Introduction
This is the beginning of a multi-part investigation into British Columbia’s cunning solutions to providing freedom of information (FOI). At a time when our Washington State is working away on new model rules for public records production, now is a time to learn. I want to thank Commissioner Michael Harvey for making time for this interview and his very enlightening, informational answers.
Table of Contents
What Does an Information & Privacy Commissioner Do?
The British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office has three roles:
Administrate appeals of Freedom of Information (aka public records) Request management.
Defend the privacy of British Columbians in areas not under national jurisdiction.
Operate as the Registar of Lobbyists to ensure lobbyists are registered and operating transparently with the British Columbian public.
All three of these roles require about 65 personnel to accomplish for British Columbians. The Information & Privacy Commissioner is a nonpartisan employee of the British Columbia legislature and answers to a multi-party committee during his or her 6-year term. Ultimately as Commissioner Harvey shared with me,
“All three sides of my business have to do with the relationship between an individual and their rights, and how, and, and how that individual in our society is largely defined by information about them and how that is functions under the law as we become a society.”
With that, let’s review these three sides of the business.
Administrating the Freedom of Information System
There are several ways that the BC Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office administrates the Freedom of Information (aka public records request) system. To Commissioner Harvey,
“It's [Freedom of Information’s] a right of access that has been recognized by the courts as quasi-constitutional in nature, but of course, there are many exceptions.”
However the Commissioner’s office has to wade in when responses go beyond 60 days - and the Commisisoner’s office has to give approval to further delay of a response. Additionally, public bodies can seek the Commissioner’s office’s permission to deny a request - especially after the passage of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.
Defending British Columbian Privacy
One of the key tasks of the British Columbia Information & Privacy Commissioner is to ensure the privacy of British Columbians is protected. To quote Commissioner Harvey in his latest annual report on page 8,
Privacy today is about choosing what we share and expressing our individuality through those choices. We should be able to do so without being manipulated with the illusion of choice, or having to accept uses of our information we never could have foreseen, let alone agreed to.
. . .
As AI [Artificial Intelligence] advances, we need to hold to that line. We need to recognize how much of our identitites are comprised in our personal information and stand up for our rights to protect that information - our privacy - just as we would any of our other fundamental rights.
Sadly privacy issues are mostly beyond the scope of this Beehiv, so will move forward from those important thought clouds.
Registering the Lobbyists…
As the Registar of Lobbyists, the Commish is required to operate a registry of lobbyists. Below is the flowchart the British Columbians use to determine if one needs to register:
Inforgraphic Source: The Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists
Commish Harvey kindly informed me that British Columbia is working with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) on addressing grassroots lobbying at a future date as, “An idea every once in a while that we will get into the business of regulating grassroots lobbying”. This is of clear interest as I’ve recently filed a complaint with the PDC regarding some underdocumented if not undocumented grassroots lobbying. Currently and clearly a legislative calendar choice of the left of center British Columbia New Democratic Party not to take this on.
Regarding Abusive Requestors
“My view is the right of access… is it has been recognized as a quasi-constitutional right. I think it's fundamental for the functioning of our democracy, but when some people abuse that right, they negatively affect the rights of other people, and so that's where we step in.”
Clearly, between the Commish’s power to grant right of refusal to abusive public records requestors and the ongoing threat of a Washington State task force focused on addressing abusive requestors, this was a matter of timely interest. To Commissioner Harvey, abusive requestors sit on a spectrum.
For example, there may be requestors who are just plain abusive to public servants with “abusive language” and “threats” and “doxxing”. Now with Bill 9, a disregard or denial of freedom of information request can be issued for this kind of abuse.
There also are requestors who can be polite but file, “Many repetitious or systematic requests that are essentially meant to frustrate the process”. In both those cases, the Commissioner’s office can now issue a “disregard” to allow the targeted public body to not engage further in the Freedom of Information (FOI) process and remove the gum from the works so to speak.
Then there are, “Vexatious people who are submitting freedom of information requests that are intended to to be deliberately targeting a specific person”. Commish Harvey noted that, “Vexatious applicants end up being vexatious complainants, end up being vexatious litigants.” Additionally, the threshold to become a vexatious abuser of Freedom of Information and get a disregard order from the Information & Privacy Commissioner’s office according to The Globe and Mail’s Secret Canada reporting in 2024 as well as this British Columbia law blog is filing many repetitive requests in a short time period for the same general information. Or according to this British Columbia law firm blog, asking for “all e-mails”. Generally in the context of a vendetta.
But What Makes A Good Requestor?
Fair question. Commish Harvey felt,
“Ideally a good requester would come to the office in good faith, and would assume good faith on the part of the public body, …because oftentimes assuming bad faith will lead to frustrating behaviors. [Additionally requestors] will come with a focused question that clearly explains what they want, or at least be open to exploratory conversations”
. . .
“What is the ideal in an ideal world? Both the public body and the applicant are coming with a good faith approach that they're they're willing to engage in the process of being specific and narrow about what they want, and they're open to discussions with the FOI officer, and then with our office, if we get involved on narrowing the scope, so that we can figure out precisely what people want.”
Commish Harvey also added that, there may not be “a duty to be a good applicant” but “The primary onus under our law remains on the public body, which is where it should remain.” After all, to close out this section, as Commish Harvey shared,
“We view that as an abrogation of a right, and so we have quite a high threshold for that, but it is appropriate for us to authorize disregards from time to time.”
With that, there was recently passed legislation that changed Freedom of Information law in British Columbia.
About 2026’s Bill 9…
Last Thursday, after several layers of extensive debate and minimum amendment, the British Columbia legislature passed Bill 9 - the final text is here - which made some reforms to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Reforms such as allowing the Information & Privacy Commissioner to coordinate and enter into Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with other regulators. Another reform was mutual consent of requestor and public agency on a time extension - reducing the work of Commissioner Harvey’s office.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons | Guy Delsaut
However, politicians have raised concerns. For example, the BC Green Party Caucus alleges these changes create “Freedom of information will now become freedom from information.” The BC Conservatives’ interim leader alleged Bill 9 was. “About giving the NDP government more tools to delay, deny, and discourage scrutiny”. So what’s the truth about Bil 9 - let’s see what’s actually next:
What’s Next Post-Bill 9 Passage?
First, as to tweaks to the Freedom of Information law about vexatious requestors, according to a draft record of committee debate on Bill 9, the Minister Responsible in the Honorable Diana Gibson shared that the Commissioner and his team have, “Been adjudicating these kinds of requests for decades and holds a very high bar as to when they approve a public body’s request to disregard an access request. We anticipate very few cases.”
As mentioned before, the ability to “disregard” a freedom of information act request from a truly bullying requestor required Bill 9. Bill 9’s final language allows a disregard if, “The behaviour of the applicant is abusive or malicious”. Commissioner Harvey has been clear with me and others, like for instance with CFAX 1070’s Adam Stirling at about 8:40 in response to Adam’s direct question as to defining terms like “abusive” that,
“It's our job to establish guidances that guide public bodies and users of the system on how it works, and how we're going to interpret it. And our job is then after that to to deal with complaints and requests for reviews that come before our office to interpret the law, that's what our role as a quasi-judicial agency is.”
Additionally, as Commissioner Harvey shared on CFAX, he sees his role in these cases…
“To protect the vast majority of applicants whose rights to access are being affected by this small number of people who are abusing their right of access, and that's what my focus is.”
With that, Commissioner Harvey did let on that Bill 9 did not address the office’s full priorities for reform and there is a formal legislative process every five (5) years for this - and coming up in about two (2) years. One priority is, “Tighten up the timelines on responsiveness”. Another is creating a proper “duty to document”. Finally as Commissioner Harvey shared with me,
“I think that if we had in this province an approach that underlined transparency that establish transparency by default, and then proper information management… the FOI system could truly function as a system of last resort. I think that… we can move well towards a truly transparent and open system.”
I’ll let Commissioner Harvey have the last word. Concluding at 1871 words to pay tribute to the year British Columbia entered the Canadian confderation…
Stay tuned and hopeful.