Hansard -- Thursday, May 1, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 13 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Second Reading of Bills		6411
	Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33) Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail R. Hawes Hon. K. Whittred Personal Information Protection Act (Bill 38) Hon. S. Santori J. MacPhail R. Hawes I. Chong J. Bray

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House I call second reading of Bill 33. It would appear we're not in the little House this morning.

The Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, amends three health statutes to, first of all, improve the process of holding hearings on MSP billings; secondly, make sure that legislation around hospital funding reflects regionalization; thirdly, enhance food safety in facilities that are undergoing construction or renovation; and finally, the bill amends the Medicare Protection Act.

Under sections 15 and 37 of this act, the Medical Services Commission can make orders with respect to practitioner practice. For example, the Medical Services Commission can cancel a doctor's enrolment in the Medical Services Plan or restrict a doctor's ability to bill the plan. These orders take place only on those rare occasions where the Medical Services Plan may have been overbilled.

This is something that happens on very rare occasions in this province and certainly is in no way a reflection of the very quality service that we get from physicians and other practitioners who put billings into our Medical Services Commission. But there are very rare occasions when there is some evidence of overbilling, and it's necessary that these be properly investigated. If there are overpayments that take place, there is a reimbursement and the interests of the taxpayers are, in fact, protected during this process. If there is consequently a determination that the Medical Services Plan is billed for more care than should have been provided, then there must be a process to ensure that it can be followed up on.

Right now the Medicare Protection Act only allows the commission to issue orders after it has given the doctor an opportunity to be heard. The challenge has been that the act provides limited guidance on the practice and the procedures for seeking an order under that act. This can result in delays, and it also results in, sometimes, a long period of time before there can be a resolution. Clearly, the incentives to move towards resolution in a timely fashion are not always there.

The government's amendment proposed here will allow the required procedural rules for doctor billing hearings to be established by the Medical Services Commission. These rules will address things like the conduct of negotiations for settling before a hearing, the provision of evidence at prehearing conferences or hearings, time limits on the exchange of documents that must take place and requirements for the attendance and conduct of witnesses.

I have been sent some specific questions that we provided a written answer to a few weeks back, but I thought it would be useful to read those into the record as well, because I think it gives more clarity around exactly what we're trying to accomplish through these particular changes. The first question that was sent to me is: is the problem so great that it requires amendments to the act, and isn't the current method of dealing with the overbilling issue adequate?

Just by way of giving a bit more clarity around what is intended by these amendments, the amendments to the Medicare Protection Act covered in the information bulletin that was sent out earlier are intended to give the Medical Services Commission the authority to enact rules or regulations dealing with hearing panels. Currently, practitioners who have been subject to an audit or who choose to exercise their right to a hearing do not have any guidelines for what is expected of them and at what point in the process they have to submit certain filings and inputs into that hearing process.

Just to give you a couple of examples of the kinds of things that might come out of this process: one would be to set the time lines for the exchange of documents, expert reports and affidavits prior to the hearing starting. Secondly, it would be to determine a procedure for setting hearing dates so that they can be done in a timely way. Thirdly is to govern prehearing conferences, such as who can request them and when. Fourthly is to define a process for requesting or compelling, in some cases, the other party to attend mediation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution. The goal, in essence, is to make sure that we have a process in place that cannot be unduly delayed, that cannot be inappropriately frustrated, and that we can be certain that the interests of the taxpayers are being met in a timely fashion.

The second question that was put to us regarding this piece of legislation is: who determines overservicing, and isn't it up to the individual physician to determine the needs of his or her patient? As part of our monitoring process, when there is an audit of a physician's billing, there are a number of objectives including, first of all: were the services for which we were billed actually rendered? Secondly, were they billed appropriately, and by that, according to the proper fee codes? Thirdly, were they medically required? In order to assess these objectives, the Medical Services Commission uses independent medical practitioners who are peers of the practitioners under review, and their responsibility is to review the practitioners' medical records in order to assess compliance with these objectives.

The process we have in place right now is primarily one of peer review. You find, when you talk to any

professional in the province, that where there are those rare, rare occurrences when somebody perhaps may be abusing the system, it is their own peers who want to make sure that there is proper process and that nobody is actually taking advantage of the system in an inappropriate way. We have been served well by that peer review up until now. What these very minor amendments do is give us more powers to make sure those reviews are done in a timely way in the public interest.

These rules, as I had mentioned before, will better protect our health dollars by ensuring that the process of follow-up with physicians who have irregular billings is streamlined and efficient. This change will also maintain overall transparency, as these rules will be available to all practitioners involved in the process. These amendments to the Medicare Protection Act will also give the ministry recourse to order mediation to resolve disputes regarding MSP billings, if necessary.

This is an area of our judicial system or quasi-judicial system that has been strengthened in the last number of years. There is encouragement by governments, generally, to use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as much as possible. In this province we have a very strong mediation system being developed. I think modern governments want to make sure they're taking advantage of every opportunity possible to keep these processes out of our courts and out of our formal review panels as a way to make determinations much more efficiently and cost-effectively in the interest of the taxpayer.

The second piece of legislation being amended as part of this bill before us is the Hospital Insurance Act. The Hospital Insurance Act currently indicates that hospitals must be directly funded by the provincial government. Since the restructuring of the health care system last year, funding to hospitals is now provided through the five regional health authorities and the provincial health services authority.

This government's amendment will reflect the current arrangement as hospital funding flows through the health authorities as well as through the Nisga'a nation health authority, which is often not recognized but is a bona fide health authority in the province that is totally surrounded by and has many of their services provided through the services of the northern health authority. In fact, if you go back over the last number of years since regionalization was first brought in, the funding of hospitals by the Ministry of Health has gradually shifted from the direct funding that was there prior from the ministry's budget through the health authorities and then to those various acute care hospitals in the province.

Prior to December 2001, as the members will know, we had 52 different health authorities in the province. Those were actually structured with the regional health districts in the province, most of which — by the time there was a change of government — had already taken over all of the comprehensive services that are provided in the health care system in those regions.

In the other parts of the province, which really covered about 50 percent of the geographical turf of the province, we had a mix of the community health services societies and the community health councils. Over the period of years in the late nineties there was also the shift from funding our hospitals through the Ministry of Health directly to hospitals in those areas to funding them through the community health councils and then subsequently to the various hospitals that fell into those particular regions.

With the redesign of the health authorities that we brought in, in December of 2001, we were able to streamline those 52 different and, in many cases, overlapping health authorities to the five regional health authorities we have in place now and the one provincial health services authority, which has responsibility for the more complex care and the tertiary care services in the province.

What this amendment to the act really is, is a housekeeping measure. It recognizes in our legislation and brings it up to date to reflect the fact that hospital funding now flows exclusively through the health authorities in British Columbia and then subsequently to the various hospitals around the province.

Finally, the Health Services Statutes Amendment Act makes two minor changes to the Food Safety Act that will further protect the public. The current wording of the Food Safety Act contains regulation-making authority around the approvals of construction plans for proposed food establishments and the construction of existing establishments. The challenge identified in the act does not provide for approval of alterations or construction plans for existing facilities that may have already existed in the past but are going through significant changes.

The amendments we are bringing in this bill will correct this incomplete regulation-making power that was there previously. This will also be accomplished by expanding the scope of power so that it now includes the approval of alterations to existing food establishments as well as the approval of construction plans for existing and proposed establishments.

We brought in changes to the Food Safety Act last year that really allowed us to get into a new and very modern approach to regulation of food safety in the province. It was one of getting away from the very restrictive, prescriptive approach that was there before and allowed us to move to one with many more outcome measures.

A lot of the initiatives around food safety, in fact, have been driven by officials across Canada who saw the outcome approach as being desirable. I was very pleased last year that British Columbia was the first province to actually move to bringing in the kind of legislation that had been envisioned and proposed by these interprovincial and national bodies. I know that other provinces in Canada are certainly following suit to bring their food safety regulations into the twenty-first century.

With these regulations it will allow us to make sure that even renovations of existing facilities can be done in a way that results in proper handling of food. As anybody knows, if you go through a major renovation

of a food handling facility, there are lots of issues that come up that could potentially affect food safety. From the perspective of the Ministry of Health and our health inspectors around the province, we have an obligation to our public to make sure that food safety is number one. This minor amendment ensures that we are able to put that public interest first in all cases.

In conclusion, these proposed changes ensure that health-related legislation is up to date and appropriate in meeting the challenges that face these issues as we move forward in the twenty-first century.

J. MacPhail: I'll raise my issues in the order the minister presented his second reading notes, starting with the Medicare Protection Act.

The minister outlines amendments to section 5 of the Medicare Protection Act, which is a very long section entitled "Responsibilities and powers of the commission." It outlines, from (a) to (u), the over 20 powers that the Medical Services Commission has, and the minister has outlined modification to some areas of the Medical Services Commission's powers. In committee stage, for the edification of the minister, I will be ensuring that the modification of the powers of the Medical Services Commission only applies to hearings with regard to the practices of medical practitioners and doesn't in any way limit the Medical Services Commission if and when it determines fee levels for practitioners — that the scope of the changes applies only to hearings that occur between the Medical Services Commission and individual practitioner's billings, and not the overall billing plan that determines, basically, the fee levels of physicians.

I just have questions of clarification to make sure the new rules and regulations that apply to the hearings do not in any way limit the broader powers of the Medical Services Commission in determining fee levels. That's the first.

The second: what seems to be a consequential amendment dealing with the change of names of regional health boards that has occurred under this government…. There is a section, section 9, of the Hospital Insurance Act. The old section 9 has been repealed and substituted with the new section in this legislation, which, yes, does just represent a name change for the first two subsections of the old section 9, but there are deletions — complete repeal without replacement — of two more sections of the old section 9 of the Hospital Insurance Act. I'll read those into the record. These are sections that no longer exist now. One is that there must be this provided: "In the form and on the date prescribed by the minister, every hospital must transmit to the minister a complete and detailed statement setting out the estimated cost of operation of the hospital for the next fiscal year."

Another subsection that is now gone — it was the old subsection (4) of section 9 — says: "If a hospital fails to transmit a statement to the minister in the manner and form prescribed under subsection (3), the hospital is to receive payment at the temporary rate established by the minister, for services rendered to beneficiaries between the beginning of the year to which the statement applies and the date on which the minister receives a complete and satisfactory statement."

What I'll be looking for from the minister is legislation somewhere else that provides that check, because, basically, what now is gone from this legislation is the requirement for hospitals to provide financial statements and for the minister to only provide temporary payment to those hospitals until they actually do provide that financial statement. I look forward to the minister showing me in what other piece of legislation that his government has introduced the check is in the system, which allows for proper financial accountability. Both those items for discussion will occur at committee stage.

R. Hawes: I rise today to just speak to the first part of what has been described as minor amendments. The first part of this bill does deal with hearings for irregular billings for physicians. What I wanted to mention was a year and a half ago, as the legislative standing committee on health travelled the province, we heard from a number of physicians who were concerned about the fact that practice profiles that are issued for all medical practitioners annually aren't looked at in order to determine those who are overbilling or who are somehow overusing or oversubscribing for tests that aren't really necessary.

There was some concern from physicians, actually, that those who are engaged in those types of practices are bringing discredit to the vast majority of doctors who are operating exactly as they should. So I welcome this change. The streamlining is a very good change, but there's not just the issue of streamlining so that those who are overbilling or somehow oversubscribing procedures can be considered. There is the issue of fairness. Those who are to go to a hearing but have done nothing wrong, frankly, need to have the ability to clear themselves and go through these types of hearings with an easier, faster and more understandable method. So this does instil an issue of clarity and fairness.

We are living in a time when MSP rates — the overall costs to government — have been skyrocketing. Anything that can be done to help control or curtail, if you will, the rapid rise in costs should be a welcome change. This is a very minor change; however, it is indicative of the type of things the government is looking at in order to keep costs under control.

With that, I am very much in favour of these minor — yet, I think, symbolic — amendments. I would be most pleased to support what the minister has brought forward.

Hon. K. Whittred: I rise to speak in support of the Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. My colleagues have mentioned that these are minor amendments. However, I would like to try to make the point that there's no such thing as a minor amendment. An

amendment always is there to reinforce or, in fact, improve the legislation that is already on the books. I think these amendments, although minor, certainly do that.

The first amendment is the amendment around the Medicare Protection Act. This, of course, is to better protect our health dollars. While it's been stated very eloquently by both my colleagues that this is something that is rarely necessary, it is from time to time necessary. It fits in perfectly with our goal of ensuring that our health dollars, our very precious health dollars, are always spent prudently and that the patients are always the very first people that we think about.

In the very, very few cases that the Medical Services Plan is used for overbilling, it allows us a very quick remedy to deal with these matters. It ensures that the Medical Services Plan is billed with care and that it is appropriate. We expect these changes will result in a much faster resolution of hearings that could potentially result in a cancellation or restriction of a physician's right to bill the plan. It also, I think, acts in the best interests of the physicians. This minor amendment goes a long way to enabling the ministry to reduce the hurdles — to get those big boulders out of the way that we have in terms of ensuring proper accountability to the public.

The second amendment is a minor amendment that changes the language of the Hospital Insurance Act. This brings this legislation into line with the fact that we have regionalized the health authorities. One of the changes that really stands out in my mind, in terms of what we have done in reorganizing the health authorities, is that we have truly regionalized them. In this province we've been talking about regionalization for more than ten years. In fact, when you look at what actually took place, there was still a great deal of ministerial involvement in many, many decisions, including the Hospital Insurance Act. In the area I deal with all the time, I find that organizations and communities come to me believing that the ministry is the place they go to put their questions and to seek funding when, in fact, that funding has been turned over to the regional health authorities.

This is just one aspect of that. It's a very small part of a larger picture that we have tried to build in the ministry and which my colleague the Minister of Health Services says that we have become — a steering ministry. We want to steer the ship. We don't want to row the ship. This is a small part of changing that culture.

Finally, this bill will revise the Food Safety Act to protect the public from harm. Again, it's just one more small example of many, many changes that we have brought in, in various forms, that enhance safety and ensure the public's well-being. We really do want to ensure that the public's well-being is not adversely affected by any changes, particularly when buildings may be under construction. These changes ensure that health-related legislation is up to date and appropriate.

With that I just conclude by reiterating once again my support for these three minor but, I think, important amendments.

Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading of Bill 33. The Minister of Health Services closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: I very much appreciate the comments of the three members who have spoken on second reading of this piece of legislation.

I did want to specifically mention some of the comments that were made by the Leader of the Opposition. I very much appreciate the heads-up that she gave regarding the issues that she would like to raise during committee stage, and I look forward to that discussion.

At this point, I can certainly give her the assurance that the changes that we are making to the powers of the Medical Services Commission are focused specifically on the hearing process to make sure that that hearing process can be undertaken expeditiously and in a way that really serves the public interest and prevents any party from unnecessarily delaying that process. I will look forward to her specific questions in that regard when we get into committee stage.

The second issue that she raised was around the budget for hospitals. What is, I think, very important for everyone to understand is the transition that has taken place over the last number of years in terms of moving from a health care system that was really focused around the acute care hospital in each community to a health care system that is really community-based and has to be integrated.

We talk a lot about the continuity of care from the ambulance service and the primary care practitioners right through to continuing care and, in fact, palliative care. That needs to be much more seamless than it was ten or 20 years ago. The hospital is no longer an island unto itself within the community but, in fact, must be more integrated. The first point is that you can't come up with a budget that is so specific to the hospital without recognizing the integration with the other community services that are provided.

The second point is that the budget for the hospitals is really a responsibility of the individual health authorities. It is no longer dictated out of Victoria what the budget should be for a hospital, say, in Vanderhoof because now, under the new system that we have developed, we allocate budgets to the health authorities on a fair proportional basis, recognizing all of the cost drivers in a particular region of the province.

The population needs–based funding is not just a per-capita allocation but also factors in the increased health costs of older individuals and of those who are living in remote communities, and all of those things are factored into that formula. Once we then allocate a budget to the health authority, it's the health authorities themselves that have to determine their priorities within the region and what budgets should be assigned to any particular facility in that region.

We're getting away from that process where everything is being micromanaged and dictated from Victoria and really empowering regions in the province to make the decisions in terms of their allocations that are

in their best interests. Again, I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition raising that in second reading. When we get into the committee stage, I would certainly be pleased to entertain the very specific questions she may have with regard to this bill.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33, Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38 provides an important component of the economic foundation necessary to ensure a thriving economy for British Columbia, particularly in the area of electronic commerce. This bill accomplishes the key objectives of giving British Columbians protection for their personal information held by the private sector and allowing businesses and non-profit organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for reasonable purposes. By striking this balance, this bill enhances B.C.'s competitive position while safeguarding British Columbians' personal information.

This bill retains provincial jurisdiction over this key aspect of B.C.'s commercial activity by replacing the cumbersome and confusing federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, also known as the PIPED Act. The federal act will apply if B.C. does not pass its own legislation. Bill 38 ensures there are no barriers to trade with other jurisdictions by meeting strict international data-sharing requirements. It promotes a harmonized privacy regime with other provinces. It minimizes the regulatory burden on B.C. business by providing an easier to understand and less onerous set of privacy rules that are supported by the B.C. private sector, and most importantly it incorporates the input of over 170 stakeholder groups throughout the province.

The wealth of knowledge and experience brought to these consultations by the private sector has resulted in a straightforward and practical approach to the protection of personal information that will benefit both the citizens and the business community in British Columbia. This bill also responds to the 92 percent of British Columbians surveyed who want this legislation and responds to the overwhelming consensus of B.C. businesses consulted that do not want to be covered by the federal PIPED Act and would prefer a provincial statute that is harmonized with other jurisdictions.

There are seven key elements to Bill 38. First, as noted above, this bill protects privacy and is business-friendly. It strikes the appropriate balance between the strong desire of British Columbians to protect their personal information held by the private sector and ensures that B.C. for-profit and non-profit organizations are able to use the information they need for legitimate business activities. Under this bill, British Columbians can feel confident that their personal information is safe, even when using the Internet, and businesses can operate under a reasonable and understandable set of privacy rules that they helped create.

Second, this bill is regulation-light, substituting a provincial personal information regime that clarifies and simplifies the complex and often confusing requirements of the federal Privacy Act. This bill also articulates the internationally recognized privacy standards in a way that smaller-sized businesses can understand and implement. For example, one of the key principles underlying the entire bill is what is referred to as the reasonable person test. In layman's terms, this means that an organization must base its practices on commonsense practices — the kinds of rules that the average person would consider reasonable. The wide range of organizations consulted both understood and supported the reasonable person test as a foundation for their personal information practices.

Third, this bill is comprehensive and protects the personal information of all British Columbians. It applies to all personal information held by organizations not already covered by the public sector Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act legislation.

This provides broader protection than the federal legislation, which relates only to commercial activity. For example, this bill protects the employee information of British Columbians working for provincial companies. The federal act would not have protected B.C. employees. This bill also ensures that British Columbians' personal information will be protected when held by non-profit organizations. This lessens confusion and increases consumer confidence. To achieve consistency with federal and provincial legislation, the bill does not affect personal information that is used for personal, journalistic, artistic or literary purposes, that is held by the courts or that to which public sector privacy acts apply.

Fourth, this bill is based on consent, the important premise that in order to have control over their personal information, individuals must be able to give consent before their personal information is collected, used or disclosed. The bill recognizes, however, that there are circumstances in which a reasonable person would understand that seeking consent is not feasible or possible — for example, collecting information for an investigation.

Fifth, this bill establishes a set of straightforward rules for organizations to follow when collecting, using or disclosing personal information. These rules are important to balancing the rights of individuals to protect their personal information and the needs of the organizations to collect, use and share information for appropriate business purposes. These rules include the requirement to inform individuals of how information will be used and to whom it will be shared. These requirements in particular will help address the high levels of public concern about the sharing or selling of information on the Internet. This bill allows for exceptions where it is not feasible or possible to give notice or to get consent.

Sixth, this bill provides the right for individuals to request access to and correction of their personal information held by organizations. This right allows individuals to know what information an organization holds about them and to ensure that it is accurate. This is particularly important in the financial area where decisions depend on accurate personal financial information. There are a few exceptions to this right, such as when the disclosure would reveal another individual's information.

Seventh, this bill provides provincial oversight of the activities of organizations through the office of the information and privacy commissioner. This model of commissioner is familiar to British Columbians, retains jurisdiction within the province and, because of its emphasis on mediation, has proven to be cost-effective and successful. The bill also provides direction on issues related to the retention, accuracy and protection of personal information. All of these provisions are harmonized with the federal private sector and provincial public sector legislation and are presented in an easy-to-understand manner.

The provisions of this bill are intended to enhance the protection of personal information and at the same time provide a framework and structure that will allow organizations to take advantage of e-commerce and international trade opportunities. The provisions are designed to apply to all sizes of business and, for those organizations that already abide by the ethical information practices, to be implemented with as little disruption as possible. Those consulted have described this bill's provisions as a backstop for good business practices.

The distinguishing features of this bill are: harmonization with the federal legislation that it replaces and its partnership with other initiatives, especially with Alberta with whom we have partnered in drafting; striking that important balance between protecting privacy and allowing appropriate use of personal information; achieving a compromise between the wide range and diversity of interests of those interested in and affected by the bill; providing a plain-language and easily implemented privacy regime for the smaller organizations that make up the provincial economy; fixing the problems and gaps in the federal act with the acceptance and ownership of the provincial private sector; and providing provincial oversight that will be familiar to B.C. organizations and avoid the costly federal model that depends on the use of the courts.

I have no doubt that like B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this legislation will act as a model for legislation in other provinces and other jurisdictions throughout the world. British Columbia has a deserved reputation for its ability to develop succinct, clear, usable and leading-edge privacy legislation. This bill is no exception.

J. MacPhail: Well, who would know? Who would know whether what the minister says is true or not? He introduced it just yesterday, and we're debating it today. Who would possibly be able to confirm whether all the great accolades the minister is giving himself are true or not? Thank gosh we're returning to our ridings tomorrow morning to work in our ridings and not here, because he'd probably ram the legislation through committee stage tomorrow. That's what he would do.

I stand here to make the following comments without having had time to do a thorough review of the legislation. I am so pleased we have a weekend in between this minister's claims and the ability to actually examine the legislation, because, of course, you can never, ever go by this government's own spin-doctoring news releases. They go to new heights to write news releases that have nothing to do with the content of any legislation.

So what do we know? You've got to set that aside and say that's just spin-doctoring. That's the multi-multimillion-dollar spin machine that this government uses. We're now in the throes — the opposition is — of doing a clause-by-clause examination and research of what the real effect of this legislation is. I am pleased to see that David Loukidelis, the FOI commissioner, has put his name in the news release. That's good. That gives me some comfort.

J. MacPhail: The minister says it should. Well, it doesn't have anything to do with this government that that gives me comfort.

I note that the business community is happy. That doesn't give me any comfort at all, because it's the business community who's being subject to FOI now. No advocacy groups are actually listed in support. It says here advocacy groups are fine with it. We'll see. What's the hurry? What is the hurry with this government? Is it because they have nothing else to do today that we're ramming this legislation through?

Here is this government's record on freedom of information so far. It's way more expensive — way more expensive, freedom of information — to get under this government, tenfold more expensive. In fact, organizations every day can't pay the bills this gov-

ernment is asking them to pay in order to get access to information that used to be free or minimal charge. This government has limited the application of freedom of information — limited it substantially. In fact, they've gone to great lengths to exclude organizations that were previously covered by freedom of information — to great lengths.

Maybe the minister would want to stop heckling me, because he's just going to get himself into trouble for his lack of knowledge.

J. MacPhail: The B.C. Ferry Services corporation is no longer subject to freedom of information, and that's just one example. The various government committees. The government tried to limit freedom-of-information application until they got caught out, until they were caught red-handed, and then they had to reverse themselves.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the greatest limitation this government has put on freedom of information is to slash the freedom-of-information-and-privacy commissioner's budget, so their record is not stellar. It's like a piece of coal. It's like a piece of coal compared to a star, a bright shiny star.

The minister is right. The 1990s in British Columbia were the shining of light through legislation on freedom of information and protection of privacy — the shining of light in terms of legislation that was introduced, passed and expanded during that time. It was not only put on the public services, but it was then expanded to municipal governments, to school boards, to government agencies. The freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy commissioner's office budget expanded to allow for the proper deliberation, implementation and application of that law.

Let's see. Was it in the horrible decade of decline that that occurred? And so, with that great shining of light, what has this government done for freedom of information? Slashed the funding for the privacy commissioner, tried to sneak through changes — sneak through changes — to limit the application of the FOI law to their very own secret committees that they have. Remember that time, Mr. Speaker? They said that if a cabinet minister is on any committee, if they walk through the room of a committee that's happening, that government committee wouldn't be subject to FOI. Remember that? But the opposition caught them out, and they had to back off on that.

Then, of course, people are being sent bills or being told that if they want freedom-of-information requests fulfilled…. Some of the bills are as high as a thousand bucks to organizations — $1,000 for one request that used to be in the amount of pennies per page to have it fulfilled.

Lastly, the cuts. The cuts in public service that this government has made have delayed requests so that they now take weeks, months. I can give you my own examples. Appeal…. Well, first of all, the government tries to delay, delay, delay: "Oh, we need 30 more days to fill that application, opposition. Oh, sorry, we need another 30 days. Oh, I'm sorry. We need another 30 days." We're into the realm of months now for the fulfilling of FOI requests from the opposition, but we know we always get lousy treatment from this government. The opposition expects that. The opposition expects to be treated like dirt by this government in terms of fulfilling FOI requests. We actually don't take it personally. But they're doing the same thing to the public too.

Now, when this government was in opposition, not the majority, well into a third of FOI requests came from the then opposition, the Liberal Party opposition, and every request was filled in a timely manner — absolutely. But no, not this government. Who the heck knows what this legislation says? We'll be working over the weekend to find out what it is the government's doing, to find out whether there's any truth or not to either the news release or the minister's comments, and then we'll debate it at committee stage.

How dare this government minister stand up and claim to be a champion of freedom of information and protection of privacy at any level. Their record is abysmal. It's secretive, and it's moving the clock back in the province of British Columbia on freedom of information and protection of privacy.

Let's be clear. This government hasn't introduced this legislation of its own free will, willingly, at all. If they didn't introduce this legislation, the federal legislation would apply. The initiative to apply freedom of information and protection of privacy to the private sector doesn't come from this Liberal government. It comes from the federal level completely, and indeed there was absolutely no initiative on the part of this government. They're merely responding to the federal government's fiat — and it is a fiat — that if the provinces don't put in place this kind of legislation, then the federal legislation would automatically kick in. That's what it is.

If the federal government hadn't taken that initiative, we wouldn't be seeing any kind of legislation in this chamber whatsoever, because this provincial Liberal government doesn't believe in freedom of information. It does not for a moment believe in it. They're sneaking through legislation, sneaking it through absolutely. This great, open and accountable government promised they were going to shine the light on this Legislature, and what do they do? They introduce legislation one day and then ram it through the next. That's what this government does.

So take no credit whatsoever. The Liberal provincial government deserves no credit for any aspect of anything to do with freedom of information and protection of privacy.

R. Hawes: Well, that was quite a diatribe. You know, I can't help but sit here and think how awful it

really must be to go through life so negative. I just can't believe how terrible that must be.

I don't want to dwell on the negative parts of what the Leader of the Opposition spoke about, but I can tell you that during that decade preceding our term here, at the local government level, at times we had to get information from the government, and we were forced to go through freedom of information. I recall getting a document that was seven or eight pages, which had almost every single page whited out. So it's a little difficult listening to what the Leader of the Opposition has to say and then comparing it to what actually was happening during the last decade.

That's typical. That is very, very typical of what goes on in this House almost every day when the Leader of the Opposition gets up and self-righteously proclaims that almost everything this government is doing is terrible and that what happened during the last decade was all wonderful. Yet businesses were fleeing the province. The economic performance of the government drove us statistically to last place in this country, and all because of what they were doing, and yet there is self-righteousness. It's a little bit hard to take.

I rise today to speak in favour of this bill for a number of reasons. The Leader of the Opposition says that somehow it's really bad that we would react to what the federal government is saying. I suppose she's saying that the alternative, allowing the federal government to impose their legislation, would be preferable. I think that must be what she's saying. She offers no alternative.

We know that the federal legislation is too onerous, too cumbersome, and it doesn't work well for us. We would prefer to see our own legislation. Frankly, I think the minister is to be commended for bringing forward this legislation and particularly for understanding that as we work so closely with our neighbouring province in Alberta — our economies are somewhat entwined — having a similar piece of legislation in both provinces can be beneficial to us. Moving ahead in partnership with Alberta is actually a very, very good thing.

The reasonable person test the minister spoke about. As you read through the bill, you'll see many times throughout here the word "reasonable." The movement to a commonsense approach, to me, is very commendable. This legislation, I think, is fairly easy to understand. Rather than rely on just pure bureaucracy where you'd need a team of New York lawyers, this does allow the average person to look at this legislation and understand it. I think it's a good thing to move to the reasonable person test, and again I would commend the minister for that.

I know there's been extensive consultation. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition might have people believe, this is not just a piece of legislation that has been cobbled together and thrown in here to be pushed through quickly. This is a piece of legislation that has been out for consultation for a period of time. As the minister stated, there are over 170 groups and individuals that he has consulted with. I think that's a very, very commendable approach. It is the approach this government takes on almost everything it does. We are extremely consultative, which is one of the reasons…. When the budget came down, for example, and many of the pundits called it boring, it was boring to them because they already knew what was going to be in it, because we are out there consulting.

In a past life I was a banker, and I am really familiar with the use of personal information and the damage that can occur to individuals when false or incorrect information is out there, and you have to make decisions based on that information. I know there are, within this province, many people and families who have been damaged because, for one reason or another, incorrect information has been filed by one agency or another and then has been passed along and used by agencies to make decisions about the individual or the family. Banking is a very good example of where personal information is utilized on a regular basis to make decisions.

This legislation provides a much easier way for people to appeal if there is incorrect information. There is a very clear and easy method for those who would have incorrect information recorded somewhere about them. It's very easy for them to appeal that, to have it corrected. If it's not corrected for one reason or another, then a notation that it is being disputed must be put against that information. I think that's a very positive thing, and I think the minister is to be commended for making sure that kind of protection is there.

All in all, protection of privacy is a huge thing, and I think it speaks well for this legislation that the privacy commissioner has vetted it, has stated that he is in accord with this legislation and the direction it's taking.

The Leader of the Opposition raises, as is typical, a great number of fears that really are not based on any fact. In fact, she has basically said that she hasn't yet read the legislation. Yet she would deign to come into the House and make a number of comments that disparage this legislation when, by her own admission, she hasn't even read it. That's quite typical of the level of debate that frequently takes place here, where comments are made about things with no understanding of any kind. I think, or at least I hope, that the Leader of the Opposition, when she takes the time she mentioned — the weekend — to go and take a good look at this legislation, will come back into this House and stand up and support it, along with all of the members of this government, because, frankly, it is good legislation, particularly when you consider what the alternatives are. The alternative is the imposition of the federal legislation, which I believe no province in this country wants to see happen. I think all provinces will move forward to develop their own legislation. Ours is very likely to be copied by many other provinces.

In closing, the fact that we have gone jointly with Alberta on this, that there has been great consultation, that there is a tremendous amount of consumer protection built into this and protection for individuals, that

it's very easy to understand and the reasonable person test is in here all speak well for the legislation. I'm very proud to stand today and support the legislation. I know there are a number of my colleagues who are very anxious to get up and speak in favour of this great piece of legislation. With that, thank you for the time.

I. Chong: I, too, rise today in support of Bill 38, the Personal Information Protection Act. Before I begin, I just wanted to refer to some comments made by the Leader of the Opposition and the rant that she had moments ago. She indicated that we were ramming through legislation and not allowing opportunities to have a look at this legislation. That is just simply not true.

For those people who are listening and watching, it is a process in this House, in these chambers, that legislation is introduced on a particular day and can be called for second reading debate the very next day and then to committee stage the day after that, depending on the legislation. Sometimes if it does require more time, that time is afforded it, but this legislation is in simple enough, plain-language legislation that it can be dealt with.

When we were opposition members on this side of the House — we were in opposition years ago — I recall many occasions where the NDP government of the day brought in legislation at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and we were sitting that evening, not unlike what happened yesterday. The very next morning, at ten in the morning, we would be going through second reading debate. We were working through all hours of the night, and we were reading through some of it. Some of it was actually quite extensive. Some of it was actually quite complex, as opposed to plain-language legislation. So I think we need to set the record straight. This is normal process. It is not ramming through. It is not sneaking through. I do take exception to the words from the Leader of the Opposition because she knows full well what she and her government did when they were in government.

The legislation before us is, in fact, fairly straightforward. It's fairly important, which is why we need to bring it forward now. The fact that the Minister of Management Services has spent a great deal of time with this — has gone out to stakeholders — means that he's come back with a document that is supportable. It's been pretty clear for the last few years that the federal government was going to impose particular legislation on all provincial jurisdictions. They call it the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act — PIPED. It's been quite obvious that on January 1, 2004, the federal government's privacy legislation would be imposed on provincial governments.

I don't think it comes as any surprise that if you do not want to be under the cumbersome, complex legislation that federal governments usually bring in, you as a provincial jurisdiction have the opportunity to bring in your own legislation that is more suited to your provincial needs, to your provincial economy. That's pretty clear. Well, guess what. January 1, 2004, is eight months away, so when should we be bringing in this legislation? Now is an absolutely appropriate time. It will allow people to get used to this legislation, and it will allow our freedom-of-information-and-privacy commissioner to have an opportunity to work with this legislation as well.

I think this is the appropriate time. I applaud the minister for having the courage to bring forward this legislation in the short time that we've held office. For him to be able to bring forward this groundbreaking leadership legislation in the two years or 23 months that we've held office is important. We've already heard that Quebec has had privacy legislation in place for about a decade. They were the first province, so we can give kudos to them.

The next two provinces that I'm aware of are Alberta and Ontario. I don't know why we always have to trail after Alberta and Ontario. It's about time that B.C. became number one again. Alberta and Ontario were looking at this, so it was time for us — as a province that wants to be recognized in the top three, if not the top province in this country — to start taking that leadership role. So our minister did, and he's brought forward this legislation. Alberta and Ontario, who have not yet finalized theirs, will be looking at our piece of legislation and will be taking a look to see those areas that we've introduced and how they can possibly make this work in their jurisdictions.

We are in a different age. We are not in the seventies or eighties or even the early nineties. The electronic age is here. Transmission of information, transmission of documents — everything that we have done in the past can be done almost in a blink of an eye now. Passing notes across to each other even takes longer than if we were to push a button and e-mail to our colleagues across the House here. Things happen very quickly. The Internet is well used. I see young children here who are listening, and that's wonderful. They grew up in the age of Internet. It's second nature to them. It wasn't second nature to me when I was growing up. The Internet is widely used, and there's information that is passed around. Because that information is passed around, we have to make sure that that information is protected.

This act, the Personal Information Protection Act, will accomplish that. This act is an essential foundation for e-commerce — for electronic commerce. It will also facilitate other things that this government is doing, such an alternative service delivery. It will also facilitate public–private sector partnership initiatives, and that's important. As I say, we're moving into a new generation of learners and a new generation of business and enterprise. People do business and share information in a different way.

What does personal information protection legislation do? Exactly as it says. It protects personal information that is held by the private sector — that is, the non-government sector. I think it's pretty clear that because of the computer age and the electronic age, there is a

lot of information out there about many of the things that we have provided to people, because they store everything. How often do you go into a store now and purchase something, and the first thing they say is: "What's your telephone number?" Then they'll ask you what your address and postal code is. I'm just glad they don't ask about your height and weight. Those are things that some of us like to keep pretty private. Nonetheless, you walk into a place, you give them your telephone number, and they know where you live and how often you shop in their store — those kinds of things.

Personal information is out there. Personal information is held by the private sector. Do we just allow that to happen with no rules? I don't think so. We have to ensure personal information will be and can be protected. This legislation is going to do that.

Personal information is any information about an identifiable individual, and I think we're all identifiable. We have certain traits, certain spending habits and certain personal choices, I guess. If you shop from one place to another or go from one sporting event to another, your information is probably out there if you've ever paid by credit card. We use banks and credit unions. They have information about us. Some of us may even invest in certain things. All that information is out there. Again, I say that we need our personal information protected.

Personal information is not business information; it is not about contact information or work product information. Those kinds of things are still going to be closely monitored. In general, the act does require that individuals can be informed of and consent to the collection, use and disclosure of their personal information. If you knew what the information you provided to a particular non-government enterprise or organization was being used for, you may wish to not consent to that, or you may wish some other kinds of protection on that. How do we ask for that now? We don't know. At least this legislation is going to allow us that first step.

I indicated earlier why it is so important that we have this legislation now. It's been indicated by others, and even the Leader of the Opposition acknowledges it. It's because if we do not, the federal act will apply. You know, I don't think we want a federal act to apply to British Columbia, because even in our own province sometimes when we pass legislation, we've learned that one-size-fits-all solutions don't work.

That's within our own province. Can you imagine a federal piece of legislation working right across Canada and into the territories perhaps? It just won't work, so let us design our own Personal Information Protection Act. Let us have one that will accommodate the needs of our province, the needs of our people and the needs of our businesses, organizations and non-government groups and organizations that do business. The complexity of the federal legislation, of PIPED, is there. I think people have already had a look at it, and it will be difficult for small and medium-size businesses.

We've said this time and time again. I've said it, members opposite have said it, and members on this side of the House have said it. The small and medium-size businesses are the engine of our economy. We're trying to do our very best to restore our economy and revitalize our economy to the number one economy in the country. Why would we not do as much as we possibly can to promote and encourage that?

We don't want to see our small and medium-size businesses being hindered. We don't want to have them spend hours and hours of time trying to understand and implement a complicated federal piece of legislation.

British Columbia's act is going to be more straightforward, it's going to be plainer language, and it's going to deal with some significant areas and flaws that the PIPED has, which we've already identified. We're also going to allow our provincial commissioner to have oversight on this, and I think that's also a good thing. The Leader of the Opposition already indicated that she was pleased Mr. Loukidelis would be involved, and I think we all are as well. He does a good job. He's going to be involved in this, and if he is concerned about any of these issues, I think he would have raised them by now. If he is still concerned, I'm sure he will continue to raise them because that's his job, and we respect that.

This act will cover all provincially regulated, non-government organizations, and that's important. Types of organizations covered, as an example, are going to include all businesses which are also sole proprietorships — lots of single, sole proprietorships out there — associations, trade unions, trusts and not-for-profit organizations. I think that each and every one of us at some point has had a link or a relationship with a business, an association, a trade union, a trust or a not-for-profit organization, so it's good to know that our information passed on there…. We're going to have some assurance of the protection of that personal information that we've provided.

Before I take my seat, I do want to say again how important it is that we do have this act. It's important, as well, that within this act you'll see that there are going to be penalties for the misuse of personal information. It's always important that that is in place — that people know we're going to be serious about that. Bill 38, the Personal Information Protection Act, is a good piece of legislation. It was time to bring it in. Today just happened to be the day we're going to be dealing with second reading. If there are any issues that need to be raised, we can certainly raise them at committee stage as I'm sure other members and the Leader of the Opposition will. I would encourage all members of this House to support this legislation so that we can get on with our own plain-language legislation which is going to benefit the small and medium-sized businesses in our province and, as well, benefit all of us who want to see our personal information protected.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce 60 grades 5 and 6 children from Blueridge Elementary School in my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, and they are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Dale and Miss Harivel. Would everyone make them welcome.

J. Bray: I definitely rise in support of Bill 38, the Personal Information Protection Act. I was somewhat stunned by the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. She didn't actually debate the bill at all. I don't think she has actually even looked at it. What she did was somehow try to conjure up — I suspect this is going to be a theme we're going to hear for the next several weeks now — this conspiracy that somehow we're trying to sneak legislation through, that we're trying to do things in the middle of the night and that we're not telling anybody what we're doing.

What I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition…. In fact, I've got a copy of it for her here, if she would like. It's called the service plan. It's the Ministry of Management Services service plan for the years 2003-04, 2005-06. It's a three-year service plan, so it doesn't just set out what the Minister of Management Services is going to do this year. It sets out what the minister is going to do next year, and it sets out what the minister is going to do three years out. The minister also produced one last year that set out his three-year plan, and this year he made some amendments to it as things move along.

Actually, I find her comments somewhat startling, and if I may…. She suggested that somehow Bill 38 arrived here in the middle of the night, and it's trying to be rammed through, and we're trying to do some sort of secret thing. Let me read from the service plan, for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, what the minister said months ago:

This has been in the public domain for months now. This is not something that came up out of the blue. This is something that was part of a service plan. Mr. Speaker, because I know that the Leader of the Opposition is going to start to do this every time she stands up, to somehow suggest these things are coming out in all different directions and how can she possibly keep up and how can the opposition possibly keep up, let me give some advice to the Leader of the Opposition. Every ministry in government has published three-year service plans. They're available right now. I'm quite sure all of the ministers and all of the private members would be happy to walk the service plans down to the Leader of the Opposition and her staff right now to have a look at. I find her comments that this is somehow coming out of the blue really rather difficult to swallow, given that the entire public has known about this.

However, it is interesting to note that this government has brought in a structure of service plans, of planning, of three-year planning, of publishing those plans, of making ministers and ministries accountable, of setting performance targets. This is part of that. It's been out there. The minister is going to be judged on that, among other things, as all the ministers are.

I do know that when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a government during that wonderful dark decade of the nineties, they did public policy by panic. It really was eleventh-hour planning. We really didn't know what was going to happen, because it did happen out of a rush. "My goodness, there's a problem. Let's go over the weekend. Let's write some legislation, bring it to the House and put it through in three days" — without anybody knowing what was going on, including ministry staff.

We have service plans. People have been working on this for a year. We've been talking about it for a year. The minister has been consulting on this legislation for months.

It was also interesting that the Leader of the Opposition somehow suggested she was a little bit comforted because David Loukidelis, who is the privacy commissioner, had put his stamp on the press release. It was very telling when the Leader of the Opposition said: "The business community supports this legislation, but that provides me no comfort." That was the problem with the nineties. That party, the NDP, that Leader of the Opposition who was then in government did not want to see business succeed, did not want to see the private sector succeed, loved to have a big government organization around freedom of information, loved to create a bureaucracy, loved to have complicated regulations that were so complex that nobody,

When we bring in something that is necessary to cover the private sector, she's stunned that we might actually go and talk to the private sector to ask them how we can meet their needs while ensuring that we're meeting the public good and preserving ourselves from having to deal with federal legislation. She's stunned that we would actually consult, and she's actually stunned that the private sector and government could actually agree.

She doesn't want to see business succeed. She'd love to see regulation and burdens placed on business, regulations and burdens that clamp innovation, that restrict the ability for entrepreneurs and small businesses — mom-and-pop shops — to operate, for the sake of bureaucracy, for the sake of regulation. That's how they did things. They didn't plan them out; they just did them overnight in panic.

Just to the Leader of the Opposition, I will refer her to the Ministry of Management Services service plan, because — you know what? — she can find out what we're going to do in the next couple of weeks. She can find out what this minister is going to do for the next couple of years. It won't be a surprise. She can find out exactly what this government is going to do for the next three years so that she, in fact, along with all British Columbians who are watching, know what we're going to do.

We have brought in a system of planning. We brought in a system that's open, that's accountable and that's there for everybody to see. We consult with the people, and we bring in good legislation.

I question the Leader of the Opposition's assertion, but I'm prepared for the fact that she is going to do this now virtually…. In fact, I can probably see the script now that every motion and every bill is going to start with this great, great clamour of secrecy, and it hasn't come in. She should just look at the service plan, and she will know what's there. British Columbians know it's there because they have this available to them. I suggest perhaps the Leader of the Opposition take some time and read the service plans.

Bill 38, the Personal Information Protection Act, is a critical piece of legislation for a number of reasons, and the minister and my colleagues have certainly covered a lot of them. The whole concept of personal information has changed since we've moved from a paper system to an electronic system. There is some distrust with sending things into cyberspace. Where does it go? How does my name appear on mailing lists? All of these issues.

There is an appetite out in the public for some assurances that their personal information is only going to be used for the circumstances in which they provide it. Now, government has done a good job over the years of providing that framework with respect to when individuals provide their information to government — whether you file for income tax, whether you're applying for your medical card, whether or not you're dealing with WCB or ICBC — so you've got that protection there. Where you haven't had the protection in the past is when you go in and give your information, when you order a pizza over the phone, when you go into a clothing store and provide some information because you want some of that purchase to be delivered somewhere. Where do those addresses and those names and your credit card numbers go? All those issues.

There's some appetite out there for some protection. But let me be very clear, and I think the minister was very clear in his comments. There is equally no desire for a monstrous bureaucracy to hamper the ability of private sector businesses and private individuals to do commerce together. They want some framework for protection; they don't want to have a whole monstrosity of a bureaucracy.

There is good legislation in the public sector, but it's also a huge bureaucracy. The mom-and-pop operation operating a fish and chips store, where they have their kids maybe working after school, do not have time to figure out reams and reams of regulations and legislation in order to do their daily business. The public cannot possibly be expected to understand masses and masses of complex legalese written in legislation in order to make sure that their rights are protected.

Bill 38 is a plain-language bill. It makes it very clear, in very simple structure, the responsibilities of business owners and the rights and obligations of individuals who are dealing with those companies. I think, first and foremost, the minister has to be commended for making sure that this legislation meets the test of protecting information for the public but doesn't actually create something that makes the transaction of business more difficult.

The issues also make it clear for the average small business operator what they are expected to do, why this legislation is here, why somebody has decided this has to be done, so that they can follow simple, easy rules. My understanding is that there will be some fairly simple questions small businesses will get in a package from the ministry that simply say: "If you could answer these six questions, you know you have met the test in the legislation."

By and large, the vast majority of small businesses probably will see no change in their operation, but the public will have the confidence that their information is being protected. For small businesses that perhaps have to make some changes in their practices, it will be simple, it will be easy for them to do, it will be easy for them to show they've done that, and it will not add burdensome costs to their operations.

A lot of small businesses operate on small margins. They don't have the ability to hire lawyers and accountants and technical experts and everybody else to try to meet some government-imposed legislation. This will ensure they can meet those tests in a very simplified way, so that they are confident they're meeting the law, the public is confident the law is doing its job, and commerce and that business activity can carry on.

There's another thing that's very important to note here, and that is — and the Leader of the Opposition

did point it out, although she did it in a rather discourteous way perhaps — to suggest that we're bringing this in because we had to. Well, yes, we did — but for the reasons I've laid out initially. We're responding to public concern about information, public concern about confidence in the electronic age and the way in which transactions are being done, and we're responding to businesses' concerns that if the province didn't act to come up with a made-in-B.C. act, the federal legislation would be imposed. The federal legislation would be written by folks in Ottawa who are very familiar with business in Ottawa, may be familiar with business in Ontario, may be even familiar with business in Quebec but not familiar with business in British Columbia.

Business has said that if there are going to be laws around this area, please make sure that it's made in B.C., it meets the needs of British Columbians, it's understandable for British Columbians and it's administered by British Columbians, not bureaucrats stuck in some building in Ottawa. Trying to get an answer out of Ottawa for small business sometimes is incredibly frustrating. Imagine if their entire ability to do commerce was impeded because all of a sudden they got a letter from a federal privacy commissioner saying they're doing something wrong. By the time they get it resolved, they may go out of business.

By having this legislation made in B.C. for B.C., we ensure that it's timely, it's responsive and it meets the needs of British Columbians' privacy concerns and British Columbia business. It ensures that British Columbia's privacy commissioner is the person in charge of this so that we keep the whole loop within British Columbia.

I think it's fine that the federal government has decided this legislation is needed; I think it's a good step. But a one-size-fits-all solution at the federal level for privacy in this area is not sufficient. We did it in the public sector. We have our own Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, because we wanted to make sure we had a made-in-B.C. solution. Well, there's no reason why we wouldn't want to do that for the private sector and for British Columbians dealing with personal information in the private sector.

This bill meets that test. We've met the response of the public's concern about how their information is handled, how it's kept, how it's stored, how it's used, when they give consent, who can use their information and what the penalties are if they misuse it. We meet the private sector business concerns that they don't get stuck with a large, burdensome, federal regulatory scheme that could in fact impede their ability to do business and perhaps cause some of those small businesses to go out of business.

We responded to the public, and we responded to small business. The minister and his staff consulted extensively — consulted with Alberta. In fact, my understanding from the minister's comments was that we shared a draft with Alberta to try to make sure we've got some harmonization between Alberta and British Columbia. We consulted with the private sector to make sure that it was workable for them. We consulted with the federal privacy commissioner to make sure that when we enact this bill, we in fact are excused from the federal regulations. We consulted extensively so that by the time we came here today to debate Bill 38 in second reading, we had a solid, plain-language piece of legislation.

I think it's critical for British Columbians to be comforted to know that this bill will set out their need for consent when they provide their information and how and why personal information can be collected, because that's always been confusing sometimes for people: "Why do I have to give you my social insurance number if I'm just wanting to do a simple transaction?"

It sets out some of those rules. It sets out the limitations. It makes it clear for small business what they can and can't do with that information. Small business isn't looking to do anything illegal or do anything immoral. But sometimes practices evolve over time as you collect information, and you're not sure you're doing anything wrong. This sets out some very clear rules so that businesses know exactly where they stand.

It also provides for some clear rules around the collection and use of personal information with respect to the relationship between employer and employee. I think that's critical. As we look for a vibrant private sector, we want — and as we work on areas around labour laws and employment standard laws — to try and create a more flexible and harmonious workplace. We want to create laws that provide clear rules so that trust can also carry forward to the collection of personal information, the use of résumés, home addresses and those types of things. I think this actually helps to establish a better working relationship, because now employees can feel confident that their information and the relationship with their employer are protected by this bill.

It also sets out the rules for disclosure of that personal information — very clear rules around this. I mean, there are times when it's appropriate. There are times when you have exchanges of mailing lists and other things — that's a perfectly reliable business action — but now you have the rules by which you can do that, coupled with consent and the other issues, in this law. It makes it clear for business to know right away whether or not they can or can't do that and for individual people to know whether or not they want to allow that to happen.

I believe this bill clarifies that whole area, which is one of those sorts of things that people have not necessarily been able to articulate but have always had a bit of a niggling concern about: what happens when they give a business this particular information? I also think that in part 10 of this bill, it clearly sets out the role of the B.C. provincial privacy officer, David Loukidelis. This is again one of these clear examples where we're not reinventing the wheel.

The Leader of the Opposition was part of a government where every time they had a problem, they had to create a law, had to write a policy manual, three or four stacks of regulations, and then a whole new

bureaucracy. Then they'd figure out whether it worked or not. We actually try to make sure we make maximum use of the resources and strengths we have. We have a provincial privacy officer. They already have staff that have expertise in dealing with legislation and privacy issues, access, consent and disclosure of personal information, so it makes perfect sense, rather than reinventing a whole new wheel, to simply bring that existing institution into the oversight here.

It means that as legislators, we have direct reporting from that independent officer. As legislators, we are just as responsible for this act as we are under the public institutions, so there's strong accountability there. We're using the expertise that exists in this province to ensure that Bill 38 and the intention of protection of personal information is maintained. I think that over time, we will even be able to enhance this and refine it, because we do have the expertise that we're relying on, and they've already learned some of the lessons when they brought in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for public institutions.

One of our main goals in this government is to really move forward as we bridge the digital divide, to bring in e-government, to really use technology to advance public services but also advance commerce and advance opportunities, especially in smaller communities in the heartlands, to be involved in commerce and involved in business and to look at business opportunities. Without a framework for ensuring that people know their information is protected, that can impede that. A lack of confidence in that whole structure can impede that business.

Bill 38, the Personal Information Protection Act, provides a framework that is simple, that is affordable for business, that meets the demand the public has brought forward about their concerns, that excuses us from the burdensome federal legislation and regulation, that brings in the expertise that already exists in this province in the privacy commissioner's office to support this initiative, to support this Legislature and to ensure that we meet those tests.

It also fulfils — and I will remind the Leader of the Opposition again — one of the commitments the minister made in the service plan. What I think the Leader of the Opposition probably won't like me saying is that if she reads the service plans and then looks at what we're doing, she's going to find that when we make a plan, when we consult, when we put it out for good review by legislators and the public, in this chamber we meet those commitments, and we meet those commitments on behalf of all British Columbians.

I know the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like to hear that, but that's what good planning does. That's what good management does. That's what good government does, and I'm proud to support Bill 38, the Personal Information Protection Act.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate, the Minister of Management Services.

Hon. S. Santori: I want to thank my colleagues for their comments on this bill. I'm not surprised with the comments that were made by the member of the opposition with respect to this bill. I guess, quite frankly, it's the member's job to oppose everything this government does, regardless of whether it's good news or not. I can assure this House and the people of the province of British Columbia that in fact this is good news.

The member opposite made reference that this initiative was not one of this government's and that we are dancing to the federal tune and responding to the demands of the federal statute. Well, I guess in a way…. Well, actually, in no way is that correct. We did have a choice. We could have done absolutely nothing. We could have done absolutely nothing and just let the federal act prevail. What are the consequences of that? I know one consequence is the amount of complexity of the act and what impact that would have on businesses, especially small to medium-sized businesses in this province.

I understand that the member opposite…. If she could make life miserable for businesses in this province, I would suggest that would be a success story for the member for Vancouver-Hastings. We chose not to do that. I can't understand what is wrong with taking an approach that has some balance in it. Is there something wrong with talking to the private sector? Is there something wrong with talking to those stakeholders who will actually be impacted by a federal piece of legislation? On the other hand, we also have an obligation to meet with those groups who are concerned about the protection of people's personal information, as we are.

I want to commend my staff for having undergone consultation with those groups, like the civil liberties groups, and I know they have met with them on several occasions. I know for a fact that we have taken some of their concerns, recommendations and suggestions and actually used them to incorporate what we think is balance in this act. I believe most British Columbians expect government to do that.

We're not out to pick winners and losers here in this act. Quite the contrary. We want to try to create something that is balanced — something that will do what it is intended to do, and that is to protect people's personal information. We're doing that, but not at the expense of small and medium-sized businesses, who this province is depending on in turning this economy around. This is a sector we want to build. We don't want to nail them to the ground, similar to what the member of the NDP has done over the past decade.

Yes, we did have a choice. We could have sat back and done nothing. I'm quite proud of the fact that aside from Quebec, who has had this legislation for ten years, British Columbia actually took a leadership role and jumped ahead of the game with other provinces. They are actually looking at our legislation. I would suggest this will be model provincial legislation that will be used by the other provinces in this country.

Again, we could have done nothing, and we could have excluded the employees that fall under provincial

jurisdiction — private sector companies — in the province. We could have chosen to have a separate set of rules for federally regulated companies' employees. They would have had their rights of privacy for their personal information. God forbid, though, she didn't want us to…. Maybe she didn't want us to do that for the employees of the province of British Columbia. Well, we chose to take that leadership role and provide those same rights to employees of businesses that are provincially regulated in this province. We believe that's fair. I think that shows leadership. I think it shows initiative. I think it shows respect for employees and their information.

Again, if we did nothing, the non-profit sector, who wanted us to have a made-in-B.C. plan…. They wanted to be included. We did that. We responded to them. I had an opportunity to speak at one of their meetings. They were absolutely ecstatic and pleased with the role and the initiative that we took in bringing this forward and producing a made-in-B.C. piece of legislation.

This is an issue of balance. It's an issue of weighing the needs of all parties and all stakeholders involved in this legislation. I think we have done a commendable job in putting this together. On the accusation that this has been thrown in at the eleventh hour, this process started back in 1998, I believe, with a special committee and with polls and surveys to talk to British Columbians and stakeholders about the need for this, and it was identified then.

As mentioned by my colleagues and in my opening remarks, 170 consultations have taken place in the province over the past year. Most people would suggest that's not jamming anything down. Actually, we're doing exactly what we said we would do. I'm proud of the process that we undertook to bring this statute to fruition.

My only final comment is that I'm proud of the leadership role that we have taken in responding to the needs of protecting people's personal information in a statute that's made in British Columbia and that strikes a balance in recognizing the importance of people's personal information, but at the same time not putting together something that would stifle small and medium-sized businesses — those same businesses that we're depending on in turning the economy around in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the question is second reading of Bill 38, the Personal Information Protection Act.

Hon. S. Santori: I move that Bill 38 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38, Personal Information Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY