Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 108

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Registered disability savings plans

S. Cadieux

Mel Schmidt

D. Routley

Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition

T. Shypitka

Take a Hike program for vulnerable youth

J. Routledge

Response to White Rock Lake fire

T. Stone

Qualicum Beach Streamkeepers

A. Walker

Oral Questions

Access to information on COVID-19 in hospitals

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

M. de Jong

Affordable housing and government revenues from housing sector

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Robinson

Access to information on ventilation projects and COVID-19 in schools

J. Tegart

Hon. J. Whiteside

Access to information on Massey Tunnel replacement project

I. Paton

Hon. M. Farnworth

Government response to freedom-of-information requests on COVID-19

B. Banman

Hon. A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill PR401 — United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021

K. Paddon

A. Wilkinson

Committee of the Whole House

Bill PR401 — United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021

K. Paddon

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill PR401 — United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. L. Beare

B. Banman

B. Bailey

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: As many of you know, I am really fortunate to have nine grandchildren

— or grands, as I call them, affectionately. Five of them have their

birthdays in October, so I decided to do it all at once and acknowledge them

all at the same time.

Daira Batchelor, my first grand, was born on October 9, and she turned

21. I also want to acknowledge her partner, my grandson-in-law, Matt Davis,

who turned 24 on the sixth. I said to her, “You couldn’t have found a

partner who wasn’t born in October,” but she didn’t.

Also on the ninth, my No. 4 grand, Ryen Batchelor, turned 16 — yes,

the same day as his oldest sister. On October 10, my No. 3 grand, Eric

Kardash, turned 18. October 13 was No. 5, Aydenn Batchelor’s 15th birthday.

And today — actually, one of them was born today — my No. 2 grand, Alexia

Kardash, is turning 21.

Please help me give them a Legislature happy birthday.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In the House today, we have Dinah D, stand-up bass player and lead,

one of the founding members of the Juno Award–winning kids band the

Kerplunks. Also, professional clown, juggler and wonderful inventor Trevor

Gear. Will the House please make them very welcome.

I have to say one more thing about them. During the pandemic, many

parents across British Columbia were grateful for their Fun Farm YouTube

broadcast. It saved a lot of families and kept a lot of kids entertained.

Will the House please thank them for their work.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Mr. Speaker: Members, when you start making your statement, please keep your eye on

the monitors on both sides to watch the time, because these are only

two-minute statements.

REGISTERED DISABILITY SAVINGS PLANS

S. Cadieux: October is RDSP Awareness Month. The registered disability savings

plan is the first of its kind in the world. It’s a tax-deferred savings

vehicle to assist people with disabilities in planning for the long term

for financial security. Its roots are here in British Columbia, and

after the introduction in 2008, the B.C. government at the time set the

national best practice by exempting the RDSP from B.C. disability

assistance payments, both as income and asset.

The RDSP is an important tool in the efforts to end poverty for

people with disabilities. On its own, it offers people with disabilities

the chance to accumulate savings and to use them without fear of

clawbacks.

We need everybody to be talking about the RDSP. Even with the

financial security it can provide, many people who qualify don’t have

one. Many Canadians know and take advantage of RRSPs and RESPs, but far

fewer people know about the RDSP, and unfortunately, some simply refuse

to accept that there’s a government program that truly invests in

people. I can understand that skepticism, but it really does. Here’s

how.

For every dollar put into an RDSP account, the federal government

can, if your family income is below $98,000, match up to $3. This is the

Canadian disability savings grant. For people living on a low income of

less than $32,000, the federal government will put in $1,000 each year

for 20 years. This is the Canada disability savings bond. Anyone can

contribute to an RDSP on behalf of an individual with a disability, so

people can help in the way that they are able.

British Columbians have led the country in taking advantage of the

RDSP. We have the most accounts, and we have the highest average

holdings in those accounts. But there are still tens of thousands of

people who aren’t taking advantage of this opportunity.

Plan, Disability Alliance B.C. and the B.C. Aboriginal Network on

Disability have banded together to get the word out. Help them raise

Mr. Speaker: Good timing. Excellent.

[10:10 a.m.]

MEL SCHMIDT

D. Routley: I’d like to speak to the House about the recent passing of my

friend Mel Schmidt.

Mel was born April 8, 1934, in Barriere, at home. He joined the

CCF in 1955. He fought with his parents often, who joined the Social

Credit League at exactly the same time. His membership card was signed

by Grace MacInnis, Order of Canada, first woman MP from B.C. and J.S.

Woodsworth’s daughter. He was a life member, that honour being bestowed

on him by Dave Barrett.

Mel was a hard-working and dedicated person to his family, to his

fellow workers and to his community. He was a great fundraiser. As he

was an avid hunter and fisher, he often organized a heritage game dinner

in Crofton. He once organized a baseball fundraiser, with the visiting

likes of Dave Barrett and Emery Barnes.

In his son Donald’s words, he never missed an opportunity to tell

anyone how much better this country would be if we elected more New

Democrats. Even at age 87, this fall he was putting up election signs

shortly before his illness.

For me, I spent the first 25 years of my working life on worksites

— logging, tree planting, construction. Mel knew that world and the

ability of working people. He simply believed that everyone deserves a

decent share of the economic pie. These were not steeped in left-wing

ideology. It was a simple and practical belief.

Conversations with Mel for me were like tossing a ball back and

forth. He loved sayings. He told me: “Madder than a wet wasp.” He said

that trying to understand some people is like smelling the number nine.

He told me that ten pounds of stupid in a five-pound bag equalled what I

had just done.

He also said you can’t build hope by ignoring reality, only by

facing it. Mel Schmidt was always ready for that challenge.

FISH, WILDLIFE

AND HABITAT

COALITION

T. Shypitka: This morning I would like to speak on behalf of fish, wildlife and

habitat, as I have done in this House many times before. Recently I met

up with representatives of the B.C. Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition

here in B.C. That represents an incredible 275,000 members and over

1,000 businesses.

How is it that such a large coalition representing such a diverse

group of members, such as hunters, environmentalists, guides, trappers

and land conservationists, can put their differences aside and work

together as one without beating each other up? The reason is simple, in

that nothing brings people together more than a crisis.

The message from this coalition and from myself is that we need

more non-partisan collaboration to help nature. To illustrate, I can

lean on some statistics that show that in 1991, B.C. spent 4.9 percent

of its budget on renewable resource management. By 2001, 3.3 percent. In

2011, 1.6 percent. In 2021, it’s just 1.4 percent. Surely, the health of

our natural assets is worthy of more than 1.4 percent of our taxpayer

dollars.

Rebuilding resilient forests means returning our renewable

resource management budget to 5 percent. Without a reasonable financial

commitment, it is impossible to move forward.

The objectives of this Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition are to

(1) position fish, wildlife and habitat into outcome-based legislation;

(2) review and modernize other related legislation; (3) increase and

dedicate funding; and finally, (4) work toward a new governance model

which everyone can see themselves in, incorporating local input,

regional landscape planning and a land manager making operational

decisions locally.

We politicians need to take a long-term view on this and take a

lesson from this coalition of selfless volunteers and skilled

professionals. Let’s all of us truly work together for

wildlife.

TAKE A HIKE PROGRAM

FOR VULNERABLE

YOUTH

J. Routledge: Three years ago I spoke in this chamber about an alternative

education program called Take a Hike. Take a Hike is a full-time mental

health and emotional well-being program embedded in our public education

system. It uses the outdoors and adventure-based learning to engage

vulnerable youth. Since then, Take a Hike has expanded. It offers three

more programs on Vancouver Island, in addition to the five already

operating in the Lower Mainland.

[10:15 a.m.]

Youth served by Take a Hike already face challenges, such as

mental health complications, addictions and trauma. COVID-19 has only

made it worse for them. The supports they can access now will determine

their resiliency and put them on a path to social and academic success

with long-term impacts for their future. As Take a Hike continues to

expand, they are doing more to embrace equality, diversity and

inclusion.

While Take a Hike welcomes all youth, they are committed to truth

and reconciliation. They work with Indigenous consultants to develop

curriculum that unites Indigenous ways of knowing and learning, with

Take a Hike’s theory of change and attachment in a trauma-informed

setting.

Take a Hike is one of the few programs in B.C. that embeds

full-time registered mental health clinicians to provide prevention and

early intervention support. Approximately 90 percent of their students

graduate, and according to a social return on investment study, for

every dollar spent on Take a Hike, society will recognize a return of

more than five times that much.

I wish I had time to tell some of the stories of students who

triumphed over their adversity.

Let me conclude by saying that Take a Hike continues to empower

vulnerable youth to change the trajectory of their lives.

RESPONSE TO WHITE ROCK LAKE FIRE

T. Stone: This is a story of resilience. Unless you’ve lived through a

wildfire, you have no idea what it’s like to experience losing

everything. These are words shared by dozens of families who lost their

homes due to the White Rock Lake wildfire this summer.

I have huge respect and gratitude for the residents of Monte Lake

and Paxton Valley who, this past August, stepped up for each other amid

tragedy. They did so because of the love they have for their community.

This raging inferno left behind heartbreaking scenes of destruction. But

it might have been even worse if not for the determination of residents

who took matters into their own hands on August 5, in the absence of

help that they desperately needed.

It’s easy to judge these folks, but it takes more effort to stop

and listen to what might prompt someone to stay behind and risk their

lives during an emergency. One resident said: “Everything that I have is

invested here. All I have is my home, my land, my animals. If I don’t

save this, I’m too old to start over again.”

Another neighbour added: “There are times you have to stand up and

do it yourself, especially when nobody else is there to help

you.”

These honest, hard-working, decent folks continue to forge on as

best they can, helping one another with housing, food, even hay for

their animals. Some are multigenerational families that built these

communities and even contributed to building our province, while other,

more recent arrivals are continuing the tradition of supporting their

community here and now. Whether in ranching, farming or forestry,

they’ve been minding their own business, raising their families, not

asking for handouts from government. But they need help

today.

One resident summed this up well recently when she said: “Come to

my property and look at a desolate, bare, blackened, horrible nightmare

that I will have to live with for the rest of my life. We have

nothing.”

Nearly three months later it’s time to get these resilient people

of Monte Lake and Paxton Valley the supports they need and deserve to

rebuild their homes and, indeed, rebuild their lives.

QUALICUM BEACH STREAMKEEPERS

A. Walker: I want to take a moment to recognize the incredible work of the

Qualicum Beach Streamkeepers.

Here on the coast, we rely on wild salmon and other fish to feed

us, to provide families with sustainable jobs and the sport-fishing

opportunities that foster some of our richest memories on the water. Of

course, these fish also feed our forests, ecosystems and wildlife. Our

rivers and streams are under increasing pressure from urban development,

and it is through the meticulous record-taking, advocacy and hard work

of streamkeeper volunteers that we’re starting to see our local salmon

and trout populations grow.

Volunteers drive high into Mount Arrowsmith, near the source of

the Little Qualicum watershed, and follow this flow down at regular

intervals, recording the temperature, turbidity and other levels, and

they carefully seine and count the small salmon and trout fry in the

streams. This provides valuable data on stream health, especially as we

are seeing the impacts of climate change, leading to lower summer water

flows and increasing pressure from heavier winter rains.

[10:20 a.m.]

Their advocacy means that Beach Creek no longer runs through old

hot-water tanks and old oil drums and that local decisions are better

informed. Their hard work goes well beyond the important work of tree

vegetation planting, bank stabilization and fish counts. It includes the

dirty work of their annual fish toss, collecting deceased spawning

salmon from the stream banks and distributing their bodies higher

upstream to nurture habitat and carefully collecting the salmon and

trout fry prior to the work of heavy machinery in stream revitalization

efforts.

It’s working. Through the fish counts, they have recorded a near

doubling of fish in these streams.

Our community and our ecosystems are so much richer for the work

of the Qualicum Beach Streamkeepers, and I want to thank each and every

one of the volunteers for the incredible work that they do.

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ON COVID-19 IN

HOSPITALS

S. Bond: The Premier has repeatedly dismissed questions about his

government withholding critical data related to the management of

COVID-19. He said: “We’re not hiding anything.”

Well, the Premier is hiding. He’s hiding key data and information

that the public is entitled to. Last month, this government was finally

forced to admit that it had been keeping two sets of numbers on how many

COVID patients are actually in hospitals — one for the public, and the

accurate one is actually 46 percent higher.

The majority of British Columbians want to do the right thing, but

they need specific, detailed information to help them make better

decisions, including choosing to be vaccinated.

To the Premier, why is his government still failing to provide

accurate hospitalization and ICU numbers despite making a promise to do

so a month ago?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member, the Leader of the Opposition, for her

question.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020,

when it was declared, and even before that, we have been providing

British Columbians with information on a daily, sometimes on a weekly,

basis through regular briefings, through our online dashboard, through

multiple reports.

For example, in terms of long-term care and assisted living and

acute care outbreaks, information since January — weekly information on

case counts, on the number of people who have passed away in outbreaks,

and so on…. The amount of information that’s provided on a daily and

weekly basis is exceptional in B.C. We receive new requests for

different information all the time.

The issue of discontinued isolation, as the member will know, in

the community is a significant issue that we have been asked about many

times. Just because you’ve recovered and are no longer infectious

doesn’t mean, because of long COVID, that you’re not continuing to

suffer the consequences of getting sick from COVID-19.

There is a massive amount of information and requests that go out

every day. I think to suggest — and I disagree with the Leader of the

Opposition on this — that this mountain of information and the desire to

have more than a mountain of information is a reason for anyone not to

get vaccinated is just not correct. People need to get vaccinated now. I

know that the member agrees with that, so we’re not having that debate.

But I don’t think that’s the reason.

We are providing on a daily, weekly basis…. Today Dr. Henry will

be briefing again. We promised, I think, a couple of weeks ago, a

monthly report on this school year and on outcomes of cases in this

school year. Dr. Henry will be briefing in detail on that. We’ll be

providing other information as requested as we expand to the hundreds of

requests that we get every week from members of the media and the public

with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, certainly, the minister can list off all of the briefings

and the information that is currently provided, but what British

Columbians expect from the Premier and this minister is accurate

information. People expect that the Premier will trust British

Columbians with key information. It’s not good enough to say that there

are daily briefings and there’s information. It is what information is

provided and how.

[10:25 a.m.]

Let’s talk about attempts to get information about COVID-19

outbreaks in hospitals through freedom of information. Those have been

stonewalled and denied. Fraser Health, for example, recently blacked out

55 of 79 pages in a document that was finally provided after months of

delay. So the minister can list all of that information. That is the

fact. Fraser Health blocked 55 pages out of 79.

Jason Woywada of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy

Association says: “Trying to hide behind redacted documents…and not

getting the information out there as quickly as possible can erode trust

in public institutions.”

That is exactly what this government’s provision of details and

detailed information has done. It has eroded trust. It should not take

an FOI request to get detailed information about the COVID-19 situation

in British Columbia. It shouldn’t take an FOI request.

Again to the Premier, will he and his government provide the

accurate hospitalization and ICU numbers that were promised? That is

what British Columbians expect, and that is what they

deserve.

Hon. A. Dix: In British Columbia, in a pandemic, the people who are responsible

for providing accurate information — it’s why we have a public Health

Act; it’s why information is gathered under the public Health Act — are

public health. I support every single one of their decisions, because I

support them.

The Leader of the Opposition asks about requests for information,

about cases in hospitals and about an FOI request that, I think, was

made by media members. It is not surprising, and it’s one of the real

challenges of the pandemic sometimes, because early on, the member will

remember there was the first case in Interior Health…. People wanted to

know where the person lived. I repeatedly said, “We’re not going to

provide that information,” for good and important reasons.

As I understand it, many of the redactions which were made by the

freedom-of-information people responsible, and the Fraser Health

Authority in that case, were made consistent with the Freedom of

Information and Privacy Act. They made those…. Of course, there is a

process for appeal of that process, and that may well happen, but it’s

not surprising that the details of case histories — of hospital

outbreaks — fall under the privacy provisions of that act. I think the

member surely would agree that you would expect redactions from such a

request, and redactions occur.

There is also a process to review that. I know the members will be

canvassing this in further questions, but that’s the process now. We

have an independent process. Independent people take a look at it. They

respond to that, and they have in mind protection, the desire for

information, which is critically important, which we do every single day

on our dashboard and every single week in our reports on

outbreaks.

As well, they expect the privacy of individuals in our health care

system to be protected.

M. de Jong: I think that through this extraordinary time — this pandemic —

most people have endured. They have endured without complaint. They

haven’t been out protesting, they haven’t been complaining. They’ve

simply gotten on with their lives as best they can and tried to make the

best decisions they can for the safety and well-being of their families.

They’ve only asked for one thing in return. They’ve asked for the

government to be honest with them. That’s what they’ve asked for in

return.

We know that in key areas, the government hasn’t been honest with

them. It has released false numbers on hospitalization rates. It has

forced people to submit FOI requests for basic, accurate information

about COVID outbreaks in hospitals. Even then, it chooses, as we’ve just

heard, to withhold that information.

Vancouver Coastal Health said there were no records. That’s

unbelievable. That is simply unbelievable. Fraser Health, as we’ve just

heard, blanks out 55 of 79 pages, because, apparently, the government

determined that disclosure would be harmful to its “financial or

economic interests.” That’s what the material says.

[10:30 a.m.]

Can the Premier explain which possible financial or economic

interest of the government justifies withholding accurate, vital and

relevant information from British Columbians about the COVID

pandemic?

Hon. A. Dix: The member, the former Government House Leader, will know from his

experience that the reason why…. Information in a pandemic, the

definition of information and how it’s provided, is provided by the

public health officer. It is for exactly that question and the

importance of that question of credibility. It’s why we have been so

supportive — and, I would say, overall, the opposition has been so

supportive — of Dr. Bonnie Henry, who is responsible for

that.

I just can’t let the premise of that question go by. When the

member says that Dr. Henry and other public health officials are not

being honest, well, I just tell you I am not in agreement with

that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

Hon. A. Dix: I am not in agreement with that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: Or anyone else. There’s an extraordinary effort to provide

information about this pandemic. There’s extraordinary effort being made

to provide information to everyone about this pandemic.

As members will know on the FOI process, there’s a process that

people go through independently to determine issues of the applicability

and whether information is provided or not. That’s the nature of the

Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

I think members know this. Members of the opposition…. I say,

although I wasn’t going to let that statement go by without responding

to it, that I think members of the opposition have been exceptionally

supportive of Dr. Henry as well. I would never say otherwise.

I would say this. I think public health has done an exceptional

job in providing information to British Columbians. I support them, I’m

responsible for their actions in this House, and I’m proud to support

them today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: As a skilled and experienced parliamentarian, the Minister of

Health can try as much as he likes to deflect attention away from the

essence of the question. But he hasn’t done so, and he hasn’t answered

the question.

He hasn’t answered the question about why, when a request for

information about the safety of hospitals, a request that shouldn’t even

require an FOI request…. It shouldn’t be necessary to double-check

numbers provided by the government, but that is necessary, because the

government has released false numbers in the past.

He hasn’t answered this question: why is it that 55 pages are

blanked out and the excuse used is that because it would be harmful to

the financial or economic interests of the government? Those are what

the documents say. The government, the minister, the Premier want

British Columbians to trust the government, but unfortunately, the

government doesn’t trust British Columbians.

Here’s the pattern. Here’s the pattern that the minister and the

Premier don’t want to acknowledge. They failed to release a report on

COVID-19 in long-term-care homes. They failed to provide accurate case

counts and hospitalization data at the local level, and they’re still

failing to provide true hospitalization and ICU numbers…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the question, please.

M. de Jong: …despite promising weeks ago to do so.

My question, again to the Premier is: when will he stop blocking

the disclosure of information that British Columbians are entitled to

have about the safety of their hospitals, and when will he proactively

release the accurate information that British Columbians are entitled to

have to assess the safety of their hospitals?

Hon. A. Dix: Public health has been providing information through the B.C.

Centre for Disease Control and through the provincial health office from

the beginning of this pandemic. There have been, throughout the

pandemic, as is absolutely understandable, requests for more

information, and they have consistently met those requests.

[10:35 a.m.]

The number of reports that are made available on a daily and

weekly basis is exceptional — beyond anything that’s provided, I think,

on any other issue in government — because Dr. Henry believes, and

because I believe, that people need to know the information about a

pandemic that’s affecting everyone’s lives. That’s what we’ve been doing

from the beginning of the pandemic.

They define, and we define, information. This is why, when you

consistently define hospitalizations, you know that in the first phase

of the pandemic we topped out at 149 people in hospital and 72 people in

critical care and that in the month of April, we hit 183 people in

critical care. That’s more. That now we’re at 151 people in critical

care. That’s a lot. That we’re moving people around the province. We

provided details to the opposition and to everyone else about all of

that, and we’re going to continue to do so.

The people leading that effort of getting the information — and

this assures public confidence — are the provincial health office and

the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. That’s not a way of dodging the

question. I support them, and I’m responsible for their actions in this

House, and I’m proud of them. I’m proud of the B.C. CDC and their

courageous seven-day-a-week effort throughout this pandemic, and I’m

proud of our provincial health officer.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND GOVERNMENT

REVENUES FROM HOUSING

SECTOR

S. Furstenau: Yesterday this government told my colleague that they view housing

as a human right. We agree. Everyone has the right to livable,

affordable housing. But in B.C., housing has been treated like a

commodity instead of a right.

In the first quarterly report of B.C.’s finances last month, this

government touted a “stronger than anticipated financial recovery and a

smaller deficit than was projected,” but the numbers don’t tell the

whole story. Our economic growth is tied to an explosion in housing

prices. According to the B.C. Real Estate Association, prices for all

homes increased by 17.1 percent this year. The increase in prices shows

up on the province’s books, deepening our government’s reliance on an

overheated and unsustainable housing market.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. This government has a

vested interest in keeping housing prices elevated. They also have a

commitment to uphold the human right for everyone to have livable,

stable, affordable housing. How does the minister reconcile this

conflict?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have to say to the member how much I appreciate her asking the

question. As a government, we have been very, very strong on making sure

that housing affordability is addressed here in this

province.

We’ve recognized that B.C.’s housing market continues to be a

priority for our government, and we’ve made significant efforts to

address that, from a 30-point housing plan, where, I believe, all

elements of the plan have been enacted, most of them have been

completed. We have brought in a speculation and vacancy tax to make sure

that we can deliver for British Columbians.

We’ve brought about billions of dollars of investment into

housing, not just for those on the bottom end of the income scale but

for middle-income British Columbians, with $2 billion invested into the

HousingHub to make sure that we can also bring housing about for those

middle-income British Columbians.

We know that the pandemic has jolted the housing market in a

significant way. We were making headway on addressing housing prior to

the pandemic. We know that there’s more to do, and we’re a government

that is committed to continuing to address housing affordability here in

British Columbia.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that response. Yes, I appreciate

what she’s identified — the 30-point housing plan, the speculation tax,

investments in housing and the HousingHub. However, let’s go back to the

17.1 percent increase in housing prices this year. The outcomes are not

the desired ones if this government is truly committed to housing being

a human right.

[10:40 a.m.]

Let’s just consider, for example, how many people who work in this

building who are struggling to find affordable rentals and for whom the

dream of homeownership in Victoria is an impossible one. This is

connected to the commodification of housing. Government is overly

reliant on housing revenue to display a “healthy economy,” but the

economy isn’t healthy if it’s not working for the vast majority of

people. Let’s remember: GDP measures everything except that which makes

life worthwhile.

Yes, COVID-19 has impacted the economy and the housing market, but

that doesn’t absolve the government of its responsibility to act. We’re

facing a housing crisis. The crisis is deepening.

Again to the Minister of Finance, what was not addressed in the

minister’s response is the fact that people can’t afford to live in

their communities, nor does it address the conflict that this government

appears to be unwilling to acknowledge. Is housing for wealth creation,

or is it a human right?

Hon. S. Robinson: Perhaps the member didn’t quite understand my previous response,

given the significant efforts that this government has made after

vacancy of the previous government on this file. We have taken

significant action. In fact, in our last budget was $2 billion more into

addressing that very gap in the housing continuum. That is a government

that’s taking action.

No one here is saying that we’re done. We have a lot more work to

do, and I know that the members opposite will join with us in that work.

The fact, just in the last, I think, three years, we have 24, 25…. No,

wait. It’s 35,000 rental homes in the pipeline in the last four years.

That is going to be coming online.

We have more to do, and I look forward to working with all members

of the House to continue to address housing affordability here in

British Columbia.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ON VENTILATION PROJECTS

AND

COVID-19 IN SCHOOLS

J. Tegart: From trying to bury a report on long-term care or blacking out key

information about COVID and hospitals, the Premier works hard to hide

the truth from British Columbians. And now you can add schools to the

list.

Parents worried if their child’s school has safe ventilation are

being kept in the dark by this Premier. We’ve been asking for months for

details on which projects are complete, which ones are scheduled, to

ensure that children have safe, fresh air in classrooms.

Will the Premier commit today to giving parents ventilation

information in one central location?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question and for the opportunity

to talk about the extraordinary work that our school districts have done

as front-line leaders in keeping our schools open, keeping them safe

throughout the pandemic. I can assure this House that school districts

have taken the significant investment that we have made — $87.5 million

over the last two budgets, $240 million in this budget — to invest in

improving the heating and ventilation systems in our schools.

In my riding, for example, of New Westminster, my community, we

know that that school district has increased all of their HVAC systems

up to MERV 13s. We know several other districts have done that. We have

asked districts to meet with their local occupational health and safety

committees to talk about the work that’s been done.

I know that the leadership in the Vancouver school board has

spoken with many parents about the work that they’ve done in that school

district. We’ve asked that they do, in fact, make all of that

information available so that it will be available in one central

location. We’re working to support school districts to do

that.

I want to say that school boards and school districts…. The work

that they have done to support kids and families throughout this

pandemic is extraordinary. We owe them all a debt of gratitude in that

regard.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.

J. Tegart: There is no doubt that the work done by school boards is

extraordinary. Those of us who have served on school boards know the

work. What we’re questioning is the work done by government.

[10:45 a.m.]

This is a Premier who started the school year by hiding details on

outbreaks in schools. He said he didn’t want to stress parents out. You

know what really stresses parents? Not knowing if their children are

safe or not.

The Premier gave his office a $3 million raise this year, but he’s

making parents crowdsource work to find out if there are cases in their

children’s school. Will the Premier provide the centralized information

parents need, instead of adding to their stress?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. I think that when it

comes to the information that is provided…. Again, we have a very robust

system in place with respect to the provision of information to school

communities about potential exposures in their schools. That information

is recorded on health authority websites.

I want to assure British Columbians. I want to assure families

that if your child is at risk of exposure, you will be notified by

public health. That is the process. There is a very clear process

established by public health. When there is a test-positive case

identified, that information is communicated directly to close contacts,

and potential exposure notifications are listed on health authority

websites.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ON MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

I. Paton: This government has been hiding a report on long-term care,

blackening out key information about COVID in hospitals, then concealing

vital information for parents. And now the Premier is concealing

critical Massey Tunnel documents. While the Premier plays politics, the

losers are the drivers stuck in traffic for another decade.

It’s pretty obvious that the Premier is ashamed of his decision to

replace a ten-lane bridge with an eight-lane tunnel. He decided

taxpayers should pay more to get less, including no rapid transit

option, and he’s hiding the documents justifying his decision. We had

already approved a bridge, $100 million was already spent on it, and the

people would be driving over the new bridge next year.

Here is some of what the Premier is hiding. Why a tunnel rather

than a bridge? Where is the risk analysis? Where is the value-for-money

analysis?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

I. Paton: How much extra is it going to cost to hire the Premier’s political

friends to build this tunnel?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the question, please.

I. Paton: And will the project stand any chance of getting through a federal

environmental assessment process? All of those questions and more

blacked out by the Premier.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier release the full

report so that people in B.C. have something to read while stuck in

traffic?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I must say I do find it fascinating that they’re asking for the

full release of the business plan around the bridge, which was released.

But what’s funny is that when they did the initial announcement of a

bridge, they had no business plan in place — not one.

They ignored what the regional governments, the regional mayors,

wanted, which was the tunnel. That’s what the local governments who

actually have to deal with transportation on a day-to-day basis want in

place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker : Let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They wanted the tunnel.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s also interesting that when the Port Mann Bridge was put in

place, they tolled that bridge — that wasn’t part of the deal — and they

were looking at having tolls on the bridge over the Fraser

River.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: On the Massey replacement, they wanted tolls.

[10:50 a.m.]

I’ll tell you what, hon. Speaker. We’ve got tunnel vision that a

tunnel is the right thing to do. One thing that we don’t have that they

had is toll vision.

I can tell you this. We have been working with local government.

We’ve been working with the port authority. We know that a tunnel is the

right approach. That’s what we’re building. That’s what we’re going to

do. The residents of Metro are right behind us, and we’re going to get

it done, unlike them.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

ON COVID-19

B. Banman: We’ve heard today about the extraordinary efforts that this

government is going to, to provide FOIs. Let’s review some of those

extraordinary efforts, shall we?

It’s extraordinary — the burying of long-term care reports, hiding

data on hospitals, hiding critical information from parents and blacking

out of reports. The Premier’s list keeps growing.

What’s extraordinary is how disturbing this trend is. In February,

the editor of the Fraser Valley Current submitted an FOI. The

request was for emails between the Premier, the Minister of Health, Dr.

Henry and her staff about COVID-19 situation reports.

The Premier took well past the legislated deadline. His staff said

that they were actively gathering the documents but delivered nothing

months later. The editor has this to say: “When a government breaks the

law and doesn’t start searching for records….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order.

I think I’m going to try….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. If members don’t….

Carry on.

B. Banman: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but apparently the side opposition did not

hear that this was a quote from the editor. So I’ll do it again. “When a

government breaks the law and doesn’t start searching for records until

months after a request is made…”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

B. Banman: “…it’s inevitably more likely those records have gotten

lost.”

My question: how does the Premier expect us, British Columbians or

the press, to believe that during a pandemic, his office had zero

records about COVID?

Hon. A. Dix: The Premier, the public, British Columbians, health care workers —

everyone has lots of information about COVID-19. They have it, because

we provide it every day. We provide it every day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the answer, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: It’s available on the COVID dashboard. From the beginning, from

March 2020, we’ve provided public information through public briefings

on public dashboards. We’ve responded to thousands, even tens of

thousands, of media requests. We’ve provided detailed information,

sometimes general response links to everyone, and sometimes à la carte

to everyone in the population.

There is massive response in terms of information on COVID-19. The

result of that has been the actions of British Columbians, who have

worked together in difficult times to help one another. I’m very proud

of the government’s response. I’m very proud of British Columbians’

response to COVID-19.

I will continue to act as we’ve acted, continue to work with

everybody in this Legislature, continue to provide information to

everyone, including, I say with great respect, the member for Cariboo

North — I am absolutely committed to providing every piece of

information about her riding that she requires to do her job — and

everyone else in this House. That’s been my approach from the beginning

of the pandemic.

[10:55 a.m.]

I want to say this. I think all members of this House have shown

themselves in good light here. We have repeatedly provided, in advance,

confidential briefings to the opposition. They have never been leaked,

because the opposition has acted in those matters honourably. I am proud

of that. I’m proud of how we’ve all acted in this House, and I will

continue to act that way.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, private member’s bill Pr401, United Church of

Canada Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL P R 401 — UNITED CHURCH OF

CANADA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

K. Paddon: I move that Bill Pr401 intituled United Church of Canada Amendment

Act, 2021, now be read a second time.

The United Church of Canada was formed officially on June 10,

1925, pursuant to the United Church of Canada Act. This federal act

incorporated three religious bodies: the Methodist, Presbyterian and

Congregational churches of Canada. Today the United Church of Canada is

the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, with over two million

people, including members across our beautiful province.

In addition to the federal legislation, provincial legislation was

adopted in all of the then provinces in Canada. In 2015, the UCC’s 42nd

general council adopted a motion to initiate a consultation process with

the congregations across Canada, discussing restructuring. The question

at issue was restructuring the national church from a four-court

structure to a three-council structure.

The four-court configuration is made up of pastoral charges,

presbyteries, conferences and the general council, and contains checks

and balances that were important to the union in 1924. The three-council

structure being proposed in this amendment places more decision-making

with the local ministry and provides support and oversight through a

regional body that is larger than the current-model presbytery. The

result is a three-council model that is more agile and transparent in

providing clear, accountable decision-making processes.

The resulting restructuring was confirmed by the UCC’s 43rd

general council on July 22, 2018. This restructuring requires the

legislation itself to be amended, with the consent of the Legislative

Assembly. The amendment was sought and obtained to the federal act in

2019. Amendments to the provincial acts have also been being sought,

including Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, where

amending legislation has been passed to reflect the

restructuring.

The names and territorial areas of overseeing bodies have changed,

but the process and the inherent underlying rights have not.

Specifically, this United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, amends

the definition

section to reflect the new names of the UCC’s courts

pursuant to the restructuring and to alphabetize the

definitions

section, and amendments to the trust and model deed to reflect the

change in overseeing body. The original acts are nearly a century old,

and to preserve the integrity of those acts, the proposed amendments

modify only the bare minimum required to effect the change in the

governance structure of the UCC.

In 2018, Rev. Brian Cornelius of the First United Church, United

Church of Canada, spoke to the Senate of Canada on the amendments to the

federal United Church of Canada Act. In his remarks, he stated: “It is

important to note that the United Church is a democratic church. The

church embodies democratic principles in its governance, including

mechanisms to change the church.”

The amendments put forth in this bill, Pr401, United Church of

Canada Amendment Act, 2021, reflect the democratic spirit and process

that has been present since the union that formed this church. I hope

this House will join me in supporting it. It has been a privilege to

sponsor this bill and a pleasure to work with representatives of the

United Church of Canada in bringing this forward. I look forward to next

steps.

A. Wilkinson: The United Church of Canada has been developing over a period of

centuries. The first efforts to bring together congregations began in

1749, nine years before the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, so we can

see that this has been a long-term process.

[11:00 a.m.]

The most recent gathering of congregations of note was in 1925,

when the Methodist Church of Canada, the Congregational Union of Canada

and the majority of the Presbyterian Church of Canada formed the United

Church of Canada, but the evolution has continued.

There were further mergers in 1930, when the synod of the Wesleyan

Methodist Church joined, and in 1968, there was a further merger. This

is part of an ongoing process as the development of this institution

continues, and now we’re at a turning point where the governance

structure is being reformed, and all legislatures in Canada are involved

so that this institution can continue to develop and perhaps continue

with further mergers as time goes by.

We welcome this development, as the opposition. We support this

bill. We’re glad to see that the United Church of Canada will continue

to evolve and develop, and we’re happy to participate in that

process.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

K. Paddon: By leave, I move that the bill be committed to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL P R 401 — UNITED CHURCH OF

CANADA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill Pr401;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

K. Paddon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:04 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[11:05 a.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL P R 401 — UNITED CHURCH OF

CANADA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill Pr401, United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading of Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2021

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Do either of you want to do it?

Member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: I do appreciate the fact that we found humour in the situation of

me getting up. But unfortunately, one of the situations, when we’re

talking about Bill 21, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act…. I was

going to let the minister know that I was going designate myself as

designated speaker, because we have lots to continue to say. But as I

said last night, a lot of that important information can be brought up

at committee stage.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I felt it was important, though, that we just spoke at second

reading, after our colleague from Abbotsford West, who did a good job

highlighting some of the areas where we would have questions in

committee stage.

I think it was important to highlight — especially after some

members on the government side stood up and tried to say the reason why

we weren’t speaking was because we were hiding from important issues

that were in this document — that this, unfortunately for their

comments, is completely inaccurate, which is why I took the opportunity

to stand up to correct the record. There are some areas in here that

warrant some thorough discussion, that warrant some questions and

thorough comments from the minister when we get to that point in

committee stage.

I’m looking forward to this bill getting to committee stage, as we

know there are a couple of different sections, different ministries,

different critics that will probably be getting the opportunity to get

up under the lead of our member for Abbotsford West, who, as always,

does a superb job making sure that these issues are canvassed

appropriately on behalf of the people in British Columbia and on behalf

of the opposition.

So with that, I look forward to committee stage.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all the members who spoke to the bill. I’ll just

spend a few moments in reflection on some of what I heard before calling

second reading.

In particular, I’m troubled…. There were multiple speeches and

public statements by the opposition that the content of this bill is not

important and that we wasted time having members speak to it. Now I

heard the member for Peace River South raise this issue again in his

speech, saying that no, that was — what were his words? — “completely

inaccurate,” and that this is, in fact, an important bill.

I’d like to go briefly through some of the concern that I have

about the content of the debate related to the bill and the importance

of the bill. Now, the Minister of Jobs commented on his concern, in his

second reading speech. I have to agree with him entirely when he said

that to criticize people for speaking to the bill because the opposition

doesn’t think it’s important…. “Well, perhaps the opposition needs to

connect with people whose lived lives are affected by this stuff every

single day. Then they’ll realize how important this is.”

Now, I thought it was pretty clear. I have to admit I’m a bit

surprised by the member for Peace River South’s comments. I thought it

was pretty clear that the B.C. Liberal opposition was taking the

position that the bill wasn’t important and that we were wasting time

having people speak to the bill — that they were saying the bill was not

of any substance, that it was part of a larger issue of no legislative

agenda, that it was equivalent to having no bill to debate, that it was

a gross waste of time.

[11:10 a.m.]

But then the member from the Peace stood up and said: “No, no, no.

That’s not true. You’re characterizing us inaccurately.” He said: “But

to be characterized by some on that side that the reason why we weren’t

speaking is because there was nothing important in here is absolutely

not factual…. At no time…were we saying that these things were not

serious.”

I think I should set the record straight about what they actually

said. The member for Surrey South said in her speech that in her

opinion, this bill was not worth debating. “We are here, trying to find

something to say about a miscellaneous statutes bill that nobody has any

issue on, because government has not bothered to introduce legislation

of any substance for us to debate. That says something.” She said this

legislation was not of any substance, that members, as a result,

shouldn’t be wasting their time speaking to it.

She wasn’t alone. The member for Surrey–White Rock wrote on social

media about the bill. “Another day with the Premier and his government

in Victoria trying to fill the day with virtually no legislative

reading debate on this bill “a gross waste of time that otherwise could

have been put to a useful purpose.”

Even the member for Peace himself, about this bill and the debate,

sham. “We fly all the way to Victoria to, hopefully, debate the serious

issues facing people in B.C., but instead, the NDP have no bills to

debate…. A bit of a sham when government is not prepared or taking the

issues seriously.” Now, I’ll leave it to that member to try to explain

That’s for him to explain.

Let’s get some perspective here on the so-called gross waste of

time that this bill is. We started second reading of this bill at 4:10

p.m. We wrapped it at 6:30. We went over it for a couple more minutes

from the member from Peace today. Two hours and 20 minutes we spent on

this bill, 140 minutes of total second reading debate. It was a “gross

waste of time.”

One piece of this bill, regulating amusement devices…. This comes

out of tragedy in our province. A man jumped headfirst into a trampoline

pit with his two kids, and he died. He broke his neck and was unable to

breathe, and he died in front of his children.

A Victoria woman, Sylvie Gilbert…. Her eight-year-old daughter,

Chelsea, was injured in a foam pit at a B.C. trampoline park last April.

She had a broken back. As she learned more about these parks and that

they weren’t regulated, she said: “You don’t need to have professional

experience working at these places or even to own a place like this. I

just hope that this is going to push…government to start to regulate

these places, because they are very dangerous.”

Families destroyed. This bill will regulate those places. To the

members on the other side, a gross waste of time, not worth two hours

and 20 minutes of debate. Unacceptable.

Let me tell you about Jason Greenwood, 46 years old. He died after

doing a front flip into a foam pit at an extreme air park in Richmond.

You heard the member from Richmond talk about his constituents affected

by this. He had asked his family to take a video of the somersault, the

report said, but didn’t resurface after the jump. He was a stepfather to

three children. The coroner’s inquest found he landed headfirst after

bouncing off a trampoline into the foam pit. It took firefighters 20

minutes to get him out.

Another piece of this bill. This assembly put together a committee

to study the Representative for Children and Youth Act. They heard from

two former Representatives for Children and Youth and the current

Representative for Children and Youth, worked together over more than a

year to assemble recommendations for parliament to consider to

implement. They heard 16 submissions from public organizations

interested in the situation faced by children in care and how we can

improve their situation through a representative that’s effective to

advocate for them when government doesn’t work as we intend it

to.

[11:15 a.m.]

The work of that committee over a year, the witness submissions,

the efforts made by both sides of this House, all sides of this House,

on that…. “A gross waste of time” and “a bit of a sham,” to spend two

hours and 20 minutes debating it.

Now, I do want to make an exception. There was a member of the

opposition who took this bill seriously and whose second reading debate

not only contributed to understanding of the specific bill but the

broader context of what a miscellaneous statute is and how it works.

That’s the member for Abbotsford West. This is the one thing in the

speech — the member for the Peace — that he and I agree on.

The member for Abbotsford West said: “It’s called a miscellaneous

statutes amendment bill, which doesn’t mean the matters being dealt with

in its provisions aren’t significant and aren’t important. It does refer

to the fact that rather than being an entire bill focusing on one area

of public policy, in this case, there are six parts dealing with a range

of public policy areas.”

That is part of our job in this place. It’s to educate the public

about what we do here. You can agree or disagree with the substance. “I

think that government’s engaging in red tape by regulating trampoline

parks.” “People should be able to decide for themselves whether or not

they go in.” That is debate that should be had in this House,

potentially.

But the suggestion that this is meaningless, that this is a sham,

that it’s a waste of time, degrades this place, degrades every member in

this place, degrades the public servants who put this work together,

degrades the committee that went out and did the work and heard from

witnesses and made recommendations to us. It does us all a disservice.

It is part of an erosion of democracy that is unacceptable, and I regret

very much that the opposition is participating in that.

I think it’s worthwhile that we spent two hours and 20 minutes on

this. I think we could have easily spent more, and perhaps we will in

committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be moved to committee at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading, Bill 22.

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF

PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. L. Beare: I move that Bill 22 be read a second time now.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment

Act, 2021, strengthens privacy protection and modernizes how B.C.

manages information to better serve people and organizations. The demand

for safe, convenient online services has only increased over the

pandemic, and these proposed amendments will help us meet our province’s

evolving needs. We are proposing updates to keep pace with advancements

in technology and to provide the level of service that people expect in

the digital era. These amendments will update access to information

rules to ensure greater accountability and transparency.

Along with other things, these proposed amendments will make

changes to provide the level of service that people expect, to keep pace

with new technology, to enhance privacy protection and strengthen

government accountability and transparency. For example, amendments will

update FOIPPA’s data residency provisions so public bodies can use

modern tools while continuing to protect the personal information that

people trust us with. These changes will bring B.C. in line with the

rest of Canada, who have been managing information safely without

similar restrictions.

When talking to public bodies earlier this year, we heard many

examples where this restriction was impacting their ability to provide

high-quality services to their clients. For example, the B.C.

post-secondary sector are looking for greater access to cloud-based

services to improve their ability to attract students by allowing them

to use many of the education tools their competitors can offer outside

of British Columbia.

We also have proposed a number of amendments that demonstrate the

province’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, reconciliation and

equity. We’ve heard from our Indigenous partners that there are

opportunities to strengthen protections for information that’s important

to Indigenous people. Consistent with DRIPA, we will enhance the current

protections on information related to Indigenous cultural heritage,

traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, and the

manifestations of Indigenous sciences, technologies and

cultures.

[11:20 a.m.]

We need to make these changes to balance the service we want to

deliver with our leadership role in safeguarding information. This

legislation has not been updated since 2011, and the time is now to make

changes that will better support the people of B.C.

I am pleased to provide this bill for the Legislative Assembly’s

consideration, and I look forward to explaining the specifics of the

bill during committee stage debate.

B. Banman: Allow me to respond to this particular bill. I’d like to thank the

minister for bringing it up for debate. It is an honour, as the critic

for Citizens’ Services, to discuss this bill in this House

today.

This bill is being tabled at a concerning time in our province’s

history. We are dealing with a government that has already taken great

strides to strip away transparency and accountability rather than

improve it.

British Columbians, the media and members of the opposition are

currently waiting months, sometimes even years, for documents requested

through freedom of information. Let’s not forget when the government

wrote themselves a blank cheque in their supply bill from last spring,

with no accountability on how the money was to be spent. And over the

last 20 months, we have seen government keep vital COVID data from the

public throughout the pandemic, much to their concern and

dismay.

At a time when British Columbians are looking for greater access

to information, and they are looking for more transparency, this

government has chosen to table a bill that strips away that even

more.

There are so many issues to discuss with this bill, but we would

also have talk about the misuse of the House’s time. We just heard, a

moment ago, some rather interesting words from the government. This is

an egregious use of the parliament. This government knows full well what

it’s doing. This government has completely ignored the advice of the

last all-party task force, which said fees should not be a barrier. The

current all-party legislation committee was constituted in June to make

recommendations, but it, as of yet, has not even begun its

work.

During the drafting of this bill, the Privacy Commissioner opposed

the new fees and other elements of this bill, but this government has

flatly ignored his concerns. He calls this bill “a step in the wrong

direction.” Now this government is trying to ram this bill through,

devoid of any informed public debate.

This bill does not include provisions to prevent documents from

being destroyed prior to FOI requests. That’s worth repeating. This bill

does not include provisions to prevent documents from being destroyed

prior to FOI requests. This was a request outlined by the OIPC office

that has not been addressed in this legislation, leaving a significant

gap in the protection of documents that the public has a right to have

access to.

[11:25 a.m.]

“If someone destroys records because they think they might be of

interest but wants to destroy them before any request is made, there’s

no offence for that. That cannot be right, and it needs to change. It is

an offence in Alberta, and it could have easily been put in place here.”

That’s from Michael McEvoy, the Information and Privacy

Commissioner.

Data provisions and transparency. We are talking about British

Columbians’ personal, private information but also their access to vital

government information that they have an inherent right to, yet this

bill leaves far too many provisions to be sorted out after the

legislation has been pushed through this House. When discussing people’s

personal data, the debates and organization over data provisions should

take place here in this House, right here amongst us all, not behind

closed doors. When you do it behind closed doors, it does not give

British Columbians the openness and transparency that they deserve and

were promised by this government.

Data storage in other jurisdictions. The government has also

stated that they will be using this bill to update data resiliency

provisions to allow modern tools. Well, what exactly is that? Data

storage will now take place in other jurisdictions outside of British

Columbia and even Canada. We are now talking about the digitization of

data and cloud storage — which, we know from history, is not impervious

to data breaches.

How can we ensure that data protection and privacy in other

jurisdictions are going to be maintained? Furthermore, in what

jurisdictions does this government allow the storage of B.C. data? Where

will this data be stored? There may be a significant security difference

if it is stored in the United States, versus outside of North America.

British Columbians deserve to know exactly how their personal data and

vital government information will be stored abroad, in foreign

nations.

One of the most concerning parts about this bill is this

government’s plan to add an application fee to every single FOI — a

toll. This will mean that anyone filing a freedom-of-information request

for non-personal reasons will be subject to a charge for each request

they make. We have already heard from the press, loud and clear, on

their thoughts on that, within a very short period of time. The minister

is trying to sell this as a nominal fee to recoup costs associated with

filing these requests. It is all too clear, however, that this is really

nothing of the sort.

Not only does she misunderstand the process of FOIs, but it is

incredibly disingenuous to say this fee will not be a barrier to people

seeking to acquire the information they have the right to access — $5 on

the low end and as high as $50 on the high end. That’s yet to be

determined, but let’s go with $5. When you have to add up and ask for

the same piece of information across ministries, across health

authorities or school districts, yet the general consensus is that this

government is looking to charge $25…. That adds up.

[11:30 a.m.]

That’s 400 percent more than the fees in Ontario, charged

federally. It adds up. It becomes a barrier to accessing freedom of

information. Sometimes the press has that ability to take a look at what

government is doing and bring to light things that only they can

express, in a manner that they are sometimes that third voice that needs

to be heard. By adding these unnecessary fees, the press will now have

increased difficulty to be able to do so.

And it’s not just the press. I have heard talk about frivolous

requests for freedom of information. Frivolous according to whom? Is it

frivolous for the press? Is it frivolous to various groups, such as

environmental groups, such as…? Is it frivolous to unions? Is it

frivolous to Indigenous groups? Is it frivolous to concerned citizens

who feel they have a duty to watch what government is doing? Frivolous

is in the eye of the beholder.

Now, unless it’s personal, this potentially could add up to

thousands of dollars for proper freedom of information requests. This is

not just an annoyance or a measure designed to limit what the government

sees as frivolous requests. It’s downright prohibitive — blocking people

from vital information about their own government, about information,

through taxes they’ve already paid for and have a right to

access.

This fee is a targeted effort to discourage people from being able

to hold government accountable, be it private citizens, the media and

yes, us, the opposition. It’s what one member of this House would

describe as a tollgate on its citizens’ right to access. That comes from

Murray Rankin, from the parliament, December 15, 2017.

Deputy Speaker: No names, Member. Thank you.

B. Banman: I apologize.

And that’s part of the issue. It’s a citizen’s right to access

this information, yet this government thinks it’s okay to limit that

simply because they find it too much work or too much of a political

risk to allow members of the public to access that

information.

This is contrary to the nature, to the hallmarks and the goal of a

democratic society. It stands in direct opposition to this government’s

attempt to paint themselves as transparent, which — as we’ve seen far

too many times throughout the course of the pandemic — certainly is not

the case. We heard that today — about information that had been blocked,

about dual records with regards to COVID, about information that parents

wanted with regards for their children and whether it was safe for them

to go to school.

The changes in this bill will make it easier for government to

hide information from citizens. That’s shameful. Something that should

be worrying to everyone in this House. It certainly was for the members

opposite when they were in opposition.

[11:35 a.m.]

To quote the Premier himself: “I think all British Columbians

should be concerned when their government hides things from them. The

whole point of having access to information is so we can all make

reasonable judgments about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of our

political leadership.” That was in the Times Colonist , April

30, 2015, from our own Premier. But I guess this government lacks

confidence in their own performance to such a degree that they are

afraid and frightened to give citizens the ability to make reasonable

judgments about their own leadership.

This bill, as it stands, is a mistake. It tramples on and squashes

a citizen’s right to access information about their own government. It

puts up new, unreasonable barriers to transparency when, in fact, we

should be tearing them down. It is the clearest manifestation of

hypocrisy that I have seen in a long time.

Even before we began the debate of this bill, we have seen an

immense public backlash over its provisions. In 2016, an all-party

committee on reviewing B.C.’s FOIPPA legislation recommended: “Review

the

schedule of fees with a view to ensuring that fees are not a barrier

to individuals’ right of access.” Reviewing the

schedule of fees with a

view to ensuring that fees are not a barrier to individual access. To

quote a few, our own Information and Privacy Commissioner stated: “I am

concerned about that because any time a fee structure is put in place,

it acts as a barrier and a deterrent to people making access

requests.”

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has called

this “a sad day for transparency and accountability in British

Columbia.”

The Premier keeps dismissing questions from the opposition and

other groups about his government withholding critical data related to

the management of COVID-19. We now know that there have been two sets of

data: one for them and one for the rest of us.

I’ll give you an example. Last month, the government finally

admitted that it has been keeping two sets of numbers on how many COVID

patients are in hospital. Again, there’s one for the public, and then

there’s the real number that is 46 percent higher. That’s not just a

small difference. That’s a massive difference — 46 percent inaccurate

between the two numbers.

So it boggles the mind as to why this Premier and government refuse to provide the true

hospitalization and ICU numbers despite promising to do so a month ago.

We can’t continue to have a government that plays around with important

numbers like these. We just can’t. And then just promise, “Oh, we’ll do

better,” when they’re exposed.

But what we’re seeing isn’t any better. Attempts to learn about

COVID-19 outbreaks in hospitals through freedom of information have also

been stonewalled, and we know that Fraser Health blacked out 55 of 79

pages of documentation that were finally provided after months of

delay.

We’re not the only ones concerned about this. The B.C. Freedom of

Information and Privacy Association has been quoted as saying: “Trying

to hide behind redacted documents and not getting the information out

there as quickly as possible can erode trust in public

institutions.”

We are at a time when public distrust of its government, of its

public institutions, is at an all-time high. This bill only adds to that

suspicion and frustration by denying access to their

freedom-of-information requests.

[11:40 a.m.]

I will also add that it shouldn’t take a freedom-of-information

request for British Columbians to find out important, vital, potentially

life-saving decisions and information about COVID-19. When we talk about

this government hiding the truth from British Columbians, you can add

schools to the top of that list, where information has been far from

readily available. I can think of nothing more precious than the safety

of our children. I have heard government members talk about the safety

of their children many, many times. Yet when it comes to this bill, it’s

do as we say, not as we do.

I’ll remind the House that this Premier started the school year by

hiding details on outbreaks in schools from parents. He said that he

didn’t want to stress them out. He didn’t want to stress them out? How

about saving lives? How about protecting the most valuable thing that we

have, which is our children? That comes far, far ahead of whether you’re

stressing someone out.

So what did it do? It forced parents to crowdsource work and put

in their own time, in case they weren’t busy enough already, to find out

if there were cases in their child’s school, to find out whether or not

their children were going to become infected with COVID and bring it

home to their grandparents, who may be frail and elderly. It got in the

way of families being able to protect their loved ones.

Well, I’ll tell you. We continue to hear from worried parents

across British Columbia, and that cry is growing louder. When you hide

information from them, they become more suspicious, and they start to

distrust even more. It’s a breakdown. They’re still wondering whether or

not their child’s school has a safe ventilation system, yet they

continue to be held in the dark. It should be already out there. There

should be no secrecy when it comes to things like this. There is no

reason for it that is valid or reasonable at all.

Here on the opposition side, we’re also in the dark. For months,

we’ve been asking this Premier and his government to tell us which

ventilation projects are complete and which ones are scheduled. We’ve

asked whether parents can be provided this information in one central,

easy, accessible application. It should be simply there at parents’

fingertips.

We want to know when the government will be able to ensure that

children have fresh air in the classroom, but we’re getting absolutely

nowhere with our many requests. Parents are left to continue to stress

and worry about their children’s and family’s health.

Another area of concern we have, and we heard about it today, is

when it comes to concealing the information that has to do with a

project of extreme importance to motorists south of the Fraser. That is

the replacement of the aging Massey Tunnel. This government has squashed

a plan for a ten-lane bridge, which would have been built by next year,

to replace it with — wait for it — an eight-lane tunnel. It may not be

tolled, but it’s definitely paying more for less.

Interjection.

B. Banman: If that’s what you want to stake your pride on, you go ahead with

that. I would be ashamed that motorists are going to have to sit in

lineups, but that’s all right.

[11:45 a.m.]

So where’s the information to justify this decision that means

taxpayers will pay more and get less? Where’s the information for the

press to look at? Where’s the information for the opposition to look at?

Where’s the information so that motorists can read it when they’re

blocked, going nowhere?

Interjection.

B. Banman: Well, the full Massey Tunnel report isn’t being released. British

Columbians are getting dribs and drabs of information, instead of the

whole story, once again. The people want to know why not a bridge, and

why a tunnel? Where’s the risk analysis? Where’s the full

value-for-money analysis? How much extra is it actually going to cost to

hire the Premier’s political friends to build it? Will this project

stand any chance of getting through a federal environmental assessment

process?

These are valid questions that, so far, have not been answered

through freedom-of-information requests. When they do get it, it’s

blacked out, unavailable, not for public consumption. It leads one to

believe that the Premier might be ashamed of his decision, and he’s

playing politics and withholding information just so he won’t have to

face the heat. Meanwhile, as he continues to play politics, drivers sit,

drivers wait. Drivers are frustrated whether they’ll actually get to

work that day.

The public are the biggest losers in this situation. The public

will continue to be stuck in traffic for up to another decade, missing

medical appointments, missing the ferry, getting their kids to soccer

practice late, not getting the goods to where they need to be and

impacting people’s lives and our economy for years and years to

come.

We see evidence that the Premier has a total disregard for the

independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Earlier

this year we saw him ignore the commissioner when it came to making a

half-billion-dollar InBC investment fund, which should have been

transparent under the FOI legislation, but it is not. We now have

learned that when it comes to something as basic and fundamental as

protecting a freedom-of-information system, the Premier has blatantly

ignored the commissioner and his office as well.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner says the

Premier is going “in the wrong direction.” It’s particularly interesting

because he’s talking about a premier who would often go on, at length,

about the importance of freedom of information. The Premier has been

quoted as saying things like: “I think all British Columbians should be

concerned when their government hides things from them. The whole point

of having access to information is so we can all make judgments about

the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of our political

leadership.”

I said it before, but it’s worth repeating. It’s important. These

are the very words out of our Premier’s mouth. While he seems to have

changed his tune of late, it remains to be seen whether the Premier will

start listening to the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner or continue down this dark path of obstruction and

confusion with his own government.

Burying long-term care reports, concealing data on hospitals, not

being completely open and honest with parents and redacting reports….

The examples of information being hidden and not openly shared are

growing. In fact, a reporter in my own neck of the woods, after months,

has received nothing when it comes to something as simple as COVID cases

from this government. It has said that there are no reports to give. I

find that hard to believe — that there are no reports about COVID that

have gone between the Premier, the Health Minister or the provincial

health officer and staff.

In February, that was done. The editor of the Fraser Valley

Current submitted that FOI request for emails and has received

nothing. The Premier not only took well past the legislated deadline,

but they found nada, nothing.

[11:50 a.m.]

It’s just not believable. It erodes that trust. This is why

freedom of information is so important. It’s about public trust; it’s

about transparency. These are not words that we just talk about. They’re

the ideals of democracy that need to be understood and

fulfilled.

This bill shows the Premier’s out-and-out contempt for the FOI

process. We can do better than this. We need to debate this better, we

need to talk to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner,

and we need to take time to properly go through this, not ramrod it

through just because we have the time.

Yes, I’m watching the clock, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I will leave this to some of my other

colleagues.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–False Creek, we’ve got a little bit of

time.

B. Bailey: I rise to speak to Bill 22, Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021. There are four areas of focus in this

bill. The first is updating data residency provisions so that public

bodies can use modern tools while continuing to protect the personal

information that people entrust to us. I specifically want to speak to

that piece and talk a little bit about why it’s important. Why is that

so, I would argue, integral?

Well, this change brings British Columbia in line with other

jurisdictions. In fact, we’ve been lagging behind. Businesses,

universities, health authorities have repeatedly told us that our data

residency rules were outdated and stopped them from being competitive

and responsive to the needs of people.

We’ve listened. B.C. fell behind, and this legislation is bringing

us in line with the rest of Canada and ensures that we’re managing

people’s information safely while delivering the tools and service they

need. That is where the rub lies, because we have the dual obligation of

keeping people’s information safe and also ensuring that people can do

what they need to do, that our economy can function well, that our tech

sector can do the work that it needs to do. This legislation provides

that protection.

I’ll share very quickly just an anecdotal story of my own

experience when previously I worked in the tech sector. We were doing

some really fantastic training with elementary school students, teaching

coding, inviting them to create their own video games, engaging them so

that a future in the tech sector could be something they could think

about. The challenge we had was that even to use these simple, very,

very high-quality educational tools in school, we had to find a way to

have data residency in British Columbia.

Now, that might sound like a small thing; it’s not. Most of our

data…. Most people, I would argue, most organizations, store data with

the large players — people like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, others.

To need to find a small, local provider changes the expense that you

need to commit to working with students, and it can deter people from

choosing that option. It’s so important. We have to expose kids to the

opportunities and technology, to learn how to code. It’s like learning a

language now. It’s so imperative.

The additional cost is a deterrent, but also, let’s ask the

question: does it provide what we hope it provides? Does choosing to

work with a small provider in British Columbia to store your data

provide the level of safety that we’re looking for and that has driven

us to ask that? I don’t think that’s the case. When you consider the

tremendous wealth and capacity that these large data organizations have

to work on the protection of data, it’s so much more significant than

the small data storage organizations can possibly spend on protecting

themselves from cyberattacks. In fact, I would argue that large data

storage might be significantly safer.

[11:55 a.m.]

Thinking beyond also just the question of working with schools and

working with kids on the example I gave, we have tremendous

opportunities to digitize our economy, our health care sector, education

and beyond. When you think about the importance that we’ve seen of

telehealth during the pandemic and the opportunities that exist for us

to provide really innovative solutions for people at home, for them to

get the support that they need and to connect with a doctor and to be

able to access records and to….

Well, I’ll give you an example. There’s a wonderful organization

in Denmark that when a woman leaves the hospital, having just given

birth, she’s sent home with kind of a small suitcase. What’s contained

in it is a screen that flips up, and it provides a connection for her to

a perinatal nurse. Sweden is not dissimilar to Canada in that they have

quite a distributed network of towns that aren’t close to big cities,

and they have extremely high-quality care provided to that woman at

home, even though she doesn’t see the nurse in her home through this

amazing telehealth solution.

There are many examples from the health care sector and many

examples in education. When you think about it, our restrictions were so

strict that we couldn’t have allowed teachers to use Zoom, for example.

Now, that’s very restrictive. So the exception that was made in order

for us to do what we needed to do during the pandemic has actually, in

fact, shown us that these solutions work very well, and to make those

changes permanent is something that I most welcome.

But let’s not just take my word for it. What does the tech sector

think? I’ve got a couple of quotes I’ll share. “This is a positive

development from government that B.C.’s tech industry welcomes,” says

Jill Tipping, who’s the president and CEO of the B.C. Tech Association.

“The changes to B.C.’s data residency requirements will allow local

companies to leverage cutting-edge technology to help B.C.’s public

sector deliver the modern tools that citizens expect with the privacy

protections they need.”

UBC welcomes these proposed amendments. They will substantially

increase the privacy and security of personal data with more robust and

resilient services by allowing us to select the most secure and

effective solutions.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is a bill that is important to the tech sector, important to

British Columbians, and I’m very happy to speak in favour of it. I now

move that we adjourn debate.

B. Bailey moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.