Years of pushing and prodding, cajoling and demanding lie behind a report released this week urging major reforms to B.C.’s information and privacy law.
Cavalier bypasses of freedom-of-information law over the past several years led to a cascading series of criticisms from the independent commissioner and others about how the system doesn’t work. Just as all the clamour was reaching peak volume, a committee of MLAs was struck to do a regular six-year review of the law.
It’s been done several times in the past, with mixed results in terms of what recommendations actually get adopted.
This time around, the ideas arrive when there’s already a lot of momentum built up for changes. Most of them are driven by revelations of flagrant abuses of the existing process. Finance Minister Mike de Jong stepped up this week with some significant improvements. He issued directives that will make divulging information already supposedly available a more serious requirement. They’ll also make more information routinely available, without having to ask for it.
(Another of his moves is drawing controversy. A new scheme that would see applicants’ requests publicized for weeks before they are fulfilled is being rapped by some who think it would hinder news-gathering, rather than help it.)
As information experts reeled in amazement at the sight of a minister writing the first direct orders ever issued under the act, the committee’s report dropped.
It presses the case for even more upgrades. The combination of circumstances sets up the shocking possibility that a government will make some significant changes in favour of releasing information.
It took some embarrassing revelations about how off-handed and dismissive political appointees are about observing the letter of the law when it comes to FOI. But they contributed to what might turn out to be a big change in attitude. If the recommendations are enacted, “right to know” might eventually supplant “we know best.”
De Jong ordered “proactive disclosure” in five new fields, including daily calendars and travel receipts of ministers. That means the data will be routinely posted online rather than divulged only on demand.
The bipartisan committee endorsed the idea and, without being specific, recommended taking it further. It wants a publication scheme that would apply to all public bodies and require mandatory disclosure of many records.
“Duty to document” is another point that has been argued for years. There are more than 400 laws that require full record-keeping, and it’s a standard part of the core procedures manual. But there’s nothing in the FOI law, in B.C. or anywhere else, that requires a broad duty to document so that the background thinking on decisions affecting the public can be scrutinized.
The B.C. Liberals have built a solid reputation over the years for preferring to go off the books on some sensitive issues. The “oral culture” was rapped in successive reports.
The committee now wants duty to document enshrined in the law.
The MLAs are also recommending that FOI laws be extended to any board, committee, commissioner, panel, agency or corporation that is created or owned by a public body. It also wants consideration of designating all publicly funded health-care organizations as public bodies, subject to FOI.
That’s in response to complaints about the veil of secrecy that shields a offshoots of public institutions.
There’s also a recommendation to weaken one of the main sections used to redact responses to FOI requests: the prohibition against disclosing information that would reveal deliberations of cabinet. That should be changed so it can be revealed if the public interest outweighs the reason for the exception, says the committee.
Just So You Know: Some public bodies made a concerted push during the public-hearing process to get the data-sovereignty restrictions relaxed. Fear of snooping by U.S. security bodies using the former USA PATRIOT Act prompted the government to bar public bodies from moving British Columbians’ personal information out of the country.
But some universities and health authorities complained that bars them from some using some cloud-based systems and forces them to use second-rate data management or do expensive work-arounds.
The committee rejected the complaints and said sovereignty requirements stand.
