Guest post by Paula Osachoff, SLAIS 561 Information Policy class

Our discussion cafe was also a very small group.  The discussion began with a brief recap of the BC Privacy Commissioner, David Loukidelis’ talk in the morning, as Darrell Evans, executive director of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) was unable to be present for the morning’s information sessions.

 This sparked some lively discussion, as Mr. Evans agreed with Mr. Loukidelis on several points, but expressed some opinions which were in stark contrast to the Privacy Commissioner’s. Points upon which both agreed were: 

• Legislation requires updating due to the enormous growth in digital information.
• Pro-active and frequent disclosure by government should be encouraged.
• Parliamentary committees have for some time been under-utilized.
• Freedom of Information requests often taking too long to be processed.

Mainly, Darrell Evans disagreed with the Privacy Commissioner in that he felt that the access to information laws in British Columbia were not working particularly well, and organizations such as FIPA and the BC Library Association need to be vigilant to ensure at least current levels of access to government information.  Further, Mr. Evans expressed that when complaints are filed, the court system in British Columbia tends to be quite conservative and rule in favour of the government much of the time.

 This led to a discussion of some of the difficulties faced by FIPA, and the need to build a much broader coalition of stakeholders in order to ensure continued access to government information.  Mr. Evans acknowledged the BC Library Association’s ongoing support, and the group discussed other groups who may be effective partners in pressuring government to maintain and expand access to information.  This included librarians and archivists, historians, records and information managers, information technologists and other academics.  The need to include these diverse groups in the discussion was emphasized, but how to reach such a broad range of interest groups proved problematic.

 The discussion continued with discussion of issues surrounding the use of Crown Copyright by the BC government to prevent publication of materials released under FOI legislation.  Mr. Evans expressed that the invocation of crown copyright was a clear symbol of the need for legislative reform, and the need for greater public awareness and involvement in issues surrounding access to government information.

 The discussion cafe ended with a discussion of new approaches to “information caretaking” - a term and concept I found intriguing, although there was little time left to pursue this topic.  Our discussions brought to light many issues surrounding access to government information, and the challenges involved in engaging stakeholders and the general public in access to information issues.