A Private Matter - special report by Dan Hilborn
Published Nov. 6, 2004
Critics of the provincial government are livid after Health Services Minister Colin Hansen signed a 10-year, $324-million deal Thursday afternoon to contract out the information services program for the B.C. Medical Services Plan and Pharmacare.
"Like most British Columbians, I am angry," said George Heyman, president of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. "I believe this government has doublecrossed us."
Heyman and Darrell Evans of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, believe the contract could put British Columbian's private medical records at risk to being obtained by the American government under the terms of the USA Patriot Act.
The two critics disagree vehemently with B.C. Management Services Minister Joyce Murray's belief that recent changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are enough to safeguard the personal information of British Columbians.
Evans said that prior to signing the contract, the government should have enacted the 16 recommendations made by B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis in his Oct. 29 report into the possible impacts of the USA Patriot Act.
"We called for a moratorium on all contracting out until all 16 recommendations are implemented," Evans said. "There are already a couple hundred contracts that exist, and all that information is totally up for grabs. And American laws take precedence."
But Hansen insisted that the contract with Maximus BC contains enough safeguards to ensure that the private records of British Columbians will stay within the province. Those safeguards include:
- all data storage and access must be based solely in Canada, and can only be changed with the province's express consent.
- all Maximus BC directors must be resident Canadians;
- the data must not be remotely accessed from outside Canada;
- special restrictions will be placed on the data access and supervision requirements of U.S. employees working in Canada on transition and transformation activities;
- all employees and subcontractors who have access to the data will sign nondisclosure agreements;
- a whistle-blower line will be set up for employees; and
- the province can take over the operations of Maximus BC in the event of a potential disclosure of personal information.
"This is the first major B.C. contract to be signed since the passage of new, tougher privacy protection legislation," Hansen said in the press release announcing the contract. "we have assessed the Maximus BC agreement against the commissioner's recommendations and have determined that the contract meets or exceeds those recommendations."
Heyman said the decision to sign the contract shows that the provincial government is putting corporate interests ahead of the public interest.
"This government requested commentary from the privacy commissioner that they clearly had no intention of paying attention to," he said. "I think British Columbian's personal medical records, such as their drug history or whether they've been treated for a mental illness, is at risk."
Heyman said the BCGEU believes the contract violates both the B.C. Medicare Protection Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. "We'll be pursuing this issue in court on behalf of all British Columbians," he said.
Heyman also denied allegations that the union is only speaking up because it wants to protect its members' jobs. "Our members have all been offered work by Maximus. This is a public policy issue pure and simple," he said.
The B.C. Persons with AIDS Society also came out against the contract.
"Regardless of all the plausible but ultimately empty safeguards trotted out by the minister this afternoon in defence of the deal, the simple and inescapable fact remains that Maximus BC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Maximus Inc.," said BCPWA chairperson Paul Lewand.
"Especially in the face of the decisive reelection of the George W. Bush Republicans and the consequent likely extension of the most offensive provisions of the USA Patriot Act, this deal places the personal medical records of every British Columbian within easy reach of the American FBI and, under the terms of the U.S. Homeland Security Act, the entire array of U.S. federal government agencies."
Showing posts with label FOIPPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FOIPPA. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
All governments become secretive
By Dan Hilborn
Published Sept. 11, 2004
A Private Matter
Barry Jones: Freedom of information and the protection of privacy
The man who drafted the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has joined the growing numbers who are expressing concern about the U.S.A. Patriot Act and its possible impact on the privacy of British Columbians.
Barry Jones, the former Burnaby North NDP MLA who wrote the act before it was passed by the legislature in the early 1990s, said the province may still have the strongest privacy protection in North America, but that protection is only as good as the government allows it to be.
And Jones believes the B.C. Liberals' track record gives ample reason to fear that our most personal information of all - public health and income records - could soon be made available to the U.S. government.
"I have concerns about these things being privatized in the first place," said Jones. "I have concern particularly when they're going to be taken over by foreign companies. That really opens up the operation to all kinds of fears about lack of protection of people's privacy."
Jones noted that the two agencies being contemplated for the Maximus contract - the Medical Services Plan and PharmaCare - have access to the most personal and private information about British Columbians, including medical and drug records, plus income records for seniors and others who apply for or receive drug subsidies under the Fair PharmaCare program.
"I want it (MSP and PharmaCare records) strictly handled by Canadians, and in particular, Canadian public servants who take an oath of office," Jones said.
And the former MLA said he has good reasons to be suspicious. In a digital world, where information can move freely and silently between computers, Jones said it only makes sense that American corporations will be able to find ways to avoid Canadian non- disclosure laws.
"I think those fears are very legitimate," he said.
Jones believes the B.C. Liberals do not have a commitment to open government, and are instead focusing on reducing the financial cost of the public service.
And he decried the B.C. Liberals' budget cuts to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Office.
"We made it very pro-public in the sense that you had to provide timely answers to the citizen's questions," Jones said. "But that requires proper funding, and the funding has been cut back. You can't really expect the legislation to do 100 per cent of its job if it isn't properly staffed."
Jones also expressed concern about the government's decision to alert cabinet ministers when potentially embarrassing Freedom of Information applications are made by either the public or the media.
"The legislation as drafted is an excellent piece of work, but it takes a commitment to a spirit of openness, which is difficult for any government to maintain. We (the NDP) did it for the first few years, but as time went on, even the Harcourt and Clark governments became more secretive and found ways around the act by not taking notes and that kind of thing.
"But I see this government very dangerous in terms of being driven by a right-wing ideology," he said. "I see this government, in its first term, doing everything possible to sell off everything it can. The crown jewels of this province are the public enterprises which were paid for by the citizens of this province, and they should remain so.
"I greatly fear if they do this in the first term, what would they do in the second term?"
Published Sept. 11, 2004
A Private Matter
Barry Jones: Freedom of information and the protection of privacy
The man who drafted the province's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has joined the growing numbers who are expressing concern about the U.S.A. Patriot Act and its possible impact on the privacy of British Columbians.
Barry Jones, the former Burnaby North NDP MLA who wrote the act before it was passed by the legislature in the early 1990s, said the province may still have the strongest privacy protection in North America, but that protection is only as good as the government allows it to be.
And Jones believes the B.C. Liberals' track record gives ample reason to fear that our most personal information of all - public health and income records - could soon be made available to the U.S. government.
"I have concerns about these things being privatized in the first place," said Jones. "I have concern particularly when they're going to be taken over by foreign companies. That really opens up the operation to all kinds of fears about lack of protection of people's privacy."
Jones noted that the two agencies being contemplated for the Maximus contract - the Medical Services Plan and PharmaCare - have access to the most personal and private information about British Columbians, including medical and drug records, plus income records for seniors and others who apply for or receive drug subsidies under the Fair PharmaCare program.
"I want it (MSP and PharmaCare records) strictly handled by Canadians, and in particular, Canadian public servants who take an oath of office," Jones said.
And the former MLA said he has good reasons to be suspicious. In a digital world, where information can move freely and silently between computers, Jones said it only makes sense that American corporations will be able to find ways to avoid Canadian non- disclosure laws.
"I think those fears are very legitimate," he said.
Jones believes the B.C. Liberals do not have a commitment to open government, and are instead focusing on reducing the financial cost of the public service.
And he decried the B.C. Liberals' budget cuts to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Office.
"We made it very pro-public in the sense that you had to provide timely answers to the citizen's questions," Jones said. "But that requires proper funding, and the funding has been cut back. You can't really expect the legislation to do 100 per cent of its job if it isn't properly staffed."
Jones also expressed concern about the government's decision to alert cabinet ministers when potentially embarrassing Freedom of Information applications are made by either the public or the media.
"The legislation as drafted is an excellent piece of work, but it takes a commitment to a spirit of openness, which is difficult for any government to maintain. We (the NDP) did it for the first few years, but as time went on, even the Harcourt and Clark governments became more secretive and found ways around the act by not taking notes and that kind of thing.
"But I see this government very dangerous in terms of being driven by a right-wing ideology," he said. "I see this government, in its first term, doing everything possible to sell off everything it can. The crown jewels of this province are the public enterprises which were paid for by the citizens of this province, and they should remain so.
"I greatly fear if they do this in the first term, what would they do in the second term?"
Privacy concerns flare up
By Dan Hilborn
Published Sept. 1, 2004
An American company that provided computer data recovery services to the B.C. government had its contract terminated earlier this year due to privacy concerns with the U.S.A. Patriot Act, provincial Management Services Minister Joyce Murray confirmed this week.
The data, which filled a number of magnetic tapes and covered a "broad sample" of information from a variety of government ministries, will now only be handled by companies that can guarantee the information will be kept in Canada, Murray said.
"I have already pulled back information that had been stored temporarily in the U.S.," Murray told the Burnaby NOW.
"I've instructed the ministry to pull that information back and find suppliers in Canada to do the emergency exercise back-up data handling.
"We're going to limit the information to being in Canada so that heretofore, it will be only be handled by Canadian companies with Canadian boards of directors," she said.
The U.S. company in question, Sungard Data Systems, had been subcontracted to conduct an annual data recovery exercise for the B.C. government, a service that would be essential in the event of a catastrophic computer shutdown in Victoria, said the minister.
The decision to terminate the contract was made in May, around the same time that B.C. privacy commissioner David Loukidelis announced that he would be conducting an inquiry into the ramifications of the U.S.A. Patriot Act in B.C. Loukidelis' report, which was originally scheduled to be complete in mid-August, is now due to be made public next week.
Murray said the termination of the Sungard contract, which was part of a larger management services contract with Telus, is evidence that the B.C. government already has the strongest privacy protection laws on the continent and that it will err on the side of non-disclosure, even if it means higher cost for some services.
"I believe people can be confident that we're acting in their best interest," Murray said Thursday. "U.S. legislation that allows their agencies to reach around legislation is not acceptable to me."
Murray noted that the data recovery exercise is an annual event, and involves information from a wide variety of government agencies and ministries. In this case, it may include wildlife inventories, land registry technical data and information on clients of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, she added.
At the time of the exercise, Murray was advised that the information would be kept in Canada. "I was assured that Canadian employees of Telus, the primary contractor, had custody of the data for the entire time. It was down in the United States for a very short time, so I did not feel it was a very significant risk."
In an earlier interview with the Burnaby NOW, Murray said that future contractual arrangements with the government will have to be with Canadian companies that have Canadian directors.
"We're doing everything reasonable to protect personal information, and we're going beyond that," Murray said on Aug. 31. "I think it's a fact of life today that there is no 100 per cent guarantee about your information, whether you use the Internet, or whether you are buying drugs at Wal-Mart. Whether it's vulnerability or identity theft, there are some risks out there in electronic media today."
However, Murray also said that the risk of identity theft is "far, far greater" than the possibility of U.S. law enforcement agencies using the Patriot Act to access information on British Columbians.
"We're going to make it infinitely more difficult for them to do that, and infinitely greater penalties should any employee share that information with the FBI through the Patriot Act," she said. "We are going to have the toughest protection here in B.C. and we are in the lead on this issue."
Published Sept. 1, 2004
An American company that provided computer data recovery services to the B.C. government had its contract terminated earlier this year due to privacy concerns with the U.S.A. Patriot Act, provincial Management Services Minister Joyce Murray confirmed this week.
The data, which filled a number of magnetic tapes and covered a "broad sample" of information from a variety of government ministries, will now only be handled by companies that can guarantee the information will be kept in Canada, Murray said.
"I have already pulled back information that had been stored temporarily in the U.S.," Murray told the Burnaby NOW.
"I've instructed the ministry to pull that information back and find suppliers in Canada to do the emergency exercise back-up data handling.
"We're going to limit the information to being in Canada so that heretofore, it will be only be handled by Canadian companies with Canadian boards of directors," she said.
The U.S. company in question, Sungard Data Systems, had been subcontracted to conduct an annual data recovery exercise for the B.C. government, a service that would be essential in the event of a catastrophic computer shutdown in Victoria, said the minister.
The decision to terminate the contract was made in May, around the same time that B.C. privacy commissioner David Loukidelis announced that he would be conducting an inquiry into the ramifications of the U.S.A. Patriot Act in B.C. Loukidelis' report, which was originally scheduled to be complete in mid-August, is now due to be made public next week.
Murray said the termination of the Sungard contract, which was part of a larger management services contract with Telus, is evidence that the B.C. government already has the strongest privacy protection laws on the continent and that it will err on the side of non-disclosure, even if it means higher cost for some services.
"I believe people can be confident that we're acting in their best interest," Murray said Thursday. "U.S. legislation that allows their agencies to reach around legislation is not acceptable to me."
Murray noted that the data recovery exercise is an annual event, and involves information from a wide variety of government agencies and ministries. In this case, it may include wildlife inventories, land registry technical data and information on clients of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, she added.
At the time of the exercise, Murray was advised that the information would be kept in Canada. "I was assured that Canadian employees of Telus, the primary contractor, had custody of the data for the entire time. It was down in the United States for a very short time, so I did not feel it was a very significant risk."
In an earlier interview with the Burnaby NOW, Murray said that future contractual arrangements with the government will have to be with Canadian companies that have Canadian directors.
"We're doing everything reasonable to protect personal information, and we're going beyond that," Murray said on Aug. 31. "I think it's a fact of life today that there is no 100 per cent guarantee about your information, whether you use the Internet, or whether you are buying drugs at Wal-Mart. Whether it's vulnerability or identity theft, there are some risks out there in electronic media today."
However, Murray also said that the risk of identity theft is "far, far greater" than the possibility of U.S. law enforcement agencies using the Patriot Act to access information on British Columbians.
"We're going to make it infinitely more difficult for them to do that, and infinitely greater penalties should any employee share that information with the FBI through the Patriot Act," she said. "We are going to have the toughest protection here in B.C. and we are in the lead on this issue."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Privacy deal delayed
By Dan Hilborn
Published Sept. 1, 2004
The B.C. government will wait until privacy commissioner David Loukidelis is finished his report into the effects of the U.S.A. Patriot Act before deciding whether or not to contract out the billing and administrative arm of the Medical Services Plan to the Canadian division of an American corporation.
"There will be no deal between now and mid-September," B.C. Management Services Minister Joyce Murray said Monday afternoon, on her first day back at work after a month-long holiday in Europe. "We have said all along that our contracts will protect people's privacy.
"So we're looking forward to the Loukidelis report and I'm confident that his recommendations will help us craft our legislation that we'll be working on this fall," she said. "And (that report) will help us fine-tune the contractual revisions we're planning at this point."
The Right to Privacy Campaign and other critics of the proposed deal believe the U.S.A. Patriot Act could compel the company in question - Virginia-based Maximus - to provide the private medical records of British Columbians to the American government.
Murray said the government has taken several steps to ensure that Canadians' privacy rights are protected.
"We assessed the risk as being a small incremental risk, but one worth acting on," Murray said. "We have taken immediate action and already we are building in additional protection measures to any contract we are negotiating."
Murray also said the proposed Maximus contract has specific provisions that should provide adequate protection of British Columbian's privacy - "measures such as contracts being cancelled should the company violate our laws of not supplying information to the Patriot Act."
In addition, Murray said the Canadian division of Maximus would be transferred to the ownership of the provincial government should those provisions be violated.
When asked if that was not the equivalent of closing the barn door after the horses have been let out, Murray said: "Yes, but that's what laws are all about. No matter what the issue is, we, as a society, say this is not allowed and this is the penalty.
"That is what laws do, and I think the key thing that the BCGEU is ignoring is that outsourcing is not the problem," she said. "The problem is that the provisions in the Patriot Act could allow the FBI to reach around existing agreements and treaties. It could allow them to do that in a far, far wider range of issues than outsourcing. So stopping outsourcing does not solve the problem."
Published Sept. 1, 2004
The B.C. government will wait until privacy commissioner David Loukidelis is finished his report into the effects of the U.S.A. Patriot Act before deciding whether or not to contract out the billing and administrative arm of the Medical Services Plan to the Canadian division of an American corporation.
"There will be no deal between now and mid-September," B.C. Management Services Minister Joyce Murray said Monday afternoon, on her first day back at work after a month-long holiday in Europe. "We have said all along that our contracts will protect people's privacy.
"So we're looking forward to the Loukidelis report and I'm confident that his recommendations will help us craft our legislation that we'll be working on this fall," she said. "And (that report) will help us fine-tune the contractual revisions we're planning at this point."
The Right to Privacy Campaign and other critics of the proposed deal believe the U.S.A. Patriot Act could compel the company in question - Virginia-based Maximus - to provide the private medical records of British Columbians to the American government.
Murray said the government has taken several steps to ensure that Canadians' privacy rights are protected.
"We assessed the risk as being a small incremental risk, but one worth acting on," Murray said. "We have taken immediate action and already we are building in additional protection measures to any contract we are negotiating."
Murray also said the proposed Maximus contract has specific provisions that should provide adequate protection of British Columbian's privacy - "measures such as contracts being cancelled should the company violate our laws of not supplying information to the Patriot Act."
In addition, Murray said the Canadian division of Maximus would be transferred to the ownership of the provincial government should those provisions be violated.
When asked if that was not the equivalent of closing the barn door after the horses have been let out, Murray said: "Yes, but that's what laws are all about. No matter what the issue is, we, as a society, say this is not allowed and this is the penalty.
"That is what laws do, and I think the key thing that the BCGEU is ignoring is that outsourcing is not the problem," she said. "The problem is that the provisions in the Patriot Act could allow the FBI to reach around existing agreements and treaties. It could allow them to do that in a far, far wider range of issues than outsourcing. So stopping outsourcing does not solve the problem."
Seniors fight US contract
By Dan Hilborn
Published Aug. 24, 2004
Alice West is worried about her privacy. The Burnaby resident and co-chair of the seniors' group Women Elders in Action (WE*ACT) is among the more than 500 individuals and groups that have sent submissions to B.C. Privacy Commissioner's ongoing review of the potential impact of the USA Patriot Act.
West, a former labour activist, is particularly worried that the B.C. Liberal government is not going out of its way to protect the most vulnerable groups in society. And her argument is simply that she hasn't seen any reason to trust them.
"I find, particularly in this last while, that this province is not looking after its seniors and children as well as it used to," West said. "They'll pay lip service and talk to us, but then they'll go off and do what they want. And usually, it's something seniors don't want.
"It's frustrating because all my life, I've been trying to do the right thing."
WE*ACT, which has chapters in Nelson, Terrace, Penticton and Vancouver Island, is concerned that the U.S.A. Patriot Act - formally called the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 - could allow the American government and agencies such as the CIA and FBI, to peek into the medical records of British Columbians.
"Our provincial government has said they'll try to ensure that this will not happen. But when they say they'll try, it doesn't mean they have a handle on it. If they're going to privatize, wouldn't it be better to keep the information inside of Canada?" she asked. "I really do not like having my private information sold to a company. It's too nebulous and there's a lot of unknowns."
The three-page WE-ACT brief submitted to the privacy commissioner earlier this month, offers a similar point of view.
"Unfortunately, we lack the confidence that this province can protect our information once it is under the control of American corporations subject to overrule by the USA Patriot Act," said the submission. "It is impossible for the provincial government (or any of us really) to imagine all the eventual negative ramifications of exposure under the USA Patriot Act from the release of hitherto protected information.
"But decisions must be made based on the potential for abuse. To do otherwise is hopelessly naive and possibly negligent, given the finality of contractual choices, the complexities of systems, the capricious nature of political decisions, the permeability of databases and the sophistication of those that wish to manipulate them."
"The question WE*ACT members are asking themselves is, 'Why should our collective fate be dependent on the promise of good intentions by American institutions with unsavory track records, when it's the responsibility of our own government to fail-safe our well-being?'"
David Loukidelis called for a review of the Patriot Act's effect on B.C. in May, when public concerns were first raised about the possible sale of the B.C. Medical Service Plan billing and administrative functions to the U.S. firm Maximus.
While he originally intended to have the report finished by mid-August, the overwhelming number of submissions has pushed that date back to next month.
Published Aug. 24, 2004
Alice West is worried about her privacy. The Burnaby resident and co-chair of the seniors' group Women Elders in Action (WE*ACT) is among the more than 500 individuals and groups that have sent submissions to B.C. Privacy Commissioner's ongoing review of the potential impact of the USA Patriot Act.
West, a former labour activist, is particularly worried that the B.C. Liberal government is not going out of its way to protect the most vulnerable groups in society. And her argument is simply that she hasn't seen any reason to trust them.
"I find, particularly in this last while, that this province is not looking after its seniors and children as well as it used to," West said. "They'll pay lip service and talk to us, but then they'll go off and do what they want. And usually, it's something seniors don't want.
"It's frustrating because all my life, I've been trying to do the right thing."
WE*ACT, which has chapters in Nelson, Terrace, Penticton and Vancouver Island, is concerned that the U.S.A. Patriot Act - formally called the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 - could allow the American government and agencies such as the CIA and FBI, to peek into the medical records of British Columbians.
"Our provincial government has said they'll try to ensure that this will not happen. But when they say they'll try, it doesn't mean they have a handle on it. If they're going to privatize, wouldn't it be better to keep the information inside of Canada?" she asked. "I really do not like having my private information sold to a company. It's too nebulous and there's a lot of unknowns."
The three-page WE-ACT brief submitted to the privacy commissioner earlier this month, offers a similar point of view.
"Unfortunately, we lack the confidence that this province can protect our information once it is under the control of American corporations subject to overrule by the USA Patriot Act," said the submission. "It is impossible for the provincial government (or any of us really) to imagine all the eventual negative ramifications of exposure under the USA Patriot Act from the release of hitherto protected information.
"But decisions must be made based on the potential for abuse. To do otherwise is hopelessly naive and possibly negligent, given the finality of contractual choices, the complexities of systems, the capricious nature of political decisions, the permeability of databases and the sophistication of those that wish to manipulate them."
"The question WE*ACT members are asking themselves is, 'Why should our collective fate be dependent on the promise of good intentions by American institutions with unsavory track records, when it's the responsibility of our own government to fail-safe our well-being?'"
David Loukidelis called for a review of the Patriot Act's effect on B.C. in May, when public concerns were first raised about the possible sale of the B.C. Medical Service Plan billing and administrative functions to the U.S. firm Maximus.
While he originally intended to have the report finished by mid-August, the overwhelming number of submissions has pushed that date back to next month.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Politicos spar over FOI requests
By Dan Hilborn
Published Jan. 31, 2004
A suggestion from Burquitlam MLA Harry Bloy that the provincial government might allow a two-month delay before responding to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests has raised the ire of NDP house leader Joy MacPhail.
Bloy, a member of the all-party committee reviewing the province's FOI and Protection of Privacy Act, said most people who file FOI requests are frustrated by the current process, which typically results in only a partial answer to their question prior to the mandated 30-day response time.
"One of the biggest concerns we're hearing is that people felt they were being slowed down or delayed," said Bloy, who is one of 13 members on the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that was established last year.
"Often it takes another 30 days to get the request. ... Maybe it should be 60 days," he said.
But MacPhail, who also serves on the FOI review committee, said lengthening the time it takes to respond is not the answer the public is seeking.
"No one has ever asked for that," MacPhail said. "When the Liberals ask the presenters if that's a good idea, virtually to a person they say it's not a good idea."
MacPhail said increasing the response time for FOI requests will simply undermine the intent of the legislation.
"If they're going to increase the response time, you know how much that will weaken freedom of information. It seems that's the intent of this government, to undermine and render FOI laws useless.
"If Mr. Bloy is saying that's the direction this government is going, then shame on them. The problem here is that the government is doing everything possible to not fulfil its FOI requests."
MacPhail said she has several concerns about the future of how FOI legislation will be used in British Columbia, including revelations that the province now rates FOI requests on their 'political sensitivity.'
She also decried what she believes is a growing tendency for the B.C. Liberals to conduct public business behind closed doors.
"The government caucus Liberal backbenchers are increasingly wanting to do their business in camera," MacPhail said. "These committees go in camera when it's not necessary.
"In fact, I've been completely beaten down on this issue," she said. "I'm just one opposition member in a room with nine or 10 Liberals and they seek every opportunity to go in camera to avoid public scrutiny. That was not the intent of the legislative committees."
But Bloy said that longer wait times is just one possible response to the complaint about how long it takes to resolve FOI requests.
"It's an expensive proposition to provide freedom of information, and where do you draw the line?" Bloy asked. "People are feeling that it's taking too long but, since this legislation started in 1996, its use has greatly increased. Up to 75 or 80 per cent are getting the information requested in a timely manner within the first 30 days."
As an example of a case that might take longer than 30 days, Bloy pointed to someone requesting information about an ongoing police in- vestigation. "If it's a criminal case or a police case with an ongoing investigation, it takes a lot of time. It can't be a clerk (who decides what to release). It needs to be a policeman who goes through the document, page by page, to determine what can be released or what can't."
Bloy noted that the committee is also wrestling with the contentious issues of how private companies should handle their customers' personal information, and the release of government reports that may contain factual errors.
For her part, the new minister responsible for the FOI legislation said she will not comment on any possible changes to the act until after the committee makes its formal recommendations.
"At this point, it's very premature to speculate what recommendations the committee will make and which of those this government will act on," said Joyce Murray, the newly appointed minister of management services.
She also would not comment on the specific possibility of increasing the amount of time the government allows to respond to FOI requests.
"I'm not going to give an opinion on that right now," she said. "I'm in the process of finding out more about these issues and about freedom of information and protection of privacy. One thing I do believe, however, is that B.C. is at the cutting edge of these issues, both on the privacy side and the access to information side. We're recognized as a leader and my intent is that we continue to be at the edge of good public policy on these issues."
Published Jan. 31, 2004
A suggestion from Burquitlam MLA Harry Bloy that the provincial government might allow a two-month delay before responding to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests has raised the ire of NDP house leader Joy MacPhail.
Bloy, a member of the all-party committee reviewing the province's FOI and Protection of Privacy Act, said most people who file FOI requests are frustrated by the current process, which typically results in only a partial answer to their question prior to the mandated 30-day response time.
"One of the biggest concerns we're hearing is that people felt they were being slowed down or delayed," said Bloy, who is one of 13 members on the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that was established last year.
"Often it takes another 30 days to get the request. ... Maybe it should be 60 days," he said.
But MacPhail, who also serves on the FOI review committee, said lengthening the time it takes to respond is not the answer the public is seeking.
"No one has ever asked for that," MacPhail said. "When the Liberals ask the presenters if that's a good idea, virtually to a person they say it's not a good idea."
MacPhail said increasing the response time for FOI requests will simply undermine the intent of the legislation.
"If they're going to increase the response time, you know how much that will weaken freedom of information. It seems that's the intent of this government, to undermine and render FOI laws useless.
"If Mr. Bloy is saying that's the direction this government is going, then shame on them. The problem here is that the government is doing everything possible to not fulfil its FOI requests."
MacPhail said she has several concerns about the future of how FOI legislation will be used in British Columbia, including revelations that the province now rates FOI requests on their 'political sensitivity.'
She also decried what she believes is a growing tendency for the B.C. Liberals to conduct public business behind closed doors.
"The government caucus Liberal backbenchers are increasingly wanting to do their business in camera," MacPhail said. "These committees go in camera when it's not necessary.
"In fact, I've been completely beaten down on this issue," she said. "I'm just one opposition member in a room with nine or 10 Liberals and they seek every opportunity to go in camera to avoid public scrutiny. That was not the intent of the legislative committees."
But Bloy said that longer wait times is just one possible response to the complaint about how long it takes to resolve FOI requests.
"It's an expensive proposition to provide freedom of information, and where do you draw the line?" Bloy asked. "People are feeling that it's taking too long but, since this legislation started in 1996, its use has greatly increased. Up to 75 or 80 per cent are getting the information requested in a timely manner within the first 30 days."
As an example of a case that might take longer than 30 days, Bloy pointed to someone requesting information about an ongoing police in- vestigation. "If it's a criminal case or a police case with an ongoing investigation, it takes a lot of time. It can't be a clerk (who decides what to release). It needs to be a policeman who goes through the document, page by page, to determine what can be released or what can't."
Bloy noted that the committee is also wrestling with the contentious issues of how private companies should handle their customers' personal information, and the release of government reports that may contain factual errors.
For her part, the new minister responsible for the FOI legislation said she will not comment on any possible changes to the act until after the committee makes its formal recommendations.
"At this point, it's very premature to speculate what recommendations the committee will make and which of those this government will act on," said Joyce Murray, the newly appointed minister of management services.
She also would not comment on the specific possibility of increasing the amount of time the government allows to respond to FOI requests.
"I'm not going to give an opinion on that right now," she said. "I'm in the process of finding out more about these issues and about freedom of information and protection of privacy. One thing I do believe, however, is that B.C. is at the cutting edge of these issues, both on the privacy side and the access to information side. We're recognized as a leader and my intent is that we continue to be at the edge of good public policy on these issues."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
