Manitoba Committee Hansard — 25 June 1997 (Education Committee, Sitting 7, 36th Legislature, 3rd Session)

36-3-ed7

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Mervin Tweed Constituency of Turtle Mountain Vol. XLVII No.7- 3:45p.m., Wednesday, June 25, 1997 ISSN 0713-9969

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Alben DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosano Vacant MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Anhu r-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charles wood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupensland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Ross mere Tunle Mountain Fon Garry Swan River Portage Ia Prairie Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C.

P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Ind. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

219 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVE LOPMENT Wednesday, June 25, 1997 TIME - 3:45 p.m. LOCATION -W inn ipeg, Manitoba CHA IRPERSON - Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain) VIC E-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek) ATTENDANCE -11 -Q UORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Cummings, Derkach, Praznik, Hon. Mrs. Vodrey Messrs. Chomiak, McAlpine, Ms. McGiff ord, Messrs. Rocan, Sale, Struthers, Tweed Substitutions: Ms. Barrett for Ms. McGiff ord Hon. Mr. Gilleshammer for Hon. Mrs. Vodrey Mr. Helwer for Hon. Mr. Cummings Mr. Penner for Hon. Mr.

Derkach APPEARING: Ms. Heather McLaren, Legislative Analyst Ms. Val Perry, Legislative Counsel MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill41, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Bill 50, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy and Consequential Amendments Act. Bill 51, The Personal Health In formation Act Bill 61, The Sustainable Development and Consequential Amendments Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Shabnam Datta): Good afternoon. Would the Standing Committee on Economic Development please come to order.

Before the committee can proceed with the business before it, it must elect a Vice-Chairperson. Mr. Denis Rocan (Gladstone): I move Mr. McAlpine. Clerk Assistant: Mr. McAlpine has been nominated as Vice-Chair of the Economic Development standing committee. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, Mr. McAlpine, please take the Chair. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Good afternoon. Will the Standing Committee on Economic Development please come to order. This afternoon, the committee will be considering clause by clause Bill 41, Bill 50, Bill 51 and Bill61.

Bill 50-The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee that we proceed with Bill 50, The Freedom of In formation and Protection of Privacy and Consequential Amendments Act? [agreed] Does the honourable minister have an opening statement? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Cu lture, Heritage and Citizen ship): I do have some opening remarks. I am very pleased to be here to present Bill 50, The Freedom of In formation and Protection of Privacy and Consequential Amendments Act for committee review.

220 LEG IS LATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 In developing this new legislation, we took a close look at international trends in information access, the impact of technology and the views of Manitobans. We looked at our own experience. We examined legislation elsewhere and learned from it, and we strove to understand the issues that matter to Manitobans. We have come forward with the bill based on well understood and internationally accepted information rights to achieve a careful balance of the right to access information and the right to protection of personal privacy.

We have tried to make this legislation as clear as possible, so people can easily understand how it works. We have also recognized the potential impacts of technology on the management of information in order to develop processes and guidelines to support prudent decision making now and in the future. I would just like to speak briefly about the fundamental principles at the heart of the legislation that we are reviewing. This bill will uphold the basic right to access government information including information about oneself which was the foundation of the earlier FOI Act.

The most important changes in this bill are the provisions providing privacy protection for personal information for Manitobans. These provisions are founded upon the long-est ablished and internationally accepted principles of fair information practices, namely that information should be collected for an identified purpose, that individuals consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, that an individual may see and correct personal information and that personal information is managed in a way that is open, accountable and secure.

A further important principle is that there must be a mechanism for independent review and appeal of decisions related to personal privacy. (Mr. Chairperson in the Chair) We have also based this legislation on Manitoba's experience with its current FOI Act. Manitoba has performed well under this legislation. Ninety percent of inquiries are answered within the time period prescribed, I am informed, and three-quarters of the requests are granted in full or in part with relatively few complaints.

Last year, we distributed a discussion paper widely through public libraries, government offices and the Internet and called for responses from individuals and groups throughout the province. The many thoughtful responses we received told us that Manitobans value privacy and access and expect government to exercise prudent stewardship of their personal information. We have looked at legislation and experiences in other jurisdictions, especially British Columbia and Alberta. but also Saskatchewan and Ontario and the federal government.

We believe that our work, research and analysis have produced a bill that will serve Manitobans well, one that upholds rights of access and protects personal privacy. I would like to highlight some of the most important features of Bill 50. As I noted, the right of access to information held by public bodies has been upheld and now, in fact, has been extended to apply to the records held by local public bodies, such as municipalities, school divisions and so on. This right of access is qualified by certain exceptions as is the case in all such legislation.

Within the new bill, we have clarified certain exceptions so that this legislation can be understood and applied more consistently. We have incorporated some provisions relating to the records of local public bodies, and we have added a provision for people to make a request orally where there is a disability or a language barrier. Within the access provisions of this act, there will be a requirement to notify third parties when access to records is being considered that may unreasonably infringe on their privacy.

The act will also provide guidance in determining when access would constitute an infringement of another's privacy. I noted when we heard presentations at committee that I would be making a number of amendments as a result of a meeting I had with a coalition of groups interested in this bill, and I wiii just outline the clauses. The explanation has been given on the record. * (1 550 ) I am making an amendment to Clause IO(I )(

b) to deal with the concern of "the head is of the opinion" and we wiii be striking out those words. I will also be amending subsection 13(1) where there were some

June 25, 1997 LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 22 1 concerns that the wording was too broad, and I also recognize there was concern expressed that the phrase "relating to government decisions or the formulation of government policy" appeared to create too broad an exception, so we will therefore propose new wording "relating directly" which makes it clear that the record must relate directly to government decisions or policy. Finally, I spoke the other evening that in Clause 23( l)(f), our intent was to maintain confidentiality of authorized in-camera meetings.

However, we feel that there might be a concern this clause would be understood to restrict access to information currently available. This was not the intention, and so we are prepared to propose an amendment which eliminates Clause (

f) in the bill as drafted. I also have at least two other minor amendments to sections of the bill to deal with similar types of concerns where it may appear to be limiting, and I am more than happy to circulate those to members of the committee. I am very pleased that this bill will provide privacy protection for Manitobans. In this bill, we have clearly defined what constitutes personal information and outlined how it may be collected to ensure that privacy is respected.

This means that personal information should be collected directly from individuals and that they must be informed of the purposes behind its collection. In specific circumstances, this new act will permit the collection of personal information through other channels. These circumstances may include assisting law enforcement agencies, enf orcing a maintenance order under The Family Maintenance Act, or auditing, monitoring or evaluation of government or other public bodies.

However, this legislation will also ensure that personal information may only be used for the purpose for which it was collected or for a consistent purpose, or with the consent of the individual, or as authorized by the legislation. Indivi duals will have the right to access their personal information and to correct any errors. There is also an onus on public bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of personal information in their possession.

In addition, this bill will require that public bodies holding personal information take reasonable security precautions to prevent unauthorized access, use, disclosure or destruction of this data. Privacy protection must be maintained in our current and future working environments which are increasingly shaped by the rapidly changing world of technology. This legislation recognizes that reality and has built in a privacy assessment review process that will provide a thoughtful assessment of proposals for uses or disclosures not specified in the act. This is a unique aspect of Manitoba's legislation.

The privacy assessment review will be carried out by a committee of officials knowledgeable in privacy and record keeping. Ultimately, responsibility for decision making rests, as it should and as it must, with the elected officials of the public body. This responsibility is fundamental to our democratic tradition, and we recognize that. This process is set up primarily for bulk and volume data requests that contain a lot of personal information about Manitobans. These types of requests could have wide variations and applications that must be looked at carefully.

There is an additional accountability under this act and that is that we must tell Manitobans about the uses and disclosures of the types of personal information we hold in trust for them. This will be done in the directory prescribed by the act. A necessary component of access and privacy legislation is the mechanism for independent review and appeal of decisions. In this legislation, we build on the respected and competent office of the provincial Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will continue to review complaints and to negotiate and/or make recommendations regarding access or third party . privacy.

The powers of this office will be strengthened to include the power to go to court on matters involving access, to commission research, to conduct audits on access and privacy protection issues and to public special reports and comment freely on any matter. Each year in the Manitoba Legislature, an annual report will be tabled concerning the work of the Ombudsman's office under this act. My department will also continue to publish an annual report. This act calls for the review of this legislation within five years.

This new legislation will provide broader access to information held by public bodies, including for the first time the records of local government bodies, educational bodies and health care bodies. When fully implemented, all Manitobans will benefit from a consistent approach across all of these public bodies, a

222 LEG IS LATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 consistent approach to handling requests for access, for handling personal information in a way that protects personal privacy and for being open in declaring what information they hold and how personal information is being used. I believe, Mr. Chair, we have produced a bill that will respect the rights of Manitobans for access to information while safeguarding the right to privacy. With that, that concludes my remarks, and I look forward to the remarks of the member opposite. Mr. Cha irperson: We thank the minister for those comments.

Does the critic from the official opposition have an opening statement? Ms. Diane McGitTord (Osborne): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have an opening statement. My statement will be very brief, since I have spoken extensively in the House and also spoken extensively both during Question Period and during the presentations the other evening, Monday evening. I want to thank the minister for her statement. We have several concerns about this particular bill, some of them more pressing than others.

I notice that The Freedom of Information Act, the unamended act, was initially proclaimed in 1988, and this government has been very proud of the fact that it proclaimed the act. Yet, Mr. Chair, I submit that the government has been somewhat disrespectful in its implementation of that act. I think this was clear from several of the presentations. Presenters told us of their struggles to obtain information under The Freedom of Information Act.

I remember particularly the Manitoba Library Association who made the point that one of the Freedom of Information applications that it had filed was in an attempt to get the presentations of government departments, the responses to the discussion paper that had come out of the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship's office, and they were denied access to these submissions on Freedom of Information which seems to be quite ironic.

The Ombudsman's 1994 Report, I think, is very famous for its, I suppose, indirect criticism of the government but certainly its questioning of whether this government respected the spirit of the act that it proclaimed in 1988. The CBC and the Free Press are on record as having gone all the way to court in order to obtain information. When I spoke in the House, I detailed many examples of the misuse of the ways in which The Freedom of Information Act was not really honoured. I do not know how many individuals have tried to get information and been denied that information and have simply given up.

Some of them have, indeed, gone to the Ombudsman, but most individuals do not have the resources, either emotional or financial, to proceed to court. So I think while in the 1988 Freedom of lnformation Act the theory was grand, the practice on the part of this government did not match the theory. Another area of contention, of course, was the legislative review process. The 1988 act was to be reviewed in three years. I think the review did not begin till 1992; some of it continued into 1993. No report has ever come out of it.

I believe I was told by the Manitoba Library Association that they tried to get this report and were unsuccessful. So, Mr. Chair, please excuse me and my side of the House if we have little faith in this government's commitment to Freedom of Information, but the facts are on the record and there is not much reason for us to have faith in the government's willingness to respect Freedom of In formation. • (1 600) Now, the second point I want to make is that I disagree with the minister when she talks about the wide-r anging consultation process.

I think that this legislation was conceived in secrecy, hatched in mystery, and I do not think we should be surprised that it is surrounded by suspicion. I think that was very clear in the presentations the other evening. For example, I think it was Mr. Vallance-Jones from the Association of Canadian Journalists who told us that he found out quite accidentally that the amendments to this legislation were being considered. He happened to be in the Legislative Library and was looking for something when he stumbled across the discussion paper.

So I know that the minister has said that the discussion paper was widely circulated, but it seems to me that I have heard from person after person, group after group, that indeed the discussion paper was not widely circulated, that they did not know about it. In

June 25, 1997 LEG IS LATIV E ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 223 fact, the secrecy surrounding this legislation, I think, was the prime reason for the founding of a coalition of citizens groups which quickly fonned themselves into a coalition just last week. It was an interesting array of groups. They were all dedicated to trying to do something about this Freedom of In fonnat ion legislation, and they did indeed succeed. I know they met with the minister, and I think the minister very wisely listened to some of their concerns.

However, the fact remains that there have not been public consultations, and I know I have said before and I will say once more, that in Alberta there was an all party committee which toured the province. I think it went to 16 different communities, and the committee heard over 200 presentations. These presentations were brought together in a publication, the title of which alludes me at this moment, but this publication was then distributed to many groups who could respond once more. That seems to me to be an open process, not sending out a discussion paper to certain select groups.

Members of the public made it very clear the other night in this very room that they do not feel that they have been consulted, and they asked for delay in the legislation in order that these consultations could take place. My side of the House believes the public should have the opportunity to be consulted on legislation that affects the lives and rights of each and every Manitoban. So, therefore, in order to allow consultations to take place, we in the House did move a six-m onth delay.

We suggested that through this hoist motion that the legislation that had been presented could serve as a white paper or a draft, that public groups could respond to this. The government members denied this suggestion and so no hoist has taken place. Consequently, the public presentations will not take place.

Now, at this time, the minister proclaimed that the reason she could not agree to a delay in public consultations was that she was very concerned about privacy for Manitobans and of course, we, too, are concerned about privacy, but we point out that because of this government's not taking care of privacy concerns for several years, Manitobans have mucked along and we assume they could get along for a few more months and would benefit ultimately by a careful piece of legislation into which they had had specific input, and that is not going to happen.

We did suggest to the minister that she proclaim the privacy aspects of the legislation- this was the second solution we gave her for public consultations-pro claim the privacy sections, clauses of the legislation and then have consultations. There are still many major matters to be decided. This was turned down by the minister, too. So, I think, that we presented two very solid alternatives, and I am sorry the minister has not chosen to listen to those. I have said that the minister, in her wisdom, did meet with a coalition of citizens groups and that she has proposed some amendments.

Those amendments we think, by and large, are very good amendments. We will be adding a few other amendments. Some of them are an attempt to fine tune this legislation. Of course, as I am sure the minister expects, we will be moving at least one major amendment and that will relate to the creation of a privacy and infonnation officer. That will require, of course, a series of amendments. I want to point out to the minister that the other night, nine out of 11 of the presenters on Bill 50, and I think all of the presenters on Bill 51, spoke in favour of a privacy and infonnation commissioner.

I wish the minister would listen to those public voices. I want to also point out when I say nine out of 11 presenters spoke in favour that one presenter was not addressing this issue. I am referring, of course, here to Virginia Menzies from City Hall, the city Ombudsman, and her presentation did not really apply to this legislation other than she asked that the City of Winnipeg be exempt from this legislation in the belief that they had very good legislation of their own, thank you very much. There was one other presenter who was not either for or against the privacy commissioner.

In his opinion, the legislation was so flawed that he was not even at a position where he could make a decision as to the best way of overseeing this act, so he bowed out on that particular one. I want to tell the minister that we certainly agree with the principles in fonning the act. We certainly agree with the purposes of the act. We do not think that the act has the clout, has the teeth, as one of the presenters said the other night, to work.

224 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 There is one other thing that I want to add in closing my remarks and that is, Mr. Chair, I want officially and on the record to apologize to Ms. Virginia Menzies, the city Ombudsman. Ms. Menzies, in good faith and from a concern for the effect of this legislation on the city and on citizens of Winnipeg, appeared before this committee to make a presentation, and I do not think she was treated very well. I think the member for Minnedosa (Mr.

Gilleshammer) took the opportunity to circulate a letter, an action which given the contents of the letter could only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to embarrass the presenter. I do not think that is the way we should treat presenters to this committee. • (1610 ) I think the member for Minnedosa, quite frankly, owes Ms. Menzies an apology, a personal apology, and here I apologize on behalf of my caucus. We really regret that this presenter was treated so rudely and so shabbily, and we want to assure her that not all members of the committee approved of this kind of action.

I want to say that I spoke with her personally this morning, and she did say that the wind was knocked right out of her sails, that she was not expecting the response that she received. In closing, I want to say that I hope she will not judge us all by the behaviour of this particular member, and I hope that incident will not prevent her from making presentation to this committee at a future date. With those few remarks, I close. Mr. Chair person: During the consideration of a bill, the

preamble, the title and the table of contents are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order. Shall Clause 1 pass? Ms. McGi fTord: I have a question on Clause I, and that is to do with an educational body. First of all, I read that an educational-1 do not need to read it, because we can all read it-but I notice it says that an educational body means the Un iversity of Manitoba, and I wonder if the universities of Winnipeg and Brandon are not included here or what the reason for that is. Mrs. Vodrey: If the member would note (

c) which says, and I quote, "a university established under The Un iversities Establishment Act." It does include the other universities. Ms. McGifTord: I notice too an educational body means any other body designated as an educational body in the regulations, and I wonder why this needs to be done by regulation as opposed to being put right into the act. My side of the House, of course, has been concerned by so much vital information and so many controls being embedded in regulation as opposed to being up front and clear to the public in legislation, and I wonder what the reason for this is. Mrs.

Vodrey: This is to provide some flexibility for any future designations. It would then allow any future designations to be included by regulation as opposed to necessarily amending the act. It is a more timely and flexible mechanism. Ms. McGifTord: Will private schools be covered here? Mrs. Vodrey: No, private schools are not included within the scope of FIP PA. Private schools are not regulated public bodies.

They receive grants from public funds as do many organizations and institutions, including entities such as agencies funded in part by Family Services, example, the Manitoba society for persons with disabilities or the CNIB. Funding has not been used as a criterion for inclusion of an entity under FIP PA because of the wide variety of levels, formulas, and organizations involved. Mr. Chairp erson : Clause 1- pass. Shall Clause 2 pass? Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I wonder if you could slow things down a little bit. Mr. Cha irperson: Ms. McGif ford, after one follows two. Shall Clause 2 pass? Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan) : Is the minister, in light of the presentations made by the various individuals to this committee, confident that in fact the purposes as outlined in this act adequately reflect the concerns expressed by the individuals who made representation?

June 25, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 225 Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I have this confidence. If the member has an issue that he would like to bring forward, then I am more than pleased to listen to it. Mr. Chair person: Clause 2-pass; Clause 3-pass; Clause 4-pass; Clause 5(1 )-pa ss; Clause 5(2)-pass; Clause 5(3)- pass; Clause 6-pass; Clause 7(1)-pa ss; Clause 7(2)-pas s; Clause 7(3)-p ass; Clause 8( 1)-pas s; Clause 8(2)-pass; Clause 8(3)- pass; Clause 9-pa ss; Clause 10 (1). Mrs. Vodrey: I would like to make an amendment here to Clause IO(I )(b).

During the public hearings the other evening, I said I would be making an amendment here because concern was expressed that the use of the phrase "the head is of the opinion" would be subjective and therefore reduce access to information. This was not our intent, Mr. Chair, therefore I will be proposing an amendment that will strike out those words. With that, I move THAT clause IO(l)(

b) of the Bill be amended by striking out "the head is of the opinion that". [French version) II est propose d'amender /'a/inea JO(l)

b) du projet de /oi par suppression de "selon lui, ". Ms. McGifford: I have already said on the record that we appreciated the minister's meeting with the coalition of concerned citizens and we appreciate her amendment; however, we believe that we have a better amendment, one that is more thorough. I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to now read my amendment. No, it is not, I understand. I just want to go on record then as saying that while we recognize the minister's amendment is an improvement on the original, we do have an amendment. Mr.

Chair person: On the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 10(1) , with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: It is the opinion of the Chair that the Yeas have it. Formal Vote Mr. Chomiak: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Chairperson. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as fo llows: Yeas 5, Nays 3. * (1 620) Mr. Chair person: Amendment-pass.

Shall the clause as amended pass? Ms. McGifford: I do have an amendment on Clause 1 0( I )(b), and the rationale for this amendment is- Mr. Cha irperson: Ah, excuse me, Ms. McGif ford. Just give me one second here. I am sorry, Ms. McGiff ord, would you continue please. Ms. McGifford: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I was saying, the rationale behind the amendment to I 0( I )(

b) was actually supplied to as I think very well by one of the presenters who made the point that electronic records should not be treated any differently than any other records and that this kind of thinking is old fashioned and that we should not-we want modem state- of-the-a rt legislation, is the phrase that we hav� used before. So while we think removing the phrase "the head is of the opinion that" is somewhat of an improvement, we do not think that this clause should be there at all so I move then ' THAT subsection I 0(

I) be amended (

a) by striking out "and" at the end of clause (a); and (

b) by striking out clause (b)

226 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBL Y OF MANITOBA June 25, I9 97 (French version) II est propose que le paragraphe 10(1) soil amende par suppression de /"alinea b). Mr. Chair person: Debate? Mrs. Vodrey: We will not be able to accept this amendment on the government side.

We believe that the clause as amended by government in fact is what is intended and is in fact reasonable, and I am also informed it also conforms quite closely to the British Columbia legislation which the member has often referenced, so we believe that what is now on the record as amended by government is reasonable and we will not be accepting this amendment. Formal Vote Mr. Chomiak: Yeas and Nays. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as fo llows: Yeas 4, Nays 6. Mr. Chair person: The motion has been defeated. Clause I 0(

I) as amended-pass. Point of Order Mr. Chomiak: Point of order, Mr. Chairperson, just a point of order and clarification from the Chair as to whether or not in fact the numbers in the committee actually warrant the actual voting pattern. I am just looking for clarification, the number of government members on the committee versus the number of opposition members. Mr. Chair person: I believe every motion can be asked for a recorded vote on. It is entirely up to the opposition to determine the numbers. Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr.

Chairperson, am just wondering if the number of votes on the committee reflect the number of government members that are actually on the committee. Mr. Cha irperson: Are you asking if the members here-[inter jection] Yes, they are. Mr. Chomiak: Okay. ••• Mr. Chair person: Order, please. Clause 10(1) as amended-pass ; Clause I 0(2)-pass. Shall Clause II (

I) pass? Ms. McG ifford: I wanted to ask a question with regard to It ( t ), because I think that- I believe that the old legislation read: The head of a public body shall respond to a request in writing within 30 days after receiving it. I noticed that the new clause reads: "The head of a public body shall make every reasonable effort to respond." I realize "reasonable" and "reasonable" are words used very frequently in this kind of legislation. It does seem to me that it is a highly connotative as opposed to denotative word, and I wonder how it might work in practice. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Chair, yes, this is a wording change from the FOI act, but it does not excuse public bodies from responding to applicants within the statutory time limit, which has not changed. Every reasonable effort provides a test against which departments can measure their response and a complaint can be made to the Ombudsman about a failure to meet the time limitation. Mr. Cha irperson: Clause tl (I )-pass; Clause It (2) pass; Clause 12( I )- pass; Clause t2 (2)-pass. Clause t3 (1) . Ms. McGiff ord: Now, I believe the minister has an amendment. Mr. Cha irperson: Sorry. Mrs.

Vodrey: I would like to propose an amendment to Clause 13(

I) on behalf of government. In subsection 13(1 ), there were some concerns that the wording was too broad. Specifically, the words "relates to" may not be precise enough. Since this was not our intent, the proposed amendment will omit these words and state more simply "is for information already provided to the applicant." Addressing the same concern, a second change is proposed which would delete the final part of the clause "or amounts to an abuse of access." Therefore, on behalf of government, I move

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 227 THAT subsection 13(1) of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted: Repetitive or incomp rehensible request 13(1) A head of a public body may refuse to give access to a record or a part of a record if the request is repetitive or incomprehensible or is for information already provided to the applicant or that is publicly available. (French version) II est propose de remplacer le paragraphe 13(1) du projet de loi par ce qui suit: Demande repetitive ou incomprehensible 13(1) Le responsable de l'organisme public peut ref user de donner comm unication totale ou partielle d'un document si Ia demande est repetitive ou incomprehensible ou a trait a des renseig nements qui ont deja ete fo urnis a /'auteur de Ia demande ou qui sont a Ia disposition du public.

Ms. McGitTord: We appreciate the minister's gesture in moving the amendment. Once again we think that we have an amendment that is superior. I want to point out to the minister that the word "repetitive" bothers me because it seems to imply that to do something once again or to do something repeatedly is inherently wro�g. I do not know how this would be interpreted, but Jt does not seem to me to be the kind of word that I would like to see here. Consequently, I would like to move an amendment, perhaps when the minister is finished with her business. I think it is a friendly amendment. Mr.

Chairperso n: On the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 13(

I) with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion ' please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: It is the opinion of the Chair that the Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division. Ms. McGifford: Mr.

Chair, then as I said, we, like the minister and like the coalition of concerned citizens had a problem with the original clause because we had concerns with matters of definition. We felt that the inexactitude of the language could possibly open this clause to abuse. We also wish to bring this clause in line with other jurisdictions and once again, because the language I think used in the original and in the minister's amendment is connotative, open to

interpretation, and consequently I would like to move the following amendment THAT subsection 13(

I) be struck out and the following substituted: Frivolous or vexatious request 13(1) A head of a public body may refuse to give access to a record or a part of a record if the head is of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the request is frivolous, vexatious or relates to information that has already been provided or that is publicly available. (French version] II est propose que le paragraphe 13 (1) so it rem place par ce qui suit: Deman de frivole ou vexatoire 13(1) Le responsable de l'organisme public peut ref user de donner communication totale ou partielle d'un document s'il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, que Ia demande est .frivole, vexatoire ou a trait a des renseignements qui ont deja ete fo urnis ou qui sont a Ia disposition du public.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, though I appreciate the member's effort in bringing this forward as a friendly amendment, I could say that we will not be accepting it

228 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANIT OBA June 25, 1997 as government. The word "repetitive" has been used to apply to a request for the same information over and over, not many requests or repeated requests by a single person for other kinds of information. We believe that, as it is titled now, it is in fact the most precise, and I would also say to the member that I am informed that both the British Columbia and the Alberta legislation used the words "repetitious," so government will not be accepting that amendment. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: On the proposed motion of Ms. McGifford to amend Clause 13(

I) with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honour able Members: Yes. Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Nays have it. An Honourable Mem ber: On division. * (1 630) Mr. Chair person: On division.

Clause 13(1) as amended by the minister-p ass; Clause 13(2)--pass; Clause 14( I )--pass; Clause 14(2)- pass; Clause 15(1 )--pas s; Clause 15(2)--pass; Clause 16( 1 )-- pass; Clause 16(2)--pass; Clause 17( I )-- pass; Clause 17(2)-- pass; Clause 17(3)--pass; Clause 17(4)- pass; Clause 17(5)-- pass; Clause 17(6)-- pass; Clause 18( 1 )-- pass; Clause 18(2)-- pass; Clause 18(3)-- pass; Clause 18( 4 )--pass. Clause 19(1 ). Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Chair, on Clause 19(1) , there was some concerns expressed that the phrase "relating to government decisions or the formulation of government policy" creates too broad an exception. So we will therefore propose new wording "relating directly" which makes it clear that the record must relate directly to government decisions or policy. Therefore, on behalf of government, I move THAT clauses 19(1 )(

d) and (

e) be amended by adding "di rectly" after "relating". (French version) II est propose d'amender le paragraphe 19(1):

a) dans l'alinea d), par substitution, a "relativement ", de "ayant directement trail";

b) dans l'a/inea

e) de Ia version anglaise, par adjonction. apres "relating", de "directly". Mr. Chomiak: Very briefly, Mr. Chairperson, while we appreciate the minis ter has attempted to bring in some kind of attempt to make the bill more palatable, we are of the opinion-and I think it was reflected in presentations made the other night-that if one were to compare information and documentation that is available to the public as a result of this particular bill versus the previous and the pre-existing bill, that this bill far narrows the ability of individuals to receive information and, accordingly, we will be unable to vote in favour of this

section of the bill. Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I think I may be the only member here who has actually worked at government in a sort of reasonably senior level. I worked for this minister or worked in the same department as this minister, in any case. An Honourable Member: Worked together. Mr. Sale: We worked together, yes. I think that this amendment does not clarify or help anything, because under the principle of parliamentary supremacy and under the principle of ministerial authority, everything that happens in a department is the minister's ultimate responsibility.

The minister may not be aware �f everything, so whether they are culpable or not tf something goes wrong, of course, is another issue, but they are responsible and I do not think any minister of this Crown or any other government would argue that doctrine of ministerial responsibility is very important. So any work that goes on in a department is ultimately for the purpose of administering the regulations and the acts for which that department has a responsibility. Virtually any advice that is given to a minister can be therefore said to relate directly to the role for which the minister has been appointed.

So I understand that the minister was trying to respond to criticisms of the breadth, but I thin�!hat �he will find, and that government will find, that relatmg

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBL Y OF MANITOBA 229 directly" covers just about as many sins as the other wording did, and that many bureaucrats and ministers will find it very convenient to say that this request is denied because it relates directly to advice or whatever. So as someone with at least a modest amount of experience in bureaucracy, I do not think this amendment meets the mark at all, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chair person: On the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 19(1) , with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Mrs. Vodrey: Pass. Mr.

Chair person: It is the opinion of the Chair that the motion passes. Some Honourable Members: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division. Shall Clause 19( 1 ), as amended, pass? Mrs. Vodrey: Pass. Mr. Cha irperson: It is the opinion of the Chair that the clause is passed. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division. Clause 19(1) is accordingly passed. Clause 19(2). Ms. McG iff ord: Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment to Clause 19(2).

I think if I read the amendment, the reason for it might be straightforward but, first of all, I suppose I would like to say that it seems to me that the 30-year time limit here is quite ridiculous. I think the time limit for the release of cabinet records is 20 years in Ontario and federally. I believe it is 10 years in B.C., and the 30 years in Manitoba seems absolutely excessive. I cannot imagine why Manitoba cabinet records have to be kept secret for 30 years.

Consequently, I move THAT clause 19(2Xb) be amended by striking out "30" and substituting "1 5". (French version) II est propose d'amender /'alinea 19(2)

b) par substitution, a "30 ", de "15". Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, government will not be able to support that amendment. We have, as I said, in many ways maintained the provisions of the current FOI Act. This is one provision which currently exists in the FOI Act, and it was government's decision to maintain it. So we will not be supporting that amendment. Mr. Cha irperson: On the proposed motion of Ms. McGifford to amend Clause 19(2), with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: Yes. An Honourable Member: No. Voice Vote Mr.

Chairperson: All those in favour, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: It is the opinion of the Chair, the Nays have it. Ms. McGifford: On division. Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated on division. Clause 20( 1)-pass; Clause 20(2)-pass; Clause 20(3) pass; Clause 21(1)- pass; Clause 21 (2)-pass; Clause 22( 1 )-pass; Clause 22(2)-pass. Clause 23( I) . * (1 640) Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, in Clause 23( 1), (

f) in particular, it was our intent to maintain the

230 LEG ISL ATI VE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 confidentiality of authorized in-camera meetings. However, we feel that there might be a concern that this clause would be understood to restrict access to information which is currently available. This was not the intention, and we are prepared to propose an amendment which simply eliminates Clause (

f) in the bill as drafted. Therefore, Mr. Chair, on behalf of government, I move THAT subsection 23(

I) be amended (

a) by adding "or" at the end of clause (e); (

b) by striking out clause (f); and (

c) by relettering clause (

g) as clause (f). [French version) II est propose d'amender le paragraphe 23(1):

a) par suppression de l'a/ineaj);

b) par sub stitution, a Ia designation d'alinea g), de Ia designation d'alineaj). Ms. McGifford: Well, I think it a very intelligent amendment. I was going to propose the same one myself. Mr. Cha irperson: Shall Clause 23(

I) as amended pass? Ms. McG ifford: I do have a question about another matter relating to 23(

I) before we pass the entire clause. Mr. Cha irperson: I would suggest you ask your question now then. Ms.

McG ifford: I wanted to ask the minister some thing because repeatedly during presentations, and the minister could advise me if I am asking her in the wrong place perhaps, but repeatedly during presentations members of the public presenters brought the concern that they felt the new legislation would not give them access to information regarding private consultants and private contracts, which I understand was not forbidden under the old Freedom of Information Act, Clause 39(2)(f), but that this new act does not allow them access to this information. I wonder if the minister could comment. Mrs.

Vodrey: The advice of consultants is being treated in this bill the same as advice from public body employees, so the release of a consultant's report is a discretionary decision in the Manitoba bill, just as it is in simi lar legislation elsewhere in Canada, and these acts do not distinguish between advice from a consultant or a civil servant when the record is reviewed in the context of an access request. Ms. McGifford: I would like to ask the minister then, were the citizens who expressed concerns mis informed? Mrs.

Vodrey: If there was a misunderstanding, it would have been if any of the presenters thought that this applied to all consultants' reports. If it applies to consultants' reports which may be, as reports of civil servants would be, in the assistance of developing government policy, then they would not be available. However, if they were reports of a general nature, then they would be available according to the act. Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister could define reports of a general nature. Mrs.

Vodrey: I am not sure that I can give her an exact hypothetical, but as we had a brief discussion, it might be a report on a historical site or some additional information which might be useful. Ms. McGifford: Another question, I understand that under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that Clause 23( 1) will apply to local public bodies. Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct. Ms.

McGiiTord: I wonder how this legislation-and it is not up to the minister to necessarily answer- will affect local public bodies, and I wonder what work her department has done to assist local public bodies in preparing for the legislation.

June 25, 1997 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 23 1 Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as the member knows, this act has a phased- in proclamation, so my department will now be working with public bodies with all other public bodies to assist them in terms of any educational information that they need and any assistance at all as they begin to apply this act. Their proclamation, as I said, is phased in and it is expected to be at a time later than the proclamation for government. Ms.

McGifford: How does the minister think it will work with the City of Winnipeg when the City of Winnipeg, as we understand from the presentation made by Ms. Menzies the other evening, already has an Ombudsman and has its own access-to- information process? Mrs. Vodrey: I hate to answer a hypothetical with a hypothetical, so I am going to not really say too much on this. I think the important point is that my department will be working with the City of Winnipeg.

We have, as the member referenced in her opening remarks, a letter from the deputy mayor on behalf of the City of Winnipeg indi cating their support for this legislation and, therefore, I would assume from that their willingness to work through this and then where there is an effect on their Ombudsman that that then will be worked out through the process that will be undertaken with the passage of this bill. Until proclamation, that affects them. Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I understand that the letter came from the executive of City Hall.

I understand too that the letter may not necessarily have been endorsed by all city councillors. I understand that the matter may have been debated this morning at City Council. I wanted to make clear that the letter may not necessarily reflect the opinion of City Council. It was the executive group. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again I do not want to get into a debate here in the passing of this legislation, but I just would say for the record it came on City of Winnipeg paper, and it said, directed by the Executive Policy Committee to confirm the city's support. So I am operating under that statement of support.

However, in applying this bill and preparing for proclamation, there is an acknowledgement that my department will work with these public bodies and that where issues are there to be dealt with then we will certainly provide all the assistance we can to do that. Mr. Chair person: Amendment-pass . Clause 23(1) as amended. Ms. McGifford: I do not have any concerns until 46. Mr. Cha irperson: Clause 23( 1) as amended-pass. Clause 23(2). Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I do have an amendment on 23(2)( d). There has been concern that 23(2)( d)(

i) could be perceived as a limitation on access to environmental impact assessment. This is not the intent of the clause. In fact, this clause was drafted to ensure that routine testing performed for a fee, for example the testing on well water, were not subject to access because they belong to the individual who asked for the service. However, I understand that this is being understood as restrictive and, for that reason, we are prepared to amend the subclause as shown in the proposed amendment that I will bring forward. Therefore, Mr. Chair, again on behalf of government, I move THAT clause 23(2)(

d) be amended by striking out everything after "conducted by or for the public body". [French version] II est propose d'amender l'alinea 23(2)(

d) par suppression de tout le passage qui suit "e.ffoctue par ou pour l'organisme public". * (1 650) Mr. Chair person: Amendment-p ass; Clause as amended-pass. Clauses 23(3) and 24-pass; Clause 25( 1}-pa ss; Clauses 25(2), 25(3) and 26-pass; Clauses 27( 1 ), 27(2) and 28( 1 }- pass. Clause 28(2). Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, 1 would like to provide an amendment to 28(2). The reasons are the same as those in the amendment that I just made in 23(2)(d). So the amendment that I will be putting forward through 28(2) is, I move on behalf of government

232 LEGI SLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANIT OBA June 25, 1997 THAT subsection 28(2) be amended by striking out clauses (

a) and (

b) and substituting "f or the purpose of developing methods of testing or for the purpose of testing products for possible purchase". [French version) II est propose d'amender le paragraphe 28(2) par substitution a tout le passage qui suit "fait ", de "dans le but de mettre au point des methodes d'essais ou de mettre a l'essai des produits en vue d'un achat eventue /". Mr. Cha irperson: On the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 28(2), with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Mr. Cha irperson: The motion is accordingly passed.

Clause 28(2) as amended-pa ss; Clauses 29 and 30-pass; Clauses 31 (I) , 31 (2) and 32( 1 }-pa ss; Clauses 32(2), 33( 1) and 33(2}-pa ss; Clauses 33(3), 33(4) and 33(5}-pass; Clauses 34(1), 34(2), 34(3), 34(4), 34(5}-pas s; Clause 35-pass; Clauses 36(1 ), 36(2}-p ass; Clause 37(1 }-pa ss; Clauses 37(2), 37(3), 38 and 39(1}-p ass; Clauses 39(2), 39(3), 39(4), 39(5), 39(6) and 41-pa ss; Clause 42-pa ss; Clauses 41, 42(1 ), 42(2), 42(3}-pas s; Clauses 43 and 44( I }-pas s; Clauses 44(2) and 45-pass; Clause 46( 1 }- pass. Clause 46(2). Ms.· McGiiTord: Mr.

Chair, I do have a couple of questions about 46(2); 46(2) talks about the use or disclosure of personal information, et cetera, et cetera, and I have a question about Clause (a), and that is, I wonder what the reason would be for linking information databases or matching personal information. I wonder if the minister could give us some general examples of when this might occur and why. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, database linking has become a widely used method of making electronic connections employing personal information, such as names, addresses and dates of birth.

In commercial practice, such linkages are made to construct customer profiles for use in marketing research and to provide contacts for telemarketing. Among public sector bodies, database linkages are generally used to enhance program performance and improve client services often among federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions. Prominent examples in the Manitoba government would include the Better Systems initiative and Integrated Case Management Project which intend to link multiple databases of personal information within the government and with the City of Winnipeg.

Because of the high propensity of database linkages for abusing the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, proposals for linkages are to be referred to the Privacy Assessment Review Committee for review and advice. Ms. McGiiTord: Well, I agree with the minister that it is important that this kind of transaction be monitored very closely, but I wonder if the minister could be more specific in her examples. When might public bodies link databases, and in what specific circumstances? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Chair, as always in these projections of these electronic connections it is very difficult to-there are just so many hypotheticals, which is why we set the review process into place. In an effort to provide a hypothetical purely, an example may be, for instance, the Child and Youth Secretariat who wants to use programs to benefit families. However, the use and the volume of information, what was required for linkage, would be required to be scrutinized carefully and monitored. Ms.

McGiiTord: I wanted to ask a question about 46(2)(b ), and I wonder what kind of reasons there are for the release of volume or bulk information, and, again, a specific example would be helpful. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, one of the examples there is the request of the War Amps, for instance, for that bulk information, and so we wanted to make sure that we had covered any other kinds of request, that included. Ms. McGiiTord: What exactly constitutes volume or bulk information? Mrs.

Vodrey: The bulk or volume disclosure would be information which is on a registry where a person or access was not simply for a single item but was in fact for all items, for instance, the motor vehicle registry.

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 233 Ms. McG ifford: I know that some of the presenters had problems with 46(2), I think both (

a) and (b), but I think particularly (b), because some of the presenters thought that there should be exceptions, I believe, for materials that are normally and currently available to the public. I wonder if the minister could comment on that concern? I think one of the members used the example of the government phone book, according to this clause, that it would no longer be available. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the information which is available now will continue to be available, so the normal process will be respected.

This area again was an attempt to deal with some of the requests for bulk disclosures which are coming which are very, very difficult to hypothesize and put all into legislation. So this clause is here to deal with some that we have not thought of, are not currently going on, and to provide a mechanism to access them within the act. Ms. McGiff ord: So the minister seems to be suggesting then that perhaps the presenters were being, their concerns were misplaced or they were worrying unnecessarily? * (1 700) Mrs. Vodrey: They may have been. Clause 3(

a) protects the ordinary access, which is what the concern appears to be in our discussion today, and that is the difficulty in that. I was saying, it is so very difficult to choose one clause; you need to see the whole act with all of its reference points. So it would be important to point out to people who may have expressed a concern around this clause, to point them to Clause 3(a), which in fact preserves their normal access. Ms.

McGifford: I think the minister just now made a very good point as to why this legislation should be circulated as a white paper, and we should have more public consultation, because clearly there is misunderstanding and that kind of public consultation would provide the opportunity for clarification. Mrs. Vodrey: This is a very complex piece of legislation. It requires, I believe, people to work with it, to begin to apply it. Mr.

Chair, for the reasons that I have stated many times on the record in the House and in committee, it is our government's belief that this legislation should in fact be passed and should be dealt with now, and the people of Manitoba should not be left without the privacy protection that they deserve. Mr. Cha irperson: Clause 46(2}- pass. Ms. McGifford, moving as we did in the past, moving the blocks of clauses, if you would prefer to give me a heads-up on your next clause-49?. Thank you. Clauses 46(3), 46(4), 46(5) and 46(6}-pass; Clauses 47(1), 47(2}-pass; Clauses 47(3), 47(4}- pass; Clause 48-pass. Clause 49.

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I think that we have been quite unequivocal in our belief that the Ombudsman's office is not the proper office to oversee and assume responsibility for this legislation. We believe that privacy information and protection legislation is best left, is best put in the hands of a privacy and information commissioner as will be outlined in an amendment. I would like to take the opportunity to allow the government to see the wisdom of this method of overseeing the act.

The amendment that I want to suggest will not involve any cost, and it can be done without gravely endangering the expeditious passage of privacy, which I know the minister is greatly concerned about. Consequently, Mr. Chair, I would like to move THAT

section 49 be struck out and the following substituted: Selection process and terms of reference of Comm issioner 49 On the coming into force of this Act, the Legislative Assembly shall constitute a special all-party committee for the purpose of this

section and, within six months of the coming into force of this Act, the committee shall develop (

a) terms of reference for the office of Information and Privacy Commissioner; and (

b) A selection process for the selection of the Commissioner.

234 LEGI SLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 [French version] II est propose de remp/acer /'article 49 par ce qui suit: Processus de selection du Commissaire et mandai 49 Des /'entree en vigueur de Ia presente /oi, l'Assemblee legislative constitue, pour /'application du present article, un comite special representant tous les partis po/itiques. Dans les six mois suivant l'entree en vigueur de Ia presente /oi, le comite etab/it:

a) le mandat du Commisssaire a Ia inf ormation et a Ia protection de Ia vie privee;

b) le process us de selection du Commissaire. Hon. Glen Cumm ings (Mini ster of Natural Resources): Well, I think, Mr. Chainnan, the argument has been made many times that there is already a structure in place, the authority that we were wanting to put into the Ombudsman's office to deal with these issues.

It seems to me it is already recognized as a fair and responsible area managed by competent people who, given appropriate resources, can manage this appropriately, and I fail to see how developing another point of access and another point of vetting the appropriateness of these requests would do anything to enhance this bill or to enhance the service that we are trying to provide to the public. I think there have always been some questions that have raised here by opposition that there is a matter of resources that come into play.

I think the minister has adequately reflected that, and I would not recommend passing this amendment. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I would say that on behalf of government we cannot accept this amendment, that a decision has been made that the Ombudsman is the office that should be entrusted with these expanded duties and that our experience with the Ombudsman in Manitoba has been very good, that the Ombudsman has in fact done a very good job of investigation and negotiation, which is an important part, and that ultimately, as well, this causes the ultimate responsibility to rest as it should with elected people.

So we would not want to accept the amendment, as my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has said in the past, that as well, this is our passing of the bill with the extended powers and the enhanced powers of the Ombudsman and that we will want to see how this works. There is a review of the bill within five years, and at that point, if it appears that another decision should be made, having had experience with the application and practice of this bill, then it will be reviewed at that time. Mr. Chair, we believe that, again, the role of the Ombudsman is a proven role in Manitoba.

It is one which has been successful in Manitoba. I would want to just stress as well the importance of the role of negotiation in that if negotiation can deal with the issue rather than issuing a binding order, rather than having to move to another level, then I think that is great, and that is a skill which the Ombudsman has. So, Mr. Chair, on behalf of government we cannot accept this amendment. Ms. McGitTord: Mr. Chair, I want to put on the record that the members of the New Democratic caucus hold the Ombudsman in respect.

We were part of an all party committee that participated in his hiring and the fact that we wish to have the appointment of an infonnation and privacy-par don me, that we wish at this point to create an all-party committee which would look into the whole business of an infonnation and privacy commissioner casts no aspersions on the wonderful work that the provincial Ombudsman does. It does, however, recognize the limitations on the powers of the Ombudsman and reflects our belief that we need to have legislation with teeth. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you.

It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment proposed by Ms. McGif ford is out of order, because it imposes a charge upon the public Treasury and therefore cannot be considered by the committee. Ms. McGitTord: I do not understand how it imposes a charge since it merely suggests an all-party committee develop tenns of reference for the office and a selection process for the selection of the commissioner. I do not know where monies would be expended. [interjection] It does not suggest hiring a commissioner. Mr. Chair person: The suggestion that the tenns and reference for the office of infonnation and privacy

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBL Y OF MANIT OBA 235 commissioner suggests the requirement of Treasury funds, so therefore I rule the amendment out of order. Mr. Sale: I challenge the ruling of the Chair, Mr. Chairperson. *( 171 0) Mr. Chair person: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? All those in favour, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. *( 171 0) Mr. Cha irperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. The ruling of the Chair is sustained.

Mr. Sale: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division. Clause 49-pass. Clause 50( 1). Ms. McGitTord: Mr. Chair, I would like to try again. I think if I provide some more details defining the nature and kind of the commissioner we have in mind, the characteristics as our side of the House envisions it, the members opposite may change their minds. Therefore, I move THAT the following be added after

section 49: Appointment of Information and Privacy Commissioner 49. 1(1) On the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, the Lieutenant Governor shall appoint as the Inf ormation and Privacy Commissioner a person who has been unanimously recommended by a spec ial Committee of the Legislative Assembly for the appointment. Comm issioner is officer 49.1(2) The Commissioner is an officer of the Legislature. Comm issioner's term 49. 1( 3) Subject to

section 49.2, the Commissioner holds office for a term of six years. Prohibition on reappointment 49.1(4) A person who is appointed under this

section is not eligible to be reappointed as Commissioner. Resignation of Commi ssioner 49.2(1) The Commissioner may resign at any time by notifying the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or, if there is no speaker or the speaker is absent from Manitoba, by notifying the clerk of the Legislative Assembly. Removal or suspension of Commissioner 49.2(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall remove the Commissioner from office or suspend the Commissioner for cause or incapacity on the recommendation of 2/3 of the members present in the Legislative Assembly.

Removal or suspension between sittings 49.2(3) If the Legislative Assembly is not sitting, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may suspend the Commissioner for cause or incapacity. Acting Commi ssioner 49.3(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint an acting Commissioner if (

a) the office of Commissioner is or becomes vacant when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting; (

b) the Commissioner is suspended when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting; (

c) the Commissioner is removed or suspended or the office of the Commissioner becomes vacant when the Legislative Assembly is sitting, but no recommendation is made by the Assembly under subsection 49.1 (1) before the end of the session; or

236 LEG ISL ATI VE AS SEMBLY OF MANIT OBA June 25, 1997 (

d) the Commissioner is temporarily absent because of illness or for another reason. Term of acting Commi ssioner 49.3(2) An acting Commissioner holds office until (

a) a person is appointed under subsection 49. 1 (I) ; (

b) the suspension of the Commissioner ends; (

c) the Legislative Assembly has sat for 20 days after the date of the acting Commissioner's appointment; or (

d) the Commissioner returns to office after a temporary absence; whichever is the case and whichever occurs first. Salary, expenses and benefits of Commissioner . 49.4(1) A Commissioner appointed under subsectton 49.1(1) or 49.3(1) is entitled (

a) to be paid, out of the consolidated revenue fund, a salary equal to the salary paid to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba; and (

b) to be reimbursed for reasonable travelling and out of pocket expenses personally incurred in performing the duties of the office. Application of The Civil Service Superann uation Act 49.4(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may order that The Civil Service Superannuation Act applies to the Commissioner. Staff of Comm issioner 49.5(1) The Commissioner may appoint, in accordance with The Civil Service Act, employees necessary to enable the Commissioner to perform the duties of the office.

Comm issioner may retain consultants and others 49.5(2) The Commissioner may retain any consultants, mediators or other persons and may establish their remuneration and other terms and conditions of their retainers. Non-application of The Civil Service Act 49.5(3) The Civil Service Act does not apply in respect of a person retained under subsection (2). Special report 49.5(4) The Commissioner may make a special report to the Legislative Assembly if, in the Commissioner's opinion, (

a) the amounts provided for the office of Commissioner in the estimates; or (

b) the staff resources of the Commissioner; are inadequate for fulfilling the duties of the office. General powers of Comm issioner 49.6(1) In addition to the Commissioner's powers and duties under

Part 5 with respect to reviews, the Commissioner is generally responsible for monitoring how this Act is administered to ensure that its purposes are achieved, and may (

a) conduct investigations and audits to ensure compliance with any provision of this Act; (

b) make an order described in subsection 66( 1. 2) whether or not a complaint is made; (

c) inform the public about this Act; (

d) receive comments from the public concerning the administration of this Act; (

e) engage in or commission research into a�ything affecting the achievement of the purposes of thts Act; (

f) comment on the implications for access to information or for protection of privacy of proposed legislative schemes or programs of public bodies; (

g) comment on the implications for access to information or for protection of privacy of automated systems for collection, storage, analysis or transfer of information; (

h) comment on the implications for protection of privacy of using or disclosing personal information for record linkage;

June 25, 1997 LEG ISL ATI VE AS SEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 237 (

i) authorize the collection of personal information from resources other than the individual the information is about; and

G) bring to the attention of the head of the public body any failure to meet the prescribed standards for fulfilling the duty to assist applicants. Commi ssioner may investigate complaints 49.6(2) Without limiting subsection (1 ), the Commissioner may investigate and attempt to resolve complaints that (

a) a duty imposed by this Act or the regulations has not been performed; (

b) an extension of time for responding to a request is not in accordance with

section 11 ; (

c) a fee required under this Act is inappropriate; (

d) a correction of personal information requested under subsection 39(1) has been refused without justification; and (

e) personal information has been collected, used or disclosed by a public body in contravention of

Part 3. Power to authorize a public body to disregard requests 49.7 If the head of a public body asks, the Commissioner may authorize the public body to disregard requests under

section 8 that, because of their repetitious or systematic nature, would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body. [French version) II est ajoute, apres /'article 49, ce qui suit: Nomination du Commissaire a /'information et a Ia protection de Ia vie privee 49.1(1) A Ia recommandation de l'Assemblee legislative, le lieutenant-gouverneur nomme a

titre de Commissaire a /'inf ormation et a Ia protection de Ia vie privee une personne qui a fa it /'objet d'une recommandation unanime d'un comite special de l'Assemblee legislative. Fonctionnaire de I'Assemb/ee llgislative 49.1(2) Le Commissaire est fo nctionnaire de I'As semblee legislative. Mandat 49.1(3) Sous reserve de /'article 49.2, Ia duree du mandai du Commissaire est de six ans. Nouveau mandat 49.1

(4) La personne qui est nommee en application du present

article ne peut recevoir un nouveau mandai. Demission du Commissaire 49.2(1) Le Commissaire peut demissioner a tout moment en avisant le president de l'Assemblee legislative ou, s' il ny a pas de president ou que /e president soil absent du Manitoba, en avisant le greffier de I'As semb/ee legislative. Destitution ou suspension du Commissaire 49.2(2) Le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil destitue le Commissaire ou le suspend pour un motif valable ou pour incapacite sur Ia recommandation des 213 des deputes presents a l'Assemblee legislative.

Suspension 49.2(3) Si l'Assemblee legislative ne siege pas, le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil peut suspendre le Commissaire pour un motif valable ou pour incapacite. Commissaire interimaire 49.3(1) Le lieutenan t-gouverneur en conseil peut nommer un commissaire interimaire si:

a) le paste du Commissaire est ou devient vacant lorsque l'Assemb/ee legislative ne siege pas;

b) le Commissaire est suspendu lorsque l'Assemblee legislative ne siege pas;

c) le Commissaire est destitue ou suspendu ou si non paste devient vacant lorsque l'Assemblee legislative ne siege pas, mais qu'aucune recommandation ne soitf aite par l'Assemblee sous le regime du paragraphe 49. 1 (1) avant lajin de Ia session;

d) le Commissaire est temporairement absent, nota mment pour cause de maladie.

238 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 Occupation du poste 49.3(2) Le commissaire interimaire occupe son paste jusqu'a celui des evenem ents su ivants a se produire le premier:

a) Ia nomination d'une personne en application du paragraphe 49. 1 (1);

b) Ia fin de Ia suspension du Commissaire;

c) l'ecoulement de 20 jours de seance de I'Assemblee legislative apres Ia date de nomination du commissaire interimaire;

d) le retour du Commissaire a ses fo nctions apres une absence temporaire. Traitement, indemnites et avantages du Commissaire 49.4(1) Le commissaire nomme sous le regime du paragraphe 49. 1(1) ou 49. 3(1) ale droit:

a) de se fa ire verser, sur le Tresor, un traitement ega/ au traitement verse au juge en chef de Ia Cour provinciale du Manitoba;

b) d'etre rembourse des .frais de deplacement et des menu s .frais raisonnables qu'il a engages dans /'exercise de ses fo nctions. Application de Ia

Loi sur Ia pension de Ia fonction publique 49.4(2) Le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil peut decreter /'application au Commissaire de Ia

Loi sur Ia pension de laf onction publique. Personnel 49.5(1) Le Commissaire peut nommer, en conf ormite avec Ia

Loi sur Ia fo nction publique, les employes necessaires pour qu'il puisse exercer ses fo nctions. Consultants, mediateurs et autres personnes 49.5(2) Le Commissaire peut retenir les services de personnes, notamment de consultants et de mediateurs, et peut fix er leur remuneration ainsi que les autres conditions de leur mandai.

Loi sur lafonction publique 49.5(3) La

Loi sur laf onction publique ne s' applique pas aux personnes dont les services sont retenus en vertu du paragraphe (2). Rapport special 49.5(4) Le Commissaire peut presenter un rapport special a I'Assemb/ ee legislative si, a son avis, les credits qui lui sont aff ectes dans le budget ou les ressources en personnel doni il dispose ne lui permettent pas d'exercer ses fo nctions en raison de leur ins uffis ance. Attributions generales 49.6(1) En plus des attributions qui lui sont conf erees sous /e regime de Ia

partie 5 au sujet des revisions, le Commissaire est, de fa �on genera/e. charge de sur vei/ler /'application de Ia presente loi afi n qu'en soient realises les objets; j[ peut:

a) proceder a des enquetes et a des verifications pour garantir /'observation des dispositions de Ia presente loi;

b) donner un des ordres vzses par le paragraphe 66(1.2) meme si aucune revision n' est demandee;

c) renseigner le public au sujet de Ia presente loi;

d) recevoir /es commentaires du public au sujet de /'application de Ia presente loi;

e) proceder a des recherches sur des questions touchant Ia realisation des objets de Ia presente loi ou mandater quelqu'un a cette fin.

f) commenter les repercussions qu'ont sur l'acces aux renseignements ou sur Ia protection de Ia vie privee les projets Iegislatifs ou programmes prevus des organismes publics;

g) commenter les repercussions qu 'ont sur l'acces aux rensei gnements ou sur Ia protection de Ia vie privee les systemes automatises de collecte, de slackage, d'ana/yse ou de trans mission des renseig nements;

h) commenter les repercussions qu'a sur /'acces aux renseignements ou sur Ia protection de Ia vie privee /'utilisation ou Ia communication de renseig nements personnels en vue du coup/age de documents;

i) autoriser Ia col/ecte de renseig nements personnel s aupres d'autres sources que le particulier que les renseig nements concernent;

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 239

j) porter a Ia connaissance du responsable d'un organisme public tout manquement aux normes reglementaires concernant /'obligation de prefer assistance aux auteurs de demandes. Enquete et tentative de reglement 49.6(2) Sans prejudice du paragraphe (1), le Commissaire peut enqueter et tenter de statuer sur les plaintes portant:

a) que des obligations prevues par Ia presente loi ou les reglements n' ont pas ete remplies;

b) qu'une prorogation du delai prevu pour repondre a une demande ne respecte pas /'article 11;

c) que des droits exiges sous le regime de Ia presente loi sont inappropries;

d) qu'une demande de correction de rensei gnements personnel s presentee en vertu du paragraphe 39(1) a ete rejetee sans justification;

e) qu'un organisme public a recueil/i, utilise ou communique des renseig nements personnel s en contravention avec Ia

partie 3. Autorisation 49. 7 Le Commissaire peut autoriser l'organisme public dont le responsable lui en fa it Ia demande a ne pas Ienir compte des demandes qui sont presentees en vertu de /'article 8 et qui, en raison de leur caractere repetitif ou systematique, entraveraient de fa �on serieuse le fo nctionnement de l'organ isme. Mr. Chairperson: It is my opmton that the amendment proposed by Ms. McGifford is out of order because it imposes a charge upon the public Treasury and therefore cannot be considered by the committee.

Again, I would ask the indulgence of the committee if they want to give me a heads-up on the next number or not. I know there is an amendment coming forward at 70.

Clauses 51, 52, 53(1), 53(2), 54-pa ss; Clauses 55 (1) , 55(2), 55(3), 55(4)-pa ss; Clauses 55(5), 56, 57, 58( 1), 58(2), 58(3)-pa ss; Clauses 59( 1 ), 59(2), 59(3), 59(4), 59(5) and 61 -pass; Clauses 62, 63, 61, 62( 1), 62(2), 63(1 )-pas s; Clauses 63(2), 64(1), 64(2), 64(3), 65- pass; Clauses 66(1), 66(2), 66(3), 66(4)-pass; Clauses 66(5), 66(6), 67( 1)-pass; Clauses 67(2), 67(3), 67(4), 67(5), 68( 1 ), 68(2) and 68(3)-pass; Clauses 68( 4), 69-pass; Clause 70(1)-pass. Clause 70(2). Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, there is a difficulty with subsection 70(2) in that it appears to be a defective clause.

It deals with situations where access requests involve personal information of a third party. The existing subsection refers to the refusal to give access but not a decision to give access. Those circumstances need to be covered so an amendment is proposed to add the words "give or" before "refuse to give". In both of these circumstances the burden is on the applicant for the information to prove that disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of the third party's privacy. This omission is a drafting error, and the amendment would bring FIP P in line with similar legislation elsewhere.

Therefore, on behalf of government, I move THAT subsection 70(2) of the Bill be amended by adding "give or" before "refuse to give". * (1 720) [French version] II est propose d'amender le paragraphe 70(2) du projet de loi par adjonction, avant "de refus er ", de "de donner ou ". Mr. Chair person: Comment. Seeing none, on the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 70(2) with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honou rable Members: Pass. Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly passed.

Clause 70(2) as amended-pass; Clauses 70(3) and 71- pass; Clause 72-pa ss; Clause 73(1 )-pas s; Clauses 73(2) and 74-pass; Clauses 75(1), 75(2), 75(3)-p ass; Clauses 75(4), 75(5), 75(6), 76(1)-pass; Clause 76(2) pass. Clause 77. Ms. McGitTord: Mr. Chair, I do want to propose an amendment here, and I will just briefly state my reasons for it. Once we see the phrase regulation-and I see in the spreadsheet beside 77 that the regulation will

240 LEGISL ATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANIT OBA June 25, 1997 provide details on the composition and operation of the Privacy Assessment Review Committee. I want to tell the minister that I take the Privacy Assessment Review Committee very seriously, which is why I asked earlier questions on the bulk information and the database, on the database clauses, and I realize that this would also apply to the release of information for research purposes.

However, what I wanted to say is that I do not think that this should be a committee which would become a sinecure for political hacks or failed Tory candidates, or indeed failed New Democrats. I think that it is important, and I know the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) would agree with me, that there be informed skilled, neutral and objective people on this committee. I think it is important that the committee be staffed by people who understand the complexity of issues, who are informed, and I think also it would be important to include some citizen advocates.

I noticed that Bill 51, the Minister of Health's privacy act, I noticed on the health information privacy committee there will be included public representatives, public representatives will be included, and I believe these public representatives are specifically not to be health professionals. I do believe that one-q uarter of the composition of that committee would be citizen appointments, and that seems to me to be a very good idea-pardon me, not appointed by citizens but would be advocates, and it seems to me to be an excellent idea.

So I recognize the need for expertise on the committee, as I am sure the minister does, but also I think it is important that concerned citizens who are advocates be included in the composition of this very important and sensitive committee. I think it is important that this committee be appointed by an all-party committee of the Legislature, and therefore I move THAT

section 77 be struck out and the following substituted: Privacy Assessment Review Comm ittee 77(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall establish a Privacy Assessment Review Committee for the purposes of

section 46 and 4 7. Appointment of comm ittee members 77(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall, on the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the Assembly on Privileges and Elections, appoint as many Canadian citizens as the members of the Privacy Assessment Review Committee as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate from time to time, and shall appoint from among their number one person as Chairperson.

Meetings of Standing Comm ittee 77(3) The Standing Committee of the Assembly on Privileges and Elections may, for the purposes of performing its functions under this section, meet during session of the Legislature or during recess after prorogation. (French version) II est propose de remplacer /'article 77 par ce qui suit: Comite d'evaluation 77(1) Pour /'application des articles 46 et 47, le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil constitue un comite d'evaluation.

Nomination des membres du Comite d'evaluation 77(2) A Ia recommandation du Comite permanent des privileges et elections, le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil nomme le nombre de citoyes canadiens qu'il estime indique a

titre de membres du Comite d'evaluation; il nomme ega/ement un president parmi ces membres. Reunions du Comite permanent 77(3) Le Comite permanent des privileges et elections peut, aux fins de l'exercice des fo nctions prevues au present article, se reunir au cours des sessions de I'Assembtee legislative ou au cours des conges qui suivent la prorogation de celle-ci. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I had explained this to the member earlier during our briefings, but I am happy to explain it again. This PARC committee will be determined by regulation.

However, I have explained to the member that the people who will compose the Privacy Assessment Review Committee will be senior experienced civil servants, which may sort of help her look at the people who will be sitting on this committee. They will be senior civil servants who have expertise in information management, in record

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 241 keeping, particularly in the area of electronic records, and so they will in fact be very experienced professional people in this area. Mr. Chair, there is some difference between Bill 50 and the health bill, Bill 51. The PARC committee will be dealing with information that is held within a public body and will provide advice to the head of the public body on any proposals forwarded for review. It may consider research proposals as well. The health comm ittee, however, will deal only with research proposals, which is, again, different.

The research proposals which relate to personal health information, and also in terms of its makeup, it does cover information which is held in private organ izations which may be available, for instance, within a private doctor's office. This Bill 50 deals only with public information. With those reasons, we do not support that amendment. Ms. McGifford: I just wanted to add that it seems to me a committee of this nature should not be staffed merely by bureaucrats, with respect, but that there is room and there should be room for citizen advocates, and I think to believe or behave otherwise is bad public policy.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, we have not closed the door on having a citizen representative at some point, and regulation allows us to do that. However, I can tell the member, at the moment as we begin with the application of this bill, that we will be looking at experienced senior civil servants who are, again, experienced in information management, in record keeping and with some special expertise in electronic records. I did want to clarify that for the member. However, we will not be accepting that amendment. Mr. Chairperson: On the proposed motion of Ms.

McGifford to amend Clause 77 with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: It is the opinion of the Chair that-a ll those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: It is the opinion of the Chair the Nays have it. Mr. Chomiak: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division. Clause 77-pass.

Again, I would ask the indulgence- Clauses 78, 79-pass; Clauses 80, 81, 82( 1 ), 82(2), 82(3), 82(4}-pass; Clauses 82(5), 82(6), 83( 1), 83(2), 84-pass; Clause 85( 1). * (1 730) Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to make here dealing with the dollar amount that is able to be imposed as a fine, and in discussion with my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and in an effort to keep both bills consistent, I would like to propose the amendment on behalf of government. I move THAT subsection 85( 1) be amended by striking out "$20,000." in that part of the subsection following clause (

d) and substituting "$50,000." [French version) II est propose d'amender le paragraphe 85(1) par substitution, a "20 000 $ ", de "50 000 $ ". Mr. Chair person: Discussion? On the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 85(1) with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honoura ble Members: Pass. Mr. Cha irperson: Clause 85(1) as amended-pass; Clauses 85(2), 86( 1), 86(2)-p ass; Clause 87-pass; Clauses 88, 89, 90 and 91-pa ss; Clauses 92, 93, 94, 95, 96-pass; Clause 97-pass. Clause 98.

242 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBL Y OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I want to move an amendment to this particular clause. I know that the old Freedom of Information Act required a review in three years. It seemed to me that there was merit in the three-year review period, and there would be merit in a three-year review period, given the importance of this act. Given the importance of what this act hopes to achieve and accomplish, I think three years would be a very good period in which to review the act.

I might add at this time I hope that the government will accept that amendment, and I hope that they will consequently honour the three years as was not done in the past. Therefore, I move THAT

section 98 be amended by striking out "five" and substituting "three". (French version] II est propose que /'article 98 soil amende par subs titution, a "cinq " de "trois". Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as I have explained to the member, the proclamation of this bill is a phased-in proclamation. Therefore, there will be a period, and government hopes to proclaim this by the end of 1997 or the first day of 1998 or close to that time following a period to educate all departments, and then we will be spending time with other public bodies to assist them.

As a result of that, their proclamation will come perhaps at the end of 1998 or perhaps in 1999. Therefore, the three-year time period would be too soon to measure the effect of the bill because of the staggered proclamation or phased-in proclamation. So we will not be accepting this amendment. Mr. Cha irperson: On the proposed motion of Ms. McGifford to amend Clause 98 with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? An Honourable Member: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr.

Chair person: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: It is the opinion of the Chair that the Nays have it. Mr. Chomiak: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division. Clause 98-pass; Clause 99-pass; Clause I 00-pass; Clauses 101(1) , 101( 2) and 101 (3)--pa ss; table of contents-pass;

preamble-pass, title-pa ss. Shall the bill as amended be reported? Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: All those in favour of reporting the bill, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honoura ble Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: It is the opinion of the Chair that the Yeas have it. Mr. Chomiak: On division. Mr. Chair person: On division. Bi11 41- The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr.

Cha irperson: Moving on to the next bill, is there any particular order the committee would like to review these bills? Bill 41? If I could have just again I think the co-operation that we showed, whether you want to show me the list or give me the clause numbers or if you want to proceed clause by clause, whatever is convenient. Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Mr. Chair, a recess to use the bathroom for any of the committee members here?

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATI VE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 243 Mr. Chair person: Is it the will of the committee to take a five-m inute break? Some Honourable Members: No. [interjection] Mr. Chair person: Order, please. Commit tee Substitution Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, with leave, I would move that the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) replace the honourable member for Osborne (Ms.

McGiff ord) as a member of the Stand ing Committee on Economic Development, effective June 25, 1997, with the understanding that the same substitution will also be moved in the House to be properly recorded in the official records of the House. Mr. Cha irperson: Is there leave? [agreed] * * * Mr. Chair person: Clause 3-pass. Clause 4. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I have an amendment to make. With the indulgence of the committee, this particular amendment arises-[inter jection] Yes, I want to add a 4.1. After? Okay. Mr. Cha irperson: Clause 4-pass. Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Chair, with the indulgence of the committee, the presentation from the Interfaith group made a recommendation to us with respect to this particular provision, and I would like to move-and I point out now that this particular amendment, I am advised, is out of scope but could be entertained with the approval of the committee. So I would move, if there is a willingness to see this dealt with, THAT the following be added after

section 4 of the Bill: 4.1

Section 17 is amended (

a) by repealing clause (a); and (

b) in clause (c), by adding ", and carry out his or her functions in accordance with this Act and the regulations" at the end of the clause. (French version] II est propose d'qjouter, apres /'article 4 du projet de loi, ce qui suit: 4. 1

L'article 17 est modifie :

a) par abrogation de l'alinea a);

b) dans l'alinea c), par adjonction, a Ia fin, de ", et exercent leurs fo nctions en conf ormite avec Ia present e loi et les reglements ". I believe this was one of the recommendations they made just to make the roles and responsibilities of the director somewhat clearer, that they had a comfort level with this. If this is not acceptable to the opposition, I do not have a problem with just withdrawing it, but I ask for leave if they are prepared to have it dealt with. If not, I will just simply withdraw it. * (1 740) Mr. Chairperson: It is the opinion of the Chair that it is definitely out of scope.

I would ask for leave of the committee to bring it forward. Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Chairperson, can you advise us to why you believe it is out of scope? Mr. Chairperson: It is because it speaks to amend the act and not the bill. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I am of the view that I am prepared to-1 think we are prepared to entertain this amendment, but this is one of those issues where I would like some time to review the ramifications. In principle we are in favour, but I would want some time to review the particular amendments. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I appreciate that.

I wilt withdraw that amendment then, and if the member for Kildonan and his colleagues so advise me before third reading I believe this can be-or on report stage it can be added, and I think there is one other that they recommended that is also out of scope, and it arises from their review of the existing bill and the recommendation we included. I will provide him, have our staff provide the member for Kildonan with both

244 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 25, 1997 copies, and if they are in agreement I have no problem with moving it at that stage. Mr. Cha irperson: So be. Clause 5-pass; Clauses 6, 7 and 8( I }-pard on me, shall Clause 7 pass? Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I have an amendment for Clause 7. I would actually like to delete this. I think this again arises from the Interfaith, their concerns about the word "encumber." We spent a great deal of time the other night with our solicitors and Mr. Wehrle looking at their concerns, and it was felt that the best way to, quite frankly, deal with this will be in the agreement. So we are just going to move this out. So I would move THAT

section 7 of the bill be struck out. (French version) II est propose de supprimer /'article 7 du projet de loi. Mr. Chair person: In order to remove an entire clause, the vote will be against the clause to actually remove the clause from the bill. Shall Clause 7 pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Cha irperson: Okay. So Clause 7 is def eated. Clause 8( I }-pass; Clause 8(2}- Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Chair, I believe this is also another amendment with respect to this issue of encumbrance, and since we have removed Clause 7, I would move THAT the proposed subsection 28(2), as set out in subsection 8(2) of the Bill, be amended by striking out ", encumber or" and substituting "or otherwise". (French version) II est propose d'amender le paragraphe 28(2), enonce au paragraphe 8(2) du projet de loi, par substitution, a "vendre, de Iauer ou de disposer de /'etablissement ou des biens reels connexes ou de grever de suretes /'etablissement ou les biens reels connexes ", de "vendre ou de Iauer /'etablissement ou les biens reels connexes ou d'en disposer autrement ".

Mr. Chair person: Discussion? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, so we are taking out "encumb er" and submitting "or otherwise," and legal counsel is of the opinion generally that "or otherwise" would not include "encumber." Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, I believe this was the original wording of the clause, and, again, with discussions between Mr.

Wehrle from Interfaith and our own solicitors, it was just felt it was better to deal with this concern that public money be encumbered by a facility through our agreements with them rather than in statute, and so this basically removes the word "encum ber" and returns us to the original wording. Mr. Chair person: On the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 8(2) with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honou rable Members: Pass. Mr. Chair person: Clause 8(2) as amended-pass; Clause 9- Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, this was a cross-r eference error.

I believe I provided the member for Kildonan a copy of this on the opening night of committee. So I would move THAT the proposed clause 46(3)(a), as set out in

section 9 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "section 35" and substituting "section 35.1 ". II est propose que l'alinea 46(3)a), enonce a /'article 9 du projet de loi, soil amende par substitution, a "article 35 ", de "article 35. 1 " This is purely a cross-ref erencing error in the draft. Mr. Chair person: On the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 9 with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: Pass. Mr. Chair person: Clause 9 as amended-pass. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, this is the other amendment that is out of scope that I flag for the member for Kildonan. I believe that this issue arises by the concern

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 245 of the Interfaith Association that in the original Bill 49, it provided that where a health corporation transferred its assets to a regional health authority that they were required to dissolve. There are potentially some instances that concern the Interfaith Association, depending on how those religious organizations structure their affairs, that may not require an organization to change. There are some tax implications as well with Revenue Canada for those organizations. They have been treated to date as mergers. So there are a number of issues.

In discussion with the Interfaith group, it was felt that this would best be dealt with by giving the minister the ability to approve or not approve the dissolution. So this amendment is out of scope, because it was not dealt with in this bill which is amending Bill 49. That is why it is out of scope. Again, if members would like a chance to review it, we will provide members with a copy of it and deal with it in report stage. Mr. Chairperson: It is the ruling of the Chair that the amendment is out of scope and therefore cannot be considered. [interjection] Okay, thank you.

Clause I 0( 1 }- pass; Clause 1 0(2}-pass; Clause 1 0(3 }- pass; Clause 1 0( 4 }-pass; Clause II ( 1 }- pass; Clause 11 (2}-pass. Clause 11 (3). Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, again this is another amendment that comes out of our presentations the other night. It deals with the powers of the minister in appointing an official administrator to act in the place of an RHA should an RHA find itself in difficulty and have to have an administrator appointed.

I believe the concern here was that 1 1(3}-t he concern expressed by the Interfaith organization, that the power of interim managers for their own facilities, should this clause be implemented, was somewhat too broad, that it could overturn certain by-laws, for example by-laws that prohibit certain medical procedures from being performed in a facility that would be contrary to the religious base of that facility.

Because we have, I believe, already amended, or we have agreed to amend the provision with respect to facilities, or we will be proposing this, we also felt it was important to make the same amendment with respect to the appointment of an administrator for our regional health authority. So this parallels the amendment that I will bring in shortly. So I would move, Mr. Chair that- well, I do not move it. I would just indicate that we will be voting this

section down. Right. So we do not have to strike it down, we will just be voting against this particular section. * (1 750) Mr. Chair person: To eliminate a section, we have to vote against it. Shall 1 1(3) pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Cha irperson: Clause 11 (3) is defeated. Clause 11 (4}-pa ss; Clause 11 (5}- pass; Clause 12-pass. Clause 13. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I believe we do have to make this particular amendment. This is the removal of 56.1(5). I refer my critic to the bottom of page 8.

This will eliminate this particular provision where the concern of the association was that the power of the interim manager by this provision would be sufficiently broad to overturn those by-laws, and we have agreed with that, that that concern may be there. So I would move THAT subsection 56. 1(5), as set out in

section 13 of the Bill, be struck out. II est propose de supprimer le paragraphe 56. 1 (5) enonce a /'article 13 du pro jet de loi. Mr. Cha irperson: On the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 13 with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass? An Honourable Member: Pass. Mr. Chair person: Clause as amended-pass; Clause 14-pass; Clause IS -pass; Clause 1 6-- pass; Clause 17(1 }-pa ss; Clause 17(2}-pass; Clause 17(3}-pass; Clause 18(1}-pass; Clause 18(2}-pas s; Clause 18(3} pass; Clause 18(4}-pass; Clause 18(5}-pass; Clause

246 LEGIS LATIV E ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 19(1 )-pas s; Clause 19(2)-pa ss; Clause 19(3)-pa ss; Clause 19(4)-pa ss; Clause 19(5)-pa ss. Clause 19(6). Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, this is the last motion arising out of the presentation by the Interfaith group and it again deals with the word "encumber." So that I would move THAT subsection 19(6) of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted: 19(6) Clause 70( 1)(

b) is amended by adding "which has the responsibility to provide the hospital services, personal care services or other health services that were last provided by the hospital, personal care home or other health facility" after "that health region". (French version] II est propose de remplacer le paragraphe 19(6) due pro jet de loi par ce qui suit: 19(6) Le paragraphe 70(1) est modif e par substitution, a l'a/inea b), de ce qui suit :

b) soil, dans le cas d'un hO pital, d'un fo yer ou d'un etablissement situe dans une region sanilaire, de /'offi ce regional de Ia sante qui est charge de Ia region sanitaire en cause et qui a Ia competence en matiere des derniers soins hospitaliers, des derniers services de soins personnel s ou des autres derniers services de sante dispenses par l'hOpital, le fo yer ou /'etab/issement, se/on le cas. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chair person, I am sure this is reasonable. I am just not clear what the change was, and I am also not clear what happens if there are changes in services.

It sounds like we are saying nothing could ever change here. I am sure that is not the intent, but this came quickly and I am trying to understand it. Mr. Praznik: I believe what this does is, it requires, by removing the word "encumber" and by making the change in the other part of the section-( understand what it does is now it takes the responsibility to obtain the approval for those changes to be with the regional health authority that is responsible for the delivery of services.

In other words, if a regional health authority is purchasing services from that facility and that facility wishes to change its function or wishes to expand and otherwise physically change that facility, they require the approval of the regional health authority. Obviously, that becomes rather important in operating the regional system. So, in the case of Winnipeg, for example, a hospital who wants to make a significant change in their structure and function, will require the approval of the regional health authority in order to do that.

If mem bers would like to consult with our counsel who drafted this intimate detail of this point, we may just wait a moment here, Mr. Chair, and I will let our solicitor point it out to them. I must admit as well, it is rather a complex change given all of the sections, and it may be hard to follow on the surface. Mr. Chair person: Clause 19(6) as amended-pass. Clauses 21, 22, 23. Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I have an amendment at 23, and I will not go into a long- Mr. Cha irperson: Mr. Chomiak, I am sorry, I am doing 20( I) . Mr. Chomiak: Oh, sorry. Pass. Mr.

Chair person: Clauses 20( 1), 22, 23, 24-pass; Clause 21- pass; Clauses 22( I) , 22(2), 22(3 ), 22( 4 ), 22(5) -pa ss; Clauses 22(6), 22(7)-p ass. Clause 23( 1). Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, we have already put on the record, both myself and the member for Crescentwood, our difficulties with this section. Accordingly, I move THAT

section 23 of the Bill be amended by striking out subsections (2) and (3). (French version) II est propose que /'article 23 soil amende par suppression des paragraphes (2) et (3). Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, let me just say I can very much appreciate the positions of the member for Crescentwood and for Kildonan with respect to these

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 247 amendments because they are in fact there, and I have stated our intention not to proclaim them unless we have suitable agreements worked out with the City of Winnipeg.

Just for the purposes of the record, the reason why they were included at this time is as we were preparing this bill and working though the details, it was recognized that in some of these issues, ambulance being one-and I would point out as well that there has been a significant discussion going on with the city over a number of years in amalgamating and exchanging services for various services that we both provide, the city in the inner core and the province in the suburbs, and to effect some administrative efficiencies and service efficiencies, we have had those discussions.

So these provisions are here for the purpose of giving effect to those, if we are able to conclude agreements. In the case of ambulance, as I have already said, we may find with the Winnipeg Hospital Authority that the ambulance service is best housed with the city in the fire department. Those are decisions that will come in the future.

The reason these provisions are here is should we reach those agreements, come to the conclusion that these services will be transferred from the city with the agreement of the city, that this allows us to give them legal effect without having to return to the Legislature, which may be a significant delay depending on timing. I can appreciate the argument wholeheartedly that perhaps we should have those agreements bef ore we come forward with them. So I wanted to note that comment, and I understand fully why members opposite are moving this. This was done more for administrative efficiency.

The discussions we have had internally with my colleagues, particularly the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) is he would like to have this done in one bill. So we will not be accepting this motion, but I wanted to say I can understand the motivation for it and respect that argument. * (1 800) Mr. Chairperson: Just for the record to show, because it is in subsections, I would ask that 23(1) pass? Clause 23 is accordingly passed. Now we will move to the amendment. On the proposed motion of Mr. Chomiak to amend Clauses 23(2) and 23(3) with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the motion pass?

Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: It is the opinion of the Chair that the Nays have it. Mr. Chomiak: On division. Mr. Chair person: On division. Clause 23(2)- pass. Shall Clauses 23(3), 23(4) and 23(5) pass? An Honourable Member: Pass. An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Cha irperson: On division, the clauses are accordingly passed. Comm ittee Substitution Mr. Denis Rocan (Gladstone): Mr.

Chair, I want to do this before six o'clock. Can I have leave of the committee to make a committee change? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Chairperson: Leave. Mr. Rocan: I would like to move by leave that the honourable member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer)

248 LEGISL ATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 25, 1997 replace the honourable member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) as a member of the Standing Committee on Economic Development effective June 25, '97 with the understanding that the same substitution will also be moved in the House to be properly recorded in the official records of the House. Mr. Chai rperson: Agreed? [agreed] *** Mr. Chai rperson: Clause 24(1 }-pas s. Clause 24(2} pass. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I would move THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal ref erences necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. (French version) II est propose que le conse iller /egis Iatif so it autorise a modifier les numeros d'article et les renvois internes de fa 90n a donner effe t aux amendements adoptes par le Comitl Mr. Cha irperson: It has been moved to change all

section numbers and internal references. Is it an amendment? An Honourable Member: No, it is just a motion. Mr. Chair person: Shall the motion pass? [agreed]

Preamble- pass; title-pass. Shall the bill as amended be reported? An Honourable Member: Agreed. An Honourable Member: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of reporting the bill as amended, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: It is the opinion of the Chair that the Yeas have it. Mr. Chomiak: On division. Mr. Cha irperson: On division. We are now moving on to Bill 51. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I apologize to members of the committee.

I have just learned that a former physician from my constituency in Pinawa who moved down to Oklahoma to conduct practice-) had not spoken to him for a number of years. He called me the other day; we played a little telephone tag. I just learned that he has been shot and killed in his office in Oklahoma by a drug addict who came in and killed him. I just learned this, as well, so I apologize for this. If we could just take five minutes. An Honourable Member: Do you want to do 61? Mr. Praznik: Yes, why do you not proceed and just give me a moment. Thank you. Mr.

Cha irperson: I appreciate the minister's concerns, and we will certainly bring Bill61 forward. Bill 61-The Sustainable Development and Consequential Amendment s Act Mr. Cha irperson: Order, please. We are here this evening to consider Bill 61, and I would ask the minister if he has an opening statement. Hon. Glen Cummi ngs (Mini ster of Natural Resources): No. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you for the brief statement. Does the official opposition critic have an opening statement? Mr. Stan Struthers ( Dauphin): No. Mr. Chair person: Thank you. As always, during the consideration of a bill, the

preamble, table of contents and the title are postponed until all other clauses have

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 249 been considered in their proper order. Again, with the co-operation of the committee, I have been advised as to where amendments will come forward, so I will move forward in block. Clause 1- pass; Clause 2-pass; Clauses 3(1 ), 3(2), 4( 1) and 4(2)-pas s; Cla uses 4(3) and 4( 4 )-pas s; Clauses 4(5), 4(6), 4(7), 4(8), 4(9), 4(10), 4( 11) and 4( 12)-pas s; Clause 5-pass; Clauses 6(1 ), 6(2), 6(3), 6(4)-pass. Clause 7. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I have an amendment that I am proposing to Clause 7.

It is really putting into the act what the minister has already committed to in a letter that he has put together dealing with some of the more controversial issues that were flagged by a lot of groups who went through the white paper on sustainable development that this government put forth back in August of 1996.

It deals with many of the more controversial items that presenters also flagged the other day here at public hearings. * (1810 ) The worry of groups that have approached me, and I believe also have approached the minister, is that many of the items that were of concern to groups from the white paper will be brought forward by this government at some later date without having the Legislature have its proper input and have its say and have the discussion and the debate that people think is necessary for issues that are as important as the concerns that were brought forward after the white paper was released.

In tenns of this amendment, I want to make it clear that I very much appreciate the letter that the current Natural Resources minister has written to me. In the letter the minister quite properly-[ interjection] Unless I can change your mind. An Honourable Member: There is that chance. There is always that. Mr. Struthers: Yes, that is good. In the letter the minister quite properly undertakes to bring to the Legislature, either through a companion bill or an amendment to Bill 61, those issues in

Part 7 of the white paper that were offensive to many groups. So I am hopeful that the minister is willing to put within Bill 61 what he was willing to put in the letter, which I appreciated receiving from him. It has also been stated publicly by both the Natural Resources minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that extensive consultation will take place in a public way with many of the groups concerned with this legislation well before the next step of sustainable development is brought forth, and that too has already been built into this act in certain other clauses.

So I am hopeful that the minister will consent to this clause being added into Bill 61. 1 move THAT the following be added after clause 7( I )(b): (

c) require that all aspects of sustainable development strategy be contained within a statute to be brought before the legislature following widespread public consultations, which statute shall include, but not be limited to, provisions regarding the following: (

i) all development licensing activities, including pre licensing, (ii) alterations or modifications to a development or licence, (iii) issuance or refusal of a licence, (iv) sustainability or environmental impact statements, (

v) public hearings and dispute resolutions, (vi) local authority review and decision making, (vii) appeal of local authority decisions, (viii) licensing appeals, (ix) enforcement of licences, pennits, regulations or orders, (

x) the role of the Clean Environment Commission, or the establishment of a new Commission. [French version] II est propose d'ajouter, apres l'alinea 7(l)b), ce qui suit:

250 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 25, 1997

c) exige que taus les elements de Ia strategie de developpement durable soient integres a une loi devant etre deposee devant I'Assem blee legislative a Ia suite de consultations, a grande echelle, du public, laquelle loi comprendra des dispositions visant notamment ce qui suit: (

i) toutes les activites concernant /'octroi des perm is a l'egard de developpements, y compris les activites prealables a /'octroi des permis, (ii) les changments ou les modifications apportes aux deve/oppements ou aux perm is, (iii ) Ia delivrance ou le refus des permis, (iv) les declarations concernant Ia dur abilite ou /'impact sur l'environnement, (

v) les audiences publiques et le reglement des diff erends, (vi) Ia revision de /'administration locale et Ia prise de decisions, (vii) les appels des decisions de /'administration locale, (viii) les appels d'octroi de permis, (ix) le respect des permis, des licences, des reglements ou des ordonnances, (

x) le role de Ia Commission de protection de l'environnement ou Ia creation d'une nouvelle commission. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chair, as the minister can see, those are the parts of

Section 7 that did generate a lot of concern coming out of the white paper when it was presented in August of '96, and I think this amendment would go a long way in assuring those groups that any decisions made in respect of these areas will be dealt with through the Legislature. I think that would provide the kind of assurance that members of the opposition and other groups need in respect of these important decisions. Mr.

Cummi ngs: My comments will be brief. appreciate the issue that the member for Dauphin is raising, but I do not think that anything that could be introduced under regulation that he is concerned about would be considered lawful at any rate; and secondly, there is absolutely, as I said on the record before, no intention to attempt through any other means to introduce the type of regulatory or positive actions that he is suggesting in this amendment. I understand this amendment may not be in scope. I do not wish to offend the intent behind it, but I am recommending that we do not adopt it. Mr.

Chair person: It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment proposed by Mr. Struthers is out of order. It is beyond the scope of the bill and therefore cannot be considered by the committee. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chair, could you explain exactly why it is out of scope? Mr. Cha irperson: It has been brought to my attention that items (

i) through (

x) are issues that are not contained within the bill. Therefore, it is out of scope of that bill. Clauses 7(1), 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4}-pass; Clauses 8( 1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4)-pa ss; Clauses 9( 1), 9(2), 10(1) and 10(2)-pass; Clauses 10(3), 10(4)-pass; Clauses 11 (1) , 11 (2), and 12(1 )-pass; Clauses 12(2), 12(3), 13-pass. Clause 14. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Cha irman, I move THAT clause 14(

c) be struck out and the following substituted: (

c) establish procurement goals in support of the established provincial goals, and prepare an action plan to meet its established goals; II est propose que l'alinea /4

c) soil remplace par ce qui suit:

c) adoptent des ob jectifs d'approvisionnement visant a atteindre les objectifs provinciaux et preparent un plan d'action visant a atteindre ses propres objectifs; Mr. Cha irperson: Discussion? It is on the proposed motion of the minister to amend Clause 14 with respect

June 25, 1997 LEGI SLATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 1 to both the English and French texts. Shall the motion pass? An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr. Cha irperson: Clause 14 as amended-pass; Clauses 15 and 16(1 )-pa ss; Clauses 16(2) and 16(3) pass; Clauses 17(1 ), 17(2), 17(3) and 17( 4)-pass; Clauses 17( 5) and 17( 6)-pa ss; Clause 18-pass. Clause 19. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chair,

Section 18 caused me a great deal of concern when I read through Bill 61 right at the outset. I want to begin by thanking the minister and his staff for taking the time to go through this particular part of the bill with me, at least on two occasions, and thank him for the time spent doing that. I do, however, want to be sure that anything that the government does in the area of sustainable development in the future receives as much attention as we can possibly gamer for decisions that are made.

I am concerned, as other groups are, that the debate and the discussion that takes place does take place in open and in public and preferably in the Legislature. What I would like to be able to do is make it so that the regulations that the government puts forth in the area of sustainable development go through the process of gazetting and make sure that the public has a chance to know exactly what it is that the government is putting forth in the area of sustainable developmen

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-3-ed7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 3rd hansardpdf ed7.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	45010dc94ddb2f72ead63bbcde444049d277965e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).