"WHEREAS new privacy legislation has been recently passed in Manitoba; and
"WHEREAS serious concerns about this legislation have been expressed by groups like the Manitoba Library Association, the Council of Women of Winnipeg, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Manitoba Medical Association, the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties, and the Consumers' Association of Canada; and
"WHEREAS when reviewing the legislation, the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner said, "My major concern about the Manitoba legislation is that the oversight role for both the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the related Personal Health Information Act is given to the Ombudsman. I think this is a mistake . . ."; and
"WHEREAS there was almost unanimous agreement that the legislation could have been made more effective by creating a separate Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner's Office, rather than vesting all responsibility with the existing Provincial Ombudsman; and
"WHEREAS this feeling was made abundantly clear at the public hearing stage of the Bill, where presentation after presentation recommended the creation of a separate Commissioner; and
"WHEREAS the Ombudsman's Office is already busy with a full range of separate statutory obligations; and
"WHEREAS one of the advantages of creating a separate Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner is that it reduces confusion in the public mind about the roles of the existing offices, and allows the Freedom of Information Privacy Commissioner to make the decisions on access and protection of privacy in the first instance, usually avoiding costly judicial proceedings; and
"WHEREAS there is growing public concern about privacy and access to information, which makes it all the more important that this legislation address the issues in the best possible way.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba condemn the Provincial Government for failing to listen to the overwhelming recommendation of the public, and create a separate Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner's Office; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Provincial Government to consider establishing a separate Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner's Office."
Motion presented.
Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I want to begin today by calling to mind for members here, June 27, 1997. It was on June 27, 1997, at about 1 a.m. in the morning that this House passed Bill 50, The Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. By passing this bill, this legislature made Manitoba the laughing stock in North America, vis-a-vis freedom of information and privacy protection. I say this because this particular bill includes some of the most repressive and most restrictive legislation in North America.
Members might also remember June 27, 1997, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) rose and put certain remarks on the record. He made several promises that evening, and I will not want to quote him, Madam Speaker. He said we, that is, the NDP, are going to bring in a Freedom of Information Act that will take us into the 21st Century, we will amend this act and repeal the regressive sections of this act, and we will have a privacy commissioner available to the public at the first step of public access. This is a commitment. Furthermore, he said: we will amend this legislation and repeal the 30-year restriction on cabinet documents and introduce new legislation with a 15-year provision for the protection of cabinet documents. Thirdly, we will absolutely eliminate the sections of the document that provide for withholding of government documents, and the massive power grab of the Premier's Office and other cabinet offices. Finally, and again I quote the Leader of the Opposition from that fateful evening, he says: we will adopt legislation that is worthy of the former reputation of Manitoba as an open, democratic and tolerant society.
I think that evening the Leader of the Opposition said it all. He pointed to the inadequacy of The Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act that was passed that evening. He pointed to the need for a freedom of information and privacy protection commissioner. He pointed to the need to repeal the excessively restrictive 30-year prohibition on the release of cabinet documents, which by the way, Madam Speaker, is so foolish, so self-important and so regressive, we really do look foolish here. He also talked of the necessity for freedom of information, that is accessibility to information, and pointed out that accessibility to information is a democratic right, especially in a knowledge-based society, and we are a knowledge-based society. The members opposite are fond of telling us that, and yet they deny citizens the right to freedom of information.
Lastly, the Leader of the Opposition that night talked about our desire to return to Manitoba an open, democratic and tolerant society, that is, to return Manitoba to this kind of a society.
I want to, in addressing this question, talk about some of the recent history of freedom of information and privacy protection legislation in Manitoba, but before doing this I want to point out that even the most progressive legislation is useless without the will or the clout to enforce this legislation. I would suggest that under this government, there has been no will to enforce Freedom of Information. We only recently do have privacy protection. I think that the government's record is quite sorry, and I am going to turn to it shortly.
The history in Manitoba indicates, Madam Speaker, the need for a commissioner who can enforce orders as opposed to the Ombudsman, who can only issue recommendations. Though I do acknowledge that the Ombudsman has final recourse to the courts, I want to point out that court proceedings are costly, draining, time consuming, and inaccessible to many Manitobans.
Turning to the question of the shameful record, it was in the Ombudsman's report of 1994 that he pointed out that this had been a tough year for freedom of information, and he complains about certain tendencies on the part of government.
One, he talks about the fact that this government unnecessarily formalizes processes. Secondly, he talks about the search for reasons to deny access. Thirdly, he pointed out that the government often provides irrational reasons for denial of information. These are not my words; these are the words of the Ombudsman put in a public report in the 1994 annual report, and it seems to me a shameful and sorry record when it comes to freedom of information.
* (1710)
Some of the other situations, for example, Madam Speaker, in 1994 the Free Press attempted to access information on VLTs. Their request was supported by the Ombudsman, but they were turned down by the Minister for Lotteries. This particular application went all the way to the Queen's Bench before information was finally released. In other words, it was costly in terms of money both to the taxpayers. I remember speaking about freedom of information and privacy protection and talking about the cost to taxpayers, and the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) pointed out that we did have a duty to support lawyers. Well, certainly in that case that is exactly what happened.
Madam Speaker, some of the other examples of playing fast and loose with freedom of information are the famous gas wrangle with Consumer and Corporate Affairs; then, of course, we all remember the Jets fiasco; and, of course, adding insult to injury, the Finance minister's recent mockery of freedom of information and privacy protection legislation. I refer here to his absolute refusal to release the prebudget consultations with 2,000 Manitobans. He claimed that these were confidential cabinet documents. They were so-called public consultations, but he claimed they were confidential cabinet documents. Once again, the Ombudsman disagreed and the Ombudsman recommended release of these documents. I quote the Ombudsman here. The Ombudsman said nothing has been provided to show that a record of public opinion discloses a cabinet confidence. In other words, the Ombudsman was quite clear that these particular documents should have been released.
In Saskatchewan, this kind of document is automatically released every three months. In British Columbia--and I point out that British Columbia, of course, has state-of-the-art legislation and should have been a model to us here, except the minister refused to take this legislation as a model. Anyway, in British Columbia this kind of information is automatically made public, whereas in poor Manitoba, saddled with ministers who have no respect for the Ombudsman, saddled with a government which lacks respect for freedom of information and privacy protection, this information is denied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) against the recommendation of the Ombudsman.
Madam Speaker, the two principles that are so central to a democratic society are once again democratic government and freedom of information. This government has repeatedly denied Manitobans freedom of information. I could provide other examples of the ways in which this government has violated freedom of information and privacy protection, but let it stand for now.
I want to point out that when this current act was being prepared, this government failed to adhere to the process that it had established. It failed to implement a wide-ranging public information gathering process. It failed to understand the irony inherent in the fact that the information gathering process for a Freedom of Information Act was not really open to the public. In other words, here was a process presumably to redesign The Freedom of Information Act, but the public were not really free to give information because the process was so short-circuited.
I want to point out that this is in contrast to the process initiated by Premier Klein in the Province of Alberta--
An Honourable Member: Not exactly one of our heroes.
Ms. McGifford: As the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) points out to me, Premier Klein is not really one of our heroes and we do not often hold Premier Klein up as an example, but in this instance and for whatever the reasons might be, the Premier of Alberta could have served as a model to our minister. Now here I should qualify and say to the former minister, because it was the former minister, the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), who initiated the new freedom of information and privacy protection legislation and who, of course, failed to adhere to the process that he established.
The former minister argued--and this is quite incredible. He argued in Estimates that the issues--and here I quote right from his words--were too complex for most people and therefore the process should not include an all-party travelling committee as the process included in Alberta. So I suppose Ralph Klein has respect for the intelligence of Albertans, but the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) thinks that Albertans are a lot smarter than people in Manitoba.
There are several other violations of this process, but I have already put them on the record previously. I just want to point out here that the violations of the process, as well as the thwarting of access to information, really is the sign of a smug, arrogant, weary government, and it is probably time to go.
I want to point out that the freedom of information and privacy protection legislation requires, as we have repeatedly said, a commissioner who can issue binding orders and therefore protect Manitobans from this kind of disrespect, the disrespect that I have just been talking about. We need an act, we need a commissioner, so that Manitobans can be protected from the violation of the principle of open government.
I know last week when several Estimates books were tabled, members across the way were talking about open government, but I have not seen any sign of open government when it comes to freedom of information and privacy protection and, Madam Speaker, I have not seen any sign that this government respects freedom of information in the spirit of the public good, no notion of the public good.
Madam Speaker, I think you are telling me I have two minutes. Thank you very much. I just want to sum up then.
Clearly, then, what is required is a commissioner who is an officer of the Legislature, a commissioner who is appointed by an all-party committee and a commissioner who has his or her own staff and resources as well as the power to adjudicate, educate, inspect, and audit. In other words, we need a commissioner who can be both proactive as well as reactive.
I note here that this government was given the opportunity to reconsider its legislation when we moved a six-month hoist back in June, but this government refused to do this. Very sadly, that motion was defeated and the government continues on its same course, that is, to deny freedom of information and privacy protection and not really to face up to the fact that the Ombudsman is very confined in this manner.
Madam Speaker, we all know, as I have said, that knowledge is power. We know that this government, with its controlling, centrist, disenfranchising policies and agenda wishes to disempower Manitobans and to prevent them from the information necessary to make sound decisions and to advocate and lobby with the government. How else can we explain this government's deafness and refusal to consider the wishes of community and professional groups? Those groups were all clear in my resolution, so I will not mention them here.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. In closing then, I wish to ask the House to join me in condemning this provincial government for failing to listen to the public, and I now urge the provincial government to consider establishing a freedom of information and privacy protection commissioner.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak a little bit, first of all on the act, the very balanced act that our government brought forward last June and that was voted on in the House and has been accepted. This is the act which deals with the protection of privacy and the freedom of information.
I am very happy to speak on it because it is the first time that Manitobans will, in fact, have the protection of their privacy in legislation and that there is a process then for those who are in disagreement with that privacy protected to then have their questions looked at. So I am very pleased to take this opportunity, because my memory certainly of the process of development of the act is one started by my predecessor which, in fact, did involve very extensive public consultation and opportunities for public groups and individuals to provide information to government on what their concerns and interests are.
* (1720)
As the member also well knows, during the process of legislative debate, as well, there were changes made to what was originally proposed by government. There were, in fact, changes made that were responsive to issues which were brought forward by the public during the process of debate.
So, Madam Speaker, I totally reject the member's accusations in her debate that government was not responsive and did not consult. In fact, it was exactly the opposite. There was wide consultation, consultation right up until the end of debate, and several points that were recommended were accepted and were amended in the legislation.
I want to stress again this new act is designed to balance the right of access of information and also the need to ensure individual privacy. It is the first time that privacy has been legislated in this province. The access provisions of the legislation have been clarified. They do, however, remain very similar to The Freedom of Information Act, which was the predecessor to this new act. With the new privacy provisions Manitobans can now be assured that their individual privacy is respected and protected under this legislation.
Madam Speaker, another important point on this legislation is that it will extend beyond the government and the Crown to apply to municipal governments, school divisions, universities, regional health authorities, hospitals, and nonprofit personal care homes.
Under the new act, the Ombudsman continues to review complaints filed by Manitobans about the handling of their access request. The Ombudsman will have very strong powers, does have very strong powers, under the act to audit files and to investigate cases. The Ombudsman, with the new act, will have additional authority to go to court on behalf of an applicant if a principle of access needs further clarification.
Manitoba's nine-year experience with an ombudsman model for resolving access to information complaints has been very positive. I think this has been totally overlooked in the member's presentation this afternoon. Applicants have taken only six cases to court during this period of nine years' experience. I am informed that the federal Information Commissioner John Grace has stated that he sees the need for the Ombudsman to go to court as a rarely used last resort and, for an ombudsman, an admission of failure.
The important point about the ombudsman model is that it is one which has very heavily relied on the skills of negotiation and ability to solve the problem. That has been the success of this model, rather than the model which the member across the way has been arguing for.
Madam Speaker, in addition, there is a unique feature in Manitoba's legislation which will be a privacy assessment review process to examine proposals for disclosure of information not specifically authorized by the legislation. So where there may be a request which does not appear to fall into the distinct categories which are currently in the legislation, Manitoba has set up a new process to deal with that, which, I think, will provide assistance to those who are seeking information. There are specific guidelines and clarification for determining third-party privacy and also notice to third parties when access is being considered.
New provisions will also allow the head of a public body to handle requests that are repetitious and are considered to be an abuse of the right of access. This legislation not only ensures balance, but it does provide a common approach and standard for the province, the local governments, for other public bodies so that Manitobans receive consistent protection and services.
Now, an integral part of this new legislation is the role of an independent office which may receive complaints, investigate those complaints, recommend and report on issues which relate to administration of the legislation. Under The Freedom of Information Act, the power was vested in the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, through administering The Freedom of Information Act, is a very well-respected office, and it is the opinion of our government that it has provided a very high standard of service on behalf of Manitobans. I would like to stress that in the light of comments made by the member on the other side. Manitoba's long experience with the Ombudsman model for resolving access to information complaints again has been very positive. The office has handled approximately 400 complaints since undertaking this responsibility and again, as I said, during this time, only six cases have proceeded to court during this period.
The powers of the provincial Ombudsman under The Freedom of Information Act will, as I said, be expanded and strengthened under this new legislation. The Ombudsman will continue to review complaints and will continue to negotiate and make recommendations on access complaints. I think that that is another important point sometimes overlooked by the members opposite, and that is the Ombudsman's ability to make recommendations on the access process.
Under the new legislation, Madam Speaker, the Ombudsman will have the additional power of being able to go to court on behalf of an applicant denied access where there is a matter of legal interpretation or of public interest to be addressed. I think it is very important to recognize the times in which the Ombudsman does have this enhanced right. The Ombudsman also may intervene in a court case involving an access complaint.
The Ombudsman may also engage in or commission research and undertake audits on information access and privacy protection issues which again provides another important point of review if there appears to be some concerns raised about the role of the Ombudsman or, as the member is concerned about, any release of information, though I would stress to the member when she has an opportunity to think about this further, that this act deals with access to information, but it also deals with protection of privacy and that any requests which come forward will have to be considered within the balance of that information. Because as the member knows, and has been said by members on this side during the debate, governments hold a great deal of information about people, important individual information and that information should be used for the purpose that it was collected and if it is used for any other reasons, the person should, in fact, then be informed. The Ombudsman has the right, has the requirement to look at both sides of the issue and also, as I have said, to engage in or commission research or undertake audits.
The Ombudsman may also recommend changes in the practice of collecting, using or disclosing personal information. Third parties are notified of a potential disclosure of personal information involving them, and they may also appeal to the Ombudsman if they feel that the disclosure is an unreasonable invasion of individual privacy or of business interests. And Madam Speaker, any individual who is not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint to the Ombudsman about denial of access or, on the other hand, about disclosure of their third party information, may appeal to the court.
* (1730)
An important part of the Ombudsman role is the reporting function. Madam Speaker, I think this is an important role and an important part of the openness. An annual report will be tabled each year in the Manitoba Legislature to report on the work of the Ombudsman's office in relation to the act. But the Ombudsman may also issue a special report related to the way the act is being administered by any public body, another important clause which does not necessarily require the reliance only on the annual report but allows for a special report.
Under the new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Manitobans, we believe on this side of the House, will be well served through the Office of the Ombudsman with one clearly designated office responsible for resolving issues as they occur with any of the public bodies covered by the legislation. I think that is also an important point because this legislation has extended the act outside government alone, but there is only then the one clearly designated office to deal with any of the concerns.
Madam Speaker, I would also say to the member, because she raised this issue earlier when we were debating the legislation last spring, that the Ombudsman office has been given additional resources to enable the fulfilment of its full range of responsibilities.
I can say also that three provinces have review officers which are, in fact, called commissioners but which do not have the binding order authority--Saskatchewan in '93, the Yukon in '96, the Northwest Territories in '97. Canada's two commissioners, one each for access and privacy, act as specialized ombudsmen, and they too operate without the binding order powers. So, in fact, there are models across the country, including the model in Canada in which there are not binding order powers. Let us not get confused simply by the name then. If the name is commissioner or ombudsman, it is not the issue of the name that we should be looking at. It is, in fact, what is the function, how is that person functioning in that role, and how is that mechanism of appeal actually working.
As I had said to her earlier, when we do not have the binding order power, it does keep the accountability for decision making then with the heads of public bodies, and it is in line with the traditional principles of parliamentary democracy. So Manitoba's legislation gives the Ombudsman all of the investigative, the review and the audit powers of the commissioner. The Ombudsman may also appeal a decision of a public body or intervene as a party to appeal to court where there is a significant issue of statutory interpretation or a matter clearly in the public interest.
Madam Speaker, penalties under the new act, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and also The Health Act, which my colleague will be speaking of, are as strong as any in Canada for disclosing personal information, for misleading or obstructing the reviewing office and for destroying or erasing information to evade access. So I think it is also important to note how strong the penalties are should there be any effort to avoid.
We are very pleased that we were able to have brought this legislation forward. As the members knows, there will also be a review of this legislation. It is provided for within the legislation itself, and as my colleagues and I have said in relation to the legislation, whether the issue be the Ombudsman or any other issue relating to the legislation, that there is a review. But our government believed that it was important to, in fact, get started to bring this new law forward into Manitoba which will, in fact, protect the people of Manitoba, so we were happy to do this. We will be looking forward to watching and assessing how this works as well with all of the people of Manitoba as we will be protecting their privacy information as well as maintaining the important issues of access for all of that personal information which governments hold.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): As I was listening to the comments coming over from the government side while the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) was discussing this resolution and as some of the things that were said in the resolution itself, it occurs to me that this is another example of the government's legislation, No. 1, and their reaction to our concerns, No. 2, is another example of this government behaving as though it is a private corporation.
It is not a government that is by the people, for the people, and of the people. It is a corporation that is responsible to its stakeholders. Like corporations, which are private entities and whose raison d'être is based on the largest amount of return for their stakeholders, their shareholders, and for whom the problem of technical and information espionage is a major one. They need, private companies need to have a handle and complete control as much as possible on the information that they use in order to produce their product, to sell their product, to increase the bottom line.
For private corporations, industrial espionage is a huge problem for many of them, particularly in this information age, but it should be exactly the opposite for a government. A government in a democracy should be providing the easiest access to the most amount of information about how government works and how it makes its decisions, concomitant with protecting the privacy of the individual members of the government, of the public.
But this government does not see it that way. This government in its privacy legislation and its freedom of information legislation is moving, marching very close to the corporate privacy at all-costs model. I will give you a couple of examples of that. Number 1, they have a 30-year prohibition on certain documentation. Thirty years, Madam Speaker, my goodness. I mean, what could possibly be so essential and so critical and so harmful or sensitive to the government's dealings that it would have to wait 30 years? My goodness, 30 years ago, 1968, Trudeaumania. It was the year before the New York Jets won the Super Bowl. [interjection] I said the year before they won the Super Bowl. It was the Chicago convention. All kinds of things happened 30 years ago that were enormously important. The Tet offensive in the war in Vietnam. But you do not wait 30 years to open up the records of those times, so one has to wonder why a government would have that kind of prohibition when many other provinces have a 10- to 20-year prohibition. So that is a question that we should ask ourselves and many people have asked themselves this.
Another bit of hint that this government does not see itself as a government in a democracy but a corporation in drag, if you will, is that they have not seen fit to follow the recommendations of virtually everybody that came before them in the public hearings and before, and separate the privacy commissioner and freedom of information officer from the Office of the Ombudsman. Not only have they not separated it, but they have not given the Ombudsman, or whatever the person would be called, the powers that that person needs in order to effectively do their job, which is, on the one hand, to provide access to as much information as is humanly possible to citizens and, on the other hand, to protect the privacy of those same citizens.
We are not talking about protecting the privacy of the government here, and that is what this government is doing. This government, because it is holding 30 years prohibition and because it is not giving the Ombudsman enough authority to actually do the job that the legislation purportedly intends for him or her to do, is, in effect, saying that we are going to stifle the democratic process in this province in a very important factor, and that is, democracy thrives on openness, democracy thrives on knowledge, and democracy thrives on information. Three things that this government in its almost 10 years in power has found very difficult to deal with, and they have not been successful in being open.
They were not successful. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) refuses to table the contract dealing with the Jets, refuses to table information about polling, refuses to table information on a variety of issues. The Minister of Finance is not the only minister that is derelict in this regard. Time after time after time, we are told that you cannot have access to this information because it is a cabinet document, because it is providing information to the cabinet, i.e., a poll. In other provinces, they are required to be public.
* (1740)
It is no wonder that many groups in this province spoke up very, very vociferously and very strong against many of the elements in this piece of legislation and the same arguments that we are making here today in the private member's resolution. Some of those groups that were concerned about this legislation were the Manitoba Library Association, Council of Women of Winnipeg, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Manitoba Medical Association, the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties, and the Consumers' Association of Canada. These are groups that are essential to the functioning of democracy. They must be listened to when we are talking about access to information and privacy.
I do not see anywhere on this list Investors Group, Great-West Life, Trizec Corporation, Shelter company, Borger, Ladco--any other developer? [interjection] Bob Kozminski. You are known by the company you keep, and the company that this legislation keeps is the same kind of company that wants to keep information hidden under the rock, because they know if the information saw the light of day, they would be in trouble.
The groups that are against this legislation, that were against this legislation, that made recommendations that the minister chose not to listen to, are the groups that must be listened to in a democracy. They are the groups that must be listened to if we are going to have a democratic government. The minister spoke about the five-year review period, and I wonder why--with the putting in place of the Children's Advocate a few years ago and we had a great debate on this in the Legislature and we vociferously opposed the part of that legislation that made the Children's Advocate report to the Legislature, but one thing we did like about that legislation was that it was to be reviewed after three years. Three years is enough time to have a sense of what has happened, what is positive and negative. Why, one would ask, this piece of legislation, which the minister touts as a brand-new wonderful wave of the future, why is there no review except for five years? Why is three years not good enough? Could it possibly be that they do not want to have a review because perhaps the Ombudsman would say in his or her review that things are not working right? Because the Ombudsman says that all the time.
The Ombudsman makes recommendations all the time that this government does not listen to. There is no binding authority in this provincial legislation for the Ombudsman. So there is nothing in this that ensures that the public's right to access to information will be supported and nothing to ensure that privacy protection will be established, and you cannot blame us and the groups that have commented on this negatively, because we have seen time after time how this government chooses not to tell the people what is actually happening. I guess perhaps it is because, as the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) said, and I must go back and look at the Hansard on this, that the minister who actually spoke about this legislation, the previous minister, said that we do not need to have public hearings on this outside the Legislative Building, because the people of Manitoba would not understand it. It is too complicated. Sounds like the comments of the CEO of General Motors to me. What kind of a statement is that by a minister of the Crown who is supposed to represent the people of Manitoba and is supposed to have some basic sense of their abilities? [interjection]
Well, exactly, people are too stupid to listen to and understand legislation. [interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I may have hit a chord, certainly with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), who responds very quickly. He does not always think about what he is saying, but he responds very quickly.
I will close my remarks by saying that we on this side of the House were concerned at the time the legislation was proposed, are concerned about the legislation now, and will make the changes necessary when we are in government again, which will be very soon, as soon as the Premier calls the election. We will be making changes to this legislation that will ensure that people have access to information, that information is not hidden because the government is afraid of what it would show, and that we will also protect at the same time the privacy of individuals because, Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House do not see government as a private corporation in it for the benefit of the few.
We see government as something that is here. We are here to represent all of the people, and one of the basics of a democracy is an educated population that has access to information. This legislation does not provide for that. This legislation is an abomination and should be repealed. Thank you.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, it really is amazing how someone who grew up in Howard Pawley's constituency could ever be viewed as being dynamic. I must have done something right. It certainly was not following the former Premier in his speaking skills.
I enjoyed listening to the comments of the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) and the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) on this particular piece of legislation. One of the interesting ironies of history, of course, is that the New Democratic Party, who brought freedom of information legislation to this House, my colleagues--members opposite clap, and they should.
One little problem, Madam Speaker, was that--I look to my colleagues who were here at that time. But how many years between enacting the legislation and actually, enacting in this House and giving it operational effect? How many years? It took years, what is it, two, three, four years between actually passing the legislation in this Chamber.
They never even did actually proclaim it. It took the Gary Filmon administration to proclaim the legislation. Some members from their seats have speculated over the reason why it took them so many years to actually proclaim the first legislation, and that speculation has to do with how many documents they had to destroy before they would be accessible to the public.
Well, I was not here in those particular days, but if I belonged to a party that had brought in such legislation and then took so many years to proclaim it, I would temper my remarks and criticisms for fear of being accused of being hypocritical in my approach.
When I as Minister of Health, with my colleague the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), brought in the companion pieces of legislation last year, they really were an important part in the evolution of privacy protection and accessed information because the two do go hand-in-hand and it is very fundamental that both principles were included in the same piece of legislation and, more importantly, in the same administrative scheme. I am very pleased that we were able to bring them forth. There was a very conscious decision made at that time to separate general privacy and access information from health care because of the nature of the particular information held in Health and the importance of that information to individual Manitobans, and we respected that need for privacy in health care, that sense that Manitobans wanted to have their health care information protected in a somewhat different manner and have it highlighted in separate legislation. I was very pleased that we were able to do it under both pieces of legislation.
Madam Speaker, in the portion I was responsible, the health information, I attended a meeting. In fact, we had a forum, we had a very extensive consultation process with people who--in fact, all Manitobans are stakeholders. I do not want to describe this group as a stakeholders' committee and in any way take away from the fact that every Manitoba citizen, including the 57 with the right to sit in this place, is a stakeholder, but the various interest organizations that have some more direct everyday involvement were invited to be part of a very extensive process in developing our health portion of it, as the minister, my colleague, did with her portion of this legislation. As part of that consultation, I met--in fact, chaired a forum--with all of those various interest groups. We held it, I believe, at the Charter House. We dealt with a whole host of issues, and it was a very informative session for me. I had a chance to interact with these people. The result was a piece of legislation that I believe is one of the best in Canada.
* (1750)
The one, well, really two issues of contention--and they remain obviously an issue of contention because the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) brings them to this House--were the person or office that was to be responsible for the legislation and the power that that office was to have. That is a matter of legitimate political debate, and I welcome that debate. I welcomed it at the time, and I see it has come again to the floor with this resolution. I welcome that discussion, but let us look for a moment at the position that we took as a government, that we supported in the legislation and why we did it.
We took the position very clearly that in the initial introduction of this legislation we should use the Ombudsman as the office, the independent office that would be responsible for the administration of this act, as opposed to a position the New Democrats have taken, that we should create a separate privacy commissioner's office. They are two different approaches, one admits, and in reality not all that really, seriously different what you call the office. The greater difference between us was on the powers that this office would have. We took the view that in the initial stages of its operation, by having the powers that the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's office traditionally have, which is to try to resolve these issues that may arise on a practical day-to-day basis, that that was a better approach than one of creating a power to issue orders.
The logic behind that decision, for both of those decisions, Madam Speaker, I think, is a very practical and simple one. I should preface my explanation with the comment that at the time we introduced that legislation--I believe we have a compulsory review of the act over a certain number of years, five years this act would be reviewed--that if experience, practical experience suggested we needed a separate office, that there was a sufficient workload for that office, and if we needed greater powers than those the Ombudsman held, we would not object to that on this side of the House, but let us see what experience would teach us. And, there was a very practical reason for doing this. In a province the size of Manitoba, with a little over 1.1 million people, the question arises, do we need to have a separate office? Would there be enough work for that office to do? That is a very realistic question, is there enough work for that office to do?
My observation in being involved in government for the last 10 years is we have a number of offices that are independent that answer to this Legislature that from time to time do not have enough work to do, that could take on two similar-type functions. A practical matter for an ombudsperson or a privacy commissioner is that they would not likely be the person doing the field work, the day-to-day work anyway; they would be administratively managing that. So as a consequence, an Ombudsman or Ombudsman office could retain enough staff--and we dealt with the staffing issues to the Ombudsman's satisfaction, I think, to do the audits that are required under this act.
That is an interesting point that this legislation, particularly in health, does require proactive auditing. It is not just a complaint-driven process, but the actual technical people who do the work could be retained and managed by that office, and we would then ensure what workload is really necessary because it is much easier to staff up to meet a workload than it is to staff down because you have created an office that does not have enough work to do.
Maybe that is the practical everyday experience of being in government that has been somewhat lost on members opposite because in their caucus they have very few members who have been in this Legislature and been on the government side of the House. I would suggest that is part of the reason for that, that some of the old-timers around their caucus who have been in government would appreciate that difficulty, that if you staff up an office, find out there is not enough work, it is a much greater problem to downsize that office than it is to start off and then add resources to it to meet the right level of support staff to do the work.
So that was a very practical consideration, and I am sure members of the House would agree. It is important to staff these offices adequately but not to overstaff them because that is not a good use of scarce dollars.
The other issue, and a very important one, is what powers would exist? We have found, and I think people who have served in government have found, that in Manitoba, the Office of the Ombudsman has been very successful in working through the solution to problems under their jurisdiction in a manner that results in a solution that is administratively possible. We have all seen, with independent officers of the Legislature who do not have an administrative experience or responsibility and whose powers are one to issue orders, that often those orders that are issued are administratively impossible to carry out. That creates a whole other problem, and so we thought it best--and I think with very firm reasons---to give the Ombudsman that ability to work practical, administrative solutions, which is the hallmark of our Ombudsman in the Province of Manitoba, to give that a chance, an opportunity, to work to see if it would do the job. If it does, then I think our initial reaction will have been proven right. If it does not, we have said we would not be opposed after the five-year review to making the change if that kind of power is, in fact, proven to be needed.
Madam Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) who has not been in government and had to deal with those practical issues, they have taken the position that those powers are needed and needed today. Well, we have never said that we should not look at it, we should not see how this works and at the end of the five-year period the matter will be reviewed. Quite frankly, if those are needed, then the Legislature of the day should put them in place. If they are not, if the system works today and is effective in ensuring the protection of the privacy of Manitobans, then obviously we have picked the right system.
The only way for that to be determined is to let the system have an opportunity to work. It has only been less than a year since we passed that legislation, less than a year, not even a complete half year, I believe, since its portions have been operative in the case of health. Let us see how it works; let us see what comes up. I would suggest that that is a good administrative way to handle this particular matter. That is why we disagree, quite frankly, with the position taken by members of the New Democratic Party, and, of course, only time will tell.
Madam Speaker, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) gives me cause to add a few moments on this particular matter.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., when this matter is again before the House, the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) will have two minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).