The sa国际传媒 government is being secretive about its pledge to transparency — particularly around the recent BC Housing scandal, a provincial privacy watchdog says.
sa国际传媒’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (BCFIPA) said June 13 it's been hit with a $1,792 fee estimate for freedom of information (FOI) requests into the .
That might as well be a government information paywall, said the association's executive director Jason Woywada.
It was May 8 the provincial government announced it was restricting new funding to a major non-profit housing provider as well as reviewing its finances after an independent report found mismanagement by a former top executive at the province's housing corporation.
The forensic investigation, done by Ernst and Young, reported uncovering "significant risks to public funds" stemming from mismanagement and a lack of oversight at BC Housing. That’s the provincial Crown corporation that develops and manages subsidized housing.
Specifically, the report revealed mismanagement related to a conflict of interest between former BC Housing CEO Shayne Ramsay, and his spouse, Janice Abbott, the CEO of Atira Women's Resource Society, the corporation's largest housing operator.
What the probe found was that Ramsay repeatedly influenced decisions that benefited Atira, and a lack of oversight by BC Housing’s board "resulted in a culture whereby it was deemed acceptable to tolerate non-compliance with (conflict of interest) policies."
The investigation found Atira bypassed traditional communication channels and went straight to senior BC Housing members for funding requests.
Also, Atira was awarded contracts directly, "without transparent, competitive processes designed to ensure the proper use of public funds," the report said.
Abbott has since resigned.
Transparency claim 'contradicted'
Woywada said the association wanted to go deeper into the report.
He noted the NDP government had released the report with Premier David Eby and Minister of Housing Ravi Khalon saying they had used a section of sa国际传媒’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to ensure the report was released as a matter of clear public interest.
“This report was conducted in response to one of the major scandals to emerge under this government,” Woywada said. “Premier Eby’s government claims to be increasing transparency but is using a paywall to prevent release of information he admits is in the public interest.”
The problem now, Woywada said, is that BCFIPA’s attempt to dig behind the report have led to a fee estimate of $1,792.50 for searching and preparing records for release.
“We filed an FOI request with each of the ministries, central agencies, and public sector organizations we anticipated could have been involved in the report’s release: Government Communications and Public Engagement, Office of the Premier, Ministry of Housing, Ministry of Attorney General, Ministry of Citizens’ Services and BC Housing itself,” he said.
“Our request sought to obtain copies of particular record types on the subject of the report’s preparation for release and was standardized across all recipients,” he said. “Record types included correspondence, briefing notes, decision notes, information notes, issues notes, presentations, agreements, forms, and reports on the subject.”
He said fees for such large record volumes are permitted under the law, but are discretionary. He said while there is no statutory requirement to charge these fees, the ministry would be well within its authority to waive them given the premier and minister’s statements that the issue is in the public interest.
“The government’s claim of transparency in releasing the report is contradicted when they create a paywall of this nature,” Woywada said.
A Ministry of Housing spokesperson, however, said the report's release under legislative guidelines in the public interest and an FOI request are different issues.
“FOI requests are a separate matter. Processing fees for large or complex requests are not new and have been in place since the act first came into effect,” the spokesperson said.
They added the report was released with minimal redactions under Section 25 of the act.
