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)
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Morning Sitting
Volume 26, Number 2
|
CONTENTS |
|
|
Page |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
|
Committee of the Whole House |
8245 |
|
Bill 3 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2011 |
|
|
D. Routley |
|
|
Hon. M. MacDiarmid |
|
|
B. Ralston |
|
[ Page 8245 ]
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2011
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, this morning the Legislative Assembly will be participating in an international earthquake drill. The House will recess now and resume sitting at about 10:30 a.m.
Members should return to their parliamentary offices until that time. The division bell will ring for at least ten seconds at 10:20 a.m., signalling the start of the earthquake drill. The House will reconvene upon the division bell being rung again.
Remember: drop, cover, and hold on for 60 seconds.
The House is in recess until 10:30.
The House recessed from 10:03 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage of Bill 3.
Committee of the Whole House
Bill 3 — Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2011
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; D. Black in the chair.
The committee met at 10:34 a.m.
On section 1.
D. Routley: I would like to first say that it's desirable for everyone in the province to support a modernization of the act and its purposes. The concerns that I'll express in this stage of this bill will be around my concerns about whether this bill actually does that and whether it was intended to do that.
I know that there are a number of services that could be enhanced by adapting the legislation to new technologies. But I do have very serious concerns around the amendment act's ability to further the interests of one of its titled elements, and that is the protection of privacy.
It seems that many of the sections in this bill are designed to open up the sharing of information and dismantle many of the privacy protections, so I wonder about the title of the amendment act — whether or not the protection of privacy is in fact an appropriate element of the title.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd like to just first introduce the ministry staff who are with me today. I've got Kim Henderson, Dave Nikolejsin and Charmaine Lowe and appreciate having them here.
My understanding is that we are here to debate this bill, starting with section 1, and I'm pleased to do that.
D. Routley: Section 1, then, amending section 3 of the act around the scope of the act. The term "not related to the provision of services" — can the minister explain what is meant by that term?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I wonder if I could ask the member opposite to clarify what exactly he is referring to in section 1(a), in the amendments.
D. Routley: Section 1, records of a service provider that are not related to provision of services for a public body.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This actually is from one of the special committee's recommendations, recommendation No. 5. What this does is provide some clarity. If there is a service provider, any of their records that are part of provision of service for a public body are covered by the act, but other records they might have — for example, private companies' personnel records — would not be covered by the act. It's to clarify that, and it does come from one of the recommendations of the special committee.
D. Routley: Who made the recommendation, and can the minister more clearly define the types of documents and records?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The actual recommendation from the special committee says as follows: "Amend section 3 to clarify that records created by or in the custody of the service provider under contract to a public body are under the control of the public body on whose behalf the contractor provides services." This came forward from a number of different groups from whom the special committee received submissions — so the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, some advocacy groups, labour unions, librarians and taxpayers.
Perhaps to further clarify this, the member opposite could imagine a service provider that has some contracts with government but has contracts with other private organizations. The records to do with their business with a private organization would not be covered by the act, whereas the records pertaining to the interaction with government would be covered by the act.
[ Page 8246 ]
D. Routley: It seems the language of the recommendation from the committee is much more sweeping than what is contemplated under this act. Can the minister explain to me why the recommendation wasn't adopted more fully?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, in my view, in our view, this does reflect the intent. The language may have been streamlined, but the intent is definitely reflected. Of course, this has been drafted by experts in terms of who has actually drafted the amendment.
D. Routley: Has CUFA approved this language?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just so we can be sure we understand the question, can the member clarify what CUFA means?
D. Routley: University faculty associations.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: During the drafting of this legislation, we consulted with universities, post-secondary institutions and with the Ministry of Advanced Education. We didn't specifically consult with the body that the member opposite mentions.
In terms of the question about approval, I'm sure that the member opposite would clearly know and understand that none of the groups with whom we consulted had approval over the legislation, but certainly, there was wide consultation.
D. Routley: Thank you, Minister. It seems that the groups that make the recommendations would be the natural bodies to be consulted. Since that was one of the groups making this recommendation, I wonder if there's a reason that CUFA was not consulted.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, with respect to these amendments and this specific amendment, this was a recommendation that came forward from the special committee. The groups that requested this included the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, advocacy groups, labour unions, librarians and taxpayers.
Again, the ministry did have consultation and discussion with representatives from universities and other post-secondary institutions. Great efforts were made to be inclusive, but certainly, acknowledging that not every single body in British Columbia was consulted as legislation was drafted.
D. Routley: How will this recommendation work in practice?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: How this will work is that we have removed an area where there was some ambiguity in the legislation. Now it's very clear. If an FOI request is received, it's very clear which records are covered by that FOI, and it will be records…. Well, the records that will not be covered are those that are not related to provision of services to that public body.
D. Routley: So "not related to services" could mean any management document or any document not directly related to service to a client or a citizen. Is that correct?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this amendment is really doing is providing clarity where there was previously some confusion about what records would be covered. The records that would be covered would be any records that are directly related to the services that government is receiving, so those would be in scope.
There are processes. If there's some dispute over which records would or would not be included within an FOI request, there are avenues that can be pursued to clarify.
B. Ralston: Well, just to pursue the suggestion that this amendment will bring about greater clarity, I know that we're speaking to an amendment to section 3, which speaks of exclusions from the act.
The unanimous recommendation from the all-party committee in the report tabled May 2010 reads as follows, at least in part: "The OIPC, for example, claimed that this amendment is urgently required in order to clear up any confusion on the part of contractors and public bodies regarding who has custody or control of requested records." They mentioned some other groups that are concerned about this — advocacy groups, labour unions, librarians and taxpayers.
Now, the suggestion and the recommendation refers to, and I'm going to quote the recommendation: "…a service provider under contract to a public body are under the control of the public body on whose behalf the contractor provides services."
The way in which the drafters have chosen to word this particular amendment refers to a service provider, so my first subquestion is: is there a definition of "service provider"?
Secondly, it deliberately seems to avoid, in the choice of language, "contractor." Is that a deliberate choice to exclude the word "contractor"? I think most people know that government engages a number of contractors, and they're contracted directly to public bodies. This is an amendment designed to provide clarity. Given that it doesn't follow the recommendation, I think that it very well might create confusion, particularly if there is no definition of service provider and it's not clear that bodies that contract with other public bodies are not excluded from the application of the act.
Can the minister comment on the suggestion I'm making?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In fact, in the act "service provider" is defined, and I believe it will give the member opposite some comfort. A service provider means "a person retained under a contract to perform services for a public body."
B. Ralston: The recommendation also says that a service provider under a contract to a public body is under the control of the public body on whose behalf the contractor provides services.
Sometimes there is a chain of contracts in the sense that contractors might let or engage other people in subcontracts. Is this amendment, in the view of the minister, designed to include that within the scope of this proposed amendment, so that one could not evade responsibility and fall under the act by claiming that one was a subcontractor? Is the whole chain of contract captured by this amendment?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The language is the "record of a service provider." This means anyone providing services on government's behalf. So the chain that the member opposite is describing…. All of that would be covered under the act, all those providers.
D. Routley: The section also amends and includes the term "a record…available for purchase by the public." What records would that include?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is a recommendation that came, actually, from the 2004 special committee. What the amendment does is it clarifies that records that are already available for purchase by the public are not covered by the act. Therefore, they're not subject to formal access-to-information requests and fee waivers under the act.
What we're doing when we clarify that these records are excluded from coverage…. It should reduce the cost of processing and responding to formal access-to-information requests.
B. Ralston: I have a further question based on the definition of "service provider." I was able to locate that in schedule 1 of the act, which I wasn't previously. The definition that's here in schedule 1 says: "a person retained under a contract to perform services for a public body." Does the definition of "person" in this instance extend to a corporation or not?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Under a separate piece of legislation, the Interpretation Act, a person does include a corporation.
B. Ralston: So would that include a partnership, a cooperative, an agency, an unincorporated business? Is the definition that expansive?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What we will do is actually get the direct language from the act just to make sure that we're completely precise, and we'll get that for the member shortly.
B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, because the references made in recommendation 5 to a public body…. Recommendation 4 recommended unanimously that the definition of a public body in schedule 1 "include any corporation that is created or owned by a public body, including an educational body." Now, unless I'm mistaken, that recommendation is not incorporated in these amendments. Is that correct?
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: My understanding of the process here is that we are to discuss the act, the amendments to the act, and that's what we're here to do. Other material is, as I understand it, what the…. We're specifically here to discuss the amendments, and I'm pleased to do that.
B. Ralston: Well, I can understand that the minister doesn't want to discuss that recommendation. But the amendment that is being discussed here refers to a public body, so I suppose the question is: what is meant by "public body"?
One of the clarifications that was sought in the report was recommendation 4. So the minister says that this is to provide greater clarity, reduce ambiguity and generally make things go swimmingly, but given that recommendation 4 is not being followed, would the minister not agree that the definition of "public body" that's referred to in this amendment is therefore unclear?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The section of the act that we're currently discussing…. The goal of these amendments was to clarify which records of a service provider would be covered under the act, and that is really what this is about. It does come from the special committee's recommendations, but it's to clarify which records would be covered and which records would not be covered.
B. Ralston: Well, the minister has provided a very expansive definition of a "service provider," which includes a corporation, so if a corporation that is owned by a public body is providing services to the parent body, in the case of school board subsidiaries, would that not fall under the definition of the act?
I appreciate that the drafters have chosen not to incorporate recommendation 4, but I'm wondering whether, despite their best efforts to evade responsibility for those particular bodies, they do fall in this very broad definition of a service provider, which could be a corporation providing services to the parent body.
[ Page 8248 ]
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: If I may, for the member opposite, I do have the definition now from the Interpretation Act. A "person" includes "a corporation, partnership or party, and the personal or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law." I did say I'd get that information, and I have it.
In terms of the corporation the member referred to, if a corporation was retained under a contract, then records related to that contract would be subject to the act.
D. Routley: The former Education Minister, now the Solicitor General and Attorney General, in a press release as Education Minister, made a commitment that subsidiary corporations owned by school boards would be incorporated in new amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Why has the government chosen not to adopt recommendation 4 and implicitly include subsidiary corporations of public bodies?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, my understanding of this process is that we're here to discuss the amendments and what has been amended, and I'm very pleased to engage and do that with members opposite.
D. Routley: Well, Madam Chair, a public dollar is a public dollar is a public dollar. The minister has referred to the recommendations by the committee to this section, and it seems that the committee did recommend that the definition of "public body" in schedule 1 be amended to include any corporation that is created or owned by a public body, including an educational body.
So it seems a reasonable question to ask why this is missing from this section of the act and, since the minister is justifying the provision in the amendments that we do see by the recommendations of the committee, why those recommendations of the committee can't be further pursued.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, my understanding of this process is that we're here to discuss and provide clarity around the amendments and to go through the amendments that have been put forward. I will, from time to time, refer to the source of some of these amendments, and when they've come from a recommendation from the special committee, I will refer to that. But my understanding is of this process that we are here to discuss what is being amended in the act, and again, I am pleased to do that.
D. Routley: Does the minister feel that the amendment…?
The Chair: Member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, would your questioning be referring to section 1(k)? Would that text better direct the minister?
D. Routley: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Please proceed.
D. Routley: It seems that, then, if we were to more broadly understand the amendment that is being put forward, perhaps this amendment does accommodate the subsidiary corporations of school boards. Does the minister feel that this amendment can be read that way?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: When a service provider is under a contract with a public body, then it would be covered by this act.
D. Routley: The record of a service provider providing services to a public body — could that not be the corporations created by a public body? Could not the corporation created by a school board be interpreted in 1(3)(k) as being the subsidiary corporation of a school board?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, if any corporation or other body was providing services and was retained under a contract, then those services would be covered under this act.
D. Routley: It's important that we be very clear about this because, of course, this debate may inform future decisions of a court around…. And this is likely to be litigated and has been in the past.
So if a public body, a university or a school board, creates a corporation and then has that corporation perform a service on its behalf, I would like to be very clear with the minister and have a very clear answer that, indeed, the subsidiary corporation of the university, the school board — whatever public body — will be considered a service provider and that the records will be available under the act.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I certainly agree with the member opposite that clarity is important. And to be clear, if services are provided under a contract, if they were provided under a contract to a public body, they would be covered by this act.
D. Routley: In the definitions it doesn't refer to services under a contract, I believe.
In any case, is it the minister's opinion, then, of this language, that a subsidiary corporation of a school board, of a university, any public body, performing work for that public body would be defined as a service provider as long as there is some sort of arrangement between the public body and the subsidiary corporation to provide a service?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The services…. Some sort of arrangement. I don't think it would be the kind of
[ Page 8249 ]
language that would be used specifically. The services would need to be provided by contract.
D. Routley: I am understanding, then, that the minister agrees that a subsidiary corporation of a university or a school board performing work or providing services for that public body under a contractual arrangement would be considered a service provider and, therefore, come under the scope of the act?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just to be very clear, services provided under a contract would be subject to this act, but what this section makes clear is that other services would not be covered.
D. Routley: On a previous question around records available for purchase by the public. What was the purpose of that change, and what scope would that have? What records would be included in that definition?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, this was a recommendation of the 2004 special committee. They recommended this change.
The clarity here is that records that are already available for purchase by the public are not covered by the act. So if there is a record that is available for purchase, it will not be available under the act, and it will not be subject to formal access-to-information requests and fee waivers under the act. When we clarify that these records are excluded from coverage by the act, that should reduce costs of processing and responding to formal access-to-information requests.
D. Routley: Under the act, there is a duty to assist on the part of the head of a public body. Will there be a regulation in the act that will require a public body to refer an applicant to the document that might be purchased or how it might be purchased?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are not planning on a regulation for this, but there is a privacy help line, and people could be referred.
I wanted to give the member opposite an example of what we believe would be prevented. For example, a book that is published by the Crown press, and we do have examples of this having happened — someone asking for a photocopy of that book under the FOI legislation.
Now we've made it very clear that you cannot obtain a book that is for sale in that way. You would need to purchase the book and not use an FOI request in order to obtain that information.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
D. Routley: Under the existing act, if an applicant has asked for a record that can be reproduced, a public body must provide a copy or a reason for the delay in providing the record. This amendment removes the latter option. Presumably it requires a public body to provide the record. Am I correct?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This was an amendment recommended by the 2010 special committee that reviewed this act. Before the amendment, the way that the section read was that "a copy of the record or part of the record must be provided with the response, or (b) the applicant must be given reasons for the delay in providing the record."
That's been eliminated, and now, as amended, the act would only read "…a copy of the record or part of the record must be provided with the response." So there is no need to have explanation for the delay, because a delay is no longer allowed under the act.
D. Routley: The section also adds the provision that the public body must provide a record in electronic form if the applicant has requested an electronic copy. Was that in response to the committee recommendations?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The actual recommendation from the committee reads as follows: "Amend section 9(2) of the act to require that public bodies provide electronic copies of records to applicants, where the records can reasonably be reproduced in electronic form." So yes, it was in response.
D. Routley: This amendment sets out how an applicant may examine documents when they cannot be produced and allows the public body to not allow an applicant to examine a record if the record cannot be reasonably examined. How will that be determined, and by whom?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This, for example, would apply to a very fragile document, such as an extremely old map that was deemed to be too fragile for anyone to examine. The decision would be made by public officials who are responsible for such documents. Again, if there was a concern, if there was a dispute over this, someone who was wanting access to such documents could always contact and actually complain to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
D. Routley: Extending the time limit for responding is the subject that section 3 addresses. It extends the timeline for disclosure up to 30 days with the applicant's consent and allows for a further extension of time after
[ Page 8250 ]
30 days, with the applicant's consent and the permission of the commissioner. What is the purpose of this change? What is it in response to, and how will it play out?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This amendment allows…. It's very important that the extension is only with the agreement, with the consent, of the applicant. An example would be if a request has been made and the applicant actually is going to be away and unavailable and not able to clarify things.
In the past what has happened is that they've had to actually abandon their request and then, when they are available again, refile the request. This gets around that. But it's important to be clear that this would only happen with the applicant's consent.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
D. Routley: I'd like a description and definition — an explanation — of the linguistic change to the new definition of "program or activity."
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This amendment, which we were describing as housekeeping in nature, was to make sure that the act was consistent throughout. Previously this section just referred to "a program." In other sections of the act the same place would say "program or activity." We wanted to be consistent throughout the act, and that's the reason for this change.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
D. Routley: Section 6 repeals the subsection allowing a public body to refuse disclosure of information that is available for purchase by the public. Is this for the same reason and purpose as the previous questions around documents available for purchase?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes.
D. Routley: This section also allows a public body to refuse disclosure of information "that must be published or released to the public under an enactment." Is there a time limit?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This amendment was recommended by the 2010 special committee that reviewed this act. This was recommendation 15.
What it is, is information that is going to be published or released according to a statutory schedule. The member has asked about timelines. They would actually be determined by the statutory schedule. There are some things that are published annually, quarterly, monthly, and it would depend on what that schedule actually was.
D. Routley: It seems that this section also clarifies, though, that the time limit for the release of the information that has been refused on the basis that it would be released or published within 60 days…. If the information is not released in 60 days, the public body would then have 30 more days to fulfil the request, unless it's authorized or required to refuse the disclosure under another section.
The minister refers to the committee recommendation. The committee recommendation was to amend section 20 "to provide for immediate release of all…records if 90 days have elapsed since receiving the applicant's request and to provide that an access request may be refused if the information were to be published according to a statutory schedule." The two don't seem to connect or speak to each other.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We're talking right now about the amendment to section 20(1). In recommendation 15 of the special committee they actually addressed two separate…. They addressed section 20(3) as well as 20(1).
What I've been speaking about is the second part of that recommendation from the special committee, which states: "…to provide that an access request may be refused if the information will be published according to a statutory schedule." That was the part I was talking about.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
D. Routley: This amendment allows that a public body may consider how long a person has been deceased to determine whether a disclosure is not an unreasonable invasion of the deceased person's privacy. How will that consideration be made and on what basis?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This amendment was also recommended by the 2010 special committee that reviewed the act. What it does is clarify that when there's information about a deceased person that's being considered, the length of time the person has been deceased is a relevant factor to consider when determining whether or not information would be released. It's certainly not binding. It just provides something for a public official to consider.
The determination would clearly be made on a case-by-case basis, because there are some situations where the passage of time would not make a difference, and there are others where it might.
[ Page 8251 ]
D. Routley: This section also adds that an "unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy is presumed to occur" when the disclosure is a personal recommendation, evaluation or a reference and when the applicant could reasonably be expected to know the identity of the third party. So the term "reasonably be expected to know" — is there anything that the minister could offer to clarify what parameter would be applied to that?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is a recommendation that came forth from the 2010 special committee that reviewed the act. The recommendation, their No. 17, was to amend section 22(3)(h) as follows: "The disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal the substance of a personal recommendation or evaluation, character reference or personnel evaluation that was supplied in confidence by a third party, or to reveal the identity of the third party who supplied the reference in confidence." That was the recommendation.
Really what this is doing, this amendment, is providing greater protection for the recommendations, evaluations and references that are provided in confidence to a public body by clarifying that in some cases it's not simply enough to just remove the identity of the referee. In some cases the applicant would reasonably be expected to know who the referee is. Then the content of the recommendation, evaluation or reference would be withheld.
B. Ralston: I wanted to return briefly to the issue of the fact that a person who had been deceased for over 20 years is a factor to be considered in whether disclosure might be harmful to personal privacy. I'm thinking of an example, say, in the case of historical research — if someone were researching and writing a biography of a deceased former member of the Legislature here, for example.
In subsection 22(3) it says that the "disclosure of personal information is presumed to be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy if…the personal information relates to employment, occupational or educational history."
Let's suppose in this example the biographer wanted to have access to the person's educational records. Would the fact that the person had been deceased for 20 years be a factor to be considered? In addition, would the purpose for which the information was being sought be a consideration in terms of overriding, perhaps, some of the presumptions that are in this subsection?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: If I understand the member opposite's question, regarding whether the length of time a person had been deceased would be considered, yes, it would. It would be something that could be taken into consideration by the public official who is determining whether information should be released or not. It would be one thing that they could consider.
However, it would be done on a case-by-case basis, and if there was a dispute over whether information should be released or not, there would be avenues that a person requesting the information could go down if they wanted to.
B. Ralston: Could the minister explain? The language of "dead for 20 years" does appear in section 36, "Disclosure for archival or historical purposes." That's section 36 of the present act.
So can the minister explain whether that's a change in the approach that would be taken to historical research? One thinks of examples, particularly in the federal arena, where politicians, for example, may have been under the scrutiny of the RCMP. I think Tommy Douglas, former leader of the New Democratic Party, was under scrutiny by the RCMP for many years, and there have been requests to have access to that file. There has been a public debate about that.
I'm wondering whether this amendment is expanding the ambit of section 36, or it's not.
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This section does not relate to section 36. They're completely separate. Again, what this section does is recognize that deceased persons do have privacy rights in spite of the fact that they're deceased but that as time passes, the access to information may change, and this just provides something to be considered. It's not a hard-and-fast rule but an amendment which gives the public body something to consider.
D. Routley: This section claims to more explicitly outline the types of disclosures that are not unreasonable invasions of a third party's personal privacy with respect to licences, permits, degrees, diplomas or certificates and financial benefits given "to a third party by a public body." Can the minister explain how that is achieved? How are we more explicitly outlining disclosures that are not unreasonable invasions?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is in response, again, to one of the recommendations of the 2010 special committee. This was recommendation 8, where they recommended amending section 22(4)(i) by adding "a degree, a diploma or a certificate" granted a third body.
There was potentially some confusion about what details could be released. What this does is this change permits educational institutions to disclose details of degrees, diplomas and certificates.
D. Routley: In the case of licences and permits, how would the granting of a licence or permit or any similar discretionary benefit be affected by this amendment?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The previous language of this section said: "the disclosure reveals details of a licence…."
[ Page 8252 ]
There was some difficulty in interpreting that — specifically, what does that mean? Does "details" mean personal information that was actually used to prepare the licence? What actually does "details" mean? In some cases nothing was being released, and that was not the intent.
This is to really make it very clear. It outlines clearly what are the details that can be released. In the amendment it talks about, for example, the name of the third party, and then what the item grants or confers and the status of the item. It just makes it very clear what the precise details are that can be released.
D. Routley: There's much more detail included in this amendment than in the recommendation, perhaps not surprisingly. Is this driven by any litigation or decision that was made recently?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The specific language is here to provide clarity. There was some confusion from time to time in the interpretation of this section. This is to provide clarity, and that's why the specific details are there.
D. Routley: This section also is amended to read that the public body does not need to give an applicant a summary of the information involving a recommendation or evaluation or character reference when it could be reasonably expected that the applicant would know the identity of a third party who supplied it, from that summary.
Assuming that this is in response to the committee's recommendation, this summary of information, could the minister define this summary of information and what exactly would be exempted?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite has asked about this following on the recommendation of the special committee, and that's correct. Under their recommendations from the 2010 committee, recommendation 17, at the very end of that recommendation they said: "A corresponding amendment would be required to repeal section 22(5)."
What has happened now is the amendment gives clarity on when it would be reasonable to provide a summary of personal information. In the event that the identity of the third party wouldn't be clear from giving that summary, then it's allowed. But when their identity would be clear, then the summary must not be given.
D. Routley: Could the minister give examples of what sort of circumstances would create the reasonable expectation that a person would know, through a summary of information, who made the recommendation?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: For example, if an individual had asked for references, and there was information that only their direct supervisor could have known. If there was a situation that only two people knew about — one was the person that was getting the reference, and the other was the person that was giving it — then the identity would be revealed if a summary of that information was given. In that situation the summary could not be given.
D. Routley: Will it be up to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to determine, upon appeal of such a decision, whether or not that's a reasonable expectation?
Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, the appeal to the commissioner is an avenue that someone can pursue.
With that, Madam Chair, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN 1499-2175