Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 28, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 119

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Beare

B. Banman

A. Olsen

S. Furstenau

T. Shypitka

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 12 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 14 — Early Childhood Educators Act

Bill 15 — Early Learning and Child Care Act

Bill 19 — Societies Amendment Act, 2021

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

Bill Pr401 — United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2021

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued debate, Committee of the Whole, Bill 22.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 22; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:02 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. de Jong: Insofar as the Committee of the Whole is meeting in this assembly,

all of the members and the staff are alive to news we have all received

about some health challenges that the Premier of British Columbia is

facing. I know that the minister and all members of the committee are

sending their best wishes to the Premier this afternoon and know that we

are united in our desire for him to conquer this challenge and be back

in this chamber participating in the debates and the vigorous exchanges

that occur.

I’m sure the minister will want to concur with that, and I’ll

provide her with an opportunity to do so.

[1:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member from Abbotsford for his well wishes to our

Premier, who is experiencing some challenges right now. But he’s very

much looking forward to being back in the House next week. His

challenge, as always, will be keeping his voice quiet for the next

couple of days, which, I know…. I’m sure his wife, Ellie, will be

greatly thankful for a little bit of quiet time.

But the entire House — and I thank the member from Abbotsford for

raising it — is wishing our Premier well.

M. de Jong: He would want and would expect the committee to carry on with its

work, which is what we will do on this afternoon.

When we left off this morning, we were talking about the decision

that the minister and government have made to proceed with the tabling

of clause 1 and the subsequent clauses in this bill. Notwithstanding

having been provided with advice from the Privacy Commissioner — strong

advice, advising that they adopt both a different course, a different

process involving the special committee that exists, and also some

contrary advice relating to the substance of clauses that we will come

to later.

The minister indicated to the committee what confirmed that she

chose to ignore that advice from the Privacy Commissioner, in part

because she believed and was concerned about renewing for a third time a

ministerial order. For the purpose of people who may not understand some

of these terms and what they entail, can the minister describe what a

ministerial order is? How long is it?

My recollection is that it’s a single-page document, but I may be

mistaken in this case. Can she describe, when she refers to renewing an

existing ministerial order, what that involves?

Hon. L. Beare: The member is correct. This ministerial order we’re talking about

is one page. A number of them are. Ministerial orders are temporary in

nature, and they provide a government temporary authority over the

subject outlined within the order.

M. de Jong: To be clear, the minister’s preference, rather than affixing her

signature to that single-page document, which would have afforded the

opportunity to follow through on the advice of the Privacy

Commissioner….

[1:10 p.m.]

Her preference was not to do that but to proceed with the tabling

of the clause 1 and the additional clauses of this bill, which she has

indicated have been in the works since 2017. Have I got that

correct?

Hon. L. Beare: As I previously answered to the member, this ministerial order was

extended two times. There is a problem in the legislation as it is

currently drafted that is not allowing us to provide the services that

we need, to British Columbians, without the order. The pandemic hit, and

B.C.’s legislation left us behind, which is why we introduced the

ministerial order in the first place.

As I’ve said before, the legislative committee does not review

draft legislation. This is the culmination of a year’s worth of

consultation work, public policy, in getting to this place, and we have

tabled it this fall.

M. de Jong: We’ll certainly have an opportunity to discuss, in detail,

elements of the great leap forward in FOI legislation that the minister

would have us believe the bill represents, but let me just focus for a

moment on the topic at hand, as it relates to clause 1 and additional

clauses in the bill.

The minister has chosen, I think purposely and deliberately, to

ignore the advice of the Privacy Commissioner. She has offered what she

would say is an explanation for that, and people will have to judge that

on its merits. I’m curious to know…. Having ignored the advice from the

independent legislative officer that this assembly appoints to provide

guidance on these matters, did she receive advice from other sources

relating to the advisability of extending the ministerial order?

Specifically, did she receive advice from any officials in the Premier’s

office on that question?

Hon. L. Beare: No.

M. de Jong: Is it fair to say, then, hon. Chair, that the decision was made by

her exclusively?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: This piece of legislation has followed the normal process of a

bill. Like every other bill, it began with consultation. We developed

the policy within our office, which then proceeded to assistant deputy

minister and deputy minister committees. It went to cabinet. It went to

LRC, the legislative review committee, and was put on the legislative

agenda for this fall.

I’m not sure what the member is specifically looking for here,

because it’s a bill that has followed a normal bill process, like every

other bill. There is nothing different about this bill in following its

process to land here today, this fall, on our legislative

agenda.

M. de Jong: Again, that’s helpful. Well, maybe I’ll break down that reply a

little bit. There is actually at least one significant difference, with

respect to clause 1 and the further contents of this legislation. I hope

the minister would be prepared to concede this. We don’t usually deal

with legislation that receives the level of criticism from a legislative

officer that this one has. I mean, I hope we can proceed through this

exercise at least recognizing that fact and how that does distinguish

this legislation.

Hon. L. Beare: The various pieces of legislation, through this House over the

decades, receive different levels of attention. This is, consistently, a

piece of legislation that throughout the years will, moving forward,

receive a lot of attention. There are very strong views, on all sides of

the spectrum, around freedom of information and privacy protection. It

is a bill that generates a lot of interest.

M. de Jong: I note again, with respect to clause 1 and the subsequent contents

of the bill, that the minister purposely chooses to use words for the

committee such as “interest” and “attention.” I presume wanting to

ignore the fact that the legislative officer, the Privacy Commissioner,

wasn’t just interested, as he is statutorily bound to be, and didn’t

just give the matter his attention. He offered an unprecedented degree

of criticism.

Look, I’m not going to belabour this. If the minister wants the

record to show that she is singularly unconcerned by that and feels that

it is not unusual and inconsequential, then I guess the record will show

that.

[1:20 p.m.]

But surely she agrees that the letter that has generated much of

the discussion thus far goes far beyond interest and attention. It is

the legislative officer communicating serious criticisms of what is

before the committee. If the minister wants to ignore that, dispute that

or pretend it doesn’t exist, well, I guess the record will show

that.

Hon. L. Beare: For the member and the record, I value all input. We need to

balance all input from people, from businesses, from independent

officers, through consultation and balance all those pieces which

culminate in local governments, and that all culminates into the

legislation we have now.

M. de Jong: I wasn’t going to ask a follow-up on this topic, but I will

because the minister seems to equate the advice — the information that

she and now the committee receive from a legislative officer — and

attach the same level of import and priority as she does to any other

stakeholder. I suppose she may wish to defend that as a fairly equitable

approach.

I am going to suggest to her that one of the reasons we have an

independent statutory legislative officer is because their advice, their

review, actually should attract a level of importance that is consistent

with that office. The minister seems to disagree and lumps the Privacy

Commissioner in with anyone else that chooses to offer an opinion. That

is informative. If she wishes to confirm that, I’m happy to hear

it.

Hon. L. Beare: We have canvassed this a lot already between this morning and now.

You know, we take into account the recommendations of the 2010, 2016

committees. We take into account the recommendations from the public

consultations we’ve done, from the Privacy Commissioner. As I’ve

outlined this morning, last night and now to the member, we are going to

be able to go clause by clause through this bill through the committee

process and be able to talk about each line of both the commissioner’s

letter and each line of the bill here.

M. de Jong: A moment ago the minister referred to LRC, and I believe she was

referring to the legislative review committee that she indicated to this

Committee of the Whole this bill had been forwarded to.

Now, I am going to, as clearly as I can, state that I do not

expect the minister to disclose anything concerning the nature of the

conversations or discussions or debates that may have taken place at the

legislative review committee. I would like her to confirm that that is

the opportunity the government, members of cabinet and, I think, some of

the private members on the government side, if they are members of that

committee — I’m not sure if they are — have, prior to tabling the bill,

an opportunity to review the bill line by line and clause by clause. Am

I correct in that regard?

Hon. L. Beare: . Yes, I can confirm that LRC comprises both cabinet members and

private members. Yes, the committee does review the legislation line by

line.

[1:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: In general, and particularly with respect to clause 1 and the

subsequent clauses of the bill, does attendance at LRC extend to

representatives from the Office of the Premier?

Hon. L. Beare: In addition to the members that I spoke about, cabinet operations

attend, administrators attend. I would have to look at the attendance

list. I don’t know the answer to the member’s question specifically. But

in general, cabinet operations, administrators, attend those

meetings.

M. de Jong: This might be a timely place for me to prevail upon the minister,

since we are likely to be at this for some time. It is, I recall, a

fairly straightforward matter to determine who was in attendance at the

legislative review committee that considered this bill. Is she able to

undertake, for this committee, to ascertain and disclose, whether or not

it included representatives from the Office of the Premier?

Hon. L. Beare: I’ll take that question under advisement for now, and I’ll go

check. Thank you, Member.

M. de Jong: Language is important. I am, as a member of the committee,

interested to know whether at the legislative review committee — which

considered the clause presently before us, and obviously other clauses —

there were, in attendance, representatives from the Office of the

Premier.

I understand that minutes are kept of those meetings that

specifically include confirmation of who was in attendance. Now, unless

the duty to document has taken on a dramatically different meaning in

recent years, this is a relatively straightforward thing to

confirm.

I’m going to prevail upon the minister to be more specific. Will

she do that for the committee so that we may have the answer by the time

we reconvene on Monday?

Hon. L. Beare: As I said, I’ll take the question under advisement.

M. de Jong: I don’t know what that means. I’m not sure. Is the minister saying

that she is unprepared to assure this committee that she will consult

the minutes of the LRC meeting at which this clause was

considered?

Hon. L. Beare: I would like to request that the member raise the question again

on Monday, and I’ll be in a better position to answer. I’ll go back.

I’ll take this under advisement, go back and seek some

answers.

M. de Jong: Are there minutes kept of the LRC meetings?

Hon. L. Beare: Absolutely, there are minutes kept and reviewed at the beginning

of every meeting. As I’ve said, in attendance are the members of

government, private members as well as cabinet members. There are

members of cab ops. There are administrators, our legislative

drafters.

[1:30 p.m.]

I do not know who was in attendance that day, to answer the

member’s question. As I asked the member, if he would like to re-pose

the question on Monday, I’ll try and have an answer for the

member.

M. de Jong: With respect to clause 1 and any other clauses that may have been

considered by the LRC, the minister, happily, has confirmed there are

minutes. Do the minutes specifically confirm who was in attendance at

that time?

Hon. L. Beare: Again to the member, I don’t have a copy of the minutes before me.

I’m unable to answer the member’s question, and I’m happy to answer the

member’s question on Monday, once I’m able to go take a look and do that

diligence.

M. de Jong: Well, I don’t like being played, and that’s the feeling I’m

getting right now. The minister can, as we sit here with four officials,

confirm immediately the question about whether or not the minutes

contain confirmation of who was in attendance. She can do that

now.

Now, if it takes a bit longer to access the specific minutes for

the specific meeting, I’m prepared to concede that. But I don’t like

being played. Do the minutes confirm who was in attendance at LRC

meetings?

Hon. L. Beare: It’s very unfortunate that the member feels it necessary to

portray this as something other than trying to source the information

for the member. I have repeatedly said to the member: please re-pose the

question on Monday when I have the information in front of me. I am more

than happy to answer this question for the member. I think it’s

unfortunate that the member feels it necessary to go down a path of

claiming that somehow this is less than trying to get the information

that the member requested.

M. de Jong: Well, I think the minister has probably got a sense of the degree

to which her answers can sometimes convey a particular sense. If there

are challenges associated with obtaining the answer to my question, then

we’ve got way bigger problems around documenting decisions in this

government than I thought even possible. But we’ll move on. And rest

assured: we’ll revisit the issue, as invited to by the

minister.

I think that the minister, with respect to clause 1 and the

additional provisions of this bill, understands…. She actually, I think

at one point, has taken a measure of pride in the source of the original

legislation — a government that was in power between 1991 and 2001, and

the original version of the act tabled by the government of

then-Premier, Premier Harcourt.

The sponsoring minister, I believe, and the minister and the

gentleman occasionally referred to as the father…. Maybe he won’t like

me saying this, but the grandfather of freedom-of-information and

privacy protection legislation in this province was Colin

Gabelmann.

[1:35 p.m.]

I served in this chamber with Mr. Gabelmann. He, in those days,

was the seasoned veteran. I think at that time he had been an MLA for

going on 22 years when I arrived 28, 29 years ago.

I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to respond to some

things that former Attorney General Gabelmann has had to say, not just

about the legislation but the manner in which the minister has chosen to

proceed. I will concede that I haven’t had much success securing from

the minister a reaction to the criticism levied by our legislative

officer, the Privacy Commissioner, but I wonder to what degree she is

prepared or willing to respond to the comments that have been made by

the former NDP Attorney General who tabled and secured passage of the

act she seeks to amend.

Mr. Gabelmann is reported as having said the following. He had

some comments about the proposal to add application fees, which I’m not

going to dwell on here. We’ll talk about that a bit later. He does say:

“If the information belongs to the public, then in principle it should

be the public’s information at no cost.” He comments on having been

proud to be at the top in Canada and says: “Now they seem to be striving

to be in the middle of the pack. That’s not what the NDP can be proud

of. The public is going to be effectively denied the kind of access they

have every right to have.”

We’ll get to that

section of the bill eventually, but with respect

to the process and the course this bill has taken, he has, also, some

interesting things to say:

“I’m hoping that the resolution to this might be referring it to the

legislative committee, which has already been established by statute.

Now, because the periodic review is due, it’s surprising that all of

this didn’t go through that committee to begin with. But if the cabinet

and the bureaucracy wanted this kind of change, they should have

presented their views to the committee. The committee could have heard

from the public and then, in the spring of the legislative session,

introduced appropriately publicly discussed amendments if they still

thought they should.”

The grandfather, or the father, of the statute the minister seeks

to amend has laid out what, to me, appears an eminently reasonable

procedure to follow. The minister clearly does not agree with that. Is

Mr. Gabelmann wrong? And if so, why?

Hon. L. Beare: Again, we are on

section 1, which removes the letter “s.” That is

what

section 1 does. The member and I have canvassed this last night,

we’ve canvassed it this morning, we’ve canvassed it this afternoon that

the legislative committee does not review draft legislation. I have the

recommendations of two previous special committees before me, which are

taken into account in this legislation that we’re reviewing right

now.

M. de Jong: By the way, I don’t recall seeing in either of those previous two

reports any recommendations giving rise to the amendment we see in

clause 1. I don’t actually recall seeing any recommendations giving rise

to a whole bunch of other proposed amendments in the bill, but insofar

as the minister seems focused on that particular aspect of clause 1, I

don’t recall having seen that proposal, as innocuous as it may

be.

[1:40 p.m.]

No, my question, as it relates to clause 1 — and admittedly, other

clauses in the bill — relates to something that the former Attorney

General — former NDP Attorney General — who introduced and sponsored

passage of the statute the minister is seeking to amend, is entirely

critical of the approach the minister has taken.

Now, I remember…. This is a bit of a surreal moment. There used to

be a day when a member of an NDP government would genuflect in the

direction of Colin Gabelmann and encourage others to say a prayer of

thanks for his vision and foresight in sponsoring the act the minister

is now seeking to amend. She doesn’t even want to say his name now. I

imagine that’s because he has made some dramatically pointed criticisms

of decisions that the minister has made.

“Now, because the periodic review is due, it is surprising….”

Former Attorney General Gabelmann characterizes what the minister is

doing as surprising. The legisla­tive officer characterizes it as

baffling:

“It is surprising that all of this didn’t go through that committee

to begin with, but if the cabinet and the bureaucracy wanted this kind

of change” — I don’t think he disputes some of the changes; he disputes

some of them — “they should have presented their views to the committee.

The committee could have heard from the public, and then, in the spring

of the legislative session, introduced appropriate, publicly discussed

amendments if they still thought they should.”

What is it about that proposal from Mr. Gabelmann that offends the

minister?

Hon. L. Beare: Of course, it’s a point of pride for every person on our side of

the House that our government had the foresight to put in freedom of

information and privacy protection for British Columbians. This is a

significant piece of legislation that hasn’t had a major update in over

a decade, and a lot has changed. We are doing that change

now.

The member and I have canvassed this again and again. I’m happy to

answer again that a legislative committee does not review draft

legislation. I do have the recommendations from the two previous

committees before me, which are a part of the process in drafting this

legislation.

The member talked about

section 1 and not seeing anything about it

in the recommendations. So now that we finally get to talk about

section

1, let me tell you what it does. This amendment strikes out and replaces

the plural term “rights” under 2.1(

c) with the singular “right.” The

replacement of this term will ensure consistency of terminology internal

section 2 of FOIPPA. The proposed amendment aligns with proposals

made by legislative counsel and is going to strengthen the consistency

section 2. It’s effectively correcting a grammatical

error.

The Chair: One second, Member, if I can.

Because the Minister of Agriculture’s chair is currently

occupied by very able staff, the Minister of Agriculture is going to

ask leave to sit and speak at a different chair, and at the same

time, ask leave to introduce people in the gallery.

Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. L. Popham: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction from another

member’s seat.

Leave granted.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: I am very lucky today to have a visit from have a visit from Claremont

Secondary School, in the riding of Saanich South. I have 24 students here,

visiting with their amazing teacher, Mr. Neufeld, who happens to also be a

friend of mine.

Mr. Neufeld and I travelled with another class from Claremont on a

train back in 2013, almost to the day, eight years from today. We had a

blast talking about Canada, what it means to be Canadian and

politics.

We didn’t have much time to visit out in the corridor today, but I

look forward to visiting the class soon and getting to know all of you much

better. Please make them welcome.

S. Furstenau: I seek leave to also make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Furstenau: Following on the Minister of Agriculture’s introduction, I too just

want to acknowledge the presence of my dear friend Mark Neufeld and his

class from Claremont high school.

In addition to being a friend, I think it would be about ten years ago

that I first saw Mark talk about the work he does as a teacher, including

what the Minister of Agriculture just talked about — taking his students

across the country on a train trip to Ottawa. I was so inspired that from

that point on, I always thought that Mark was the teacher that I wanted to

grow up and become. That remains true to this day.

Debate Continued

The Chair: So for all of you up there — sorry, Abbotsford West — we’re on

Bill 22. We are going through it clause by clause. There are 74

clauses. You probably won’t be here for the whole thing.

M. de Jong: When the Leader of the Third Party referred to the school and ten

years ago, I thought she was going to talk about her attendance there as

a student.

The Chair: We’re on clause 1.

M. de Jong: Coming back to the clause and the provisions. First of all, I’m

certain that Colin Gabelmann is now resting with much relief to have

heard the explanation about the underpinnings of clause 1. He would be

less comfortable, though, I expect, with the minister’s refusal to

address the substance of his concern.

Mr. Gabelmann didn’t suggest sending this bill to the committee.

Mr. Gabelmann suggests that what should have happened is that the

significant issues dealt with in this bill should have been referred to

the committee that exists for that specific purpose, to allow for proper

discussion. The minister repeatedly retreats to the argument that it’s

not for the bill to be referred to the committee. No one has suggested

that. Mr. Gabelmann has not suggested that.

Mr. Gabelmann has said, as someone with some familiarity with this

act and its processes, that if the cabinet and the bureaucracy wanted

this kind of change, they should have presented their views to the

committee prior to introducing the bill. What the minister seems

inextricably unwilling to do is address that point.

Why is Mr. Gabelmann wrong when he suggests that, prior to tabling

this bill in the Legislature, the proper thing to have done would be to

have referred the issues addressed in clause 1 and subsequent clauses to

the committee for their consideration? Why is he wrong?

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve answered this question a number of times. We have two

previous special committees’ recommendations before us. The committee

will be able to review the new legislation. They’ll be the first

committee able to review the new legislation, as I’ve said, provided the

will of the House.

[1:50 p.m.]

We have the committee’s recommendations, which have not been

enacted by the previous government and are part of the recommendations

in our draft legislation that we have here today.

M. de Jong: The minister has made it clear to the committee that she is

unconcerned with the commentary received from the Privacy Commissioner.

Am I, from her answers, to take it that she is also completely

unconcerned with the comments made by Mr. Gabelmann?

The Chair: Member, on clause 1.

M. de Jong: I’m actually going to give the minister, because she may not have

understood or heard the question…. It’s not a complicated one. It

relates to clause 1 and actually all of the clauses that

follow.

The person who is credited with creating the act, the statute,

that the minister seeks to amend has offered criticism — pointed

criticism — about the substance and the procedure that the minister is

following. Is she concerned or troubled by that?

Hon. L. Beare: I have answered this question a number of times.

The Chair: Member, can you proceed to a new line of questioning, please,

on clause 1?

M. de Jong: Yes. I wouldn’t presume to speak for him, but I expect that Mr.

Gabelmann is probably rather disappointed that his observations about

this matter so little to the government now in power and the minister

now at the helm of the information ministry.

I’m going to, if I may, ask to send a document over to the

minister. The document is…. I’ll describe it for the purposes of the

record. I actually, to the extent…. I should probably offer the table

one as well — the table with the committee. The document is entitled

“Our Bill 22 Coalition.” It is addressed to the Premier and the

minister. It contains a pretty pointed description of concerns that the

authors have with both the substance and the manner in which the

minister and the government are proceeding.

I’ll read several passages out of the letter in the second

paragraph: “Unfortunately, if passed, this bill will undermine access to

information and make public bodies less transparent. It is a step

backwards for openness and accountability.” Does the minister agree with

that statement?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Through this act, we’re actually going to be increasing public

bodies’ disclosures. We’re going to be increasing public bodies’ ability

to disclose to Indigenous governments and entities. We will actually be

adding public bodies to the

schedule as well.

M. de Jong: I take it, then, that the minister disagrees with that portion of

the letter to her.

Hon. L. Beare: I believe that this act is going to increase transparency to

public bodies by adding ministerial power to add subsidiary entities

such as new public bodies. It’s going to increase public bodies’ ability

to disclose to Indigenous governing entities. It requires public bodies

to seek consent from Indigenous governing entities in order to disclose

information that’s culturally sensitive through FOI, and it adds two new

public bodies, the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and the B.C.

Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police, to the

schedule as well. I

believe that all combined, this increases transparency.

M. de Jong: One of the reasons I think people get a bit cynical about politics

and governance…. I regret it because I obviously have dedicated a fairly

significant portion of my life to this place and the processes that we

follow here, but I think they get a bit confused when we in this chamber

and, in this case, this committee seem unprepared to answer an obvious

question.

The passage I read reads as follows: “Unfortunately, if passed,

this bill will undermine access to information and make public bodies

less transparent.” I presume the minister disagrees with that. I don’t

need a long…. I presume she disagrees with that statement. If not, she

can say she agrees with it, but I don’t think she does. If she disagrees

with it, I’ve asked her to put on the record that she disagrees with

it.

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve just very clearly answered the question and very clearly

outlined how some of these pieces before us that I mentioned are going

to increase transparency.

M. de Jong: With respect to clause 1, the authors of this letter, who label

themselves the Bill 22 Coalition, say the following: “This legislation

would extend the ability of current and future governments to keep

people in the dark about vital matters of public interest. Its

introduction at this time short-circuits the work of the special

legislative committee responsible for reviewing FIPPA, preventing

meaningful public consultation.”

Does the minister agree or disagree with that

statement?

Hon. L. Beare: The member and I have heavily canvassed the committee piece.

Meaningful public consultation. Our legislative process since 2017 has

included very public consultation, in 2017 and again last year. We’ve

consulted with a number of the stakeholders, as well, and held round

tables. We’ve canvassed the committee piece a number of times. I do want

to say that we have been able to consult with the public on this

legislation going on four years now.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I am not going to pretend that our deliberations this afternoon

are being watched by hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands or perhaps

even thousands of people, but I have a pretty good idea that the authors

of this letter that I have tabled and provided to the minister are

watching.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. The British

Columbia General Employees Union, BCGEU. The Canadian Association of

Journalists. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, B.C. office.

The Canadian Institute for Information and Privacy Studies. The Centre

for Access to Information and Justice. The Centre for Law and Democracy.

Democracy Watch. Fairley Strategies. Forest Protection

Allies.

Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. Lawyers Rights

Watch Canada. OpenMedia. Privacy and Access Council of Canada. Public

Interest Advocacy Centre. Student Press Freedom Act Campaign. The Union

of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. The West Coast Legal Education and

Action Fund. The Wilderness Committee. The B.C. Construction

Association. Focus magazine. Pivot Legal Society. Sierra Club

B.C. Simon Fraser Student Society.

Jason Austin. John Brady. Lynn Copeland. Carla Graebner, librarian

for research data services and government information at the W.A.C.

Bennett Library, Simon Fraser University. Sean Holman, Wayne Crookes

Professor in Environment and Climate Journalism, University of Victoria.

Patrick Jardine. Victoria Lemieux, associate professor, archival

science, School of Information, co-lead Blockchain@UBC research cluster,

Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia.

Lisa P. Nathan, associate professor, School of Information,

University of British Columbia. Marcus Ooms. Dawe Pope. Ken Rubin. Dan

Schubart. Chad Skelton, chair, department of journalism and

communications studies, Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Stanley Tromp.

Maureen Webb.

All of those and others have said the following: “If passed, this

bill will undermine access to information and make public bodies less

transparent. It is a step backwards for openness.”

They are watching. What does the minister say to them?

The Chair: Before the minister answers the question, just a clarification

for members of the committee. The member for Abbotsford West has

mentioned that the document was tabled. The document has not been

tabled. It has been provided to the table.

If the member would like to table a document, he may do so

after we’re out of committee and by leave. Thank you.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. L. Beare: We have heard from thousands of people. We’ve heard from

businesses, from communities, from organizations. We’ve heard it through

our many engagements, our many consultations throughout this

process.

In 2018-19, we completed substantial engagement and identified

stakeholder concerns and priority issues for the legislation. We did so

again in August 2021. We have culminated that input, along with the

recommendations — outstanding recommendations — of the special committee

with conversations with our stakeholder groups. All of that has

culminated in the legislation we have before us.

In that legislation, we have key items that increase transparency

for public bodies. I have mentioned them to the member, but I’m going to

mention them again as well now.

[2:05 p.m.]

We’re adding ministerial power to add subsidiary entities as new

public bodies. This is important work, as the member well knows, to be

able to increase the amount of public bodies and subsidiaries, the

entities, that actually fall under freedom of information and privacy

protection, the amount of bodies that can actually be requested to

provide their information and be open and transparent.

We’re increasing our public bodies’ ability to disclose

information to the Indigenous-governing entities. They shouldn’t have to

follow the FOI process to get information that they need. They need that

partnership and sharing of information. I’m so happy that public bodies

are going to now be able to disclose to Indigenous-governing

entities.

It’s now requiring public bodies to seek consent from

Indigenous-governing entities in order to disclose information that’s

culturally sensitive through FOI. We are ensuring that public bodies are

protecting Indigenous culturally sensitive information by making sure

that that consent is there for Indigenous bodies. We’re adding right

now, as we speak, with this legislation, two new public bodies, making

sure that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and the B.C.

Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police are added to the

schedule as

well.

We are increasing transparency through this act, and I’m looking

forward to getting to those sections to talk about it.

M. de Jong: It sounds to me like the message the minister wants to leave with

the committee is that all of those agencies and individuals that I just

listed — and I won’t list them again — who have characterized clause 1

and the subsequent clauses of the bill before us as a step backwards for

openness and accountability are wrong. Am I correct? Is that what she

believes?

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve answered the question.

M. de Jong: For the sake of completeness, the authors of the letter and the

members of the Bill 22 Coalition make a recommendation, both to the

committee and to the government and the minister, not dissimilar from

the one she received from the Privacy Commissioner to “recognize the

role of the all-party special committee and allow it to complete its

work, including an open consultation process.” Is the minister prepared

to accede to that recommendation and wish?

Hon. L. Beare: We’ve answered the question.

M. de Jong: I will, again, allow what I would characterize as the minister’s

non-answers to speak for themselves.

As we embark through clause 1 and into the balance of the

legislation, I have another document I’d like to provide to the minister

for information purposes. I can provide one to the table.

We are dealing with a clause and legislation relating to freedom

of information. The document that I’ve provided is a letter dated

October 26, 2021, responding to a request for access to records —

ironically, access to records relating to this clause and this

legislation.

[2:10 p.m.]

The request was for documents regarding FOIPPA consultations

related to the act, access to information and/or information rules

and/or modernization of FOI services, including those with the

Information and Privacy Commissioner, limit search to the minister’s

office and the deputy minister’s office from December 1, 2020 to July

26, 2021. The response received on October 26 was that the Privacy

Commissioner has granted an additional extension of 40 business days to

our response deadline pursuant to

section 10 of FOIPPA.

So a request for documentation directly relevant to the issues we

are canvassing today — a response from, I guess, two days ago saying the

timeline for addressing that request has been extended to December 24,

2021. Am I correct in assuming that the granting of the extension came

as a result of a request for an extension?

Hon. L. Beare: The member has put before us a letter written by one of our public

employees, an analyst in the freedom of information branch. This is a

centrally processed FOI process, as the member knows. One of the public

employees has requested an extension. It’s part of the one of thousands

of FOI requests that we have in the system right now. It’s part of a

standard process.

An extension has been requested as part of dealing with what is an

overwhelming number of requests that we have in our system currently,

with over 10,000 requests last year. B.C. has received more requests in

one year alone than the next three provinces combined. So, yes. This is

part of a central process.

M. de Jong: This request, to be clear, pertains directly to matters involving

clause 1 and subsequent clauses of the legislation before this House.

Directly relevant.

[2:15 p.m.]

The minister must be troubled, as I am, that in those

circumstances — she’s nodding her head; maybe she’s not troubled, which

would really trouble me — the response to a request for documents

directly relevant to a clause and a piece of legislation that the

minister says the government has been working on since 2017, which the

minister and the government have made a decision to proceed with,

against the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner…. The response

to the opposition requesting the documentation is: “Well, now you’ll

have to wait until December 24.”

The minister must be exceedingly troubled by that as representing

the opposite of openness and transparency.

Hon. L. Beare: No, what troubles me is the member opposite seeming to think that

a request from a political party should be prioritized over other

requests. We have kids in care waiting to access their information as

they transition into adulthood. We have requests from researchers

looking for information for treaty negotiations for First Nations. We

have requests in the system from people wanting to access how a decision

was made around their WorkSafe or disability case. We have requests in

the system pertaining to adoption.

These requests are all part of a system that is centrally managed

by our thoughtful and faithful public servants. For the member opposite

to somehow suggest that a political party’s or anybody’s request should

be prioritized over anyone else’s, and that a decision made by a public

servant to request an extension, one who has nothing to do with this

process here in this chamber right now…. That’s what worries

me.

M. de Jong: I thought the minister might, regrettably, reply in that manner.

But happily, if we look at the document, it seems to suggest that the

concern here, what was underlying the request for the extension, was a

desire to ensure that all documents have been located.

What the minister, of course, could do, and has the authority to

do, is proactively authorize the release of documentation that has been

located and identified thus far. Is she prepared to do that?

Hon. L. Beare: No, I am not prepared to intervene in a process that is managed by

our trusted public service.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s instructive. So just to be clear, we have a

circumstance in which a request was made for documentation directly

relevant to clause 1 and the subsequent clauses that this committee is

charged with examining. We are informed, by virtue of correspondence,

that there is documentation, some of which, it appears, has been

identified and would undoubtedly be helpful to the committee for the

purpose of its examination of clause 1 and subsequent clauses of the

legislation.

[2:20 p.m.]

The minister has the authority to authorize the proactive release

of that material, taking into account the fact that it was her decision

to proceed against the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner. She

is advising the House and the committee today that she refuses to do

that. Have I got that right?

Hon. L. Beare: I have faith in our public service to manage the process. I will

not politically interfere in that process, and I will not prioritize,

politically, requests over people waiting for theirs.

M. de Jong: It’s an interesting phrase in light of what we’ve learned over the

course of the last day and a half, where the minister says she will not

politically prioritize, because, of course, all of the evidence thus far

points to the fact that that’s exactly what she’s done. That is exactly

what she has done.

In the face of recommendations — specific recommendations,

specific concerns — from the Privacy Commissioner, she has ignored those

and refused to answer or provide anything resembling a reasonable answer

to why those observations, those reservations, expressed by the Privacy

Commissioner shouldn’t have been taken into account.

In a circumstance where members of the House, the full House,

provided an opportunity, a reasonable opportunity, a procedurally sound

opportunity for her to act on those recommendations — which, by the way,

would have allowed for consultation and discussion around some of the

new provisions contained within this act — she, and I have to say in

this case her colleagues, didn’t even extend the courtesy of a

reply.

The motion to provide the committee with time to review these

issues didn’t even elicit the courtesy of a reply from the minister. I

can think of nothing more politically motivated than a minister who

refuses to engage in a discussion or a debate on a proposal reasonably

and responsibly brought before the House.

She has refused to address the concerns of countless agencies, and

the list is growing. Look, for the purpose of the task that has been

assigned to her…. I know what that task is. She’s been given orders.

“You get this through the House. You get this legislation…. You sit

there as long as it takes. You listen to guys like the member for

Abbotsford West, and you let them talk as long as they want to talk, but

you get this thing done, and to heck with all of the concerns” — from,

by the way, agencies that, historically, the government has been pretty

closely aligned with, at least some of them.

But the minister today wouldn’t even deign to answer their

concerns. I said, during another part of this debate and this

discussion, that I thought this represented a point of departure for

government and the minister personally, and I think today we have seen

further evidence of that. So it’s interesting for the minister to speak

to the political imperative. We have garnered, over the course of the

last few hours, ample evidence of what the political imperative is,

apparently, for this government and how that trumps all other concerns

legitimately expressed by people around British Columbia.

I think that others will have further questions around clause 1,

Mr. Chair.

[2:25 p.m.]

B. Banman: Before I begin, I think that it is worth mentioning the news that

we heard today with regards to the health of the Premier. I’m a health

care provider. I’ve spent 20 years of my professional life looking after

the well-being of those that chose to be underneath my care. The subject

of wellness is very near and dear to my heart. Political ideologies,

scrabbles, squabbles aside, public life takes a toll.

Earlier we heard this House rise to standing ovation, applause for

a member of this House, a colleague from Abbotsford-Mission, who adjoins

my riding. And we celebrated their return to wellness.

I look forward to when we can do the same with regards to the

Premier. My thoughts and wishes are with the Premier and his family.

Quite frankly, we’re all family, and families have squabbles. But in

this case, there is no squabble. We wish him the very best recovery, and

my thoughts are with him.

On a more happy note, if I may, I regret that I did not get a

chance yesterday, hon. Chair, to compliment you on your amazing

cufflinks. I notice that you have chosen today to also wear some

bedazzling cufflinks as well, so I just thought I would share with you

in your celebration yesterday.

By all means, show them off. Be proud of those. They’re very, very

nice. I was a little downtrodden when you left and I was: “Oh, I missed

the opportunity.” But you know, a day late is better than not at

all.

With that, hon. Chair….

The Chair: Thank you for speaking to the section, the clause, whatever. I

appreciate that.

B. Banman: Thank you for your indulgence. I would like now to…. I believe

it’s a clause, not a section, as I was….

The Chair: Touché, touché, Member. Well done.

B. Banman: Thank you, sir.

So speaking to the clause, as was pointed out to me, clause 1, in

fact. I have a few questions for the minister. We’ve heard in this House

that engagement of this particular bill that is before us has been going

on for, I believe the minister said, four years. I would like to know

how many times in that four years was this bill discussed with the

Privacy Commissioner? And “more than one” is not really the answer I’m

looking for. I would like to know: in that four years, how many times

was this particular bill, or sections of this bill, brought forward and

discussed with the minister?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I can’t speak personally to prior to when I was the minister. I

became the minister in November. So I’m going to talk about what I’ve

done right now. Between April and September, there have been 18

meetings, various types of meetings. It’s 20 if you count the phone

calls with myself and the commissioner, in which we outlined this

legislation and had the input from the commissioner on his

concerns.

B. Banman: During those consultations, how far along was this bill? And were

there any indications of concern that the Privacy Commissioner outlaid?

I would assume that there is a record of those concerns

somewhere.

Hon. L. Beare: We have thoroughly canvassed this in the hours that we’ve already

been doing this bill. The commissioner and I have discussed the concerns

he’s had about the legislation throughout the entire process.

One of the things that I think is important…. We haven’t had a

chance to discuss areas where we agree as well. We’re going to get to go

line by line through this document and have a conversation about all of

those concerns, which culminated in the letter that the member has

referred to and will continue to refer to over the next set of hours as

we speak as well. We are going to be able to have those conversations

and address that.

There are a number of areas that we’ve taken the commissioner’s

recommendations or areas that we agree as well — of course, giving full

respect to those areas we don’t agree on.

One of the items I’ve mentioned already is mandatory breach

reporting. There’s requiring mandatory breach reporting to the

commissioner being implemented in this bill. We’re adding new offences

for unauthorized collection and use of personal information. We’re

adding new offences for wilfully evading FOI, and there’s a whole other

list of sections where the commissioner’s office does agree with pieces

in the bill.

I’m looking forward to continuing clause by clause through the

debate, where we can have a conversation about the other

pieces.

B. Banman: I would respond to the minister, as we go through debating this:

“As am I.” I look forward to that.

The minister mentioned that she inherited some of this. I may not

have said it quite right, but I’m paraphrasing. On what date did the

drafting of this particular bill begin? And how much of it was actually

put in place prior to the minister taking over the Ministry of Citizens’

Services?

Hon. L. Beare: No drafting was completed before I took over the file, and no

drafting was completed before the public consultation.

B. Banman: If there was no drafting and nothing in writing — that’s what I

thought I just heard — when did the actual beginning of the bill begin?

When was the start date of the drafting of this particular bill before

the House?

Hon. L. Beare: It was during the summer.

Excuse me, Chair. Would we be able to request a ten-minute

recess?

The Chair: We will take a ten-minute recess or biology break, however you

need to term it. Thank you. The committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 2:35 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: For those who are just tuning in, it is Bill 22. We are

currently on clause 1.

B. Banman: Just prior to the recess, I asked a question of the minister: when

did the drafting of this bill begin? The response from the minister was

the summer. Now, that was not that long ago, Mr. Speaker — Speaker or

Chair?

The Chair: Currently I’m Chair. But yes, my title is Deputy Speaker.

Clear as mud.

B. Banman: All right. There we go. Thank you.

So, hon. Speaker and Chair, could you please…?

The Chair: Either works, Member. Either works.

B. Banman: Okay, I’ll probably say both for a while.

Could you please…? What month did this start? Was it prior to

session ending? Was it during the summer? What month did we actually

start drafting this bill?

The Chair: For greater clarity, Member, when I am in this chair it is

appropriate to refer to me as Chair. When I am up there, I can be

Speaker or I could be Chair. We can talk more about that later,

outside of the chamber.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The legislative process doesn’t start with drafting. It starts

with things like consultation and seeking input. So throughout the

years, as I said, 2017 on…. There was further consultation in July of

2017, a public consultation process as well as round tables that I held.

The legislative drafting began after that process.

B. Banman: Now I’m confused. I am sure that the minister said that the

drafting of this bill started in the summer, this summer. So I again

ask: what month did the drafting of this bill take place this

summer?

Hon. L. Beare: July 2021, following consultation and public input.

B. Banman: If it began in July of 2021 — the drafting — when did the drafting

end?

Hon. L. Beare: I’m just wondering if the member can clarify the line of

questioning — what it is the member is seeking, actually, from this line

of questioning — because we are on clause 1.

B. Banman: I’m happy to try and clarify that. You can’t have the rest of the

bill without clause 1. So through clause 1 through…. I’m not sure

whether or not clause 1 was the first one written — or adopted or

drafted — or the last one.

What I’m asking is — because this will begin clause 1 through all

clauses — when was the drafting of the bill finished before it was

presented before here?

Hon. L. Beare: The draft bill would have been completed and provided to LRC. The

drafting would have been completed right around that time. That was this

month, in October.

B. Banman: Which elements of this bill, as we go forward — I don’t know; it

was 1 through 74, I believe — was the government contemplating when

starting the consultation in 2017?

Hon. L. Beare: So 2017 began with broad consultation on the entire

bill.

B. Banman: Had government been considering new fees during that consultation

process?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I think the member is trying to ask a subsequent set of questions

that lead us to when the policy direction was given to impose fees.

Maybe if the member just wants to nod if that’s where we’re trying to

get to, because then I can save a whole bunch of questions for the

member. Okay.

That policy direction was decided at cabinet earlier this year,

and that is the culmination of a year’s worth of work and valuable

advice by our public service. That is reflected, in this draft bill that

we have before us, in the ability to apply a fee being added to the

legislation earlier this year.

B. Banman: If I could just indulge the Chair, when during that consultation

this year were fees actually brought up?

Hon. L. Beare: That information is available in the public consultation report,

which is public. To the member, I’m sure he has it.

The Chair: Just a reminder. Of course, we are still on clause 1. I

believe the

section on fees comes up further down the bill. Just to

keep everybody on the same page.

Member.

B. Banman: Thank you, hon. Chair.

As was discussed earlier, the freedom-of-information commissioner

letter has many concerns, which we will be going through, I am sure,

line item by line item, clause by clause. There were some concerns,

however, that the Privacy Commissioner talked about — the shift to

regulations. Does the minister agree that shifting to regulations is a

positive, accountable and transparent step forward for this legislation,

in clauses 1 and beyond?

Hon. L. Beare: That specific question will come up in the sections

applicable.

B. Banman: In all due respect, it does talk about clause 1 and others. So I

would ask again — yes or no? — does the minister agree that shifting to

regulations is a positive accountability and a transparent step forward

for this entire legislation? Clause 1 is the beginning of it.

[3:00 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, I believe this legislation shifting to regulations is going

to be a positive thing. We are going to be able to discuss what that

positivity is in each

section when we finally get to those sections, so

a broad statement isn’t fair without discussing the individual

section

we’re talking about. But yes, we have regulations in this bill which are

positive, and I’m looking forward to getting to the sections to outline

why it’s positive for British Columbians.

B. Banman: The minister just mentioned that there are positive regulations.

Does that mean that in her opinion, there are negative regulations, or

regulations that take a step backwards, as the Privacy Commissioner has

said?

Hon. L. Beare: I appreciate the line of questioning. But as I’ve said, I believe

the changes we’re making in this bill are positive for British

Columbians, and I’m looking forward to getting to the sections so we can

discuss them.

B. Banman: Earlier I think I heard the minister refer to a ministerial order

that extended this not once, but twice. If it was to happen twice, if

there had been controversy for long — especially when one considers that

there were numerous occasions to talk with the Privacy Commissioner —

could the minister not have extended this a third time? Or a fourth

even?

Hon. L. Beare: That question has been canvassed in this House with the member

present.

B. Banman: In all due respect, adding another ministerial extension was not

discussed, to the best of my knowledge. If it was, I apologize. I

misheard. But just for clarification, can the minister, on a single-page

ministerial order, extend this again?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, my answer previous and my answer now is that the ministerial

order has been extended twice. The regulation is out of date, not

serving British Columbians. This bill before us is the result of the

legislative process and consultation. The bill happens to be landing

before us now, in this fall session. Yes, the ministerial order is

expiring on December 31.

B. Banman: I’m not sure if the minister heard me or understood. Perhaps I

spoke poorly. My question is: is it within this minister’s executive

powers, shall we say, to extend the ministerial order more than

twice?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: As said before, yes, I do have the authority to extend the

ministerial order. And as I’ve said before, public bodies do need

certainty. The legislation left us behind when COVID-19 hit. It’s out of

date, and we are currently fixing it.

B. Banman: All right. It was also mentioned that there were numerous

consultations done from 2017 onward. There were some broad-range

mentions of public bodies, businesses and…. Can the minister please be

more specific as to what public bodies were consulted? What businesses

were consulted? What round tables were performed? Which Indigenous

groups were involved? Could she be far more specific as to what groups

were actually consulted in the writing of this bill?

Hon. L. Beare: I guess I’ll read into the record for the member the publicly

available document that, I’m sure, the member has and that outlines the

stakeholder consultation session details. Member, buckle up.

On May 28, 2021, we had an ADM round table. The audience was

K-to-12 school districts. We had Comox Valley school district, Coquitlam

school district, greater Victoria school district, Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows school district, MyEd B.C. service management council and the

Ministry of Education.

On June 3, we had a ministerial round table with health

authorities and other representatives. We had Doctors of B.C., First

Nations Health, Fraser Health, Island Health, Northern Health,

Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver Coastal Health, Ministry

of Health.

On June 8 of 2021, we had a ministerial round table of the B.C.

tech sector. We had Charitable Impact, CoPilot AI, Flawless Inbound,

Medimap, Omnae Technologies Inc., Planetary Remote Sensing, PressReader,

ReadyMode, Riipen Networks Inc., SkyHive, Sophos, Streamline Athletes

and representatives of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and

Innovation.

On June 15, we had a stakeholder committee presentation and the

ministry privacy officers for all government ministries. On June 15, we

launched our public survey on information access and privacy. That’s to

the general public. The engagement occurred from June 15 to July 15,

We had, on June 17, a stakeholder committee presentation, the

information security advisory council of all government ministries.

Again, I said July; I meant June. On June 17 was the information

security advisory council. Again on June 17, we had ministry chief

information officers of all government ministries.

On June 17 we had a ministerial round table of post-secondary

institutions: the B.C. Institute of Technology, College of New

Caledonia, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Research Universities

Council of B.C., University of British Columbia, Thompson Rivers

University, University of Victoria, Vancouver Community College,

Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training.

On June 24, we had an ADM round table of local governments. We had

the capital regional district, city of Coquitlam, city of Kamloops, city

of Langford, city of Nanaimo, city of New West, city of Surrey, Cowichan

Valley regional district, district of Fort St. James, district of

Highlands, district of Sooke, district of Tofino, the Local Government

Management Association, regional district of Fraser–Fort George,

regional district of Central Okanagan, regional district of East

Kootenay, regional district of Kootenay-Boundary, town of Qualicum,

B.C.

[3:10 p.m.]

On July 8, we had a stakeholder committee presentation. That was

the broader public sector chief information officers, and that was with

Interior Health Authority, B.C. Pension Corp., Ministry of Health,

WorkSafeBC, Ministry of Education, B.C. Ferries, ICBC, Fraser Health,

VIHA, our Citizens’ Services, OCIO, Northern Health Authority, B.C.

Hydro, TransLink, B.C. Lottery Corp., the PHSA, the FNHA.

On July 21, we had a survey on general public, an online survey.

That was from July 21 to July 27.

B. Banman: During all of those consultations, were records of what was

discussed kept? And if so, when will that be made available to the

public?

Hon. L. Beare: The records are already public. They’re from the report I just

read from.

B. Banman: During those discussions, so that we can get a grasp of clauses 1

and the rest, when the government put forward some of its ideas of

proposed changes, do you happen to recall who was opposed and why they

were opposed?

Hon. L. Beare: I think the member has the report, or I’m assuming the member has

the report. I imagine he’s well prepared. The report captures all the

information that we heard.

B. Banman: Of the 203 First Nations, through, again, clause 1 and following,

how many of those were actually consulted in more than just an email or

a letter that went out to them?

Hon. L. Beare: My ministry has had a number of meaningful discussions with the

First Nations Leadership Council. The conversations included

representatives from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations

Summit, B.C. Assembly of First Nations, and these discussions informed

and shaped the number of proposals which specifically relate to

Indigenous peoples. An invitation was provided to the leaders of First

Nations across the province to complete — that’s the 203 — the online

questionnaire, which sought to gain perspective of Indigenous peoples on

access to information and privacy.

In response to this invitation, representatives from the Tk’emlúps

te Secwépemc requested a meeting with ministry staff, which was held

earlier in September 2021. In addition, our deputy minister sent a

formal invitation to the leaders of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,

First Nations Summit, B.C. Assembly of First Nations and Métis Nation

B.C. to discuss the proposed amendments.

Within the established treaty First Nations notification

framework, the ministry also engaged with representatives from the five

Maa-nulth Nations, the Tsawwassen Nation and the

Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government. All

of this was built on engagement done in 2018-19, when ministry staff

also held discussions with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First

Nations Summit about the unique aspects concerning access and privacy

and their impacts on Indigenous people.

[3:15 p.m.]

There was a mailout engagement campaign then, asking for input and

recommendations from the 203 First Nation communities. I’m sure the

member has further questions.

B. Banman: Actually, I do. And I’m sure there will be a lot more between now

and when we’re finished. Can the minister please explain why this bill

comes into force without any regulations actually in place?

Hon. L. Beare: Government is unable to pass regulations unless we have the

regulation-making authority. Regulations can come into place after royal

assent.

B. Banman: Pardon me. I misspoke. I mean draft regulations.

Hon. L. Beare: It’s not common practice to release draft regulations in advance

of royal assent.

B. Banman: Just so I can clarify, while it may not be the practice in

something as important as this particular bill, were any draft

regulations discussed with the Privacy Commissioner? Were those

conversations and discussions documented?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, draft regulations — for example, the data residency, which I

know we’re going to get to and be able to talk about in great detail

when we finally get to that

section — were shared with the

commissioner’s office.

B. Banman: The reason I bring that up is in the Privacy Commissioner’s letter

to the minister: “At the very least it is imperative that my office be

consulted on the draft regulations as soon as they are available, as

their content will provide the crucial legal substance on data residency

protections and other important matters.”

That’s with regards to data residency. There are a number of

regulations and draft regulations. How many of the draft regulations

have been previously discussed with the Privacy Commissioner? While it

may not be…. I understand that when it comes to legislation before the

House, this may not be a normal practice of normal legislation. This

legislation is one of the few that actually has someone that oversees

it: the Privacy Commissioner. That input is very valuable, back towards

the ministry and to the government.

[3:20 p.m.]

Could the minister please let us know: of the draft regulations,

how many have you actually discussed with the Privacy Commissioner? Were

there documents made of those conversations?

Hon. L. Beare: I do need to withdraw the last comment. I erred.

The content and the intent of the regulations was shared with the

staff of the commissioner’s office. No draft regulations have been

shared with the commissioner’s office.

B. Banman: What I think I heard was there have been discussions from the

minister or on behalf of the ministry with staff of the Privacy

Commissioner, yet not the Privacy Commissioner himself? Did I hear

right, with regards to draft regulations? If there was with staff to

staff, what documentation was taken down, recorded?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, the member is correct. We did talk about the content

intentions of regulations with the commissioner’s team. The regulations

are not yet finalized, as the bill is before the House right now. We

will continue to talk to the commissioner’s office, and prior to

releasing regulations at royal assent, his office will be fully

briefed.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important to just acknowledge a couple of things

before I ask a few questions here. One of those is that I think back

into fairly recent history and remember our colleagues from previous

parliaments when they were then on the official opposition side of this

House — the B.C. NDP colleagues — getting, I think, very, very irritated

by the former government’s use of enabling legislation.

There’s very good reason why our colleagues, who were then sitting

on this side of the House, would be irritated by enabling legislation,

because what enabling legislation does is it asks the House to approve

of something that only we have the authority to approve of before the

minister who is moving the legislation forward is prepared to put in

front of this House what it is that we’re approving.

It actually undermines and erodes this democracy, which is what

the members that were on this side of the House previously, in the

previous parliaments, said we’d hear so often. For 16 years — for 16

years — we heard it all day, every day here.

But there is good reason to be irritated about enabling

legislation, because only the members of this House have the authority

to divest some of our power to statutory decision-makers and to other

decision-makers within the bureaucracy. That’s what we’re being asked to

do here.

[3:25 p.m.]

We’re being asked as elected officials, and this minister…. The

public needs to know that this minister is asking the elected members of

this democracy to hand power over to aspects of the bureaucracy without

understanding the full implication. The Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner has raised that. Our colleague from Abbotsford

South just read the passage on the record. The commissioner himself has

said: “Look, there could be dire consequences here to divesting the

power or to passing the power on down the line.”

In this debate, I’ve heard…. In previous debates I’ve heard and

seen this government undermine the very aspects of this House that we

should be holding and propping up and maintaining in this chamber and in

this House. Undermined it. The committee, the special committee to

review this very act is a committee that is struck not by the

government, but by this House. All the members of this place passed that

motion unanimously to strike that committee. It’s

an act of this House,

not of the government. The government moves the motion. But it’s our

committee to do our work on behalf of our democracy.

The government is treating it as if it’s something that they can

just simply ignore. This minister, when asked these questions, has

brushed it off as if it’s a meaningless committee that will do work

after the bill…. The comment earlier was that the committee should

essentially feel lucky that it gets to be the first committee to review

the new act. Which is absolutely not the purpose of that committee. It

is to inform the process that this government and this minister has

decided to put ahead of the process.

The minister has said: “Well, a lot has changed.” Agreed, a lot

has changed since 2021. I’m on the PIPA review. A lot has changed

annually. That doesn’t mean that we give it less scrutiny by all members

of this place. What’s going on here today, what went on with the

amendment, what went on with the second reading debate is a result of

this minister and that government putting this process ahead of the

process where we could gain all-party support for an initiative. That’s

exactly what that consensus-building process is in a special committee

to review

an act.

The turmoil that this minister is facing, the turmoil that her

staff is facing with this today is a result of bad process and a

government that is snubbing its nose at this democratic House. And

they’re doing it with enabling legislation which further erodes it. Then

the comments that I heard earlier today…. Not only has the minister

undermined the authority of this House; the minister has undermined the

authority of an independent officer of this House. We should be

outraged.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Yeah, I might be outraged. I am outraged.

The reason why I’m outraged is because that independent officer is

an officer of this place, not of the government. We put together a

committee that hires an independent officer, that scrutinizes and

ensures that the information and privacy of British Columbians is being

properly administered and properly protected. This process undermines

that. This minister is undermining that. This government doesn’t care.

Snubbed its nose. No speakers. Silence.

Every time that a question has been answered, this minister has

responded with a response: “I can’t wait to get to another question, a

different question.” Not even honouring the question that is in front.

It’s infuriating. It is entirely inconsistent with everything that has

been said about enabling legislation in this House for 16

years.

[3:30 p.m.]

Yesterday I asked the minister, on clause 1, a question. The 2010

legislative committee recommended that a

section be added to

section 2,

which is what clause 1 is amending, to require that an infringement of

the right to privacy must be proportional to the public interest to be

lawful. I said this bill doesn’t do that. Then I asked why. The minister

responded that the act as it currently stands contemplates the

protection of people’s privacy already. When has this act not

contemplated people’s privacy?

Hon. L. Beare: The recommendation, of course, was considered.

We feel that the overarching principle statement that the member

is looking for is embedded throughout the act and through the

amendments, as well, strengthening privacy for individuals.

A. Olsen: The question was: at what point did this act not protect people’s

privacy?

Hon. L. Beare: The act has always protected people’s privacy, and we’re

strengthening that.

A. Olsen: That’s correct. The act has always protected people’s

privacy.

In 2010, “The special committee also considered an amendment

proposed by the OIPC,” the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. “Its

submission pointed out that

section 2 does not acknowledge that an

infringement of the right to privacy must be reasonable and justifiable,

whereas this concept is in the Personal Information Protection

Act.”

The committee at the time stated they “support the amendment

because they think it’s desirable to harmonize the language of the

public sector and the private sector privacy laws, wherever

practicable.” Can the minister please identify where in this act this

specific recommendation, which is in clause 1, has been

achieved?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: While I very much respect the member’s thoughts on this and the

committee’s recommendation, which was thoughtfully considered throughout

this process, they are two different acts. We feel that the act already

allows for that, and we are continuing to strengthen privacy throughout

our amendments.

S. Furstenau: My colleague from Saanich North and the Islands just gave quite an

impassioned speech about process, and in fact, in his discussion of

process, he really hits on something that’s so central to what these two

reports from this government and their stakeholder consultation

overviews talk about the public wanting, which is transparent and

accountable government.

The reason why process matters so much for achieving these

outcomes that the public consistently asks for — transparent and

accountable government — is because having clear process, and adhering

to that process, means that people are able to understand

decision-making processes, what has informed decisions, how governments

reach those decisions, what information they use to get to those

decisions, what they think those decisions are going to accomplish, how

they’re going to measure those decisions and where those decisions get

us.

What my colleague pointed out about the rather concerning and

distressing abandonment of good process that has gotten us to this

place, where we are on I don’t know which hour of clause 1 of committee

stage of this bill…. What’s being reflected are the members of a

legislature who are quite distressed about the way that process has been

abandoned.

The minister has talked a lot about these consultation processes

and how the consultation reports are available publicly. And indeed,

there are these two reports. There’s one from 2019 and one from 2021.

What’s interesting is that in response to questions of: what did

stakeholders say at meetings? What was heard? The minister says: “Well,

it’s all in the consultation report.” But it’s not. These are curated

reports that tell a story. In fact, that’s what governments do. That’s

what political parties do. They tell stories. You have to own the

narrative. You have to stay in the message box.

The role that freedom of information plays, for those who want to

go beyond the curated story that is being told by any government at any

time, is that freedom of information provides the capacity to get beyond

what we’re provided in our curated stories and curated reports, to the

questions that have been asked today. What exactly was said? Who was

invited? How did this process play out? What was the decision-making

process? How did we get here? Why are we here? Where are we trying to

go? What are the implications for me as a citizen? What are the

implications for the wider society?

This is why people are engaged, rightfully so, with government in

a democracy, because we want to understand how we’re getting to one

place and where we’re supposed to be going. What’s interesting about

these reports is that when we look at the 2019 report on what we heard,

there were lots of points about, for example, fees. There were some

participants…. We don’t know how many. This is the problem with these

curated reports. We’re not getting clear information. We’re getting

abstract, vague information.

[3:40 p.m.]

“Some participants were concerned that fees could discourage

low-income British Columbians or not-for-profit groups from making

requests. Some suggested fees should either be reduced or simplified…. A

few participants suggested that no fees should be charged for electronic

documents.” Then there was this one line: fees could be “reduced or

simplified, for example, by charging a flat-rate application fee for

general requests.”

We don’t know if that’s in response to the fact that sometimes you

put in a FOI request and you get a notice back from the government

saying: “Well, we can fulfil this, but it’s going to cost you $475.” Or:

“It’s going to cost you $8,000.” Or, in some cases, I’ve heard from

journalists: “This is going to cost you hundreds of thousands of

dollars.”

Imagine that — public information about very important public

matters like the movement of hazardous waste in this province and the

researcher wanting to know where that waste comes from, how it’s

shipped, where it ends up and being told: “We can maybe get you that

information, but it’s going to cost you hundreds of thousands of

dollars.”

I think in these what-we-heard processes, it wasn’t: “Oh, people

are really looking for an upfront application fee.” I think what we

could imply from this is people were looking for a…. If you’re going to

charge a fee, make it a flat fee, and then give us all the

information.

But then we get to the April to August 2021 report, which is very

different from the January 2019 report. What I can see is…. The

questions are here that the government asked in the surveys.

This would be an assignment that I would give to my class about

how you ask questions to get specific kinds of answers and how you

present information to get specific kinds of outcomes. This isn’t

in-depth information about what was said in these consultation sessions.

This is highly curated information being provided to the public — a

story being told that is quite the opposite of freedom of

information.

There’s an interesting line here: “While many general FOI

requests…ensure that high-value government information is shared with

the public, others are overly broad and directed at multiple public

bodies.” There is a value statement in this. We get to determine what

are high-value requests and what requests are overly broad. “These

requests do not typically result in responsive records and, as such, do

not increase transparency.” Well, now we’ve drawn a conclusion

here.

I’ll start with a question. The minister has talked a lot about

the overwhelming number of requests and yesterday indicated proactive

public disclosure. She said: “Oh, we’ve proactively disclosed estimates

binders, and we’ve proactively disclosed transition binders.”

My question is: of these overwhelmingly voluminous, as she says,

requests for information, has there been any effort to analyze the

requests and proactively disclose based on the requests that are coming

in year over year?

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you for the question.

Yes, we have talked about the overwhelming increase in requests

over the past four years. A 40 percent increase is

significant.

[3:45 p.m.]

Yes, we do analyze requests that are made frequently for

information, which are how we come to decisions like releasing

minister’s binders, for example. When that’s a repeated request and we

notice that that’s something that is continually being asked year after

year, it’s easy, then, to make those decisions, on this side, that we

should make that available to the public and make it available to

absolutely everyone for free, because that’s important

information.

That process is already starting again — that 40 percent increase

in disclosures that we did last year. We’re already looking at what that

next batch can be, and we’re going to continue to do that

analysis.

S. Furstenau: Another example of a request would be, for example, the request of

a minister’s calendar, which shouldn’t be that complicated. Can the

minister tell me why ministers’ calendars wouldn’t be proactively

disclosed?

Hon. L. Beare: Ministers’ calendars are proactively disclosed. Let me read all

the disclosure subjects that are proactively disclosed.

We have the new subjects, being estimates, notes, corporate

transition binders, minister transition binders, deputy minister travel

expense summaries, purchasing cards, business transaction account

expenditures. The previous ones were summaries of open and closed

freedom-of-information requests, records released in response to

freedom-of-information requests, gaming grants paid to community

organizations, ministers’ and deputy ministers’ calendars, directly

awarded contracts, ministers’ travel receipts, summaries of contracts

with values over $10,000, and summaries of alternative service delivery

contracts.

S. Furstenau: In a minister’s calendar, what level of information is included in

that disclosure — including, for example, who the minister met

with?

Hon. L. Beare: Ministers’ calendars are subject to the same exceptions as

FOI.

But I just want to remind the member that nowhere in this act do

we discuss proactive disclosure. I am more than happy to have a briefing

with the member and would love to discuss proactive disclosure and what

the member would like to see as future categories of proactive

disclosure. I’d be more than happy to do that.

S. Furstenau: Just to go back to yesterday’s point, that was the number 1

recommendation from the 2016 committee that reviewed this legislation

and made recommendations to this House. If there is such a volume of

requests, it would indicate to me, just using my logic, that there is a

feeling amongst the public and the press and the opposition parties that

perhaps there is information that isn’t available that needs to be

available. Given that it is public information, it belongs to the

public.

I’ll go back to my question, because I don’t think I got an answer

there. It’s subject to the same rules as FOIs. In the proactive

disclosure of ministers’ calendars, does that include who the minister

meets with?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, it does. I know the member knows the answer to this question.

I also know that the member knows that this is not included in the bill

before us right now.

[3:50 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’ll turn to just a bit more along the lines of the bigger

question of this legislation and where we’re at.

Again, connecting to the volume of requests for information, the

frustration…. It does come through in both of these fabulously curated

storytelling reports that we have from government on what we heard. Of

course, we can’t know if it’s everything that we heard, because we only

get to know what is in the report. As I indicated, that is the nature of

governments. They’re in the storytelling business.

The nature of the press and researchers and engaged citizens and

opposition parties and lawyers…. The nature of them is to want to get

beyond the narrative, beyond the storytelling. It is they who are

absolutely raising the alarm about this legislation.

The concerns that they have indicated, as we’ve gone over several

times in these questions from the opposition parties…. I’ll just put

it…. It’s a higher-level question for the minister.

The combination of the volume of freedom-of-information requests

and the response that this legislation has generated publicly, from the

24 groups that the member for Abbotsford West listed earlier, including

the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association,

the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Centre for Access to

Information, the B.C. Construction Association, the West Coast Legal

Education and Action Fund, the independent contractors…. There’s a long

list of organizations and individuals who have really sounded the alarm

on this legislation.

On the heels of, as the minister has indicated, an increasing

volume of requests for information, have this minister, in her role as

Minister of Citizens’ Services, and this government reflected on what

story that tells about this government? People don’t feel that they are

getting all the information they need to understand decision-making

processes, as opposed to the story this government wants to tell about

itself.

Just one example. Independently, we have been recognized as one of

the most data-restrictive provinces in Canada when it comes to COVID for

over a year — for example, the request for disaggregated data for how

COVID is impacting groups of colour, different socioeconomic groups.

Relentless pressure has been on this government to provide more

information in a public health emergency, culminating — I think about a

week and a half ago — in a story on CTV from Penny Daflos about dozens

and dozens of pages accessed through FOI and most of them blacked

out.

There is a story emerging. I wonder if this minister…. Do this

minister and her government reflect on the story or the sense that this

government has become less transparent and more secretive, as indicated

by the rising volume of FOI requests and the alarm that’s being raised

by these many, many groups?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I have a very big answer that I want to give the member

here.

There are a number of pieces embedded in the question, the first

being the increase in the volume of requests. I think it’s very, very

important that we discuss what that volume is and what that increase is.

What we’re looking at is a system that is overwhelmed and clogged up

right now with a number of requests that are just broad and sweeping and

that are essentially fishing expeditions.

Let me give you an example. When a deputy minister’s office is

requested for all emails received for a month, all of them, that’s not

looking for government decision-making.

I believe governments need to be open and transparent. FOI was

created so that people can have access to their information and so that

people can have access into government decision-making. Asking for every

single email received in a deputy minister’s office is not looking for

government decision-making. That’s a fishing expedition. That’s what

that is. That’s causing thousands of hours of work across the

system.

You know what I want to see my deputy minister doing instead of

trying to sift through 6,000 emails and figure out what is important,

what is non-transitory, what is transitory, what results in government

decision-making? I want my deputy minister focused on serving the people

of British Columbia. I want my deputy minister ensuring that Service

B.C. is operating at its top function so that people can have access to

the service they need. I want my deputy minister focused on getting

connectivity throughout the province.

Government information on decision-making is what FOI is there

for. That is key and critical and foundational to freedom of

information, and we are protecting that. When we talk about the volumes,

no, I don’t believe that’s a conversation all about our government. I

believe that it’s a threefold increase in things like political party

requests going from over 1,500 to over 4,700. That is a threefold

increase, many of which are fishing expeditions and not actually looking

for government decision-making.

I know we’re going to talk about this a lot over the next hours

and days. I believe that it’s critical that we get information in the

hands of people who are looking for it in a timely manner and that we

provide that critical and fundamental access to government

decision-making.

Now, when we talk about openness and transparency…. I thank the

member for raising this piece as well. Our government is fully committed

to openness and transparency. We talked yesterday about my very first

action as minister of increasing proactive disclosures more than 40

percent and how we’re already looking at doing more.

Our government has opened the metadata sets, which are open to the

public. We now have 3,200 open data sets that are available to people,

to organizations, to media. We’re proactively publishing information on

integrated data projects underway in B.C.’s data innovation

program.

We’re consulting with the people of this province on a level that

the province has never seen before. We have doubled the amount of

consultations under our watch as was previously done. We’re going to

continue to be open and transparent, and we’re going to continue to find

ways to serve the people of British Columbia.

A. Olsen: I think that might have been one of the most unfortunate answers

that the minister could have provided to this House. As somebody who

just stood and spoke to our democracy, I feel like I have no choice but

to stand again and remind the minister that basically the answer that

she just provided demonstrated a basic disrespect for this House, a

basic disrespect for the people of British Columbia.

[4:00 p.m.]

The people of British Columbia elect political parties and

representatives from political parties to come in here and do a job.

People elect a government not to come in here and pass judgment on what

information is acceptable to share and what information is not, which is

exactly what this minister just articulated to this House.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

There is, apparently, in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, a

value judgment placed on which requests are acceptable and which

requests are not. The freedom of information is the freedom of

information — fishing or specific.

One of the things that should be pointed out to this minister is

that when you actually put something specific, you get a response that

it’s not available. The way that the freedom-of-information system has

evolved under this government is that if you can’t get a response from a

specific request, then you ask a general question. Then you take the

response from that general question, and you dig further. You ask the

next question and the next question. Because freedom of information —

and the minister just demonstrated it in her response — has turned into

a game.

We should not be playing a game. There should not be a value

judgment placed by the minister responsible for freedom of information

as to what is an acceptable request and what is not. Who gave government

the power to determine which information should flow freely and which

information should be judged as superfluous? Nobody.

It’s the job of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services to facilitate a

process that responds in as speedy a time as possible to the requests

that are made, passing no judgment on the request that was made. Has

that minister…? That bureaucracy has no understanding as to the reason

why someone is making a request. It’s none of their business.

When the minister stands up and gives the answer that she just

gave my colleague from Cowichan Valley, it turns the frustration that I

expressed earlier into — well, it ramped it up. Because it’s not

acceptable. This is not acceptable. This minister is showing a complete

and total disregard for information in this province. I don’t know what

tools are at our disposal to reconcile this, but that answer that was

just given to my colleague was completely unacceptable.

No judgment should be passed. No blame should be placed on the

members of this House for doing their job and then amending the way they

do their job because of the results that they’re getting. I have an

individual in my riding that didn’t get it in 30 days, didn’t get it in

60 days and whose FOI response was just kicked to February of next

year.

It’s a game. This minister is playing a game with this system. The

games were evident this week in this House, with none of the members who

seem to be filling the benches now to come and not stand up and speak.

Other bills — run the clock to the end of the day. Just turning this

House into a….

It’s making a mockery of this democracy. Thinking that you can

take this process and just turn it into a joke. Because people are busy

doing things like trying to survive in this world, they’re not paying

attention. So guess what? When they go to get their information that

they’re requesting, there’s a judgment passed on it now or we’re waiting

for the regulations to be drafted because we’ve put in front of this

House enabling legislation and asked this place to shut their eyes and

vote for it.

I have no question.

[4:05 p.m.]

B. Banman: I asked earlier about whether regulations have been drafted and

whether those draft regulations had been discussed or viewed with the

Privacy Commissioner, clause 1 through 74.

Can the minister please answer: of the 74 clauses that we have

before us in this bill, clause 1 through 74, how many of them will reach

royal assent as soon as this bill is voted on?

Hon. L. Beare: For the member’s reference, if he refers to

section 74 in the

draft legislation, it talks about commencement. This provision does

bring the majority of the sections of the bill into force on the date of

royal assent.

We do have the following exceptions:

section 25 and

section 49.

These sections of the bill will be brought into force by regulation of

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

B. Banman: Of those two sections, then, could the minister please, just for

the record, describe what those two sections actually include — 25 and

49?

The Chair: Thank you, Member. If I might, just so that we can keep this

in order. We normally go clause by clause, and I believe the member

is now asking about clause 76 or 74, so we are on clause

B. Banman: I understand that, Chair. This deals with the bill in its

entirety, because it relates to my first previous question, which

involves clause 1 through 74.

I do have a follow-up question, but just for the record, we’ve

just heard the minister state that the majority of this bill will be

enacted immediately, so it does relate to my previous

question.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. I’m just trying to understand the relevance

of asking about other clauses in this case. If the Member might help

me, humour the Chair, so that I can understand the relevance. I’m

just trying to keep this in order. Thank you.

B. Banman: Thank you, Chair. To clarify, the general basis of the question

is: why is the regulation going to come after, for the majority of this

bill? And why will those two sections not have royal assent? So it deals

with clauses 1 through 74, if that helps the Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I guess where I’m coming from is that we’re

on clause 1, so if the question is around clause 1, great. If it’s

on clause 25, that should be asked around clause 25, and clause 49

should be asked at clause 49, or it could also be asked at clause

B. Banman: Fair enough, Chair. I will move on.

Part of the reason I’m asking this question…. I’m going to refer

back to the Privacy Commissioner’s letter.

The Privacy Commissioner, on his last page of the extraordinary

seven-page letter that he sent to this House and to the minister and to

myself, copied, and to the hon. Leader of the Third Party: “Special

Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act.” I’m going to quote and read from the Privacy Commissioner’s

letter:

“As just suggested, FIPPA provides for periodic review of the

statute by an all-party special committee of the Legislative Assembly.

Several of these have been concluded, and many, many useful and

important recommendations have been made by these special committees,

the latest of which has been appointed. It is not at all clear why

government has chosen to move forward with amendments ahead of the

special committee’s legislated work to review the act.

“The work of the special committee is essential. It is able to pull

information and consultation from a variety of sources, encouraging

fulsome public dialogue about proposed amendments.

“I have to question how meaningful the first substantive amendments

to the act in over a decade can be when there is no time for all

stakeholders to provide dialogue. To move forward with these amendments

in a year that the special committee is tasked to do this work is

baffling.”

Now, hon. Chair, you were not in the room prior, a few minutes,

when you heard some of the eloquent words to my colleagues….

The Chair: Of course we don’t comment on if a member is in the House or

not, but I’m always watching, Member. Be sure of that.

B. Banman: All right. Fair enough.

Part of the question that I have with regards to the regulation is

this House…. Members on this side of the House and members of the Third

Party find it troubling that the majority of this act, all but two

clauses, are going to be seen, enacted by royal assent, as soon as it is

voted upon in this House.

I am getting to a question. I apologize. But you threw me

off-kilter.

[4:15 p.m.]

The minister just spent, actually, the most I’ve heard the

minister speak a few minutes ago, where she talked about fishing. I

would say, respectfully, that there’s more emphasis and weight put on

fishing for FOIs than there is on fishing and preserving the steelhead

in the Thompson River.

However, that aside, there was a ton of words that came from the

minister, where she expressed how much work staff has been going through

to provide required FOIs that had been requested. So my question to the

minister: in the last four years, if this has truly been a problem for

something as simple as binders — which was one of many things that were

mentioned — could this minister have asked the special committee to

review the high-volume FOIs and come up with simple amendments to the

act?

Hon. L. Beare: I do not direct the committee. The committee reviews the

legislation, as acted out in the legislation. It reviews the existing

legislation. There’s a committee report from 2010 and 2016, which are

unacted on. Those recommendations are part of this legislative package

that we have before us.

B. Banman: It has become clear that it was not the work of the Privacy

Commissioner or the committee that has been assigned by this House that

directed the way this bill was created — we just heard the minister, I

believe, say words to that effect, did we not? — or the contents, set

clauses 1 through 74, in the bill.

Did the Premier’s chief of staff or the Premier direct the

minister what should be contained in this bill?

Hon. L. Beare: No, I was not directed by anyone. The bill has gone through the

normal legislative process.

B. Banman: Did she seek advice from the Premier’s office or the Premier’s

staff with regards to the drafting of this bill?

Hon. L. Beare: I very clearly outlined earlier for the member the process that I

took with the bill, which is the regular legislative process that does

involve going to cabinet, where advice and input was sought.

B. Banman: So are you telling this House that at no time, the Premier’s

office offered any direction or advice whatsoever with regards to what

is now before the House — of the clauses 1 through 74, that there was

never any discussion from the Premier’s office?

[4:20 p.m.]

Especially considering we now have the removal of the Premier’s

office, I find that hard to believe. But would the minister please

answer: at no time was there any discussion whatsoever from the

Premier’s office?

Hon. L. Beare: I very clearly outlined the process. It included, beginning with

public consultation, going through assistant deputy minister and deputy

minister committees. It went through cabinet. The bill has gone through

the legislative review committee. All of those places are pieces of

input.

Again, I need to clarify to the member that that’s one of the

misinformations. You know, removing the Premier’s office from a lesser

schedule does not exempt the Premier’s office from FOI. In fact, it

ensures that they have the same coverage, which is the high-risk

coverage, as all of the other minister offices.

B. Banman: I’m going to be very, very specific. At any time throughout the

last four years, did the Premier or the Premier’s chief of staff have

any conversations or discussions about the bill that is before this

House?

Hon. L. Beare: I have already said to the member that I have received no direct

input from the Premier or Premier’s office. The bill has followed the

regular channel.

B. Banman: So let me ask: has there been any indirect communication or

discussion from the Premier or the Premier’s chief of staff with regards

to this bill that’s before the House, clauses 1 through 74?

Hon. L. Beare: No.

B. Banman: The intent, as we’ve heard earlier — one of the many intents,

clauses 1 through 74 — is to help lighten the burden of the massive

amount of FOI requests that are now coming through this office. I

believe that’s what I have heard thus far. Many of those things are

something that is quite simple.

My question to the minister would be: why was it that in all of

this time, these four years that have transpired, the Special Committee

to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was

not asked to review what potential mechanisms there could be to reduce

the volume of freedom-of-information act and make it more accessible to

those that have actually paid for it, which is the taxpayers of British

Columbia?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I’d just like to clarify, for the member, what I have said about

this legislation. I’ve said that our current act is out of date and is

not meeting the needs of British Columbians. I’ve said that the act has

not been updated since 2011 and needs to be amended, as it’s out of

date. I’ve said that we’re aligning with other jurisdictions across

Canada for things like data residency and fees. I’ve said that the

legislation hasn’t kept pace with what we’re experiencing today during

COVID.

Again to the member, I do not direct the legislative committee.

The committee has provided two previous recommendation reports, in 2010

and 2016 — I have those — as part of the consultation process, towards

fee amendments, which are before us.

B. Banman: I’m not so sure I heard properly, but I don’t think that answered

the question as to….

My understanding of this particular act, clauses 1 through 74,

is…. It has been the tradition to involve the special committee, which

actually gets paid, I believe — at least, members of that get a stipend

— to do the work of this House, to do the work of the FOI committee and

to also involve not only stakeholders but the Privacy Commissioner as

well. Much of this has been left to regulation — 72 of the 74

clauses.

I’ll ask again: why was it that what is normal procedure was not

put into place in the last four years to be able to deal with what has

been a problem? It has not been updated for ten years, as we’ve heard

the minister say. Once again, why did we choose to put the cart in front

of the horse, instead of following what are, traditionally, the standing

habits of this House?

Hon. L. Beare: Chair, we’ve canvassed this extensively last night, this morning

and this afternoon.

B. Banman: We may have canvassed it, but as of yet, there has not been an

answer as to why….

I think the taxpayers of British Columbia are entitled to a simple

question. Why is it that clauses 1 through 74 did not follow

long-standing protocol? If it’s so important that this needs to be

rushed…. There was a chance, in this House, where we saw that it could

have been referred to the committee. If it is so important, why is it

that we are now having 72 of 74 sections, which are left to regulations,

to be decided, in the future, behind closed doors?

Hon. L. Beare: So 72 sections do not go through regulation. The member is

incorrect. I have answered the question — asked and answered — on a

committee.

[4:30 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: First of all, I just wanted to piggyback on a little something

that the member for Saanich North and the Islands said a little earlier

— a little comment. It wasn’t much of a question, but it was a comment.

That was on the minister’s response on FOI requests and the increased

volume that they’re seeing through this office. It kind of troubled me a

little bit — actually, a lot a bit — that the response back was,

“Political parties, it’s threefold, the volume now,” suggesting that,

perhaps, it’s gamesmanship or political games or whatever.

The fact of the matter is that I represent the riding of Kootenay

East. I’m elected there as a B.C. Liberal. Those requests that come

through me or through our political party go directly to the ministry’s

office and should not be construed as gamesmanship or whatever she wants

to critique it on. These are serious requests.

We are going through a huge opioid crisis right now. COVID. We had

some of the worst wildfires in history in our province. There are some

legitimate questions that come through my desk that I will ask for

freedom of information on — on process, on statistics, on any wild array

of data that people want to hear.

Instead of the minister treating this as a hassle and putting in

fees, perhaps to create a barrier to reduce this volume, maybe the

minister should be more concerned with why she’s getting this volume and

circumventing it another way and having freedom of information that is

proactive instead of reactive. That would be a change. That would reduce

things. This bill is doing the exact opposite. So that was just that

little piece there.

The minister also said, not too long ago, to buckle up. She told

us to buckle up here, because she was going to give a fairly exhaustive

list of the engagement that happened over the last four years. I quickly

scribbled down as many as I could. I came up with nine or ten round

tables, 78 groups. I tallied up two or three surveys. A fairly

exhaustive list, although I would argue maybe not as exhaustive as the

minister pretends it is. I talked to the chair of my regional district

just a minute ago, and he said that the amount of engagement that

resulted was essentially a letter that was sent.

I guess the question is — and I’m not even sure if the minister

has answered this question yet or not; she can tell me if she did — what

was the feedback from those consultations? What form of engagement,

other than a letter, was received back to the minister? Surely there

must have been some sort of concern, with what we’re seeing here today.

So I guess that’s the question: what kind of feedback was presented to

the minister?

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you so much to the member for the questions. I agree with

the member in a number of areas, including the openness and transparency

piece. This is why — I know the member wasn’t in the House, so I’m going

to take a chance to let him know as well — one of the first things I did

as minister, when I received the file in November, was increase the

number of proactive disclosures by 40 percent.

I believe that the public should have access to as much

information as possible for free, and we are doing that. We are making

sure that we are releasing information that the public is seeking and

putting it available to all, including ministers’ estimates binders,

which are some of the most valuable pieces of information in government,

including ministers’ transition binders, in addition to all the other

things that we’re doing.

I also agree with the member that the scribbling down is an

exhaustive list of consultation that was had in 2021. That, of course,

builds on the feedback — I don’t know if the member has been listening —

that we’ve been receiving since 2017. This has been a long process to

get to this bill.

That all culminates in the report that I referred to. So to the

member, that report is public and available, and all the synopsis of the

consultation and what we heard is in there, in the feedback of the

report.

[4:35 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: All right. I’ll buy that — an exhaustive list of consultation, a

process that went from 2017 to current, four years of digging in deep

and finding what the folks want to see, although I’ve never heard of any

group that is asking for the amendments that we’re seeing here today.

Maybe the minister can tell us which groups are asking for this

particular piece of legislation. I have never heard of any.

But I take a little bit of offence to the fact…. I’m on the

freedom of information committee. I was kind of excited, thinking: “I’ll

be able to dig in deep.” I’m on the same committee as my friend and

colleague from Saanich North and the Islands over there and a couple of

other folks. It’s a non-partisan committee, as we all know, and I was

looking forward to it.

I guess the question to the minister is: after all this extensive

consultation, all this work that’s been done, all this legwork, what

will this committee be able to provide that hasn’t already been vetted

through debate, through committee stage, everything else that we’re

seeing here — all the consultation? What possibly could this committee

bring forward to this piece of legislation we’re seeing here

today?

Hon. L. Beare: We have canvassed, very heavily, the committee piece. I do not

direct the committee. The committee reviews existing legislation. I do

have two reports of reviews of the existing legislation from the 2010

and 2016 committees.

The member was asking about some of the feedback and what we’re

hearing about this legislation and — more importantly, I think — what

conversations in the community I was having about this bill. I’m going

to read just one quote from the report, in all the great feedback that

we’ve received that I know the member has access to and will happily,

I’m sure, be checking out.

Let me read a quote from Jill Tipping, the president and CEO of

B.C. Tech Association: “This is a positive development from government

that B.C.’s tech industry welcomes. 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.”

So this is a sample of the type of feedback that we heard from our

consultation. I know the member, I’m sure, is going to be eagerly

reading the report as we speak.

T. Shypitka: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson kind of gave an analogy of

what I, and maybe, perhaps, the other members of my committee, may feel

like — the old proverbial Maytag repairman who is waiting for the call

and will never get it. I feel that that’s what’s going to happen with

this committee.

The work has been done. The consultation has been done. We’re

voting on a piece of legislation that’ll be passing soon, I presume. It

seems a little bit of the cart in front of the horse to me.

Can the minister tell me what total disbursements are associated

with this committee and if she feels that they’re justified at this

point?

Hon. L. Beare: I can’t speak to the committee. Those questions should be directed

to either LAMC or the House Leader.

B. Banman: I guess one last thing before we perhaps move on. It’s taken a

long time to get to an “s,” huh.

Sorry. I shouldn’t do that while the minister has a mouth full of

water. We just about had a prat spray over there.

I would like, however, an opportunity for the minister to,

perhaps, correct something. That had to do with regulations. I’m going

to just point out two of the many, if I may, sections — seeing as how

this is 1 and I was basically corrected by the minister. But sections

33.1 and 36.1 both leave it to be left later to regulations.

[4:40 p.m.]

Now, I know that the minister…. I think that I’m pretty close,

with the 72 of the 71, but many, many sections within this, clause 1

through 74, are left to regulations. The minister made it sound as if

they were not. So perhaps the minister would like to clarify that

statement.

Hon. L. Beare: No, the member asked about royal assent. We talked about

section

74 on commencement and when the pieces of royal assent were going to be

covered. I read out sections 25 and 49 as part of that commencement

section of the bill, which is 74.

Yes, there are a number of areas of the bill — not 72 of 74 — that

will have regulations attached. When we get to those sections, I’m going

to be very excited to talk about what that looks like.

The Chair: Shall clause 1 pass?

A division has been called on clause 1.

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

Clause 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49

Alexis

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sharma

Simons

Sims

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 24

Ashton

Banman

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

Wilkinson

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We will report to the Speaker, and then I believe we’ll be

going into a short recess before Her Honour joins the

precinct.

The committee rose at 4:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have a recess for a few minutes. Thank you.

The House recessed from 4:54 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, her honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct.

Please remain seated while we wait for her.

[5:05 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was

admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021

Early Childhood Educators Act

Early Learning and Child Care Act

Societies Amendment Act, 2021

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent

to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you very much.

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE. ÍY, ȻNES QENOṈE

ṮÁ.

It is good to see all of you today. I have, in fact, very much been

looking forward to this day so that I could see you all assembled together.

It’s been far too long. It really does warm my heart to see you

here.

My message today is one of adding my voice to all of yours in

expressing my very best wishes to Premier Horgan for a successful surgery

and treatment, for a speedy recovery, and for robust and enduring good

health. I want also just to reinforce his message to all of us to care for

our own health, but also to care for each other. In that vein, I want to

thank you, all of you, for all that you do to care for each other through

those inevitable challenges of leadership that you all assume on our behalf

and also the support that you provide to each other for the personal

challenges of life.

I wish you all the very best. I do look forward to an opportunity to

welcome you to Government House as a group as soon as Dr. Henry gives us

permission. I wish you all the best, always, and express again my sincerest,

most heartfelt appreciation for your truly splendid work.

Thank you.

HÍSW̱ḴE.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday, November

The House adjourned at 5:15 p.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.