2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 25, Number 9

[ Page 8145 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: I call for continued debate on Bill 3.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2011

(continued)

C. Hansen: At the close of debate yesterday afternoon I had the chance to get partway through my remarks on Bill 3 before the House adjourned at 6:30 last evening. I do want to continue but just reiterate some of the points that I made last night.

I think we have to make sure in British Columbia that we have a regime that ensures that the privacy of personal information is sacrosanct, that we do everything that needs to be done to make sure that data that is in the possession of government is kept confidential and that in no way does personal information get disclosed in a way that is inappropriate and not released in a way that for the individual whose information it is would cause problems.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I believe we do have a good and rigorous regime in British Columbia for the protection of personal information. I think we have to constantly be vigilant in making sure that we are following best practices and that those privacy provisions are constantly enhanced and constantly keeping pace with changing technologies that are out there.

[1005]

But while we do that, we also have to make sure that we use the data in a way that can actually help us find the answers to many of the public policy challenges that we have before us as legislators in this chamber. And in British Columbia we do have a wealth of information.

As I pointed out yesterday, I think a lot of it is in making sure that information — particularly, health data is the one that I'm thinking about — is not just available to the officials and to health care practitioners and health care administrators but in fact is available to individuals and that I as an individual citizen should have access to my data so that I can review that from time to time, but in a way, of course, that protects the privacy and the confidentiality of that data.

That's something I don't think we do enough of. Even with the move towards electronic health records in Canada, we don't do enough to facilitate personal access to our own information. I use the example of PharmaNet data. I was thrilled with the new initiative that's underway through the myehealth.ca website, where an individual can actually go in and look at what their blood test results were.

In my case I got to see that even before my doctor phoned me to tell me what was in there, so I found that quite intriguing.

In the balance of my remarks I want to talk about another aspect of the use of data in British Columbia, because as I pointed out last evening, we have some of the best health data, not just in Canada but in the world.

You know, people often talk about Iceland as having this wealth of longitudinal data that goes back, actually, into the 1800s, where they had tracked health data and health information about individual citizens. That data now has become a very important tool in actually looking for some of the answers to some of the health challenges that we have.

Iceland is known around the world by researchers as having this wealth of data that can be made available in ways that protects privacy today. In fact, if you look at the history of Iceland, that was not always the case. But today I think they have thoroughly strengthened the privacy provisions to make sure that that data is in keeping with modern best practices.

If you think about Iceland, it's a very homogenous population. There is very little cultural diversity in the Icelandic population. It's relatively a small population as well, yet it has the answers to a lot of the mysteries that are out there today.

One of the other very famous sources of data when it comes to health research is the nurses health study that was started in the United States in the mid-1970s. I think initially there were 160,000 participants or so. In the 1980s the study was broadened considerably, and I think it rose to about 250,000 female nurses in the U.S. that voluntarily participated in this survey, where they would be answering questionnaires periodically that would be fed into the database. Today it is actually another source of incredible information that is used by researchers around the world.

Even if you look at the nurses health study in the U.S., a phenomenal tool and a phenomenal resource, it is fairly limited. First of all, it is a database of female nurses who voluntarily participate in this particular longitudinal study. A lot of researchers would say, "Wow, this is a great big database of a quarter of a million people," but it's only a quarter of a million people in that database.
[ Page 8146 ]

Now, let's think about what we have in British Columbia. We have the MSP data that goes back to the 1960s. Some of that early data isn't very usable, but certainly the data that we've had over the last 20 years in the MSP is of a very good quality and is highly usable.

Then, when you also realize that we've got the PharmaNet data that I talked about yesterday that goes back to 1995, I believe it is, and if you start looking at the ability to connect those two databases together through the linked data sets — as is envisioned and is currently happening, actually, but is strengthened in the provisions of Bill 3 — we have the ability to make sure that personal information is protected, and yet these databases can be combined in a way that allows us to find the answers to some of these mysteries that are out there today.

[1010]

When they do the linked data sets, they totally strip them of any identifiers. You may have a data set that's used for research purposes of, say, 2,000 people in British Columbia who suffer from a particular illness. But the researchers that receive these linked data sets would have no way of identifying who any one of those 2,000 individuals were. It's aggregated data that can be used in a way that protects privacy.

I would say to this House that we not only should facilitate access to that data; we have an obligation, I think, as a government and as a society, to make sure that the treasure trove of data is used in the most optimal way possible for the betterment of health care, not just in British Columbia but, indeed, for the betterment of humanity in terms of the health solutions that could be out there.

I'll throw out an example. We wind up from time to time identifying adverse drug reactions. Think about how an adverse drug reaction is identified today. It typically, actually, comes from pharmacists, occasionally family doctors or others in the medical profession, that say: "You know, I had a patient the other day who had this particular reaction, and I had another one, actually, two months ago that had sort of a similar reaction. I wonder if there's a connection."

That's usually what would trigger some kind of an investigation and research, and they would then find out that, yes, if a patient is taking this medication and this medication or they take it at the same time instead of four hours apart or they take it before a meal rather than after a meal, there's an adverse reaction to it.

Adverse drug reactions actually kill many, many people globally every year. It makes me wonder if we in British Columbia have answers to some of those — not relying on the limitations of human observation to sort of make the connection of coincidences that should be investigated but actually to explore the data that we have and determine through that research whether or not there are adverse drug reactions that take place that could be prevented.

I believe that we should be proactively pushing our data out to be available to researchers much more aggressively than we are today so that some of that research can be done.

I am told that in British Columbia today there is such a wall, such a resistance, to approving applications for access to data that we are losing research dollars.

We've got very competent scientists in British Columbia. We've got excellent researchers who are applying for national and international grants, successfully, that are in the millions of dollars of research money that would come into British Columbia to do particular research using the data that we have available. Then they start the laborious process of getting the approval to use that particular data set and, again, with total privacy protection for the individuals whose data is being utilized.

I am told that in many cases our researchers in British Columbia lose their grants because that process takes so long. I believe that we should change the whole attitude and approach to the use of data. It should be one of not saying, as I mentioned yesterday, sort of this immediate knee-jerk reaction: "Whoa, there are privacy issues involved." Let's deal with the privacy issues up front, make sure they're there, but let's aggressively use the data and make sure that we're facilitating this research in every way that we possibly can.

I believe that research should be able to apply for preapproval. When they submit an application for millions of dollars of research grants coming internationally or from other parts of Canada into British Columbia, they should be able to submit a letter that actually confirms that that researcher is going to be able to get access to the data that they need in a timely way to facilitate that research.

There are other aspects of it. You take, for example, new pharmaceutical products that are invented globally. I can remember being on the receiving end of many pharmacoeconomic studies that were done by drug manufacturers, and the studies done in very controlled circumstances, that showed that if we only approved drug X under the PharmaCare program and provided taxpayer-funded access to a particular medication, it was going to save the health care system millions of dollars, because it would prevent the need for surgeries or it would mean that people could stay at home longer or all of the things that purportedly would save the health care system money.

[1015]

One of the problems with a lot of those studies is that the clinical trials are done in very clinical circumstances, as they should be. But they're not necessarily the real world. So what we have today is data of real people in the real world in terms of how that drug performed. Did it really produce the results that the pharmaceutical manufacturers claimed it was going to? And we have the
[ Page 8147 ]
ability, using this data that we have today, to actually call them out on it.

If we can go in and verify, using our data in British Columbia, that a particular medication is going to save the health care system a lot of money, you know what? We should be sharing that information with other jurisdictions around the world so that they can save money in their health care systems as well.

At the same time, if we wind up with a product that we haven't approved under PharmaCare — and there are lots of these — but yet they're still approved by Health Canada…. So if we've got British Columbians who are getting access to the medication — not paid for by PharmaCare, but still they're using the medications — that would all be tracked through our PharmaNet system.

You know what? After a couple of years there is probably data that's in there so that we can go back and look again at whether those pharmacoeconomic studies done by the manufacturers in fact prove there is savings to the system. Even three or four years after we've denied approval for a drug, maybe we should rethink it, because maybe there's evidence that it will in fact save the system money at the end of the day. That's the kind of research I think we have an obligation to push forward.

In closing, I fully support Bill 3. I think it's an important step forward to bring us into the 21st century, recognizing that we've got new technologies that are available in terms of the management of data. We've got new tools that are available, that allow us to ensure that privacy protection can be even enhanced to a greater degree. There are provisions, I think, in the legislation that also will answer some of the concerns that I have had about faster access to data, I think taking some of the uncertainties out of legislation and regulations that have been barriers to the utilization of data up till now.

I think that for those that administer access to data, they will get more comfort from the language that is being present in the legislation, because it will take some of the uncertainty out and give them the licence to make sure that this data can be used in an appropriate way but in a more expeditious way as well.

So I urge members of the Legislature to support the legislation, but I also hope that we can have a broader discussion about access to data and the utilization of data that we have in British Columbia, because it is truly a treasure trove that we should be making more aggressive use of in the future.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak about Bill 3, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. The speaker before me provided a very interesting perspective and, I think, a very thoughtful perspective on the protection of privacy part. I think it sets a standard for debate in the House — something that is new, something that interests members and brings a perspective that is important.

I'm going to be concentrating on a different part of the bill, the part of the bill that I have the most concern about, and that would be around the access to information. So my remarks are going to focus on the shortcomings that are here in this bill.

I need to be clear that this is not the legislation that the province needs. To be frank, this is legislation that continues to allow a government to hide. That has been a problem for the past decade, and this legislation does not deal with that problem adequately. We had a presentation by our critic that covered a whole host of areas very effectively that were weakness that needed to be addressed with the legislation and have not been addressed with Bill 3.

There is no question that within the House there are MLAs that have studied this issue. There have been two committees over the past ten years. Both committees produced bodies of work that have had little pieces presented in this bill, but the overall thrust that came from those committees really has not been embraced.

[1020]

I think we have to be frank. There is a tendency that is very difficult for a government to get past. We know that it is often in the government's perceived interest to hide information, and I'll say "perceived" because I think it is actually in the perceived interest. It's convenient. It's something that governments instinctively do once they're put under pressure, which they almost immediately are. But in hiding information, there becomes, inevitably, an abuse of power. Certainly, since I have come here in 2005, I've seen again and again a government that is more than willing to hide the realities from the people of British Columbia.

Let's distinguish what is in the government's perceived interest and what is in the public interest. The public interest is, of course, to have information available to them so that they can judge what is going on.

What this bill does is continue to put the government's perceived interest in hiding facts before the clear public interest to actually have information available to the public so that they can prevent politicians from abusing the position that they have and so that they can see accurately what is actually happening with the tax dollars that they provide to government and with policies that deeply impact their lives. So we have that tension between the government interest and the wider public interest.

What I want to say is that there is a unique opportunity right now to actually do what is right in terms of access to information. I think most people would perceive that this is a government on its way out. I think that time, as much as anything else, has caught up with this government, and I think members on that side perceive that as well. They are in many ways setting up, for the decades to come, a system of looking at access to information.
[ Page 8148 ]

I think that that is a rare opportunity, where a government sees that they're on their way out — and you have an opposition that is still unused to the pressures that come with governing — and the temptation, as well, to try to put information forward, as any government would, to their advantage. We're sitting here with an opportunity now to actually get this legislation right and provide something that is in the public interest. And what I can tell you from my own personal experience…. What has been in place has been anything but in the public interest. It has been in the government's interest.

I can tell you that what makes it even more difficult to tolerate is the fact that in 2001 so much was promised. This was a government that the Premier, Gordon Campbell at the time, promised would be a model for openness. There was a promise that it would be the most open and accountable government in the history of the world, bar none, forever, in the galaxy. The promises that were made, compared to the realities that we actually saw, were light-years apart — to use the analogy that you might have with the galaxy. I mean, the realities were so different from what was promised.

Even in the speeches that introduced this legislation, talking about it being some of the best legislation in the country…. Well, you take independent groups, newspapers that have looked at this jurisdiction, and what are the conclusions that they reach? They rate us as one of the worst jurisdictions in the country in terms of being able to provide information in a forthright, timely manner.

I'll just talk for a few minutes about the experience that I've had with the legislation — problems that have not been rectified with this legislation. My experience began as a critic for PavCo back in 2006, somewhat naively walking into the Legislature, thinking that there would be systems in place for accountability. I was with the MLA for Delta North, and we were in estimates.

[1025]

We were asking about the inflatable roof of B.C. Place, which was nearing the end of its 25-year life. And the member for Delta North said: "Well, what's the plan on that? You know, it's nearing the end of its life span. What are you going to do?" The minister at the time, quite correctly, said: "Well, we don't have that information. We'll get back to you." So, subsequent to that question, staff prepared a report, and that report was called Infrastructure Improvements to B.C. Place Stadium. Now, we know that's what the title was, but that's all we know.

Here's how freedom of information works in real life — worked and will continue to work after this. There was a 15-page report produced, and through freedom of information, it was made public. We know the title because that's the only part that wasn't whited out. All 14 other pages — I mean, it's funny, but it's not — were whited out. I have to think back. I don't even know if they left the page numbers. The rest of it was secret. So we asked a question about the roof of B.C. Place and whether it was going to be fine or not, what work had been done, and the government, in its most open and accountable way, after a long process of freedom of information, decided to give us a 15-page report, whited out, with the title.

What had happened, of course, is that between the request and the freedom-of-information work that needed to be done, the B.C. Place roof went through its rather famous and public deflation. And suddenly the government, embarrassed by possibly bungling the file, decided that since they were able to, they would simply hide anything that could shine a bad light on what they had done.

Now, what is in the public's interest? The public's interest would be served by getting the facts on the situation, having those being made public and learning a lesson. What the government was able to get away with is simply a cover-up of those facts so that we would really never be able to find out what advice had been given to the government, what should have been done. All of that was lost.

So that's part of my experience with freedom of information — obviously, not a very encouraging experience.

My second experience would be with, I think, one of the most bungled projects in the history of this province, which is the expansion of the Vancouver Convention Centre. If there is a more bungled project, I really don't know what it would be. I don't know how you can promise a project for $495 million….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Really? So $495 million promised. What did it end up costing? It was $900 million.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Well, we've got lots of opinions on this.

There's disagreement on which B.C. Liberal project is the most bungled, but I guess my opinion is the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project. But if we want to throw in the B.C. Place roof…. I mean, there are all sorts of examples of mismanagement. Most timely, we could also talk about CLBC. Lots of examples.

So the convention centre, then, promised at $495 million, actually ends up costing $900 million. It's fair to say that the public might have some interest in how a project could go that far sideways. The answer lies, obviously, with the composition of the board — a choice of, rather than going to expertise, going to B.C. Liberal insiders. If you look at the list of the board members, you
[ Page 8149 ]
can see that's who was there. You can see a project that was started with an artificial timeline set by the Premier. That was a problem. You could see that it was a project that was started without a plan, if you can believe it. They didn't have a plan. And therefore, it's almost inevitable that it would go sideways.

[1030]

It's almost inevitable, given legislation like this, that there'd be a temptation by Premier Campbell and by his cabinet to hide it. And hide it, they did.

Like I say, if you give a government the opportunity to hide its mistakes, there's a pretty strong temptation to do it, and this is a temptation that the government felt no compulsion to avoid. They hid it. So we did a freedom of information just asking for the minutes of their meetings, which they said were not public. They said that they were private. They first went through where they asked for money. Then we had to go through a process of being excused as legislators. We went through the whole process, and eventually, very eventually, we got the minutes.

The minutes are interesting. Of course, you have a list of who is present: Ken Dobell, and you had Grant Ritchie, Terry Lyons, Paul Taylor, Andrew Wilkinson. These are names well familiar to anybody who follows B.C. politics.

Then it goes into what was discussed. Well, what the public gets to know is that there was an agenda and that it was seconded and resolved and moved that the agenda be adopted. Then we get into the discussion. Now, it's all blacked out. So whatever was discussed is blacked out. We go to the next page and, again, discussion. That's the only thing that is not blacked out. Everything else is all gone. As you go through the minutes, it's like that again and again.

So we did an appeal, and we asked…. You go to a separate area, a separate body, and they look at it, and you get another chance. It is months on. It's so far gone that the issue has died in the public's mind. We get a different set of minutes with pieces that were previously removed now there.

I defy anyone to look at the logic for what had previously been removed that is now there. There will be things like somebody leaving the meeting for five minutes. Now, why had it been crossed out in the first place and then, upon appeal, they decided to let us know that Ken Dobell left for five minutes? There is no logic. All there is, is a legislation that is in place that allows government to hide what it finds embarrassing. I put it to you that it allows an abuse of power. It allows a lack of accountability.

You know what happened with this project when it really went into the public mind and there was a ton of pressure put on government because of it? They made changes. They changed that board, and they changed who ran the project. They brought in David Podmore. I think people on both sides noticed the difference when a professional was brought in. It was a lot to clean up, but just that accountability, that pressure, forced changes for the better.

When you remove tools that allow an opposition or a public to identify problems, you almost guarantee that those problems will continue to exist. In this case, what if we had been able to see what was happening right at the beginning? What if we knew that they were starting a project that didn't have a plan? What if the public knew that that promise of $495 million was fictitious? What if we knew? Would it have happened?

So when I say that it is in the perceived interests of government to hide facts, it really isn't in either the public interest or, really, the interest of government. In the end, what did the B.C. Liberals end up with? The most bungled project in the history of this province, and that's the fact.

Differences? Well, in the first example I gave you, they used whiteout. In the second example I gave you, they used black felt markers, but in almost every example, the same result — hiding information.

I just want to give you an example just of something more recent. It's a timeline I'll give you. This is a gentleman from Revelstoke. He came to my office.

[1035]

He had a question, a bit of information he wanted around a gravel pit that really impacted his property. He just had questions that he wanted answered. This is not big government secrets. It's just about the process. It bothered him. It impacted his house.

He was directed to use the freedom-of-information process to get what he wanted. So he asked a direct question, and they said to use freedom of information — okay? So we would help with the process. My office would help. We would phone and try to have this gentleman from Revelstoke actually able to access the information that he wanted.

Just to give you a sense of how it worked. On September 7, 2010, he applied for information through the freedom-of-information process, to the agency. I think it's the information access operations. The application was made on September 7, 2010. Very quickly there was a receipt acknowledgment. That came on September 9, and a letter was sent assigning a case number. On September 20 a letter arrived assigning a fee of $225.

Now, this gentleman just wanted a tiny page and didn't feel that that was fair. So on November 11 my constituent requested a fee waiver. On December 9, 2010, the fee waiver was denied. On February 7 an appeal to the fee was opened with a new agency called the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Meanwhile, at the original agency a letter was sent early in the new year from that agency saying that the file was abandoned, even though the original agency knew that an appeal was ongoing. So now he's in the
[ Page 8150 ]
midst of another process and is told: "Oh, by the way, time has elapsed. Your original application for information is abandoned."

Okay, so he has to work through that. By the time you get to September, October, the fee issue has been worked out and the original agency is back, accepting that they have to work on it. But it has been a year for a simple piece of information around something that impacts an individual profoundly. They are directed to the freedom-of-information office, expecting it to work in some timely way, and it doesn't. It fails again and again and again.

You have an opportunity with this bill to fix some of the obvious shortcomings, to deal with an issue that, as MLAs, we all know needs to be dealt with. There are few opportunities when it actually can be dealt with. This is one of those opportunities. This is an opportunity for MLAs who have served on committees, who know what needs to be done, who know that they can put in place a piece of legislation that will serve the public.

It will make it more difficult for the government — there's no question — but in a good way. Just as the Auditor General can really make a difference for the people of B.C., just as the children's commissioner can make a difference, all the time making it a bit awkward and uncomfortable for government, it's in the public interest for sure.

With this bill, we were fortunate to have the critic lay out in such an expansive way the shortcomings and the failures of the bill. From our perspective, we feel that this is a bill that could and should be so much more. This is an area that needs to be done properly. It hasn't been, despite all the rhetoric that accompanied this government coming to power in 2001.

We won't be supporting the bill. We will be looking for opportunities and, I would hope, during the committee stage, to try to advance some of the changes. We would look for opportunities and, I hope, from the minister, an openness to make this bill something that can really be as effective as the people of British Columbia need it to be.

With that, I thank, as always, the House for the opportunity to speak.

[1040]

Hon. H. Bloy: We are here this morning to talk about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was first introduced back in 1992 — a time when government didn't operate on line. As you might expect, the act is showing its age. The basic purpose of the amendment is to bring the act into line with modern-day realities and recognize the expectations of British Columbians regarding how they wish to interact with government.

Where it will really benefit is people living in rural areas of this province. They will especially benefit from the enhanced on-line services, where they currently have to travel long distances to access government services. The amendments to FOIPPA strike a balance between the rights of citizens to access information held by public bodies and the right to have their own information protected.

It is really important for the rights of individuals to have their information protected from abuse of power or an abuse of people that continuously go to the privacy act, requesting information even though it has been turned down on many occasions by the commissioner.

These amendments will continue government's practice of enhancing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to ensure that it remains the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada. In fact, the act stipulates that a review must take place every six years, and these amendments are the result of the mandatory review and service to modernize the act.

I'm pleased that I was able to serve on both committees, to bring it to this point, and I fully support the amendments that are before us today in Bill 3. The proposed amendments to the act were made upon recommendations by the special committee that reviewed the act, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and from 118 submissions from stakeholders, including UBCM and the broader public sector.

We also consulted with citizens. B.C. Stats led a focus group and conducted surveys with people from around the province in order to inform us when, where and how they wanted and expected to receive government services.

We asked the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to participate, but they declined. I don't know why they declined. Their input was very valued, and I believe that they should have participated, as they have commented on many occasions throughout the year.

The ministry consulted extensively with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on these amendments. The amendments package includes positive change and is leading edge in a number of areas for British Columbia versus all of Canada.

We have added strong new oversight powers for the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The commissioner has the authority to review and comment up front before programs are designed to ensure that we are operating with a high level of privacy awareness. This is something that's very important for government, the ministries and all the different committees that work, as they're developing new programs that have available information from the public — that their privacy be protected.

But what is important is that we're going through step by step to review it with the commissioner, to get her approval on where we're going so that we're not developing a plan with all good intentions that doesn't meet the privacy guidelines.
[ Page 8151 ]

The new authorities we're introducing are so that we'll involve the commissioner's office at the front end, as I have talked about. This ensures that we are designing these properly from the outset rather than after-the-fact review. The Information and Privacy Commissioner says of the proposed changes: "Overall, these changes attempt to balance sharing citizens' information for government service delivery with increased oversight to protect the privacy of British Columbians." That's from Elizabeth Denham in a news release on October of this year.

The privacy of information has improved in numbers over the last many years. According to the commissioner, this year government has done even better. I'm pleased to report that government's on-time performance now stands at 93 percent.

[1045]

This year the government's average response time was 22 days, down from 24 days reported by us last year and down 71 days from 2001. Office of the Premier on-time responses is now 99 percent within time frames, up 24 percent from 2001.

In fact, because of the government's strong performance on freedom-of-information response times, her report states: "Next year, rather than reporting on timelines, I will shift my focus, to assess government's efforts to make more information publicly available." These amendments are strengthening and modernizing one of the strongest freedom-of-information acts in the country.

This government has made a commitment to opening up government in ways that we haven't seen before in British Columbia. We are holding open town hall meetings in communities across British Columbia. We have created the new cabinet committee on open government and engagement, which is examining new opportunities for open government, open data and more proactive disclosure of information.

We also launched two new websites committed to open government: Data B.C. and Open Information. Freedom-of-information requests are being proactively posted on the new Open Information website at least 72 hours after being released to the applicant. So there is that much more information available to the public every day on applications.

Our new information website also posts the travel expenses of the Premier, cabinet ministers and deputy ministers. Data B.C. is a catalogue of nearly 2,500 sets of data that are free, searchable and available for anyone to use and repurpose. B.C. is the first province in Canada to create a website like Data B.C.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner supports Open B.C., saying: "Government has taken a positive step towards promoting openness with the introduction of its open information and open data initiative."

The amendments will enable us to move forward with the new B.C. services card, an optional card that will combine your driver's licence and CareCard. This will allow citizens to establish secure on-line credentials and gain the ability to access government services on line that they currently can only access in person.

Some examples of how the new B.C. service card will help our constituents include on-line access to your own health information, like prescriptions history and lab test results, as was earlier outlined by the former Minister of Health as he went on about all the benefits in health about our access to information; confirming eligibility for health care services in quick and easy ways; securing changing your address in government programs; and registering your children in school on line. The new B.C. services card will have extensive privacy protections built in, more so than the current driver's licence or the CareCards or even smart chip credit cards.

The amendments will also enable information-sharing across government in order to better deliver individual programs housed in different ministries to assist citizens in an integrative way. This will help us to deal with people like chronic offenders, who have probation officers, substance abuse counsellors, a supportive housing team and a Crown prosecutor. Currently they interact with the offender in an uncoordinated way. The amendments will enable all government officials to act as a team and break down the silos and achieve even better solutions.

I fully support Bill 3. These amendments will benefit all British Columbians. I believe that what we have done is right. I believe the recommendations that are being put in Bill 3 are fair and comprehensive for all British Columbians.

I support remarks earlier where we talked about being able to access funding for health care and research, where we couldn't share, and it wasn't a name. It was what research people need to make lives healthier for all British Columbians and for all Canadians. We've lost all kinds of matching dollars to other provinces because we haven't been able to share certain information, and I believe that we should.

[1050]

I heard the opposition talk about B.C. Place and the convention centre. I can tell you that I worked with the World Police and Fire Games in supporting them when they came to British Columbia in 2009. One of the first events that was held there was the registration for the World Police and Fire Games. I can tell you that when they came and registered from all over the world, nearly 14,000 individuals, they would walk out into the lobby out of the registration area and look across at North Vancouver. The word "wow" was repeated regularly, every moment when they came and saw the view of British Columbia.

The B.C. convention centre will still be standing there, will still be used in the next 50 years. It's a benefit to British Columbia. This year, 2011, has been a record-breaking year for conventions in British Columbia. It's because of that.
[ Page 8152 ]

I heard questions concerning B.C. Place. You know, we have a world-standard sports stadium now that'll house our football team, and it will bring the Grey Cup back to British Columbia. Hopefully, the B.C. Lions, after their eighth win in a row, will be there to share in that.

We have to look at the results. We have to look at what's good for all British Columbians, not just a few. These results start to protect some individuals where there's been an abuse of power, where individuals come and keep filing claims against some people, even after they lose each appeal. Hopefully, with the commissioner, we'll be able to look at these in advance.

I want to say how much I support this bill, how much I've worked on it. I look forward to the opposition supporting it as well.

K. Conroy: I, too, rise to express my concerns about Bill 3, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

Over the last ten years there have been a number of times where advice has been gathered on the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. There have been duly commissioned parliamentary committees, with representation from both sides of the Legislature. There have been hundreds of presentations from both those that worked in the Legislature and interested people from various walks of life, people who were involved in different groups and organizations who've had direct experiences with freedom of information and individuals who have shared very personal experiences with the process.

There has also been an act that has been presided over by a number of different ministers in the past ten years. There have actually been nine ministers since 2001, with just two in the last seven months. So one has to wonder if the lack of commitment to ensuring that the input government has received in the last ten years is not implemented is due to revolving ministers or to a government that really doesn't want to practise what it preaches — open and transparent government.

Not only did the former Premier spout his commitment to transparency and open government as an opposition member, he continued this as a Premier. Now our newest Premier has also said she wants open government and transparency. But where is the proof of that in this bill?

What is interesting in the bill that has been brought in is what isn't contained in it — how, after all these years, the act still won't contain changes people have been asking for, for over ten years.

We do support the move to modernize the act and provide efficient services to citizens. The problem, though, is this bill disempowers privacy protection while failing to use the modernization motive to reduce fees, increase access or reduce wait times.

It seems, when reading through the bill and comparing it to the multitude of presentations made, that the government listened most intently to themselves, bringing in the majority of their own recommendations while virtually ignoring everyone else's.

In the last round of submissions to the latest parliamentary committee, it was interesting to listen to the presentation by Paul Fraser, the former interim Privacy Commissioner. He was clear in his direction that the government should take. He also gave some history in that he has been an advocate for freedom-of-information legislation since 1976, when he was the new president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association. There he appointed a committee to draft suggestions to the provincial government for such legislation in hopes that B.C. would be the first in Canada to have such a law.

He was certainly ahead of his time. As we all know, the legislation in B.C. wasn't brought in until 1993 when a progressive government was there to ensure it was brought in.

[1055]

He gave an excellent presentation to the committee last year, with a thoughtful and respectful analysis of what had already been presented. I will refer to some of his presentation as I respond to this bill.

He made a statement that we should all agree with, in that:

"Privacy is both a right and a value. Personal privacy is part of every citizen in British Columbia's DNA. It is as important as free speech, as the presumption of innocence, as the right to equality, as the right to a fair trial. All of that has become kind of trite…over the years, but it's something we should not lose sight of in terms of coming to defend and recommend the changes to the legislation which enshrines these principles."

I fear that the government has indeed lost sight of this.

In its haste to implement this bill, it has ignored the many recommendations not only from the past legislative committees but from organizations like the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and journalist researchers, to name just a few. The government has indeed rushed this bill through and hasn't taken the time to do the research required.

Again from Mr. Fraser's submission:

"One of the things that governments and those interested in the subject of privacy must do is conduct research — research that would examine real evidence of what's going on out there rather than just accepting bold assertions about privacy barriers. We simply can't allow untested privacy claims to trigger unnecessary and possibly even harmful dilution of the balanced and reasonable privacy rights now found in FIPPA, which is more generous to government in the area of data sharing than in any other Canadian privacy laws."

This leads one to ask: how much research has been done? Why the rush to bring in this bill, when so many of the recommendations made aren't contained in it?

Even the commissioner herself, Elizabeth Denham, has said: "The devil is in the details…. There is still much work to be done."

So we ask: why the rush? The role of the commissioner in formulating the all-important rules and regulations is not accommodated. The architecture of how the data sharing will occur has not been defined.
[ Page 8153 ]

The privacy changes this bill will enact are being enacted even though it was made clear that the legislation prior to Bill 3 being introduced was more than sufficient to enable the necessary privacy requirements the government wants. Mr. Fraser agrees with this.

"Our view is that there is no need to add or amend any of the privacy rules in FIPPA — that they are already sufficiently broad and flexible enough to accommodate integrated service delivery.

"In the oral submissions the government representatives repeatedly noted that public bodies are confused about the meaning of certain provisions of FIPPA and take different approaches to interpretations of the same section. We agree that the fundamental issue is the lack of understanding that public servants have with respect to some of the provisions of FIPPA. But the answer, in our respectful opinion, doesn't lie in creating a new set of rules but rather in providing leadership and clarity around existing rules."

Mr. Fraser goes on to talk about the apparent deficiencies in the act apparent — I repeat, apparent — not real deficiencies, that the government representatives had presented, how privacy legislation has had to adjust to meet technological changes. Again, he says it so succinctly.

"That's made the legislation, without question, complicated. It has made the legislation not easy, at first impression, to interpret and to understand. But the legislation is, I can assure you, in a form and shape at the moment where all of the circumstances that were…contemplated by the government as being necessary to eradicate in order to make sure that the case management system could survive and prosper are already catered to in FIPPA."

I repeat Mr. Fraser again. They are already catered to in the existing act, in the existing legislation.

He agrees that the act can be complicated, but it is the training and guidelines and guidance with respect to the act that has been missing. He goes onto make a recommendation in how this can be accomplished — that the position of a privacy officer be created.

Well, instead of taking the recommendation that a privacy commissioner be appointed, this bill, Bill 3, gives expanded powers to the existing privacy commissioner. Now, this is a concern, given the existing workload of this commissioner and the staff who are currently working in this office, all in an environment of much greater complexity and technical requirements.

[1100]

Every year this office has to go to the Finance and Government Services Committee for funding approvals. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has endured constant budget cuts over the years. I will say there have been a few increases, but those always came in response to special appeals to the government, based on the huge legal costs imposed by the government's constant legal challenges and appeals of the office's decision, which forced government to reverse exemptions and refusals.

We know that even when these appeals for funds were approved, they were approved in lower amounts than requested by the office. It is interesting and a sad fact to note that the B.C. Office of the Privacy Commissioner is the most litigated office in Canada. And why is this? Well, primarily because B.C. challenges its own office more than any other province in Canada.

I have some examples of that. The Ministry of Labour fought hard against the release of employment standards enforcement records. A request was filed in July 2006. The first thing the ministry did was give itself a 30-day working extension. Two months later the researcher was given a fee estimate of $4,200 and told he would not only have to pay this fee but also agree to pay any additional costs incurred by the ministry.

Unable to afford this, the researcher asked the minister for a fee waiver because of the public interest in the information. The minister refused the waiver, noting that there was no pressing or urgent need for disclosure of this information. In November 2006 the researcher asked the commissioner to review the minister's decision. Ten months later, in September 2007, the commissioner decided that a formal inquiry was warranted.

In July 2009, 15 months after the inquiry, the commissioner ruled in favour of the researcher. The documents were supposed to be released by August 5, but the ministry asked the commissioner to reconsider the decision. After a media story about the ministry's conduct, the ministry changed its mind and released the documents.

Here's another example, and that would be the dispute around the IBM contract with the B.C. government, which pertains to the "nuts and bolts of the unprecedented contracting out of core services to large corporations that occurred during the Liberals' first term."

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Association made an FOI request for the contract in December 2004. FIPA applied to view the more than 600-page contract signed with IBM, one of four hefty long-term deals cut with private firms worth well over a billion dollars. In April 2005 IBM complained about potential release, and the government then refused to release records. In July 2008 the commissioner demanded that the documents be handed over.

The government appealed to the courts, and in December 2009 the British Columbia Supreme Court also ordered release of the contract but not in its entirety. As my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned, the documents arrived heavily censored. This version of the contract was released on January 11, 2010. More fighting will be required to actually gain access to the full contract — six years and untold millions to avoid accountability.

Here's one more. The Suzuki Foundation requested sea lice data from 2006. After the government exempted the info based on protecting the privacy interests of a third party, the commissioner ruled that they must release the information. The government appealed and lost. The government then resorted to other sections of the act and were again ordered to release the information.
[ Page 8154 ]

Even the fish-farming industry has agreed that the information should be released, but the government has refused. The government finally relented to some degree, releasing some information to the Cohen Commission. But at what cost? What is it costing this province to be continually putting up blocks and appeals, and to what end? Certainly not to support their claim of an open and transparent government.

I only hope there has been additional resources earmarked to support this. The increased responsibility is now on the commissioner's shoulders. It is unrealistic to expect the commissioner or her office to undertake these new responsibilities without any increase in their budget.

In fact, yesterday the member for Parksville-Qualicum spoke about the Privacy Commissioner's approval of the act. In fact, she gave rather tepid support. She supports the stated intention, but she questions the lack of details. She says: "There is much work to be done before an accurate assessment of the act can be made." All the commissioner has said positively has been tempered by her own concerns about the funding for her office and lack of details.

[1105]

The act also does nothing to address the continuing growth in wait times, not only for opposition parties like ours who put in freedom-of-information requests but many other organizations and individuals who continue to wait for their request to be addressed. None of the time limitation clauses were addressed. The committee made several recommendations to reduce these waits. None of the recommendations were adopted in this act.

The act does nothing to address the Canadian Newspaper Association rating of B.C. as the last-place province in freedom of information in Canada. We are the only province where the allowable response to freedom-of-information times is 30 business days rather than 30 calendar days. This allows the acceptable time to an average of 56 days. Responses are still late about 50 percent of the time. By the 30-calendar measure, they fail 87 percent of the time.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The act does nothing to address the growing "no records" response. This response, given just inside the allowable time limits, distorts the performance record to the positive without answering the real call of the legislation. It is also clearly a false tactic, as displayed during the HST debate, as BCFIPA and the NDP both got a "no records" response while media actually got the documents that were being requested.

The bill does nothing to narrow the definition of the public interest in determining the obligation on the part of the head of a public body to release information in the public interest. And fees.

Fees have always been an issue for many who have submitted freedom-of-information requests. The fee schedule will not be adjusted with this bill. It does nothing to ensure equity of access to information. If you have access to the required funds, you can get information, but if you don't, you're out of luck, unless you get a sheet that's totally blacked out. Again, people can appeal the fees. But we have heard many examples of delays and even where the appeals have been denied and have increased….

No wonder we hear the cry from the 99 percent in this province — that they want to be heard. It's the 1 percent who have the means to pay for the information, but rarely do they need it. It's the 99 percent who need it and can't afford it. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund appealed a fee estimate of $24,000. In response, the ministry increased its fee estimate to $173,000.

Further fee barriers are evident in the electronic access regulations. The fee structure established in the act's regulations allow public bodies to charge nearly $1,000 dollars per hour for mainframe access. This charge doesn't include the $30-per-hour charge for creating the program to produce the records stored by government — again, putting freedom of information out of reach for average folks.

The committee did recommend the waiving of fees in numerous non-complaint circumstances or where government fails to meet its obligations. This was not implemented into Bill 3.

The idea that bureaucratic expediency should trump the principles of privacy protection is just wrong. But let me quote others who have said it much more eloquently. I want to read from the press release from FIPA, the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

"The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association are raising the alarm over amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act introduced yesterday.

"'The government has decided on a policy to massively increase the personal information collected, stored and shared with others. This law pushes us all further down that treacherous path. Yet projects like this that centralize huge amounts of data have been discredited the world over. Such personal information banks violate privacy rights, cost billions and often end up in waste of money,' said Micheal Vonn, policy director of the BCCLA. 'B.C. should throw out the plan and this bill. British Columbians' privacy rights should not be eroded for the sake of bureaucrats' vision of government efficiency, a shortsighted vision that has all too often proven to be a failure.'

"The Ministry of Education's nearly $100 million student data centralization system is being scrapped after a $250,000 independent review in September concluded it did not perform satisfactorily.

[1110]

"Calls have recently been issued for Canada to revisit centralized electronic health records in the light of scathing evaluations of systems elsewhere which revealed the model to be inefficient, ineffective, costly and wasteful."

Vonn continues:
[ Page 8155 ]

"'The B.C. government is enthralled with the notion of "joined-up" government. By that phrase, bureaucrats mean they get to share your information without permission. The worst example of "joined-up government" is the United Kingdom, and since the last election it has been trying to figure out how to undo years of bureaucratization and mismanagement of data collected about citizens. One U.K. government committee said recently that their system was a "recipe for ripoff." Instead of learning lessons from elsewhere, B.C. plans to repeat their costly mistakes.'

"The two groups were also critical about the lack of amendments to address the dire state of freedom of information in British Columbia."

Again, they quoted how B.C. scored last on the national survey done by Newpapers Canada.

"Vincent Gogolek, the executive director of FIPA, stated: 'While these are the only privacy laws in Canada that specifically enable systems-wide data linkages of citizens' information, the government's enthusiasm for sharing dries up when it's the government's information. All the current FOI law's blatant problems are left to stand, and the bill merely offers a general encouragement for government to post more information on line.'

"'Open government is more than just some data sets on a website,' added Gogolek. 'We expected more from a Premier who based her leadership campaign on open government and transparency.'"

In summary, I couldn't agree more with the people at FIPA, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and Paul Fraser, who are experts in this field and in this sector and truly understand the need for true freedom-of-information and privacy legislation. I will join with my colleagues in not supporting the half-hearted attempt to redefine freedom-of-information and privacy legislation.

Hon. M. McNeil: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 3, to emphasize the importance of these amendments to both government and public bodies.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was first introduced in 1992, at a time when the government didn't operate on line. As you might expect, the act is showing its age. The basic purpose of these amendments is to bring the act into line with modern-day realities, recognizing the expectations of British Columbians regarding how they wish to interact with government. It is time.

The member opposite just mentioned the number of ministers over the past years. I want to tell the House how proud I was to have been one of those ministers. There was a value for me in being Minister of Citizens' Services, and it gave me a greater understanding of exactly this issue and what we're talking about. I was able to see the amount of research that went into this topic, and I'm very pleased that we're here today.

People living in rural areas of this province will especially benefit from the enhanced on-line services, where they currently have to travel long distances in order to access government services. The amendments to FOIPPA strike a balance between rights of the citizens to access information held by public bodies and the rights to have their own private information protected.

The Attorney General and the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services have consulted extensively with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on these amendments and others. The amendment package includes positive change and is leading-edge in a number of these areas.

Strong new oversight powers have been added for the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The commissioner has the authority to review and comment upfront, before programs are designed, to ensure that we are operating with a high level of privacy awareness.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner says of the proposed changes: "Overall, these changes attempt to balance sharing citizens' information for government service delivery with increased oversight to protect the privacy of British Columbians." That was in a news release on October 4, 2011.

[1115]

As a former Minister of Citizens' Services, I have travelled this wonderful province, visiting many of our Service B.C. offices in both urban and rural communities. These offices do deliver much-needed services and information to British Columbians, and I often heard from staff, their frustrations with their ability to not be able to do more for British Columbians because of the restrictions presented to them with FOIPPA.

Bill 3 also proposes consequential amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. We need to ensure that we're doing everything we can to protect children's privacy and also serve children, youth and families across B.C. in the best way possible.

These amendments will strengthen protection of privacy of children in government care, and they will also strengthen the protection of privacy of individuals who report suspected child abuse in their communities. This will help maintain the integrity of the child protection services and child abuse investigations.

These amendments aim to enhance protections for families by allowing child protection workers to disclose information in order to reduce the risk that someone will be a victim of domestic violence if it is reasonably likely to occur.

These amendments will also allow our ministry to share certain information with the Ministry of Social Development for the purposes of managing a case across ministries and programs.

The integrated case management will replace decades-old computer systems currently used by both MCFD and the Ministry of Social Development. With a newer system, we will be able to provide better and faster service to clients. The integrated case management system will simplify information management and free up time that social workers currently spend on data entry and administrative tasks, and that'll enable them to spend more time working directly with families.
[ Page 8156 ]

The integrated case management system has many privacy and security features, and it will provide stronger privacy protection for personal information than the system it is replacing. We work closely with the government chief information officer on an ongoing basis to ensure that the privacy and security objectives are incorporated into the design and implementation of this system.

This government has made a commitment to opening up government in ways we haven't seen before in British Columbia. These amendments are further evidence of that openness.

There are many reasons I have highlighted within this speech, but they are just part of what's driving me to rise and speak in support of Bill 3.

I represent the constituency of Vancouver–False Creek, and that constituency has an average age of 37 years. What this means for me as their government representative is that if I want to communicate with these folks, I have to go to where they're communicating, and that is through social media. Bill 3 will allow me to do this far more effectively so that we can discuss government initiatives and policies directly with those British Columbians involved.

The amendments will bring the act into line with modern-day realities. The amendments recognize the expectations of British Columbians regarding how they want to interact with government.

Thank you very much for allowing me to rise in this House and give my full support to Bill 3.

M. Sather: I rise today to join the debate on Bill 3, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2011. I think we have to look a bit here at what I would describe as first principles. One needs to look at what a government does more than at what the government says they're doing.

I think that's probably the case with scrutiny that is deserved on any government, but it's really apparent with this government. After watching this government in operation for ten years, I'm completely convinced that often what they say they're doing is at complete odds with what they are in fact doing.

[1120]

The Premier says that she is committed to open government and open data. I guess I'll have a chance later on to talk about open data, whatever that may be. But what evidence do we have about this government being an open government that should give residents of British Columbia confidence that this bill is actually designed to make government more open?

Well, one of the tenets of democracy is open elections, and yet what is part of an open election? An open election is where you put yourself out there before the public, willing to discuss the issues of the day. That's what we've always done, traditionally, in elections in British Columbia, but that's not where this government has gone, not under Gordon Campbell and not under the current Premier.

When she had the opportunity, during the by-election last spring, to put herself out in the public in an open and transparent manner, to discuss the important issues around her election or the election of her opponent, she said no. She said: "No, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to submit myself to the scrutiny of the great unwashed. I'm, you know, above that."

It's this same Premier that we're supposed to trust, that the public of British Columbia is supposed to trust, that's bringing forth a bill that's going to lead to more openness in government. We have to take it, unfortunately, with a great grain of salt.

This culture of lack of openness. I think Paul Fraser talked about that, about there being a lack of a culture of privacy in the government. It's not just a random phrase from an uneducated person. It's a person who has, I would submit, watched this government in action very carefully and said that there isn't a culture there of protecting privacy — not to the degree, certainly, that we should have in a free and democratic society.

When I ran in 2005, the first time, my opponent refused to join some of the debates, and this has happened in many constituencies throughout the province where the Liberals have asked the public to support them. Yet they won't follow that very basic tenet of open government of putting yourself out there in person before the public who, Lord knows, have little opportunity otherwise to engage with this government.

Whenever Gordon Campbell came to Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows, nobody knew about it except Liberal insiders, and when this Premier came to Maple Ridge recently and went to the shindig at Gordy Robson's place, nobody else knew about it either. Sounds awfully familiar to the same pattern that I've seen before.

This is not open government. So when that government brings a bill before this House and extolls the virtues of it and wants us to believe and wants us to trust that we're looking at not only open government but enhancement of open government, you really have to wonder how believable it is.

I'll talk a little bit later about the nature of the bill itself, insofar as it's difficult to determine what it's actually about.

This government, I submit, unfortunately is not on an agenda, is not on a mission of openness. It's on a mission of secrecy. They're following a formula, a formula that corporate-first governments are using throughout North America and the developed world.

[1125]

It's the formula that people are rising up against and saying: "Wait a minute. This is not in my best interests. You're not representing me. What you are doing is promulgating an extremely sophisticated…." I'll give them this. The spin
[ Page 8157 ]
that they do is good. It's good. It may be Machiavellian, but it's pretty darned effective. This is one of the things that they do. If they're doing something that in fact is secretive, they make a great cry that they're doing just the opposite. And we've seen it in a number of venues.

Of course, Stephen Harper has sharpened it up even more. I mean, reporters are lucky to be even invited to some of his openings. Or you hold an all-candidates meeting where you have to be a member of the party to attend. I hope it isn't going to become that bad here. I don't know how much more opportunity…. There's certainly going to be one more election, and we'll see how the government fares in terms of being open, in willingness to put themselves before the people.

But I submit that this bill is not about openness and transparency. It's about issues management. It's all about issues management. Like I say, the formula that corporate-friendly governments like this one use are privatization, deregulation and contracting out. Those are the standards. Those are the posts that support the way they do business. It's making it increasingly difficult for the public to get any information about the goings-on of government. Just as my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke pointed out, it's exceedingly difficult.

The privatization agenda that this government follows is a win-win. It's a win-win for this government. On the one hand, they turn over as much of the business of the people as they can to private interests, and then when the people go and say, "But wait, this is in my public interest; I want to know about this," they say: "Whoa. Sorry, that's private information. It's a private company that's handling that business. You don't have the right."

That's not openness. That's not transparency. That's secrecy. That's keeping the people's business from them. You know, as much as I can determine what this inscrutable bill actually means, I'm concerned that that's where we are going with this one as well. We've seen so many slogans over the years, a ten-year history of this government of saying one thing and doing another.

"The best fisheries management in the world, bar none" — we all remember that one. Look at what the government actually does. They send a lawyer, acting in a very hostile manner, to the Cohen Commission to do everything they can to keep the release of fish health data from the public. For those that attended, and I attended many of them, you would watch that lawyer aggressively attack anybody that stood up to protect wild salmon. So say one thing; do another.

"Build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities and special needs." Well, we're seeing how that one's going.

B. Ralston: How's that going?

M. Sather: It's a disaster, because again the government says one thing, and they do another. They say that people are wilfully going to homestays that might have come off Craigslist — you know, "free rent," "mortgage helper," whatever. Some of them are good, but I mean, it's a free-for-all.

The member for Abbotsford-Mission has spoken to that. And it's exactly not what they're doing. There's no choice for people. People are thrown out of their homes, the homes they've had for many years. But saying one thing and doing another is the stock-in-trade of this government.

[1130]

I'll look at some of the contents of the bill. The government wants us to have on-line government identification. It's one of the things they're looking at. I don't want that. Quite frankly, I don't trust it.

Technology today, obviously, is a very useful tool. It can do many wonderful things, but one thing that is, I think, becoming pretty clear, more clear every year, is that this it is not capable of protecting our privacy. There are more and more breaches of privacy all the time with data that's held electronically. Will I have the right to say: "No, I don't want my private information held on line"? I don't think I will. I can bet I won't.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena talked yesterday about the virtues of computerization of personal data, and there are many. I mean, I remember when I worked as a mental health therapist for Fraser Health. It was frustrating.

I was working in Burnaby. We needed information about our clients, which they had given us permission to access in order to serve their mental health needs as well as possible, and a stone's throw away was the boundary with Vancouver and another health authority who wouldn't give us that information. Now, that is the kind of barrier that is not helpful to meeting the needs of individuals.

So there are benefits, certainly, of electronic data transfer. There can be, but there are also great pitfalls. The member, the former Minister of Health, talked about…. You know, you go around to offices and see all this data in file folders and how at-risk it was.

It's true. I mean, there is some risk, particularly and usually if it wasn't stored properly. But I would submit that that data that got into the wrong hands — and sometimes it did — was more through carelessness, not that that's forgivable, and that it was somewhat limited in amount. Whereas data that's stored electronically can be accessed by those that have the means of doing so and in large amounts, in very large amounts of data.

It's a very risky business that we're engaged in, and I don't know what kind of safeguards there really are. I mean, the government says there are going to be safeguards. They haven't really, I don't think, fully elucidated just what they are. I'm not convinced at this point.

That's what the minister said when she introduced.... "…the special committee recommendations is to allow
[ Page 8158 ]
citizens, by choice, to consent to the collection of personal information in limited circumstances that are set in law." So is the government going to phone up citizens and ask them if they consent to the transfer of their data? I don't think so.

There's going to be, I would predict, some protocol in place that will facilitate the transfer of this data. I bet it will be largely outside of the consent of citizens of British Columbia, but there may be some sort of deemed consent or something of that nature.

I read that an individual lawyer, actually, who specializes in protection of information and privacy found this bill pretty inscrutable. What does it really mean? How is it going to unfold in reality? The government needs to explain exactly what the mechanisms will be by which citizens will give their consent for the transfer of their personal information.

[1135]

This bill is a rush to facilitate data transfer but without the attendant concern about the protection of privacy rights of those whose data is being transferred now.

It's surprising, you know, to find out where your personal information goes and how difficult it can be to retrieve it at times. My wife and I had an incident a little while ago. It was actually the summer of 2010. Our Visa company phoned us up and said: "Oh, your cards have been compromised. You have to have them replaced." "Oh," I asked, "how has my card been compromised?" because there was nothing on my bill that suggested that somebody else had been using it.

Well, it could happen in many ways. They were very vague about that. But I'm not told how that happened. Was it that somebody hacked into Visa's information or my information on Visa? I don't know. Then we were told: "By the way, you don't need to do this, but you just might want to phone a couple of these companies in case something should happen in the future, and you would be protected."

Well, that sounds good. You want to protect yourself if something happens in the future. The companies — one is called Equifax, and one is called TransUnion, I believe it is, both of which get your information. I don't think Canadians know this. Any time you go and apply for a loan or get any kind of credit, they have a record of everything that you have done. So I said: "Fine, sign me up. I want to be protected."

Nothing happened, and I didn't notice anything till the spring of this year. We went to buy a couch at Sears, and they said: "Oh, if you want to get us to deliver it free, you can get a Sears card. Have you got a Sears card?" No. Okay. Well, I guess so. I don't really like having a lot much more plastic, but $60 off sounds all right to me. "Sign me up." They try to sign me up, and: "Oh, there's some problem here. You have to phone this number."

So I phoned Visa and said: "What's going on?" Without going into the specifics of our personal situation…

Interjection.

M. Sather: I need a lawyer, maybe.

…I can tell you that there was no reason that such a thing should have happened. However, I was then directed to phone these two companies, who told me: "Oh, there's a fraud alert on your account." What it meant.…

An Hon. Member: You're not even a Liberal.

M. Sather: And I'm not even a Liberal. There's no excuse for it. I agree with the member.

So there it stands to this day. I tried to get it off. I talked to them, and as far as I know, I guess I've got to go and apply for another credit card.

There's a lot of problems with data transfer and the holding of our personal information. I think we as a society are pretty enthralled with technology, and I guess for many good reasons. But I don't know. I'm not so much. I guess I'm old school. I'm much more cautious about my personal information. I don't tweet either, actually. I mean, the only tweets I'm interested in are the ones out in nature. I'm really a bad performer on Facebook too. So there, I confess.

But this is serious stuff that we're looking at. We have to be sure that the government…. We have to in fact, I think, trust the government. We don't have anything else to go by. We the opposition can get up here and we can talk about our concerns, but in a democracy, and in the end, it's the governing party that has the say.

I think the member for Revelstoke made a good point earlier, that it's setting up the future in terms of freedom of information and protection of privacy and that we have to hope and try to hold the government to account. Apparently, a lot of these transformational things that are going to happen are going to come in through regulation. I always hate that when things come in through regulation, because they don't get the scrutiny of the House.

So there are a lot of potentialities that the government has talked about with regard to this information, this legislation, but what it's going to really look like I don't know.

Bill 3 changes consent provisions in the act so that the government can now ask citizens to consent to have their information collected, used and disclosed, if the government thinks it will result in improved service delivery.

[1140]

Another thing that concerns me is that, you know, the government is talking…. Among the other points in favour of the bill, they talk oftentimes about the commercial transactions. It seems to me, with this government, in any legislation they bring in, in any acts they do, there's always an eye to business opportunities.
[ Page 8159 ]

I don't want business opportunities to be first and foremost with my personal information, and I don't think most British Columbians do either. But it seems to me that that's the standard by which this government operates — that, you know, there's all kinds of things in government that have commercial interest, and so let's facilitate their ability to do that.

In fact, data sales is a big deal these days. I mean, you all get the calls. We all get the calls every day from marketers wanting to interview us about this, wanting to interview us about that. There's a card for everything. You have a card at Save-On. You have a card at Safeway. It's all about collecting information about you and your habits, because it has value. They don't do all this for nothing. They do it because it has value.

The information that's going to be stored somewhere has value too. It has commercial value. That's something else that I worry about. Because is it a culture of secrecy, or is it a culture of privacy? And the former acting commissioner expressed concerns that there isn't yet a culture of privacy with this government, and that's a concern to me when he says that.

I spoke to the man, as you all have, and he seems like a very open individual, a very forthright individual. We can't take these things lightly. It seems to me that government wants us…. It's almost like buying a pig in a poke. We don't know what this is really all about. And the residents of British Columbia will only find out later, and then they may say: "Well, wait a minute. I didn't agree to that. I didn't even know what you were doing." Some would say that the government doesn't know what they're doing generally, but that's a concern that they have.

A few years ago the company EDS, a Hewlett-Packard subsidiary, has…. I think they got the contract and still have it for all the servers for all government information. That's a lot of information that they hold and that we entrust to them, and that, of course, is a private company. There's limited access to what they're doing with our information. Does information get zapped to the home base sometimes in the United States? Who knows? We'll never know, I don't think.

You couldn't ask and find out through freedom of information. Certainly, you wouldn't get that, or it would cost you $100,000 or something. Then, of course, if that does happen, everybody knows about the Patriot Act in the United States, whereby the government can access your information, and they don't have to tell you. We don't want that in Canada, I don't think. I think that we need to be more vigilant about our privacy, not less, because there are so many more opportunities now for breaches of privacy than there were before.

The minister says: "Make no mistake. Open government is here to stay." Well, I want to see the evidence that open government is here at all, in the first place, before I'm willing to accept that it's here to stay. Let's start with first principles, as I say. Let's see the evidence in actions that this government takes — that they're open and accountable.

That whole fiasco with CLBC. My experience is that it was obfuscation, not openness, that was the rule of the day — giving all kinds of bizarre reasons for cancelling the program in my community, or threatening to cancel, the Ridge Meadows recycling program, a supported work program for folks with developmental disabilities.

[1145]

Some very bizarre reasons were given, not about openness at all, which actually kind of smacked of business interests. It really did.

I was told: "You know that program that you have over there in Maple Ridge? Most of those have been gotten rid of long ago." That's what the CEO for CLBC told me. I looked at him and thought: "Hmm. Wow." So a non-profit agency with a stellar track record in the community for 20 years — that's one of those things that have been gotten rid of, most of them, a long time ago, and you know, this one ought to be going down the same road. That was the pretty clear inference that I was given.

If that non-profit agency serving our community so well were to go, what would it be replaced by? Wastech? Probably. Another business opportunity. They're always there in what this government does, but it's often, unfortunately, not in the best interest, not in the public interest.

The minister says that the foundation is really about being able to identify who you are on line in a secure way that is not possible today. I agree. It's not possible today. It's not happening today. Oh yes, my wife's credit card was compromised again a second time. This time the people were out there buying gas on her credit card. Watch out for that. That's what they do. They buy gas in your local area so that you don't notice it, because everybody buys gas in their local area, pretty much, if you drive a car.

The act needs to be modernized, said the minister. There's another buzzword we hear a lot of from this government — modernization. Who doesn't want to be modern? You know, the Water Act needs to be modernized. Gee, certainly the Water Act is very, very old and needs improvement. But modernization? What does it mean to this government?

Well now, we hear talk about trading water rights. Is that what modernization means? What does modernization of privacy rights mean to this government? I really want to know.

So the government wants to move in the future on electronic voting. I really have concerns about that one. I think the way we vote now — you go down, and you cast your ballot — is as secure as you're going to get. Electronic voting? I'm not so sure, because everybody gets a PIN number, and where do those PIN numbers end up?
[ Page 8160 ]

There have already been problems with the use of this kind of system. We know that. Yet the government is talking about doing that. Well, I guess it's the rationale that more young people will vote. Maybe that's true; maybe it isn't. But if it's going to be a system that is less than democratic instead of more democratic, that's not what I want to see.

I want to see a system that we know is free from any manipulation, as free as possible, and I think the voting system we have now is that way. I trust it. We have lots of backups to it, so I'm not too excited about the future of electronic voting.

Paul Fraser talked a lot about expediency has consistently trumped privacy. Expediency or opportunity, whatever it is. It seems to be the case.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. I would caution you for making inferences that are clearly unparliamentary.

R. Sultan: One of the members opposite really impressed me the other day by, I would say, elevating the historical if not intellectual tone of this debate by quoting two 18th-century figures in the context of this debate on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I refer to the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

[1150]

His interventions quoting these two individuals from the 18th century prompted me to do a little bit of homework myself. I can't resist the opportunity to extend the House's knowledge of one of these people, James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, co-author of the Federalist Papers, written in 1788 in support of the United States' constitution, and one of the great thinkers of the United States of America.

James Madison wrote extensively on such things as property. He explained that our right to property is as untouchable as our freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience. Government is instituted to protect property of every sort and is judged solely by that yardstick.

I thought: "Wow, coming from a social democratic member of the opposite bench, those are unusual sentiments on a day in which the Leader of the Opposition went down to the art gallery square to declaim, in front of the folks who had been tented out all night, about the sins of property." But here we have it defended by a member of the opposition in this very House.

The second individual was even more interesting: Jeremy Bentham, English, born in 1746, a philosopher, a social reformer and, to his credit and certainly consistent with the philosophy of the opposite bench, a proponent of equality rights generally — particularly for women, divorce, and decriminalization of homosexuality, which was certainly very radical in the 18th century — and inventor of the concept of utility.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But again, he had some things to say about property which seem particularly germane on this day when Occupy Wall Street is in the headlines. Here's what Jeremy Bentham had to say about property in his Principles of the Civil Code, his book.

Jeremy Bentham made an argument in defence of unequal property. He tried to show that laws protecting limitless private property resulted in the greatest happiness. Wow, a great stirring defence of inequality in property distribution. He said, furthermore: "Redistributions of wealth lead to further redistributions, which means no security, no industry and no happiness. All of these factors militate in favour of defending the existing distribution of wealth."

So I would hope that somebody from the bench opposite would go down there, follow their leader and quote these two distinguished historical figures, James Madison and Jeremy Bentham — who, I gather, have become the new icons of the social democratic philosophy.

I've got at least 55 minutes of closely spaced text to talk about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. Suppose we sum it down to a two-minute statement, perhaps by merely quoting the commissioner.

We have a commissioner of privacy, sort of the steward of this act. The commissioner, one Elizabeth Denham, has been deeply involved in the development of this new act. Let me quote from what Miss Denham has to say: "Government has taken a positive step towards promoting openness with the introduction of its open information and open data initiative." And others have talked about that initiative before in this House.

Elsewhere she goes on to say: "In relation to privacy, the proposed amendments" — the bill we're talking about today — "strike a workable balance between government's operational needs to share data for the purposes of integrated service delivery with appropriate oversight by the Information and Privacy Commissioner." Furthermore, she says, "I will push for the highest standards of health privacy and will report publicly on the outcome of these discussions," referring clearly to the points being made earlier this morning by the MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena.

[1155]

Furthermore, she went on to say in her correspondence to the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government, dated October 4: "I appreciate that my office was consulted during preparation of the proposed amendments prior to their introduction in the Legislature. I will be encouraging British Columbians to inform themselves about these important amendments, particularly the new requirements for open government initiatives and greater oversight by my
[ Page 8161 ]
office of the sharing of data by government." That's signed by Elizabeth Denham, Information and Privacy Commissioner for the province of British Columbia.

Well, I don't think we can find a better endorsement of the amendment than that by the commissioner, who is in fact charged by this Legislature as an independent officer to keep an eye on the secrecy motivations and the reluctance to disclose, which are natural in any bureaucracy and in fact have even been known to occur among politicians. But this bill goes a long way, I think, to opening up government even further.

I'm afraid time does not permit me to elaborate on the open data, but let me just mention one in passing. As an old data junkie myself, I'm terribly impressed that a new entity, Data B.C., will offer a catalogue of nearly 2,500 data sets that are free, searchable and available on line for anybody to use for any purpose — the first province in Canada to create such a website, which should prove to be a treasure trove to the curious, to the academic, to social policy researchers and even perhaps to the persons on benches opposite who occasionally decide to sprinkle a few facts into the course of their speech preparations.

With that, I urge this House to support these amendments.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175