October 5, 2007

Colin Gablemann's Remarks to
BC Information Summit 2007

It seems hard to believe it is now more than 15 years since I had the honour to introduce the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in the Legislature. It was part of a package of bills that our then new government introduced to respond to the 1991 NDP election campaign commitment to enact legislation ensuring open, accessible and accountable government. At the time, BC was one of only three provinces without some form of access and privacy law. Previous BC governments had been comfortable with, and in fact preferred, to operate with as much secrecy as possible. With the many disasters of the Vander Zalm government fresh in their minds, the public was more than receptive to making major changes in the Conflict of Interest Act, Election law reform, and in a new law to guarantee the public's right to know while protecting essential privacy rights.

I was asked by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and FIPA to speak at this conference to mark the 15th anniversary of the introduction of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Conference organizers believed that it was time to look back at the original intentions of the Legislature in bringing in this Act and to measure where we are today in relation to those goals in 1992.

They believed it was time to look back at the beginnings of Freedom of Information in the province - at its original impetus and its original purpose - and to refresh the public record on why it was done and what it was meant to achieve.

Where are we after 15 years? Have the Legislature, the government and the Courts been true to the original intentions of the Act? Does information flow as freely and easily as we intended in 1992? Did we get it right or wrong back then?

I want to argue today that we got it right----that we achieved an appropriate and effective balance between privacy rights and the public's right to know -- --a balance that, unfortunately, is no longer reflected in today's reality.

As a result of effective campaigning by FIPA, some parts of the media and others, including various MLAs over the years, there was public awareness in the late 1980s and into the 1991 election campaign of the need to bring a fresh and strong approach to information access and privacy rights. We promised in the campaign to do just that. When I was appointed Attorney General, open government was near the top of a long list of policy objectives.

It is important to remember that then North Burnaby MLA Barry Jones was instrumental in pushing for and helping to shape the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation. Barry had introduced a Private Members Bill on the subject during the Van der Zalm years. (Barry, please take a bow: you deserve it.) Premier Mike Harcourt was also extremely supportive of my efforts to try to make the Act the best of its kind. We had excellent staff support from some wonderful public servants. I think particularly of the fine work done by Rob Botterell. Murray Rankin, of course, was indispensable. It might interest you to know, as well, that enthusiasm was not universal among members of the government. Some saw freedom of information as getting in the way of effective governing, but everyone was so busy with their own agendas as new Ministers, that those of us fully committed to information access were pretty much left alone to do the best we could.

A word or two about Caucus support. A government backbencher can play an essential role in advancing legislation and in getting it right. Barry Jones demonstrated that in spades. A backbencher with some fire in his or her belly on an issue can have a profound impact on the Minister responsible and the Cabinet as a whole. It is important that advocates for information access understand and remember this and ensure that at least one government backbencher is well informed and well supported.

We started drafting the legislation with a straightforward perspective: government is nothing more than citizens getting together to organize and improve their lives, and everything that government does belongs to the public. Another MLA, six years later, put that second point very well. He said, and I quote: "Government information belongs to the people, not to the government". You may know him. His name: Gordon Campbell.

Those of you who work with the Legislation everyday will have a much better perspective than I of the current reality, but I want to focus on, what are for me, the two major issues. The first is the government's attitude towards open access, and the second is a judicial interpretation of Section 13 that in no way reflects what the Legislature intended in that critical section.

On the first point, I had really believed, that by now, government information would be freely available and publicly posted in an accessible and user-friendly way. I had expected that the need to file Freedom of Information requests would be only necessary in those rare instances where a fine line was being approached in respect of one of the necessary limitations to access. And, I believed, that as a body of decisions and the case law became established, there would be little need for formal requests. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect that foot dragging and a penchant for secrecy would prevail to the extent that it has. No matter how good the law might be, it won't work if people in power are out to subvert it. The language of the Act was good, clear and straightforward: I quote, "to make public bodies more accountable to the public…by giving the public a right of access".

The day Premier Mike Harcourt signed the FOI Act into law (Oct. 4, 1993), he stated, "This legislation reflects the wishes of British Columbians for a government which is more open and accessible."

That same day, the Premier wrote to public servants asking them to honour the spirit and intent of the legislation, and to be guided by the principles of openness. "I want to send government employees a clear signal that Cabinet and the Premier are committed to this legislation," he said.

It would be useful for public servants to hear that affirmation again today -- this time, from the current government leader, Premier Campbell.

Unfortunately, its detractors in government work with the Legislation every day and are able to put their talents to nullifying its effectiveness, while those who need it----the public----get on with their lives and only occasionally run into this stone wall, and so, cannot be an effective counter force.

The advocates of secrecy use a variety of techniques to prevent the effective use of the Act. I want to briefly mention some of them.

As I've said, one of our major intentions was that formal FOI requests would be a last resort, not a routine means of obtaining information. We wanted to encourage the routine release of information to citizens.

The Act stated, and still does, that it "does not replace other procedures for access to information or limit in any way access to information that is not personal information and is available to the public."

Contrary to our intention, formal requests have replaced other procedures for access and have become the routine channel for release of information. If you ask for records, you are almost always asked to file an FOI request. This actually impedes access to information and makes FOI a much more expensive proposition than it ought to be.

In addition, we stated repeatedly - it was almost a mantra - that "fees will not be a barrier to access". Yet fees have become a serious barrier for many individuals and groups.

We also realized that real freedom of information would not come without a financial cost to government. In our first throne speech, we stated that we would devote significant resources to making freedom of information work. And we did.

Over the years, however, resources for FOI implementation have been cut severely, both within government and in the Commissioner's office, resulting in a large loss of the staff dedicated to FOI and a clear signal to other government employees that access to information is not a government priority.

It is only fair to note that the cuts to FOI staff started in an NDP administration in 1998. It's also fair to note that the Liberals, elected in 2001, reneged on a promise to restore those resources, and in fact, cut staff even further.

It was our intention that, in most cases, the maximum wait for documents would be 30 days. The Act was drafted accordingly. A public body could extend the time for another 30 days under certain conditions, but the requester could appeal that if they considered it unfair.

Gordon Campbell, after so eloquently endorsing the crucial importance of access to information in our democracy, turned around and amended the Act so that the 30 days was extended to 30 working days, and added a large number of reasons that would justify additional delay. So wait times have greatly increased and through this public servants are told implicitly that FOI is not very important.

We incorporated into the FOI Act, the strongest public interest override in Canada. We wanted to ensure that the head of a public body would, "without delay", disclose information that was "clearly in the public interest".

I don't think this provision has ever been used, and certainly never by the head of a provincial ministry. That represents a huge failure of intent. Have there been no risks of significant harm to the environment, health or safety in BC in the last 15 years?

How about "other information the disclosure of which is clearly in the public interest"? Has there been no instance where corruption, illegal activity or something just plain wrong came to the attention of the head of a public body and should have been disclosed under this section? I think the answer to this question is that senior public servants and the government which employs them are simply not interested in the public interest.

This issue----this one of political and bureaucratic stonewalling---- is at least as important in my mind as the wording and interpretation of the Legislation.

The second issue of major significance I want to raise concerns the wording of the FOI act, and its interpretation. There has been an incredibly astonishing perversion in the last few years of the plain language meaning of the words: "advice and recommendations". This has resulted in the reversal of the Legislature's intent, as originally expressed in the Legislature and in the Act.

Let me elaborate.

The presumption of BC's FOI act is disclosure of information. However, as with all FOI acts, there are necessary exceptions to disclosure.

Two sections of the act shield "advice and recommendations" to government from public view - sections 12 and 13.

Section 12, the "Cabinet Confidences Exception", protects Cabinet deliberations by prohibiting the disclosure of any advice or recommendations that would reveal the substance of those deliberations. We sought to ensure that Cabinet could conduct its business freely and that public servants would not feel constrained in advising Cabinet.

But we intended that exception to be limited. We designed the Act to ensure that the information considered by Cabinet would become public once a decision was announced or implemented. My words to the House, in 1992, in respect of Section 12, were: "This bill limits the government's right to cabinet secrecy by providing that factual material presented to cabinet or developed by ministries will be accessible once the decision has been implemented."

Section 13 is the "Policy Advice Exception", which shields policy advice to any level of government from disclosure. With the support of FIPA and other Freedom of Information advocates, we designed wording which struck a balance but ensured that government and its advisors would be able to conduct public business in a full, frank and informed manner.

The wording and intent was clear----at least we thought it was: in Section 13 "Policy Advice" permits an exception from access for "information that would reveal advice or recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister". We meant that to mean----and I believe it does mean---- that "advice or recommendations" was limited to those parts of documents or reports that advocated that Government choose a particular course of action or make a particular decision; in effect, "we recommend that you do this", or "we advise that you do that". Following that, we specified a long list of items which "the head of a public body must not refuse to disclose".

Section 13 was so clear and obvious that there was not a word spoken by any member of the House on it during the Committee stage debate. Not a word!

Somehow, the BC Court of Appeal in 2002 determined that the Information and Protection of Privacy Commissioner got it wrong in interpreting the words "advice and recommendations" in this manner. They said the trial judge was wrong, too, in concurring with the Commissioner. I have to tell you that the Appeal Court quite simply failed to understand our intention-the intention of the Legislature---when using these words as we did. We were attempting to use plain language as much as possible in Legislation and the words "advice and recommendations" have some pretty plain and clear, and needless to say, dictionary meanings which the Appeal Court seems to have rejected. It has become so ridiculous now that a technical report on the state of BC Place stadium can be almost entirely blacked out because of the Court's misreading of the intent of the Legislature in 1992. The Act required that factual material must be released; advice or recommendations to Cabinet would not be released. So now we have the bizarre situation where reports are not released -- reports which are specifically defined in the legislation as reports which must be released! I can't think of another example where the Appeal Court got something as wrong as they did here. The Act should not really have to be amended because it is really clear in every way, but unfortunately an amendment has been our only option for the past five years. A government which believes in freedom of information would have introduced amendments in the first Session of the Legislature after that Appeal Court decision to restore the Act's intention.

Now, the Appeal Court decision means that the secrecy advocates in government are using the two sections of the Act in tandem to refuse to allow public access to material that is at the very heart of the principles of freedom of information. This is an outrage and must be remedied.

It is gratifying that the second mandated review of the Act (which happened three years ago) resulted in a unanimous view of the Special Legislative Committee that Section 13 should be amended to restore the original meaning of the words, so that public servants and Ministers cannot hide behind that shameful Appeal Court decision. MLA Blair Lekstrom, who I believe is here today, chaired the Committee. He and the Committee understood the issue and are to be sincerely commended for including such a strong recommendation to fix the huge loophole created by the Court.

What is not gratifying, however, is that in the five years that the government has had to introduce remedial legislation, it has failed to act. I trust that the Gordon Campbell who spoke so eloquently in 1998 will ensure that these and other amendments restoring the public's right to know in a timely fashion will be introduced in the Legislative Session which begins in a few days. However, I doubt that amendments are forthcoming. No doubt senior public servants, as well as the government are only too happy to have the law kept in its current state.

This is a very sad time in British Columbia, for those of us who believe in open government.

And you know, we don't just believe in it because it's a nice thing to do. We are talking about the very foundation of our democracy. Professor Donald Rowat, away back in 1965, put it very well: "Parliament and the public cannot hope to call the Government to account without an adequate knowledge of what is going on; nor can they hope to participate in the decision-making process and contribute their talents to the formation of policy and legislation if that process is hidden from view."

My friend Murray Rankin recommends that we read Professor Alastair Roberts recently published book entitled Blacked Out, to appreciate the profound effects that freedom of information legislation has had in emerging democracies. I haven't read it yet---too busy being retired!---but I will soon.

British Columbia's law was saluted as the "gold standard" in such legislation when it was introduced. However, like any good legislation, the Act is like a plant that needs water and tending if it is to flourish. Sadly, I believe the legislation is now on life support. It will need all of our support to help it grow. It's too important to let die: let us work together to ensure that the seed that we planted nourishes us and the generations to come.

Thank you.