POLICY REPORT
INFORMATION
Date: June 26, 1997
Dept. File No. 1174
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Legislative Review of the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council direct staff to prepare a detailed submission to UBCM
outlining the City s experience under the Act and proposing changes
to the Act as recommended in this report.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The City Manager RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.
COUNCIL POLICY
By-law 7364 sets out the fees which may be charged for processing a
request under the Act. The schedule of fees established by the By-law is
based on the fee schedule created by regulation for the Provincial
Government public bodies.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's endorsement for making
submissions as part of the upcoming legislative review of the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act ("the Act") setting out the
City s experience with the Act, and suggestions for legislative
amendments.
BACKGROUND
The Act has been in force since October 1993 with respect to the
Provincial Government and since November 1994 it has applied to local
government bodies including the City of Vancouver.
The Act gives the members of the public a right of access to records in
the custody or under the control of a public body and imposes
restrictions on the collection, use and disclosure of personal
information by a public body.
Section 79 of the Act provides that a Special Committee of the
Legislative Assembly must begin a comprehensive review of the Act within
four years of it coming into force. This means that the committee must
start work by October of this year.
While the details of the Legislative Committee's procedures are unknown
at this time, it is anticipated that it will receive either oral or
written submissions from the Provincial Government, public interest
groups, media and the public bodies. The Union of British Columbia
Municipalities (UBCM) is planning to make such submissions on behalf of
the local government bodies and is looking for input from municipalities
in time to develop its position before the annual meeting in September
of this year. It may also be possible for the City of Vancouver to make
its own submission to the Legislative Committee.
Since November 1994 the City has received over 230 requests under the
Act for access to various records. In addition to responding to the
requests, it has been necessary to introduce new policies and to alter
some existing practices to comply with the privacy provisions of the
Act.
In April 1996, the Council asked the UBCM to communicate to the
Provincial Government the need to reimburse all municipalities for the
actual costs of complying with the Act. A resolution to that effect was
passed at the UBCM's annual meeting in 1996. Responding to this
resolution, the Provincial Government informed the UBCM that the
legislative review process will be a forum for any interested parties to
make submissions of their views and concerns about the Act.
DISCUSSION
Based on the past experiences, staff have identified three issues which
the City may wish to bring to the attention of the Legislative
Committee.
1. Fees (section 75 of the Act) Although the Act permits charging of
some fees for processing a request, those fees do not reflect the
true cost of requests. This is a result of limits imposed by the
Act on what activities fees cannot be charged for. For example, no
fees can be charged for requests for the applicant's own personal
information (not even photocopying fees); no fees can be charged
for the first three hours of search in response to any request; no
fees can be charged for reviewing the records and removing excepted
information from them.
Recommendation: That the City propose that the Act be amended to
allow for full cost recovery for processing of non-personal
requests and for recovery of copying fees for requests for
applicant's own personal information.
2. Problem applicants (section 43 of the Act) Occasionally, the right
of access created by the Act is abused by an applicant. This can
occur when an applicant makes repeated, detailed requests with an
intention to disrupt the operation of the City or a department or
when an applicant, by making elaborate requests, forces the staff
to conduct research for him. Although such requests may be
technically valid, they are contrary to the purpose of the Act.
Currently the Act contains a provision allowing the Information and
Privacy Commissioner to permit a public body to disregard
repetitious or systematic requests which unreasonably interfere
with the operation of the public body. This provision, however, is
very limited and does not adequately protect the City against the
abuse of the Act.
Recommendation: That the City propose an amendment of section 43 to
make it possible for public bodies to disregard requests which are
contrary to the purpose of the Act.
3. Disclosure of personal information (section 33 of the Act) To
protect the privacy of British Columbians the Act limits the
collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Under
section 33 of the Act, personal information held by the City can
only be disclosed under specific circumstances. Because of the
language of this section, the City cannot make routinely available
information which the City must disclose if requested under a
formal freedom of information request. As a result, it is
necessary to make formal freedom of information requests, with all
the additional administrative steps required, to receive
information which should be routinely available such as petitions
or public correspondence on matters before Council.
Recommendation: That the City propose amending section 33 to allow
for disclosure of personal information whenever such disclosure
would not result in an unreasonable invasion of anyone's personal
privacy. This amendment would not allow for disclosure of any
personal information which is not already available, but it would
make it possible to release currently accessible information more
efficiently.
IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial or personnel issues for the City associated with
this report. However, any changes to the Act may result in either
savings or additional costs to the City. Adoption of the changes
suggested in this report during the legislative review and the passing
of appropriate amendments to the Act should result in substantial
savings to the City from reduced work load and ability to recover
greater percentage of the costs.
CONCLUSION
This report recommends preparation of a submission proposing amendments
to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act based on the
City's experience with the Act during the last two years.
* * * * *