Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 1:13 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

On clause 2 as amended.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the deliberations.

Just before we broke, the minister kindly provided a bit of an overview of the rationale

for the change, which was that the insertion of the phrase “in a reasonable amount

of time” would incentivize applicants to consider or narrow the breadth of the request,

and the public body can then assist them.

I’d like to just offer some background context for the question I’m going to ask,

which is that the average processing days by type of request has dropped from 50 days

for FOI requests to 43 days between 2020 and 2024-25.

[1:15 p.m.]

The pages processed has increased — and this is all the pages processed — from 803,000

to a little over one million, or about 1.1 million, and the average number of pages by type of request has increased from 159 pages,

on average, to 366 pages. So the number of pages by type of request has increased.

The current approach would be, as I expect — and I welcome it if the minister wishes

to clarify this — that an applicant would make an application to the public body.

The public body would review the request to determine if the written request provides

enough detail to enable an experienced employee of the public body with a reasonable

effort — I’ll deal with the next part separately — to identify the record sought.

My question is: by adding the phrase “and in a reasonable amount of time,” what is

the ministry’s goal in terms of the narrowing of the request? Presumably, the narrowing

of the request would reduce the average number of pages that is processed under FOI

requests and would also presumably reduce the average processing days.

The average processing days is 43. The average number of pages is 366. So what is

the ministry’s objective and target in saying “in a reasonable amount of time” in

addition to “a reasonable effort”?

Hon. Diana Gibson : I think the confusion is coming from the member opposite mixing up the reasonable

amount of time to identify the record being sought with the time to process the record.

This isn’t about narrowing requests, reducing size. This is about ensuring that the

experienced employee of the public body has a reasonable amount of time to identify

the record sought.

Once again, this is about ensuring that the officer responsible can help the applicant

get the record they need and incentivizes applicants to respond with clarifying details

in order to make that possible.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

As the minister noted, if the purpose of this amendment is to incentivize a discussion

around the breadth of the request in order to identify the record sought in a reasonable

amount of time — not the processing time but the time to actually identify the record

— then what is the ministry’s objective with this change? How will you measure success

of this amendment?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The change in this clause is meant to improve FOI efficiency and experience, and we

will continue to report on this as part of our annual reporting.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

When I read the appendices to the annual report of the administration of the FOI and

Privacy Act…. The statistics are aggregated. Once again, I understand in a general

way, we all understand in a general way, what the minister is saying.

[1:25 p.m.]

But what I’m interested in is…. We’re expecting a behaviour change in the way requests

are dealt with and that, to quote the minister, this will incentivize applicants to

narrow their request or make the request more clear in terms of identification. Does

the ministry have no forecast or no estimate of what the impact of this amendment

will be?

Hon. Diana Gibson : I need to correct something that the member said. I specifically said that this clause

is not about narrowing requests. It is only about clarifying details.

In terms of the question about metrics, as I’ve said, this change is about improving

overall FOI efficiency and experience. We will continue to report on this in our annual

report, which includes data on timeliness.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

I’ll try and rephrase this another way. The minister has indicated that this change

is intended to increase efficiency and the experience. How do we know if that has

been? When we read the next annual report, what information will be in that report

that enables us to understand whether or not the efficiency and applicant experience

has improved?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Asked and answered.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister. Let it be noted for the record that I disagree that the question

has been answered. I respect the fact that the minister has stated that the question

is asked and answered, but just for the record, in my view, it hasn’t been asked and

answered.

I’ll move on to another question. What is a reasonable amount of time?

Hon. Diana Gibson : As we’ve canvassed already in this House, “reasonable” is a test that is well established

in the jurisprudence. This continues to be under the oversight of the independent

Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which maintains a high threshold.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

What is an unreasonable amount of time? For example, if an applicant provides information

in a request, is it one hour, two hours, five hours or ten hours? What is an unreasonable

amount of time for the purposes of this clause?

Recognizing that the commissioner oversees the act but it is actually the hard-working

public servants throughout the public bodies that are dealing with this on a day-to-day

basis, how will they approach it under the oversight of your ministry in terms of

defining what an unreasonable amount of time is for the purposes of this section?

[1:35 p.m.]

Will each public servant decide on their own what an unreasonable amount of time is?

That is the conversation that will happen. The conversation that will happen is the

public body, the hard-working public servants that are administering this act, will

be looking at a request and communicating that, in some instances, this will be an

unreasonable amount of time.

My question is: what is an unreasonable amount of time?

Hon. Diana Gibson : As has been already canvassed quite thoroughly, this sits under the independent Office

of the Privacy Commissioner for determination of thresholds.

A reminder, also, that this clause sits in the broader act and needs to be read in

conjunction with the duty to assist and timelines.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister. I don’t mean this as a facetious comment, but at times, I feel

that the commissioner is actually the administrator of this act rather than the minister

because we keep getting referred to the commissioner for answers.

My final question, and then I’ll turn over to my colleague. Can you confirm there

was no consultation with applicants on this amendment?

[1:40 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I appreciate the question.

The special committee spent extensive time engaging and consulting, including with

the broader public, and recommended changing

section 5 of the act, which this clause

supports.

Jody Toor : My question: what is the standard? Is enough detail left entirely to the head of the

public body’s judgment? Isn’t the public body then a player and a referee on the same

playing field?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite, for the metaphor.

The public bodies do not set the standard. As per

section 42 of the act, the Privacy

Commissioner’s office maintains the oversight. In your metaphor, that makes the Privacy

Commissioner’s office the referee for anybody who has recourse under this, in terms

of determinations of the standards.

Jody Toor : Does clause 2 create new grounds for government to deny and delay embarrassing requests?

Journalists and advocates often file broad requests because narrow ones miss important

details. How does this interact with the current fee provision or 30-day response

clock? And then what guidelines or trainings will ensure consistency, preventing narrow

understandings that frustrate legitimate requests?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite.

It’s really important to clarify for the record that none of the proposed amendments

allow a public body to refuse to respond to an FOI request.

Once again, in this clause 2, it is not about narrowing the request but about clarifying

the detail to help find the record for the applicant. This clause does not change

the legislative timelines under the act or introduce new fees.

Jody Toor : Thank you, Minister.

I know my colleague has been asking some questions around timelines, so I’m just going

to dig a little bit more just to get some more clarity on this. How will reasonable

effort and reasonable amount of time be measured, and what is the max timeline so

applicants know what to expect when they file?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The determination of “reasonable” has already been quite thoroughly canvassed here

as to be sitting under the determination of the Privacy Commissioner’s office.

As to the second part of your question, the officers will always engage with the applicant

transparently so that the applicant knows what to expect.

The Chair : Shall clause 2 as amended pass?

Division has been called.

[2:00 p.m. - 2:05 p.m.]

The Chair : Is there agreement to waive the time?

Leave granted.

The Chair : Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of

Section

A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall clause 2 as amended pass?

Clause 2 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5

Routledge

Neill

Choi

Gibson

Shah

NAYS — 5

Botterell

Maahs

Williams

Bird

Luck

The Chair : Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make

a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 2 as amended to keep the bill

intact. Clause 2 as amended passes.

We have dealt with clauses 3 through 6, so we’re on clause 7 next. We’ll give staff

a minute to get in place.

On clause 7.

Rob Botterell : For the benefit of the members opposite, when we were dealing with clause 7 and finished,

we were in the middle of a question that I’d asked the minister. So I was kind of

anticipating that we could move back to the question.

I would ask if we could have the answer to the question I asked.

Hon. Diana Gibson : Would the member opposite please remind us of the question?

Rob Botterell : What other jurisdictions in Canada have the exemption that is covered off in clause

7? It reads: “In this section, ‘judicial officer’ means a judge, associate judge or

justice of the peace referred to in

section 3(3)(b).” Sub (2) of this exemption: “The

head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would

reveal the substance of a communication of a judicial officer, or a communication

made on behalf of a judicial officer, to a public body respecting a proposed or existing

policy, program or enactment.”

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : A reminder to the member opposite that FOIPPA already does not apply to court records,

records of judicial officers and judicial administrative records as specified in

section 3. Almost all records are excluded, all judicial records.

This is simply about areas of potential ambiguity in order to protect the independent

courts, which is a cornerstone of our democracy, and to allow public bodies to have full and frank discussion. And

this was developed in-house.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

Just to confirm, I’ll describe it this way: this provision was developed in-house,

and there is no other jurisdiction in Canada — and we’re all in Canada — that has

this provision.

By way of context, for the past 34 years, we’ve operated with the legislation in its

current form, and now a class-based exemption is being added to the act which has

not been added to any other act in Canada.

My question…. Well, actually, I’ll make a further observation. There seems to be heavy

reliance on the commissioner. When the commissioner takes the view that there’s been

no regression of right of access with these amendments, he’s clearly wrong, because

this is the introduction of a new exemption.

What additional categories and types of information regarding judicial comment on

legislation and policy will now be protected from disclosure that are not already

protected by one or more of the existing exemptions in the act?

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The clause, 16.1(2), outlines very clearly the records being discussed or the information

being discussed here. This is not a regression but a clarification which is needed

in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

Jody Toor : Proposed changes to clause 7 create a new exemption allowing public bodies to refuse disclosure of communications made by or on behalf

of the judicial officers regarding proposed or existing policies, programs.

I understand the importance of protecting judicial independence. However, I believe

this committee should take a careful look at how broad this new exemption may become

and whether it could limit public transparency around discussions connected to laws,

policies or government programs.

Some of my concerns that I have. I believe that this shift creates a new category of secrecy. I’m also concerned that

the broad language may shield important policy influence from public scrutiny. I’m

unclear around the boundaries regarding what communications qualify. I question the

limited transparency around the judicial involvement in policy discussions.

So my question is: why was it necessary to create a new disclosure exemption for judicial

communications?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you to the member opposite. I want to affirm that this is not about limiting

public transparency or about secrecy. This is about maintaining the independence of

the courts, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.

Again, to remind the member opposite, almost all judicial records are already excluded

under

section 3. This is just about areas where there is potential ambiguity, and

it makes that clarification.

Jody Toor : How does this new exemption in

section 16.1 relate to the existing judicial independence

protection already in

section 3(3) of the act? Why is the additional exemption even

necessary, then?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : This is about clarifying areas of potential ambiguity.

Jody Toor : What problem, particularly, is the government attempting to solve with this new proposed

clause and change?

Hon. Diana Gibson : With all due respect to the member opposite, this has been thoroughly canvassed already.

Rob Botterell : What we’ve established so far on this

section is that this is a new class-based exemption

and that for the past 34 years, the independence of the judiciary has not been compromised

by dealing with requests for information through the existing exemptions.

We’ve confirmed that this type of exemption exists nowhere else in Canada, and we

have no evidence, other than the assertion of the minister, that this is purely a

clarification and that not one additional word or part of a document that is withheld

by this exemption…. In other words, there will be no change. There will be no regression

to access to information. This is a distinction without a difference. This is unnecessary

because it’s not protecting any information that is going out now.

What we have here is an amendment that, we are assured by the minister, will in no

way regress access to information, and so it’s unnecessary.

The part that I find particularly noteworthy is that throughout the last couple of

days, every time we ask a question or many times when we ask a question, it’s in the

hands of the commissioner. But in this case, we’re not needing the commissioner because

the minister is clear and has formed the minister’s view of what’s needed. And so

here we are.

So the question is: has there been an order of the commissioner or a decision of the

courts that has resulted in the release of information that is not protected by the

current act that necessitates this amendment, or are we purely dealing with hypotheticals?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I want it, for the record, noted that I disagree with the statement made by the member

opposite.

But with regard to the actual question asked, this is about an area of potential ambiguity

that was identified, that is necessary in order to protect the independence of the

courts, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.

The member opposite also mentioned, somewhat sarcastically, reference to the Privacy

Commissioner’s office. Of course, as per

section 42, the Privacy Commissioner also

retains oversight of this clause.

The Chair : We will now take a ten-minute break and reconvene at 2:50.

The committee recessed from 2:40 p.m. to 2:52 p.m.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

The Chair : I will call the Committee of the Whole back to order.

Rob Botterell : How many FOI requests in 2024-25 involved records containing judicial comments on

legislation or policy, and what other metrics are available in relation to this category

of requests for 2024-25?

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite. The clarification provided under this clause will help

us to have that data.

Rob Botterell : I’d note for the record that the answer to the question previously raised involved

no information that’s relevant or responsive to the question.

Were applicants or members of the public consulted with respect to this amendment?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : As this clause pertains to the independence of our courts and judiciary, our engagement

was appropriate to that, with appropriate ministries and the Privacy Commissioner’s

office.

Jody Toor : How broadly will communication respecting a proposed or existing policy program be

interpreted? Could this exemption apply to informal communications?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The language of the clause is quite clear as to what this pertains to. It is the substance

of a communication of a judicial officer or a communication made on behalf of a judicial

officer to a public body.

Jody Toor : Could communications influencing public policy now become inaccessible through FOI?

Does the government acknowledge that this creates a new category of protected communications?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : It’s important to note that the policy, program or enactment is not subject to this

clause, just the communication of the judicial officer or the communication made on

behalf of the judicial officer.

Jody Toor : How does this exemption balance the protection of judicial independence with the act’s

overall purpose of promoting disclosure and government accountability? And could the

minister answer that, as well as: could this provision shield policy and intergovernmental

discussions because a judicial officer provided input?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite, for the opportunity to clarify that this does not shield

a policy. It is clearly and tightly scoped to apply only to the substance of a communication

of a judicial officer or a communication made on behalf of a judicial officer to a

public body.

[3:15 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : A simple question. Given that there has been no consultation with the public on this

amendment — or on many of the other amendments, but let’s focus on this one — is it

the view of the minister that the public has no role to play in providing input on

amendments?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The consultation with regards to this clause has already been asked and answered.

However, with regards to broader consultation on Bill 9, it’s important to note that

there’s a regularly scheduled special committee of the Legislature to review FOIPPA,

and public consultation happens over the course of that review. The last special committee

report was issued in 2022, which involved extensive public engagement.

The proposed amendments in Bill 9 include incorporation of feedback from the special

committee, as well as from the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Rob Botterell : I’ll just note for the record that the special committee report in 2022 dealt with

very few of the amendments in front of us now and the input of the public was not

sought during those deliberations on these specific amendments.

The Chair : Shall clause 7 pass?

Division has been called.

[3:25 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. I bring us back to order. I ask for the consent of all members

to waive time.

Leave granted.

The Chair : Fantastic. Thank you. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only

members of

Section A and their duly appointed representatives are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall clause 7 pass?

Clause 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5

Routledge

Neill

Choi

Gibson

Shah

NAYS — 5

Botterell

Paton

Maahs

Williams

Luck

The Chair : Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make

a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 7 to keep the bill intact in the

original form and as adopted at second reading. Clause 7 is passed.

On clause 8.

Jody Toor : Before I begin my questions on this clause, I want to be very clear that my concerns

are not about opposing modernization or digital government services. The responsibility

of this committee is to carefully examine how government intends to protect privacy,

accountability and the public trust as more personal information moves between connected

government services and systems.

I want to state clearly that the questions regarding privacy protections, oversight,

data sharing and the scope of government authority should not be dismissed or characterized. These are some serious public policy questions involving the personal information of British Columbians, and I believe that they deserve clear, transparent answers from the government.

My concerns that I have that I’ll get into with my questions. My concern is that this clause appears to broaden government authority to collect

personal information beyond what many citizens may reasonably expect. I’m also concerned

that this creates a foundation for increasingly centralized information-sharing systems across ministries and public bodies. I’m also concerned that the long-term scope of these powers remains unclear and may expand over time through regulation

or operational practice.

[3:30 p.m.]

I believe many citizens may not fully understand how widely their personal information

could circulate within connected government systems. I’m concerned that this framework

may lead to greater sensitivity of personal information across multiple government

platforms and institutions.

My question: why is an FOI bill being used to create expanded personal information

collection authority rather than introducing a stand-alone bill particularly focused

on digital governance and privacy protection? Was separate public consultation considered?

Did the government receive legal or privacy advice recommending this framework be

embedded within the FOI bill?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you to the member opposite.

It’s important to start with saying that we do take privacy very, very seriously.

This isn’t just the FOI Act. It’s the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act, which means this is exactly the place to be talking about and covering the protection

of privacy.

I want to talk a little bit about what Connected Services is. Connected services are

being designed to help improve how government services are delivered to British Columbians.

It’s about modernizing and better coordinating digital service delivery across government

and is part of a broader effort to align with how people experience government services

and to ensure connected services are provided in a privacy-enhancing and secure manner.

This is really about putting people at the centre of better service delivery.

Jody Toor : Thank you to the minister for that answer.

What categories of personal information may ultimately be collected under this framework?

And is there a defined limit on the types of information that may be included, and

where exactly are those limits written in this bill?

[3:40 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : It’s important to recognize that there is a general principle in public sector privacy

that you only collect what you need and that it has to be and is narrowly determined

to be collectible if it relates directly to and is necessary for the activity.

When we get to clause 20, we can discuss more specifics around the operations of Connected

Services.

Jody Toor : Could highly sensitive information such as health, education, housing, disability,

income assistance or mental-health-related information eventually fall within this

authority? Has the government ruled out any categories of information entirely? If

not, why not?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : It’s really important to correct a misconception. This is not about creating a centralized

data system with large amounts of personal information.

This is about modernizing service access for individuals. It’s about ensuring information

is appropriately shared across program areas using existing information sets and ministry

data. This is about secure information-sharing between public bodies to ensure access

to services. It is only about a situation where an individual is looking to access

a program or a service and only about the data needed to ensure they can access that

program or service.

Jody Toor : Who ultimately determines what information may be collected, shared or coordinated

through Connected Services systems? Is that authority led by ministers, ministries,

Connected Services providers or regulation? What independent oversight exists over those determinations?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I want to reiterate something that I think is the root of some of the confusion here.

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s that this, again, isn’t about creating a new, centralized data system. It is

about the secure sharing of information between public bodies in order to improve

service access for citizens.

Jody Toor : Will citizens always know when their information is being collected indirectly through

Connected Services systems, and will individuals receive notification when information

moves between ministries or public bodies? Can citizens request a record showing where

their information has circulated?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you to the member opposite. These are good questions, but they do deal with

the content of other clauses. For example, the indirect data collection is dealt with

in the next clause.

Jody Toor : Is meaningful consent required for all forms of collection and sharing under this

framework? If consent is not always required, under what authority may information

still be collected or shared, and how will citizens meaningfully opt out?

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : There are multiple ways that a person, a citizen, can access services — by phone, online,

in person. The intent is to ensure transparency around how that information is shared.

Jody Toor : My question actually was: was consent required for all forms of collection and sharing

under this framework? And if consent is not always required under the authority, may

information still be collected or shared, and how will citizens meaningfully opt out?

So that didn’t really answer my question that I had.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Elsewhere in FOIPPA and other statutes govern the collection of and privacy protection

of information. What this clause is doing is enable where a citizen wants a service

— for us to be able to deliver it to them.

Jody Toor : So if a citizen has not given consent, and if consent is not always required, how

can the citizen meaningfully opt out?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : As I said earlier, there are multiple avenues for an individual to access services.

For an individual who doesn’t want to access through the online connected services,

they have the option of going to a Service B.C. office.

The Chair : The Chair will now call a five-minute recess. This is now 4:21, and we’ll return at

4:26.

The House recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:28 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair : Thank you, Members. I call us back to order.

Jody Toor : Has the government conducted a formal impact on privacy risk analysis regarding centralized

information coordination? Will those findings be made public if there are? And did

the Privacy Commissioner raise any concerns or recommendations?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : First, I want to reaffirm that this is not about creating a centralized data system.

But the question with regards to the Privacy Commissioner and privacy impact assessment

is a good question, and it’s dealt with in clause 20.

Jody Toor : What independent oversight exists over connected service providers and their handling

of personal information?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite. It is an important question. As per clause 42, “General

Powers of the Commissioner”, this applies to any provision of this act or regulation.

Oversight remains a core safeguard in this legislation. The commissioner will continue

to oversee the connected service provider and ensure that its operations comply fully

with the law.

Further details will be again discussed more in clause 20.

Jody Toor : Can connected service providers be audited independently?

Hon. Diana Gibson : We are starting to stray pretty far away from the clause under discussion. But again,

affirming that this does remain under the independent oversight of the Privacy Commissioner.

Jody Toor : Does government acknowledge concerns that this framework creates legal and technical

framework for centralized intergovernmental data coordination across public bodies?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The answer is no, because we are not creating a centralized data set and because the

data continues to be under the protection it always has been.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Jody Toor : The proposed changes for clause 9 expand the authority for public bodies to collect

personal information indirectly for connected service purposes under

section 69.3.

My concern with this indirect collection authority is that citizens may gradually

lose visibility over where their personal information is going and who is accessing

it and how broadly it may circulate between connected government systems and public

bodies.

I also want to state clearly before beginning my questions that these are legitimate

concerns regarding privacy and oversight, transparency and the movement of personal

information between government systems that shouldn’t be dismissed. These are serious

public policy and accountability questions involving the personal information of British

Columbians. I believe they deserve clear answers from the government.

So I will ask: why is the government expanding authority for indirect collection of

personal information?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I thank the member opposite.

This clause is about ensuring that an individual who’s entered all their information

in one place and comes for a different service that uses all that same information

doesn’t have to enter it all again. It’s about making it easier for people to access

services. If they choose not to, they can still go to a Service B.C. office and enter

that information separately if they choose.

Jody Toor : Knowing what the minister just said, so once the information is collected and the

citizen has given their information, will citizens always know when their information

is collected indirectly rather than directly from them? And will individuals receive

notice when information is shared between public bodies or connected services providers?

[4:45 p.m.-4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Just a reminder to go back to the general principle. What we’re talking about here

is strictly data that relates directly to or is necessary for a program or service.

That’s the general principle of public sector privacy. So there are a fair bit of

boundaries around the data.

People will be able to know what data is being shared, because they would be opting

in. They would be the ones accessing the service, and they could choose, if they didn’t want to access it through Connected Services, to go as they would today to receive service.

Jody Toor : Just to clarify, will the individual receive a notification when information is being

shared between the public bodies or connected services providers?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The citizen will know, because they will be the ones choosing to access Connected

Services or to use the pathways they have today.

Sheldon Clare : Thank you to the minister for her response.

But, I think, to take this a little bit more to the point, when someone receives a

FOIPPA response, will they be told that their information has been shared between

connected services providers or other public bodies? Will that come back as part of the information

when they’ve made a request? Will they be told what areas have had their information

to be able to respond to it? Is that going to be part of what comes back, or do they

have to specifically make another request for that?

[4:55 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I want to clarify…. It might be helpful to remind the member opposite that this is

about an individual whose information has been entered already and is held for a program

or service that is eligible for another one to be offered access to that one without

having to re-enter their information. If they choose not to, they can choose to use

the existing pathway.

Sheldon Clare : Thank you for the response to the question.

The next question that we have on this clause is about enabling. When the government

uses the phrase “for the purpose of enabling,” how broadly does the government intend

to interpret that authority in practice? What specific activities or functions does

government believe would be covered under the phrase “for the purpose of enabling”?

When we’re looking at this particular phrase, I think it’s also important to understand

what limits would exist on how broadly the phrase “for the purpose of enabling” may

be interpreted operationally across ministries and connected systems. I would be very

interested in the minister’s response to that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The purpose of this is to enable an individual to access multiple programs or services

without having to enter the same information multiple times, if they so choose.

Sheldon Clare : Thank you to the minister for her response.

Again, what does the government see the meaning of the word “enable” as being? What

do you see the meaning of the word “enabling” to be? What is its legal status? What

is its legal meaning in regards to this clause?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Read in conjunction with clause 20, enabling is about creating a framework to support

the delivery of trusted, affordable, connected services that meet the needs and expectations

of people.

Sheldon Clare : Thank you for the response to the question.

I think one of the concerns people have when we look at the clause is about the collection

and circulation of personal information across multiple systems. In terms of the purpose

of the clause, which added “authority for the indirect collection of personal information

for the purposes of services provided under

section 69.3 of the act, as added by this

bill,” could the authority granted eventually permit widespread circulation of personal

information across multiple systems? I’d be very interested in the minister’s response

to that.

Hon. Diana Gibson : No to the issue of widespread circulation across multiple systems because it is limited

by the language in clause 20 and by the principles of collection and sharing of information

by the public service.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.