more FOI personnel

Thanks for bringing this forward, Sean.
I hope you didn't have to make an FOI request for any of the info found above.

Oh yeah, silly me, you are a TYEE reporter and you got the info, so that must mean that you didn't have to make a request for it.

It is my understandig that many of the documents, when they finally arrive are heavily censored. All of that black ink takes a good deal of time. It would take far less if the FOI personnel would just look up the documents and hand over a copy. After all, the documents requested are publicly owned. Further, the government would not get so many requests if they weren't so bloody secretive.

Regarding the government's spending money on FOI requests, how much more revenue have they been taking in. It is my understanding that with what they charge for information, they may even be making money in this government agency.

what about the previous years

To get perspective, I would like to know the spending prior to 2001/2002.

BC gov't spin machine...

Public affairs bureau operating expenses

Fiscal 2001/02 - $34,523,000.00
Fiscal 2002/03 - $28,298,000.00
Fiscal 2003/04 - $39,486,000.00
Fiscal 2004/05 - $32,531,000.00
Fiscal 2005/06 - $24,924,000.00
Fiscal 2006/07 - $29,451,000.00
Fiscal 2007/08 - $35,837,000.00
Fiscal 2008/09 - $36,994,000.00 (forecast)

Great piece, Sean.
Now, how much of that went directly into Gordo's P3 accounts, that is to Preferred Patronage Persons who can be counted on to regurgitate Liberal-speak? Then we can compare that total with, for example, the amount allocated to implementation of Ted Hughes' and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's recommendations. Or to services for autistic kids. Despite the evidence, people still can be heard saying, "OOOOh, I couldn't vote NDP, they scaaare me." Well, what really scares me is a man and a party that say one thing, do another (there's a word for that, isn't there?) and give away BC assets while they're at it.

And How Many Full Time Park Rangers Do We Have Again?

200?
Nope

100?
Nope

50?
Nope

20?
Nope

10?
Bingo

(but, then again, unlike the fine folks in the PAB brigade, Park Rangers actually do stuff to HELP British Columbians, so.....)

.

What

I believe the PAB did exist under the NDP, or was even created by it, but it has gotten huge and the intent was to inform the public about important things, like health care etc. It has been suberted to being the bloated spin machine it is under Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals.

The existence of the PAB prior to Gordon Campbell's election will be pointed to as "justification" for the way it is used now. That, of course, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Our environment ministry is now a privatization rubber stamp, but that doesn't mean that the ministry of the environment didn't do important, and useful, work in the past, it just means that Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals have subverted it for their own selfish desires.

This is another Dirty Tricks Affair

Remember the Dirty Tricks Affair that brought down and helped destroy the Social Credit Party of BC? They were writing letters to the editors of the newspapers under false names. Back then identities were supposed to be checked and only if you were a real person was your letter printed. Now we have 35 mil spent on fake comments, call ins on radio shows and letters to editors. The PAB scandal is far worse than the DTA, yet the mainstream media doesn't say a word. They should be using software to bar the PAB domain from creating an account and posting on their websites. That won't happen of course with CanWest being one of BCLiberals biggest backers.

The Reality of an FOI Inquiry

The B.C. government's deplorable record on the FOI process has been the subject of many articles in the media, including here on the Tyee.

There's the Freedom of Information Association and the Campaign for Open Government, both with web sites. I'm looking for some help with a case that I filed in December 2007 and that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is finally subjecting to a formal inquiry.

I've spoken to FIPA's Darrell Evans and yesterday forwarded to him the email (with seven attachments) sent to me on May 4 by the respondent Attorney General. They also couriered their package to me - a submission with lengthy argument, two affidavits and other materials - denying my requested access on the basis of Section 14 of the act - solicitor client privilege.

The OIPC itself had repeatedly declined until now to settle the crucial question of who is the client. Now the argument says it is "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia". It also acknowledges that solicitor client privilege can be waived by the client. At the end of the argument they slip in the line "the client had not waived privilege". While it may be a fruitless avenue for me to pursue, I'd like to know how I can request such a waiver. To which government office or person would I send the request? If the answer is that there is no such office or person, it would seem to me that the claim of privilege is absurd.

My own position is that the documents I am seeking were created exclusively in the service of the Legislature. I am seeking an extension on the very short timelimit for me to file my reply.

I cannot overstate the value to me of commencing this process and sticking with it for so long. I have learned a great deal. I have not been favourably impressed with the conduct of the OIPC to date. The media's coverage has tended to indicate that Commissioner Loukidelis is doing his best for the public on a limited budget. I have serious doubts about that.

Given the attention that has been paid to this issue, I believe I should be able to get some help on this. Whatever transpires, when the OIPC's formal decision is released, and posted online, I will also post everything I have assembled on this case. The government evidently is using solicitor client privilege as the Swiss Army Knife of excuses. I believe we can do more than just publicly wringing our hands about this insanity.

No Cabinet Privilege

I agree. We should be able to get this information or have public hearings with NO Cabinet Privilege. Why do they get this privilege? They are working for us, we are paying them, we have a right to know what they think. If they feel they lose their freedom to express their views, well if their views are stupid, they should be fired. If they can defend them, fine. This does not appear to be the case so I have to conclude that they are covering up sleazy statements and actions.