Support Information and Privacy Rights in BC

We’re calling on the provincial government to keep their promise

Earlier this month, we teamed up with the BC Civil Liberties Association and created a petition to encourage the British Columbia government to keep their campaign promise of reforming the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

This Act is as important today as it was when it was created in the early 1990s. It creates a legal framework that regulates how public bodies treat personal information and assigns information and privacy rights to British Columbians.

But in the nearly thirty years since the Act was passed, a lot has changed while the Act has stayed largely the same. Just think, the new technology at the time was the fax machine. The internet and our connected world has changed the way information is created, stored, used, and accessed. And our laws need to change as well.

The status quo isn’t good enough

Two years ago, during the campaign period for our last provincial election, we asked each political party about their plans to update BC’s FIPPA. We asked the New Democratic Party (NDP) if they would include a duty to document within the FIPPA and if they would create penalties for those who interfere with information rights.

In response to both questions, the NDP unequivocally committed to including a duty to document within the FIPPA, and to creating penalties for those who interfere with information rights.

Today, over two years later, we’ve seen no action towards realizing these commitments. In fact, while the government celebrated legislative changes to the Information Management Act as improvements to “transparency and accountability to British Columbians,” they were being accused of breaking the very laws they are mandated to uphold.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC, Michael McEvoy, released this statement about the legislative changes to the Information Management Act and the serious accusations facing government:

‘As it now stands, the Information Management Act designates the Minister herself as primarily responsible for ensuring her Ministry’s compliance with the duty to document its decisions. Citizens would find it very surprising that, on its face, the current law makes a Minister responsible for investigating their own conduct. This is unacceptable and falls short of the independent oversight required to ensure public trust and accountability.’

The tragic irony of the situation seems to be lost on government. Serious accusations of wrongdoing, the kinds that have been recently levelled against a government Minister, cannot be appropriately investigated by that very same Minister.

If British Columbians are to truly have improvements to government “transparency and accountability” then what is needed is independent oversight. The FIPPA creates a regulatory framework within the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, one that operates separately from government.

To keep its promise, and to truly increase “transparency and accountability to British Columbians,” the government must assign independent oversight to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner by creating a duty to document within the FIPPA.

What is a ‘Duty to Document’?

A duty to document is quite simple and something that the original writers of the FIPPA did not think would be necessary to include in the legislation. It’s the idea that government must record their decision making process, which is fundamental principle to functional freedom of information laws.

For example, if someone were to request documents related to a new tax that government was requiring of citizens, that request would not be successful if no records were to exist. The duty to document would compel government to document their decision making process so that citizens can exercise their information rights, like the right to know.

The original lawmakers who drafted the FIPPA did not anticipate that government would hold meetings in person and over the phone without writing anything down (a phenomenon known as ‘oral government’), use personal email addresses to conduct government business, and maliciously delete records in order to circumnavigate freedom of information laws (a practice known as ‘triple-delete’).

But unfortunately that is now the reality in which we are living.

We are not alone in calling for a duty to document. The all party special legislative committee that reviewed the FIPPA in 2016 made the specific recommendation to include a duty to document within the FIPPA. That committee included BC’s current Attorney General, David Eby.

In addition, Information and Privacy Commissioners in BC have called for the inclusion of a duty to document within the FIPPA. Elizabeth Denham, in her report, Access Denied wrote:

‘Government should create a legislative duty to document within FIPPA as a clear indication that it does not endorse “oral government” and that it is committed to be accountable to citizens by creating an accurate record of its key decisions and actions.’

And BC’s current Information and Privacy Commissioner, Michael McEvoy, has written this:

‘It is time for government to amend FIPPA to ensure that the vitally important duty to document has the oversight of my office, which is independent of government. The public interest requires this’

Yet despite these calls, the government has failed to act on their promise to protect the information rights of British Columbians.

We need your help

So after two years of government inaction, distraction, and obfuscation, we are inviting the public to join our call for the government to keep its promise of reforming FIPPA. We have included four main points; the inclusion of a duty to document within FIPPA is just the beginning. Over the coming months, we’ll expand on the other points.

If you are interested to learn more about the FIPPA, and our role in getting the legislation passed, check out our podcast. We have an episode on the history of the Act and an episode on the duty to document.

But the most important thing that you can do, is to add your name to our petition and voice your support for the privacy and information rights of British Columbians.

Support information and privacy rights for British Columbians today

Support BCCLA and their fight to stop illegal spying!

Since 2014, the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has been pushing back against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) through complaints filed with the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), the oversight body for CSIS.

BCCLA alleges that CSIS illegally spies on activist and environmental groups that operate in Canada and passes that information on to petroleum companies.

The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) supports BCCLA’s pursuit of government transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to question those in power.

In addition, FIPA concurs that spying on people who are exercising their right to protest is an attack on our freedom of expression, an abuse that cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

We encourage you to support BCCLA, along with the other organizations involved in the complaint (Sierra Club of BC, the Dogwood Initiative, Leadnow.ca, and STAND), by learning more about their challenge to the unconstitutional spying on Canadians.

Democratic implications of privacy issues take centre stage at ‘Privacy in Peril’

By Carlo Javier

It was fitting to end Data Privacy Day on Jan. 28 with a talk called Privacy in Peril.

Organized by the Vancouver Public Library and the SFU Library, the event saw Mike Larsen of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) and Micheal Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) cast a light on modern issues surrounding data, surveillance, and privacy.

Larsen opened the discussions with a statement that might best capture the complicated nature of privacy amidst our increasingly digital and interconnected world: “Privacy is a collective good. Thinking about the perils that privacy faces right now requires us to think about privacy as a democratic good.” The principle is especially critical of the framework often used to analyze privacy – one that isolates issues as strictly individual-based cases (think consent forms, website cookie policy notifications). Larsen’s suggestion is to look at privacy with a holistic perspective and to see how privacy rights have implications not only to an individual, but to many other agents that may either be directly or indirectly involved.

He then put forward two concepts he deemed to be main pillars of the current state of privacy: Surveillance Capitalism as discussed in Shoshana Zuboff’s new book and Bernard E. Harcourt’s study on the Expository Society.


“Privacy is a collective good. Thinking about the perils that privacy faces right now requires us to think about privacy as a democratic good.”

– Mike Larsen

The two ideas were both entirely unsurprising, yet undeniably unsettling. While the monetization of data has become fairly well-known (and seemingly accepted), Larsen disputed the belief that the collection of our digital footprint is dedicated solely to economic means like marketing and advertising. I heard noticeable gasps from around the audience when he delved into the other side of surveillance, the one we don’t talk about enough: prediction of behaviour, political sentiment, and voting practices – and information such as these can open the possibility for the steering and manipulation of the public.

Micheal Vonn (left) of the BCCLA and Mike Larsen (right) of BC FIPA discusses the complicated state of privacy amidst an increasingly digital and interconnected society.

Although the discussion on the Expository Society veered towards a more academic vernacular, the subject in its most basic nutshell did hit close to home. It is essentially a critique on how the digital age and the dawn of social media have changed our habits, how we have become more incentivized and inclined to share personal information in public spaces, which in turn builds copious amounts of vulnerable data.

The concern about the safety of our data was a sentiment that Vonn echoed in her discussion, stating that we create more data than most places, but unfortunately, “we can’t really protect it.” Vonn also delved into sovereignty and transparency, citing the lack of ability to hold government bodies accountable, relative to the amount of access government has to our personal information. As for tips and solutions, Vonn proposed a tactic she admittedly described as unpopular – go analog. A self-confessed Luddite, Vonn spoke of the security measures created by simply leaving devices like laptops (and yes, even phones) at home when travelling or crossing the US-Canada border.

Although we only celebrate Data Privacy Day once a year, the discussion it generates allow for issues surrounding data, surveillance, and privacy to permeate our general discourse. And while the meaningful action that we seek can come so few and far between, these discussions do represent a small victory. At the end of the day, we want as many people talking and caring about these issues. After all, privacy is a collective good.

Eager to get involved in the fight for our rights? Click here to join the cause.

Carlo Javier is the community awareness and outreach coordinator at BC FIPA. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Communication Studies from Capilano University.

BC FIPA and BCCLA send joint letter to the OIPC regarding the addition of Police Chiefs’ Associations to schedule 2 of FIPPA – 13 Feb 2014

The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) and the BC (BC FIPA) have written a letter to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of BC (OIPC) in support of adding the BC Association of Chiefs of Police (BCACP) and the BC Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police (BCAMCP) as public bodies to Schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

Read the letter (pdf).