When the Scarborough subway debate was well under way again this July, rookie Councillor Joe Cressy stood up and sarcastically remarked he was happy to be present for his “very first Scarborough subway Groundhog Day debate.”

It was mine too. Though I've been reporting on the Scarborough subway for almost two years, I joined the Star’s city hall bureau in May 2014 — a year after this debate dominated council meetings.

Covering an executive meeting in January 2015, I was struck by the lack of transparency about the wasted expenses the city owed the province for the LRT that council had abandoned.

What else did the public not know?

Since then, I have been writing about both the flawed process that led to council’s 2013 flip-flop — from the LRT that would have been fully-funded by the province to a three-stop (now a one-stop) subway extension — and the ongoing debate over the justification for a subway.

In doing that reporting I’ve watched the videos of every previous debate at least twice to catch up on the parts I missed.

With the benefit of hindsight, and rewind on YouTube, I’ve tried to detail how we got here.

It was a welcome change and somewhat surreal to get to be present for the live repeat event this July. I watched from the press gallery inside city hall's domed chamber as council was again asked to choose between a subway and an LRT.

This week, we published the inside story of how a secret and misleading TTC briefing note became key to killing any chance of returning to the LRT that day.

The debate over which technology can best serve residents has played out at a time when there are more than $30 billion worth of unfunded capital projects across the city. Around city hall, thanks to city manager Peter Wallace, we just lovingly refer to that as “the iceberg.”

There is $3.56 billion from three levels of government for transit in Scarborough. One new subway stop is estimated to cost more than $3.2 billion. The city's share is largely being raised from the property tax base with a special levy that has been in place since 2014. The alternative is two LRT lines with some 24 stops within walking distance of thousands more residents. Those numbers have left some questioning the city’s priorities.

At the heart of this debate has been a question of whether or not council has ever had all the facts in front of it to make an evidence-based decision that will best serve residents.

It has meant chasing threads and questioning staff and politicians alike. But it has also meant arguing for access to behind-the-scenes information through freedom of information requests to the city, TTC and province.

I have tried to focus my reporting where there has been a lack of facts. I've tried to explain how council is moving ahead with a billions-dollar decision. So, I am now publishing, for the first time, all of the records I have collected. I think they belong in the public realm. Together, those records total 3,726 pages (Update: See note, at end. Files currently available for download total 3,614 pages). You can find links to view and download those PDFs at the bottom of this post.

What follows is a curated selection from those documents — what I know, what I still don’t know and some odds and ends you may find interesting.

If you find something worth noting, please email me anytime at jpagliaro@thestar.ca, call me at 416-869-4556 or tweet me @jpags.

PART I: WHAT I KNOW

There are some important never-before-seen documents and emails in the package of records, dating between 2013 to present.

The most important that I’ve identified have already been spelled out in my reporting, which you can find here.

Let’s start with the most recent, the briefing note.

That briefing note has, today, never been officially attached to any city or TTC report nor was it publicly posted by either the city or the transit agency (Transit advocate Steve Munro did earlier post a copy he requested to his blog). So, here is a copy. To read about why it matters, again you can read that story from this week here.

What I didn’t explain in that story is that there was a draft of the briefing note that as far as I can tell was only circulated to city and TTC staff. The major difference was that the draft did not include the updated costs for the LRT, which have since been debunked. TTC CEO Andy Byford admitted on the floor of council they were “asked to provide” that cost comparison. Byford told me he “cannot recall” who asked.

Here is Byford making that admission, under questioning from Councillor Josh Matlow (Relevant question starts at 4:52:37):

There are other documents I think are important to point out. They are either drafts that were never published or internal memos not meant for public view. They include this draft of a 2013 Metrolinx report that concluded the original subway plan was “not a worthwhile use of money” when compared to the LRT. The report was never published, though it was ready in this form ahead of a crucial October 2013 vote that sealed council’s decision to cancel the paid-for LRT and back a subway instead.

What I also know, is that throughout this process, staff and political officials from both the city and the province have been very concerned with managing and coordinating their messages on the subway/LRT question.

While it’s not unusual for there to be “key messages” documents prepared and circulated to staff who may have to answer media questions, the contents of those notes can provide interesting insight into what is and isn’t being said aloud. Here is an example of “key messages” prepared for city and TTC staff in 2015.

While a reporter is always skeptical of being spun, email chains related to reporter questions are often depressingly revealing. While it’s normal for a spokesperson to check with their own staff for the relevant answers, in one instance a set of questions I sent to the TTC was not only discussed with city staff but with the mayor’s office before I received answers.

Here, TTC spokesperson Brad Ross references my questions in an email to Mayor John Tory’s chief spokesperson, Amanda Galbraith.

It appears Ross and Galbraith later spoke on the phone. It's not clear what they discussed. Ross told me he was referring to wanting to have accurate information so he could respond to my questions. “Absolutely no direction was given I was merely providing an FYI,” he said in an email.

The same questions were sent to city staff, which led to city spokesperson Wynna Brown asking senior staff if they are OK with the “positioning” of the answers. It's unclear whether the answers were edited based on input from either the mayor's office or city staff.

PART II: WHAT I STILL DON'T KNOW.

It’s usually impossible to know what you aren’t being told. But sometimes, filing freedom of information requests give you a page count on what you don’t know.

In the case of the Scarborough subway, dozens of pages have been completely blacked out or redacted along with selective paragraphs of emails and reports.

The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act along with the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are meant to give the public access to information held by governments — governments we elect and whose salaries we pay. But, as has long been lamented, the rules meant to ensure disclosure are often used as a tool to prevent access (If the failings of the FOI system interest you, and I would argue it is a concern for all of us, I suggest watching this recent panel discussion that includes my colleague Jayme Poisson).

As is demonstrated by the pages blacked out in the Scarborough subway records, there are lots of blanket exemptions outlined in legislation that are really vague about the type of information that can be withheld, like “advice to government.” It will not surprise you that all governments receive *a lot* of advice and it should not surprise you that much of the information classified that way is likely in the public’s interest to know. The problem is, those types of exemptions are used widely to protect information governments and agencies don’t want you to see.

For example, here is an email, entirely redacted, from chair of the Metrolinx board Rob Prichard to other provincial officials ahead of an October 2013 vote on the subway.

There is little recourse for this. The province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner will hear appeals for a variety of reasons. I can and have argued that information that was censored should be disclosed. You can in many cases argue that the public interest to know overrides the exemption put in place by the government or agency.

However, because the exemptions are so broad, those appeals are rarely successful.

There are other troubling examples in the case of the Scarborough subway/LRT.

This is the first of four pages of emails sent May 2015 between deputy city manager John Livey, chief financial officer Rob Rossini, executive director of financial planning Joe Farag, executive director of strategic and corporate policy Peter Notaro, and Lynda Taschereau, who previously held that role.

One of the only other things not blacked out is the subject line: “Operating Costs.”

Before a staff report published this June, both city staff and TTC officials had refused to provide estimates for operating costs of the proposed extension, then three stops, saying that estimate was not yet available and would be made public when known. Those costs, the TTC has said, depend on station design and alignment for the subway, which has not yet been decided.

I only got these blacked out emails this month, after they are likely no longer relevant to the public. The city continues to refuse to release those email pages, saying the city’s access and privacy office determined the redactions were required by the municipal FOI laws.

The city argues they don’t have to release the operating cost emails because they contain “advice or recommendations of an officer or employee of an institution or a consultant retained by an institution” and “information the institution has received in confidence” from another level of government or an agency of that government, as outlined by the Act. Again, those are very broad exemptions.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

I have appealed that decision.

Spokesperson Wynna Brown said that while specifics of the censored emails can’t be discussed, any implication the emails discuss “actual costs” for the subway is “incorrect.”

There is other possibly vital information that has been kept from public view.

When a transit report covering the Scarborough subway and several other major transit projects was released in June, it referenced business case analysis conducted by transportation consultant Arup — what was meant to assess the cost-benefit of each project.

Though a city spokesperson confirmed Arup was paid $100,000 in taxpayer funds, the consultant’s original work was never made available, only referenced in parts of the staff report. The Star has asked the city to see the original work without success. A spokesperson has listed the information in the report that came from the consultants. It is impossible to know if the consultants provided any additional information that staff did not include in the report unless we can see the consultant’s original work.

A formal request to see that original work is still pending.

There is also a major flaw with how records are disclosed at city hall. Through my conversations and appeals, I have been made aware that when I ask for the records of, say, Staffer A, the access and privacy officers don’t search the city’s email servers to retrieve those records. They require Staffer A to search their own records and provide what they deem to be relevant. That puts the onus on me, as the requester, to question whether all of the relevant records have been provided. Again, hard to know what you don’t know.

Actual access isn’t the only hurdle. Timely access has been just as frustrating.

For example, I asked the city broadly for all communications between key officials related to the Scarborough subway/LRT back in May 2015. But to-date I have not received all of those files. Staff originally said it would take nine months to provide access to the records from staff.

I appealed that decision in December, arguing the delayed release of that information would deny the public timely access to potentially important information ahead of pending council decisions.

By the time Diane Smith, adjudicator for the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office, made a decision in August of this year, council had already committed to moving forward with the one-stop subway, despite many unknowns.

By that time, it had already been more than nine months since the Star paid a deposit for the records. But the city told the IPC it needed “at least” an additional year to process the request.

Smith ruled the city could have only another four months to complete the request, which gives them until this December 30.

Records from the city’s planning department, which has a key role, are still outstanding.

PART III: ODDS & ENDS

Some of the information I’ve received has informed or influenced my reporting but may not have warranted its own story. Here is a selection of oddities and intriguing emails I've bookmarked along the way:

The re-opening — In May 2013, an irritated Metrolinx CEO Bruce McCuaig questioned then city manager Joe Pennachetti and TTC CEO Andy Byford about why council seemed to be heading towards supporting a subway despite a signed agreement with Metrolinx to build an LRT:

This was Byford’s response:

This was Pennachetti’s response:

Subway/LRT — In July 2013, former city manager Joe Pennachetti fired back at chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat when she questioned where this whole subway/LRT flip-flop was headed:

“Please advise” — In July 2013, chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat fired at TTC CEO Andy Byford wanting to know how the TTC produced an updated ridership number for the subway and questioned if he was supporting that subway option:

Byford replied that the TTC did not produce the updated number. What he doesn’t say, is that ridership number — which has proved to be controversial — is said to have come from within her own planning department. Just days before a city staff report is published with that number in it, it appears Keesmaat was not aware of that. It’s not clear when she became aware of it.

“Please find attached screen captures of the Chief Planner’s tweets” — In July 2013, no less than five city staffers, including the head of communications for the city, work to collect what chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat was tweeting about ahead of, during and after a July 2013 council vote. They provided those screen captures directly to deputy city manager John Livey:

It’s unclear what staff or Livey were looking for. The Star looked at Keesmaat’s feed from that period and this is the most interesting/relevant thing she tweeted:

“No one can say this work is boring” — In October 2013, Metrolinx and provincial officials provided each other with a play-by-play of a final vote on the subway flip-flop, which was apparently too close to call:

Spoiler: The subway won.

THE FOIs

So, here are nearly 4,000 pages of documents.

First, a few important notes:

- The year on the file notes the year I made the request, not the year the records were created

- Not all information contained in the records is previously unpublished material. There are several staff reports, etc. that have since been published. However, there are several draft versions of those now public documents

- Many of these PDFs are not searchable. You are welcome to download them and create searchable versions

- There are two PDFs I just received that I am still going through that I will post soon

Sunk Costs FOI (2015)

Ridership FOI (2015)

Scarborough/LRT Communications FOI (2015)

Scarborough Subway Presentation FOI (2015)

Metrolinx FOI (2015)

Briefing Note FOI