canada is not in the habit of citing their sources one would be forgiven for dismissing this process as an elaborate charade designed more to protect the Minister and her mandarins than the public.

  But, c’mon. Give yourself a shake! What kind of secretive, controlling, manipulative, crude, autocratic, vicious, unprincipled, untrustworthy, paranoid government would do that?

  ---

  Below, one of the vexing issues borne of a policy vacuum and the crushing weight of analysis demanded when crafting criminal law without a dartboard. The scent of idle indifference all but wafts from the page, as though the consequences where on a par with choosing the right sunglasses. (See A-2012-00508 above, p. 702. Emphasis added):

  “So, an interesting issue has come up in progressing our analysis of MDPV and that is into what Schedule we actually want to propose placing it in the forthcoming NOI [Notice of Intent]?
  
  ”If we follow past practice of using structural similarity as the main consideration, MDPV should really go into Schedule IV as that is where pyrovalerone is listed.
  
  ”However, we know that simple possession is not prohibited for Schedule IV substances and given the apparent dangers associated with the use and abuse of MDPV, it would seem that Schedule III is more appropriate and so currently, this is what the NOI suggests.
  
  ”Given the extensive references to cocaine and amphetamine-like effects in the media and in statements from health officials however, another option would be to propose that MDPV be added to Schedule I on the grounds that the offences involving it are worthy of more serious penalties akin to those associated with Schedule I.
  
  ”While I am not suggesting that MDPV is an amphetamine, the comparison is interesting because once the drug portion of the Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) is implemented, all of the amphetamines in Item 1 of Schedule III will be moved to Schedule I.
  
  ”Do you have any particular views on this? While we can always change our plans after the NOI, it would be my preference to have the NOI state where we intend to put MDPV on a permanent basis.”

• On 4 May 2011 I asked about their Proposal regarding the regulation of Tapentadol with ATI A-2011-00210. Their 1757 page, 80 MB response, contains vast amounts of duplication (endlessly forwarded e-mails, etc) and a good bit of “severing”; that’s ATI-speak for blacked out.

  Sadly, they took so long to respond they broke the law (ATI)—the technical term is “deemed refusal.” They also shared my request with a third party, i.e. they disclosed personal information about me and my request to someone else. That’s also against the law, two in fact—ATI and the Privacy Act.

  Those are not my opinions—those are the findings of the Information Commissioner’s report 3211-00465, and of the Privacy Commissioner’s report 7100-012446.

  All this from “the most transparant government in Canadian History” claims 10th dan Orwellian Tony Clement.

• On 24 Oct 2010 I asked about the status of Mephedrone and how, exactly, they arrived at their position it is a controlled substance, with ATI A-2010-00804.

  Their “status report” claims mephedrone is controlled in the US, citing the DEA’s Microgram Journal. In fact, Microgram makes no such claim and barely a mention of Mephedrone, merely the observation that a case could be made under the analogue provisions of US drug law. Only years later, on 9 July 2012, was Mephedrone added to the CSA.

  It’s not immediately apparent but the status report was not written by Health Canada. Instead, they paid an outside consultant to make the call. Though severed from some pages (a further violation of ATI), his name does appear on others.

  Consider that for a moment. The power to “read a substance into the CDSA” has been delegated from Parliament to the Minister of Health, who has in turn punted it right out of the public service. The CDSA which, de facto, is part of the Criminal Code of Canada.

  As a technique for blurring responsibility this approach has merit; it allows Health Canada to feign objectivity. The fact that the paid consultant is a former Health Canada employee does not necessarily preclude an objective analysis, does it?

• On 16 June 2005 I asked about the status of Ketamine with ATI A-2005-00382