Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 21, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 112

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Question of Privilege (Speaker’s Ruling)

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

Hon. S. Robinson

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

J. Sturdy

Report and Third Reading of Bills

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

Second Reading of Bills

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

T. Wat

D. Ashton

T. Halford

G. Kyllo

T. Stone

M. Bernier

J. Tegart

T. Shypitka

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Question of Privilege

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on Wednesday, October 20, the member for Saanich North

and the Islands raised a question of privilege regarding Bill 22, Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021, and the work of

the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act. In his submission, the member stated that the introduction of

Bill 22 while a special committee has been tasked by the House to carry out

a time-constrained statutory review of the act that Bill 22 proposes to

amend breached his privileges as a member of the Special Committee to Review

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Chair thanks the Government House Leader for his submission with

respect to the provision under the provincial Constitution Act that enables

the Lieutenant-Governor, acting on the advice of the executive council, to

transmit bills for consideration for this House. The Chair also thanks the

official opposition House Leader for his submission with respect to

section

80 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that requires

that a review of that act be undertaken every six years by a special

committee appointed by this House.

In considering a question of privilege, the Chair must first assess

whether the initial criterion has been met. That criterion is whether the

question was raised at the earliest opportunity. This strict requirement and

the inability of the Chair to relax it is canvassed in detail in

Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, fifth edition, at

pages 401 to 403. The member for Saanich North and the Islands reserved his

right to raise the question of privilege on this matter during the afternoon

sitting on Tuesday, October 19.

[1:05 p.m.]

Bill 22 was introduced by the Minister of Citizens’ Services and was

read a first time at the outset of the afternoon sitting on Monday, October

18. In my view, the member for Saanich North and the Islands had a

reasonable opportunity to reserve his right to raise a question of privilege

prior to the conclusion of the afternoon sitting on Monday, October 18.

this basis, I conclude that the initial criterion that the Chair must use in

determining whether a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred, that

being the requirement that the matter be raised at the first opportunity,

has not been met. It is therefore not necessary for the Chair to evaluate

the arguments put forward by the member for Saanich North and the Islands as

it relates to his question of privilege.

However, the Chair does wish to take this opportunity to provide

advice for the record of this House as it relates to some of the matters at

hand. The crux of this matter is complex and nuanced, and little guidance

exists on how such situations are to be addressed.

In his submission, the member for Saanich North and the Islands noted

a ruling of one of my predecessors, Speaker Sawicki, of June 1, 1993, which

notes:

“It is the acknowledged practice of this House to preclude any reference

in detail to specific issues before a Committee prior to the report of a

Committee, or discussions of evidence being presented to a Committee, but to

allow general references to a subject matter, even though that matter may

have been previously referred to a Select Standing or other Committee. The

rationale of this practice is to avoid any direct intrusion into the

functioning of Committees which might pre-empt the Committee’s activities.

The House itself, at the same time, does not totally preclude itself from

alluding to a particular subject matter which it has referred to one of its

Committees.”

The Chair acknowledges that the finding of Speaker Sawicki continues

to represent the practices of this House as they stand today. Once the House

has tasked a select standing committee or a special committee with a line of

inquiry through terms of reference, the House has no knowledge of what

transpires in such a committee or what conclusions or recommendations the

committee intends to make in respect of those terms of reference until such

time that that committee reports to the House.

Respecting this principle and reality, the Chair can appreciate the

difficult situation that a parliamentary committee would find itself in if,

while it is nearing the completion of a public consultation resulting from a

statutory review of

an act, substantial amendments to the same act were

brought forward for the consideration of this House. It may have a

significant impact on the work of such a committee, especially if that

committee is required to report to the House within a time-constrained

period.

Parliamentary committees fulfil a very important function within our

democratic process. They allow small subsets of members to engage directly

with British Columbians on matters that they are tasked with by this House.

Committees often do this by undertaking extensive public consultations,

which require a great deal of resourcing. The Chair appreciates that in

certain circumstances, the effectiveness of the work of such a committee

could be undermined by the introduction of a bill that relates directly and

substantively to the work of that committee.

That is not to say that the committee proceedings may preclude the

introduction of legislation. There may be unique, urgent or otherwise

necessary circumstances that may require the House to act swiftly through

the consideration of legislation.

Finally, let there be no doubt about the right of the government and

of all members to introduce legislation for the consideration of this House,

but there are instances when the timing of the introduction of a bill could

be discourteous to the House or one of its committees. Timing of the

introduction of legislation should be carefully considered so as not to

diminish or be perceived to diminish the important work that this House and

its committees undertake outside of core legislative functions.

[1:10 p.m.]

I trust that this guidance will be given due consideration going

forward.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 21; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

H. Sandhu: Hon. Chair, may I seek leave to make an introduction,

please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Sandhu: I am excited and proud to introduce my very first guest in the gallery

since my election. I have today four very special guests here in the chamber

and up in the gallery. I have four introductions to make, so please bear

with me.

My first guest is my dear friend, who is more like a sister to me,

Sara Mattu. I first met Sara through B.C. Nurses Union work, when we both

worked on human rights and equity caucus work. Our caucus was called mosaic

of colour. Sara has worked at Richmond Hospital for over 25 years and has

been teaching with Kwantlen College, now University, for over 18 years.

She’s currently a member at the B.C. Nurses Union council representing the

Richmond-Vancouver region and also working to support internationally

educated nurses.

My second guest is Dr. Lesley Lutes. She is a professor and director

of training for the doctoral program in clinical psychology and director of

the Centre for Obesity and Wellbeing Research Excellence at the University

of British Columbia, the Okanagan campus.

Dr. Lutes applauds the development of the primary care networks, and

she applauds the development of primary care clinical pharmacist programs.

So she wants our government to build on this progress.

Joining us with Dr. Lutes is Alexina Picard. She is executive director

of the B.C. Psychological Association, who is doing the incredible work,

along with Dr. Lutes, to help many people in British Columbia who are

dealing with mental health issues.

My last but not least very special guest is Dr. Simon Elterman. He is

a psychologist and behavioural health consultant at the Hope to Health

Research and Innovation Centre, the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

He’s also on the advocacy committee at the B.C. Psychological Association.

Dr. Elterman has already helped over 2,000 clients in the Downtown Vancouver

Eastside.

Would the House please join me to make my guests feel welcomed and

thank them for their incredible contributions to improving people’s health

and mental well-being.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Thank you for that. In case you didn’t know, now your LA can

produce a souvenir package that you can have all that written and give

to your guests.

All right, Bill 21. We passed clause 32 after the division vote

yesterday. Now we’re on 33.

Clauses 33 and 34 approved.

On clause 35.

Hon. S. Robinson: Can we ask for a recess? We have to bring in a different

minister.

The Chair: You may ask. We’ll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1:15 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister, would you like to introduce your staff?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair. I have Mary Shaw, assistant deputy

minister of cannabis, consumer protection and corporate policy; and Byron

Plant, the senior policy and legislation analyst in cannabis, consumer

protection and corporate policy.

The Chair: Clearly, they haven’t been here for 30 years like

yourself.

M. Morris: This could be fairly quick, to the minister. This Bill 21 before us is

a bill to amend a previous bill that came before this House in 2019 to amend

a bill from 2004, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. So I’m

just curious. Perhaps the minister can explain the delay in bringing those

amendments into force from 2019, other than I do see that one provision was

brought into force dealing with a consumer advancement fund to charge

industry additional fees.

If the minister could just go into some of the rationale for the delay

and what kind of feedback he received from industry in the interim that

might have influenced the amendments that are before the House

today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. There was no feedback from

industry. The reality is that these technical amendments need to be made

before it could be brought into force. As the member will know, having sat

on this side of the House, getting legislation through often takes a bit of

time, and that’s why it’s here where it is now.

M. Morris: So the only reason for the delay, then, is just that there wasn’t time

to put this together and that these amendments now just address the

timelines that are critical in bringing this legislation in force? That was

the only reason?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s a combination of things. One has been the development of the

regulations. That has obviously taken some time. At the same time, of

course, it is that this has to pass before the regulations can be

proclaimed. Of course, as you know, legislation works its way up with every

other ministry, but it is here now. Our intention is with the passage of

this, those regulations will be in place for the spring.

Clauses 35 to 38 inclusive approved.

On clause 39.

J. Sturdy: Chair, I don’t know if there are Transportation Ministry staff that

need to be here, or the minister. Or is the Solicitor General going to take

questions?

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1:25 p.m. to 1:36 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister, would you like to introduce your team?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you. With me, I have Steve Haywood and Anthony Hamilton from the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

I’m happy to answer questions.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the Solicitor General for stepping in. It’s

Transportation and Infrastructure, not highways. I think we are showing that

30-year perspective.

But I did sit on the special committee to deal with ride-hail, and I

recall this conversation with regard to this proposed amendment around

delaying the review. It was an interesting discussion. It’s an important

component to the future of ride-hail in the province of British Columbia and

to taxis.

But I suspect…. I know, to some degree, the answer here as to why the

delay. I don’t expect that this is driven by anecdote. I would expect

there’s some data behind it, and I wonder if the minister could help us

understand what the data is that suggests that we need a delay.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I’ll make two comments. First off, the

change is based on a recommendation of the committee, which I think the

member is obviously familiar with. The reason for that was because we needed

to get a full set of data over a year where there is, in essence, a normal

level of service and data that can be obtained.

The reality is that COVID has impacted on that significantly, so

that’s not possible. That’s why that recommendation was made to extend into

2022. That’s why you see the amendment here before you today.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister give us some sense of what the impact has been on

TNS and the taxi industry over the course of the last 20 months?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. It would come as no surprise, I think, to

any of us that COVID has had a significant impact on the taxi and ride-hail

industry, starting in May of 2019, particularly until things have started to

open up more. I can tell you that the independent passenger board

estimated…. They did a report, and they estimated that business dropped by

about 80 percent. Obviously, that is significant.

J. Sturdy: I believe that to be correct. The minister is correct there in terms

of an 80 percent drop for a period of time. What’s the current state of

affairs? How long was the duration of that drop? Where are we at right now,

both with taxi as well as TNS?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member that it has improved. There is not a baseline,

and what we’re hearing from the experts is that ride-hailing has probably

picked up more than taxi service has. I think all of us recognize that in

terms of the taxi industry, they are heavily reliant, traditionally, on

international travel. So as that dropped off, obviously that impacted

significantly.

Now the borders are starting to open up, and we’re starting to see a

return. Obviously, we would hope to start to see an improvement. But that’s

what I can tell the member at this point.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister let us know whether that recovery…? I think we’re

at about, overall aggregate…. About 8 percent down is the number I recall

hearing. Is that recovery equal across the province? Or are the impacts

greater in certain parts of the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, the member is correct that different parts of the province have

experienced a variation in reductions. Obviously, in terms of the Lower

Mainland, which is where ride-hailing, TNS, is located, that’s where that

impact was felt — and again, significant impact in the Lower Mainland in

terms of the taxi service.

Outside of the Lower Mainland, that decline, the impact on taxi

services, varied — we estimate between 15 and 35 percent — depending on

different parts of the province. Some of it is obviously related to COVID

and the impact of COVID. That’s what I can share with the member at this

point.

J. Sturdy: The proposed amendment is for an 18-month extension until the

assessment needs to be completed — or, I guess, begun.

[1:45 p.m.]

Why 18 months? Do we have enough of a normalization to obtain the

information? I recognize that this is forecasting, but are we confident that

this is the right period of time? Why 18 months?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yep. We are confident that this is an appropriate amount of time,

particularly when you see where we are in terms of recovery within B.C. Like

anything, it obviously is, as you said, a forecast. But given what we’re

seeing right now in the province and then over the next 18 months, we think

that this is an appropriate amount of time to be able to get the data that I

think we all want to see.

J. Sturdy: Associated with this, there has been a delay in the processing of TNS

and taxi applications. I believe there are quite a number of them before the

PTB, and the PTB has chosen not to advance any of them at this point. The

timeline for processing these applications is unknown.

Could the minister comment on that, perhaps? Recognizing, of course,

that the PTB is an independent or quasi-independent body, could we give the

proponents some confidence that their applications will be processed in the

not-too-distant future, as they have been in abeyance for quite some

time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There has been a report

commissioned by Dr. Hara, who is a noted expert in the taxi, ride-hail and

transportation sector. It’s prepared for the board, in terms of looking at

the impact of COVID.

The member is correct that the Passenger Transportation Board is an

independent body. I don’t have a specific, in terms of what they will be

doing in terms of timeline, but obviously this report is identifying the

impact that COVID has had. That clearly, I expect, would be one of the

issues that would be raised. The report will, obviously, assist the board in

making its decisions in having to deal with backlogs and ensuring that

applications are processed in a timely fashion.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister put on the record how many applications for TNS

since…? I guess it was — what? — 2019 when the legislation came into play.

How many TNS applications have been submitted? How many processed? How many

successful, and how many rejected?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We don’t have that information, but I’ll be happy to get that

information for the member.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. I think it’s important information,

especially in terms of the unsuccessful applications. The three-part test is

something that is fairly subjective, and it would be….

[1:50 p.m.]

I think it’s important to understand the impacts that test has on

applications and on communities that are looking for alternative

transportation solutions. The combination of the delays and the potential

for rejection are important, so I think it would be useful to have that

information.

Has the government considered that three-part test, and does it remain

an appropriate test currently and going forward?

The Chair: Just to remind members of the fines in caucus for phones to go

off. It’s much less if you self-confess than if you are ratted out by

your colleagues. [Laughter.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, that is an important question. It is one that the special

committee will be dealing with, and we look forward to the recommendations

they bring back on that particular issue.

J. Sturdy: Sorry. Just so I’m clear, the special committee has been re-formed, so

there will be a further discussion of transportation network services and

the taxi industry? I wasn’t aware of that. I probably should be.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the original legislation, the requirement for that special

committee to be established is set. Once this legislation goes through, then

the committee will be struck and will deal with the issues that the member

has just raised.

J. Sturdy: Just one last question I forgot to mention in terms of information.

Can we understand what the length of time of processing applications could

be — if that could be another piece of information? In other words, when an

application is submitted, how long is it taking to go through the

process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. Now, it’s a combination of two things —

one, the board being independent. So they will, obviously, make their recent

decisions, and it would have to be contacting them to get that information.

That being said, we would have the historical data from past years that we

would be able to share with the member.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for the answer. I think it is relevant in that the

government does appoint the board, and board resourcing can play a

part in

the length of time processes take. Does the minister know if the board lists

the reasons for rejection of an application?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they do. The decisions are listed, and they’re publicly

available.

Clauses 39 and 40 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee report the bill complete without amendment and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2021

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

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 22.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

T. Wat: It is my honour to again stand in this House and continue my

comments on Bill 22. As I said on Tuesday before we adjourned the

debate, we are seeing a bill that not only fails to address many of the

inherent faults with this government and the release of public

information; it seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

That is why, since the bill was introduced on Monday by the

Minister of Citizens’ Services, this NDP government has been under fire

by the media, by organizations and by professionals who are concerned

about the lack of transparency and accountability from government — as

well as the average British Columbian.

Let me quote a sample of comments to enlighten and, hopefully,

wake up the Premier, the minister and all members of this government. I

have found that the

article posted by Rob Shaw really sums up the

behaviour of this government so well that I will take time to read out

parts of the article.

Rob Shaw said, on October 19, “For many years, if you wanted to

find a champion of open government in B.C. who would rail against the

shadowy politicians in Victoria that used every trick in the book to

keep the paper trail of their decisions secret, you end up talking to

one guy: the B.C. NDP leader,” the current Premier. The then NDP leader

“would hold court in the hallways of the Legislature, promising anyone

who would listen that if he were ever in charge, he would never do the

‘outrageous’ things the B.C. Liberals did to hide government information

from the public through ‘pathetic’ barriers, fees, delays, mass record

deletion and obfuscation.”

This is a quote from the Premier in 2015: “People need to

understand that it is not just about politics. We’re supposed to have

freedom of information so the public understands why their government

was making decisions on their behalf.” But that was back then, when the

current Premier was opposition leader.

This week the Premier sat quietly in the Legislature while his

Citizens’ Services Minister tabled a bill that would add steep new fees

to access government information, a move far more harmful to

transparency than the things that used to tick him off in opposition.

One of the reasons for the new fees is to combat what the NDP government

considers abuses of the system.

[2:00 p.m.]

Another journalist, Les Leyne of the Times Colonist , said

on October 20: “Here’s a tip. Don’t bother. A bill this week makes it

clear the government does not care what the committee does or says. Any

further meetings would be a waste of time.”

Jon Woodward, a CTV Toronto reporter, on Twitter, in his tweet on

October 18, said: “I can’t count the number of times we interviewed

outraged then-opposition B.C. NDP MLAs over some scandal about the

governing Liberals that we had discovered via freedom of information.

Now in government they are putting a tremendous bottleneck in the system

that keeps them accountable.”

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Now I would like to really touch on why we see Bill 22 as a step

in the wrong direction. Firstly, this bill does not include provisions

to prevent documents from being destroyed prior to FOI requests. This

means that if somebody destroys records because they think they might be

of interest and so wants to eliminate them before any request can be

made, there’s no offence for that in this legislation.

Government is claiming that this legislation is to align our

province with other jurisdictions. But this offence is listed in

Alberta’s legislation but is conveniently missing in this

one.

On the topic of aligning our province with other jurisdictions,

let’s talk about the FOI application fee. The minister is trying to sell

this as a nominal fee to recoup the costs associated with filling this

request, but it is all too clear that this is nothing of the sort. Not

only does she misunderstand the process of FOIs, but it also is

incredibly disingenuous to try to say that this fee will not be a

barrier to people seeking to acquire the information they have a right

to access.

Five dollars per request adds up when you have to ask for the same

piece of information across ministries, health authorities or school

districts. Yet the general consensus is that this government is looking

to charge $25, 400 percent more than the fees in Ontario or federally.

This $25 application fee would most certainly not align with other

provinces but will make accessing public records in B.C. one of the most

expensive endeavours in the country. Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince

Edward Island each charge only $5, while the five other provinces charge

nothing at all.

Let me quote Jon Woodward, the CTV Toronto repor­ter, again

on Twitter on October 18. He said: “I’ve been singing the praises of

B.C.’s FOI system here in Ontario because a lack of fees makes it truly

open, which breeds a strong culture of openness.”

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

to hold government accountable. Not just the media and the opposition

but private citizens as well. I would remind the House that this Premier

started the school year by hiding details on outbreaks in schools from

parents. He said he didn’t want to stress them out. He forced parents to

crowdsource work and put in their own time, in case they were not busy

enough already, to find out if there were cases in their child’s

school.

Who will be impacted by this fee? Parents requesting COVID data

information for their children in schools, sons and daughters trying to

find data on long-term-care homes for their elderly parents, small and

independent journalism publications trying to acquire and convey

government information to their hometowns.

That’s part of the issue. It is a citizen’s right to access this

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

because they find it too much work and too much of a political risk to

allow them that access.

[2:05 p.m.]

The change in this bill would make it easier for government to

hide information from citizens, something that should be worrying for

every single one of us in this House. I’m just talking about the issue

of government information. We are talking about the safety of personal

information as well. Government has also stated that they would be using

this bill to update data residency provisions to allow modern tools.

Data storage will now take place in jurisdictions outside of B.C. and

even Canada. We will, in essence, be entrusting British Columbians’ data

with foreign authorities in foreign jurisdictions.

We are now talking about the digitization of data and cloud

storage, which we know from history is not impervious to data breaches.

How can we ensure data protection and privacy in other jurisdictions are

maintained when government won’t even provide us with further details

like what jurisdiction this government intends to allow the storage of

B.C. data? What security measures will be in place to ensure the privacy

and protection of our personal data?

We are talking about British Columbians’ personal information but

also their access to vital government information that they have an

inherent right to. Yet this bill leaves far too many provisions to be

sorted out after the legislation has passed. They are once again

iterating the all-too-common phrase of “You just have to trust us,” when

this very legislation displays government’s extreme distrust of the

public.

Even many ministers and MLAs of the NDP government made public

comments, when they were actually in opposition, against putting

obstacles against this FOI. Let me try to quote a few of them. My

colleagues previously have quoted the Premier a number of times, but I

think it doesn’t hurt that I repeat it once again so that we all know

what the Premier said when he was in opposition.

On October 30, 2015, the Premier said: “I think all British

Columbians should be concerned when their government hides things from

them…. The whole point of having access to information is so we can all

make reasonable judgments about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of

our political leadership.” There are quite a number of quotes from the

Premier, but I tried to give a sample of it.

Now let me quote the current Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation when he was an MP in Ottawa. He said, on June 30,

2019:

“Access to information sounds like a good idea when one is in

opposition and can use it as a tool. But when in government, it is

expensive and is a pain. The public servants do not like it, and one

certainly does not like seeing embarrassing information, to which the

public has a right, nevertheless on the front pages of the Globe and

Mail or Le Devoir . That is a reality facing every

government, from left to right to centre. I understand that. But when

our courts say it is a quasi-constitutional right to know and the

government takes half measures, at least some measures that are

considered regressive, then it is a question we have to ask.”

That’s why we are asking.

[2:10 p.m.]

The current Health Minister. His quote was found in an

article by

Rob Shaw in the Daily Hive . “Premier’s Transformation from Hero

to Villain on Open Government.” The Health Minister said: “Exorbitant

fees are obstructionist tactics intended to dissuade FOI requests.” When

I’m reading all these comments, I wonder what our minister and members

from this government are thinking when they were talking one thing and

now behaving another way.

Another one that I would like to quote is Ujjal Dosanjh. He was

the 33rd Premier of B.C. when he was the NDP Premier. He had a Twitter

just recently on October 20. “The proposed fee disappointing. Fond

memories of working with Michael McEvoy, Gabelmann and Barry Jones on

the law before it went to the cabinet.”

There’s another minister, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development. This is from

Hansard . Thank God we can get Hansard without paying,

if this bill is passed, well, any fee. Otherwise, whenever we tried to

quote anything from Hansard , we’d have to pay $25 for every

single word we dug up from Hansard . So we’ll try to take as

much as we can now that it’s free.

On October 18, 2011, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development said:

“Fees have always been an issue for many who have submitted

freedom-of-information requests. The fee

schedule will not be adjusted

with this bill. It does nothing to ensure equity of access to

information. If you have access to the required funds, you can get

information, but if you don’t, you’re out of luck, unless you get a

sheet that’s totally blacked out. Again, people can appeal the fees. But

we have heard many examples of delays and even where the appeals have

been denied and have increased….

“No wonder we hear the cry from the 99 percent in this province —

that they want to be heard. It’s the 1 percent who have the means to pay

for the information, but rarely do they need it. It’s the 99 percent who

need it and can’t afford it. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund appealed a

fee estimate of $24,000. In response, the ministry increased its fee

estimate to $173,000.”

The public consensus is very clear, even though, from the comments

that I read out from many of the current ministers who used to be in

opposition, even though they’re the minister…. It’s also quite clear

that Bill 22 tramples on a citizen’s right to access information about

their government. It puts up new barriers to transparency when we should

be tearing them down. It is a challenge to the democratic system that

keeps our government accountable to the people they’ve sworn to

serve.

Before I finish, let me see where I can dig up the information,

because there is so much information lying around. This is the last

part

I’d really like to focus on — that government is also making some very

concerning decisions about certain institutions it is choosing to keep

out of the scope of FIPPA. For example, they have added the B.C.

Association of Chiefs of Police but not InBC. InBC is a

half-a-billion-dollar investment fund of taxpayer money. Yet government

has once again conveniently kept it far out of the field of public

scrutiny.

[2:15 p.m.]

What’s more, the Premier’s office has also now been removed from

the scope of the act. The Premier’s office is now being removed as a

public body under

schedule 2. According to the Information and Privacy

Commissioner, government believes that it is not necessary to be

included in

schedule 2. However, he notes: “This is not, with respect,

clear in law or constitutional convention, and this change would

introduce, at the very least, uncertainty in the application of the

law.” The commissioner is calling for the provision to be deleted from

the bill to ensure that transparency and accountability provisions apply

to the Premier’s office without any confusion.

This government gave a $3.3 million funding increase for the

Premier’s own office. As the head of government, the Premier should be

subject to the same openness, transparency and accountability that is

expected of our government and public institutions. To now exempt the

Premier’s office from scrutiny and accountability is an insult to all

British Columbians, to every single one of us in this House and to our

democracy.

Since I still have a few minutes left, I’d like to also bring up

another area of concern when it comes to considering information

requests, to deal with a project of extreme importance to motorists in

the city of Richmond, which I represent, as well as south of the Fraser.

That’s the replacement of the aging Massey Tunnel. This government

quashed a plan for a ten-lane bridge to replace the tunnel. Instead, an

eight-lane tunnel is coming. So we requested information to justify this

decision, which will mean that taxpayers will pay more and get

less.

Well, the full Massey Tunnel report isn’t being released. British

Columbians are getting dribs and drabs of information instead of the

whole story. Again, people want to know why a tunnel, rather than a

bridge, which should have been in place next year, solving all the

traffic congestion if this government had not cancelled the

already-in-place implementing of the bridge project. Where’s the risk

analysis? Where’s the value-for-money analysis? How much extra is it

going to cost to hire the Premier’s political friends to build it? Will

this project stand any chance of getting through a federal environmental

assessment process?

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might draw your attention, we’re on Bill

T. Wat: Yes, I’m using this to justify why we are objecting to Bill 22,

because that might be putting obstacles for us, as the opposition, and

also for the media and for the general public to get to the bottom of

government decisions. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your reminder. I’m not

trying to stray away. I’m just citing an example. Thank you.

The information is blacked out, unavailable, not for public

consumption. It leads one to believe that the Premier might be ashamed

of his decision and is playing politics, withholding information so that

he won’t have to face the heat. In the meantime, as the Premier

continues to play politics, drivers continue to be the biggest losers in

this situation. They will continue to be stuck in traffic for up to

another decade — missing medical appointments, missing the ferry,

getting their kids to soccer practice late, not getting goods to where

they need to be — impacting the people’s lives and our economy for years

and years to come.

I really hope that the government will listen to British

Columbians and take this bill back to the drawing board, so that we can

ensure that the legislative changes to the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act will actually serve as a step forward for

transparency and accountability in our province, not a step

back.

[2:20 p.m.]

I can’t find it, but I remember what Vaughn Palmer said is that

there are so many shredders in the Premier’s office that hopefully this

bill can be put into the shredder and started all over again, listening

to the commissioner’s advice.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Penticton.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. I think the opportunity

to be given, to be able to be in this chamber…. I’m incredibly

fortunate, like each and every one of us are in here, to be elected from

our home communities and areas that we represent to represent the people

of those areas to the best of our ability.

I really want to thank those people for giving me the opportunity.

Those that showed up to vote, those that voted for me, those that didn’t

vote for me were there, as we all know. Our offices are there for each

and every one of the individuals, the citizens of the communities that

we represent. I’m so fortunate to represent the areas of Peachland,

Summerland, Penticton, Naramata and the regional areas in

between.

I, like each and every one of us in here, have a great amount of

respect for those citizens that we represent, and we listen to them. We

are in constant communication, have our ear to the ground and bring

their concerns — bring their ideas, bring their chastisement of the way

that we maybe handle ourselves in here sometimes — to this Legislature,

the House of the people of British Columbia.

It is always an honour, not only to be in here but to be able to

stand and discuss something that’s incredibly important to democracy, in

my opinion. Mr. Speaker, my comments today will be to you, but also

through you, not only to those members that are in here from the

government but to those members that are absent — specifically to the

executive committee, to the Premier and those around the Premier —

because I really, really think they need to listen to what is being said

about this bill.

Freedom of information. Isn’t that interesting — freedom? It’s not

opportunity for the people that we represent to address their concerns,

to obtain their concerns and to be able to present their concerns, which

they do in government, and how government handles those. Government, in

my opinion, has a responsibility. It has to be open. It has to be

transparent.

We’ve all heard the Premier talk about transparency. We’ve heard

him talk about cooperation and collaboration. Again, addressing this

bill is a perfect opportunity for the noise that he is hearing about it,

not only from members of the opposition, not only from members of the

iceberg.

When I get home tomorrow…. I would think that when many of us get

home, we are going to hear about some of the concerns that are being

addressed in our communities about the operation of government. I, like

many in here, came out of municipal and regional government. I’ve always

tried to do my best to ensure that that information…. And I fully

realize that there are things that have to be discussed in committees,

in council chambers, around a board table, at the regional district or

have to be discussed in the area that we’re calling home at this point

in time, the Legislature and our caucuses, that are confidential in

nature, up to a point.

[2:25 p.m.]

But when decisions are made, the realization of why those

decisions have to be made should be able to come forward. That’s what

freedom of information gives the populace of British Columbia, gives the

citizens of British Columbia. It gives them the opportunity to see why,

as people that represent all of the citizens of British Columbia within

this Legislature, we made those.

Again, it’s not only government, the opposition and the Third

Party. We stand in unison more often than not about decisions that the

government has brought forward for approval of this House. Sometimes we

don’t, and sometimes there are specific reasons why we have gone against

recommendations from the government. But that infor­mation needs

to be available.

For me, access to information and freedom of access…. It may seem

that it’s a fundamental right. But there are many people who think,

rightly or wrongly, it is for their own good that it’s hidden. There was

a gentleman by the name of Alberto Gonzales. Freedom of information is

just not an important part of democracy; it is democracy.

Any time citizens’ funds are used and spent in any way, the

citizens must be able to not only track those funds but must be able to

hold those who utilize them accountable. There’s no exceptions —

absolutely no exceptions — to that rule that should be utilized, in any

way, to keep information away from the citizens, again, that we

represent.

In my opinion, if you think that you live in a democracy and you

don’t have the freedom of information, it’s not a democracy. I really

think the government — the New Democratic Party of British Columbia —

should seriously consider not only what it’s hearing from the speakers

in here today and the previous day and what will probably be transpiring

over the next few days, not only what they’re hearing from those in the

media, but they have to listen to what the citizens of British Columbia

are saying, what I’m hearing.

Again, on the new formats of information that we all have

Facebook and through Twitter — it’s sure giving an indication that

people are not happy with the direction that is appearing to be taking

place under Bill 22 for the freedom of information.

So it’s not just a forethought. I really, really think that it’s

an opportunity for the government to put their feet down, to say: “Hold

on a second. We’re hearing loud and clear from the people of British

Columbia that there are issues with our proposal.” Maybe it was brought

forward in the best intentions, but unfortunately, when one not only

reads between the lines but one actually reads the bill, there are some

thoughts that should go back to the government of some serious concerns

that the government’s bill appears to have in it.

Just an introduction for myself and for others, or for myself to

say, is that this bill is being tabled at a really concerning time in

our province’s history. Never in most of our livelihoods have we ever

faced a pandemic like what is transpiring in the province today. We have

an economy that…. It’s been a bloodbath, especially in the smaller towns

of British Columbia, especially for people, like my past, that have been

in small business. I have watched the decimation of Main Street. It’s

not just restaurants. It’s stores that have always been there to purvey

goods and to purvey services to the citizens of the community. They’ve

been devastated.

I really think that issues that government is bringing forward and

trying to do their best on have to have the opportunity at a specific

time to be purviewed by the citizens. FOIPPA, I say, is there to ensure

that government is accountable to the people of British Columbia. As we

all know, that is incredibly important. Us, as legislators…. The minute

that we’re not accountable, the minute that we’re not respectable, and

the minute that we cannot show the citizens from where we are elected….

The minute that transpires, well, I’ll make you a bet. We ain’t coming

back here, and it will probably happen a lot quicker than what we

think.

[2:30 p.m.]

This bill is also here to ensure that British Columbians’ personal

information and privacy is protected when it’s used within and

externally from government. I will try and address this a little bit

later, about some of the concerns that I have about the storage of

information that could possibly be taken outside of this

province.

I will never, ever forget, under the former Minister of Health and

the former government, where there was a concern about information being

held outside of the province. The howls of protest — and I say this

respectfully — that came from the opposition at that the time were

justified.

That information — our information — belongs to the people of

British Columbia, and it should stay in British Columbia. It should not

be kept, transferred, utilized outside of the province of British

Columbia for other means other than what the government has dedicated

that information to be kept for.

That’s incredibly important — I know that we can’t use props —

especially today. When we have information so handy today for each and

every one of us, whether it’s through our cellphones or whether it’s

through our iPads or our computers, oh my gosh, information is flying

around the world at a rate that is unprecedented. Unfortunately, there

are some that would love to have their hands on some of that

information. I am adamant that any information of the citizens of

British Columbia must be kept in British Columbia.

I do question the government’s motives sometimes about

transparency and accountability. Again, I hold the Premier — all

Premiers — I hold each and every one of us in this Legislature to the

highest extent of how and why we do our jobs. I know that 100 percent of

us in here do our best on a continual basis. It has been said on

numerous occasions about cooperation and transparency, protectionism and

that. I know we try our best on it, but sometimes the flag goes up, and

the flag, to me, right now is Bill 22. I cannot help but wonder if

there’s a bit of skullduggery going on. I really do. I hope there isn’t

skullduggery.

I sit at a person’s desk, again, that I had a lot of respect for.

He’s a former member. His name is in here. I know we’re not supposed to

use names, but I am going to use a saying he had, and it was

“jiggery-pokery.” I would hesitate to say that under that former

member’s comments there’s a little bit of jiggery-pokery going on with

this particular bill. That’s my opinion.

British Columbians — again, the media and members of the

opposition — have waited months, sometimes years, and years is a big….

It doesn’t just extend to the current government. I really think that

all governments are going to have to get better. Information these days

is like this, and that information to get back out to the people that

need that information, needs to be as quick. It needs to be put back out

through freedom of information, through requests of government, and we

have to work on that.

When we start talking about costs, we have heard from some about

the costs of putting freedom-of-information requests together. I think,

in my opinion if we were more open, if we were more transparent, if we

were more collaborative, if we were more cooperative in this House, the

people that work for government…. If we were all of those things, we

could get that information out a lot quicker, without the costs that

governments, plural, have had to bear for freedom-of-information

requests.

I think if the public just realized the in-depth work that has to

take place when a freedom-of-information request comes in, and how it’s

disseminated to various ministries and how it has to be looked up and

every word and everything has to be checked on it…. There is a lot of

work that is involved in it. But again, through those four things that I

talked about — cooperation, collaboration, being transparent and being

more accountable, we can make a difference in that.

[2:35 p.m.]

In my opinion, I think governments know very well what they’re

doing, and I really think that government should listen to the task

force. Governments should listen that fees are a barrier. Governments

should listen — and I’m saying it plural — listen to the all-party

Legislature committee that was struck in June. It was just trying to get

underway. Our peer from the Third Party had brought an issue and a

concern forward. We really, really need to listen to that

committee.

There is an opportunity, over this period of time, maybe to park

the bill just to get that information and to get that opportunity for

the citizens to put their ideas and their concerns forward to the

committee. Again, that could come forward and also be worked through

with Bill 22 for the government so that they can actually hear from the

people that we represent what their ideas and their concerns might be on

this.

We have a gentleman that we hired, an incredible independent

officer like all of our independent officers. He wrote a letter, eight

pages, of concern. Michael McEvoy has a lot of respect in his line of

work and also with everybody in the Legislature. When an individual like

that, who has no partisanship whatsoever…. He is here to ensure that the

people of British Columbia’s rights are looked after through the

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

When he comes forward with an eight-page letter, which was

publicly put out yesterday…. I commend him for that. Not only did we get

to see, but it was put out so that everybody in this province could have

a quick look at it.

He gives the government some accolades. He says that he welcomes

the new requirements relating to privacy impact assessments, the new

privacy breach notification rules and the duty for public bodies to

manage privacy programs. The inclusion of snooping offences is also a

positive step in the right direction. Some of the extensive amendments,

through 2011, that this bill has are starting to keep pace…. I mean,

B.C. has always been a leader, but it’s starting to keep pace with other

jurisdictions across Canada.

He has some major concerns. An overriding concern with Bill 22 is

the unknown impact of the key amendments because their substance will

only be filled through regulation. That’s something I want to say.

There’s nothing there…. We know nothing about that. The government is

putting a bill forward, and regulations are going to be dealt with

after. We haven’t seen those regulations, and the people of B.C. haven’t

seen those regulations.

His greatest concern is in relation to the approvals for appeal of

data residency requirements, what I talked about and I’ve been adamant

about. I’m sure everybody — I would think; I would hope — in here is

adamant that our personal information that we have, that follows us

around for the rest of our lives and will follow us around even after

we’re dead and gone a long time, our families…. We want to make sure

that that information is kept safe. It has to be kept safe.

I would encourage all governments to ensure that when we do take

information from the citizens of British Columbia, we store that

documentation and that information within our province for the

utilization of the people within this province. I don’t care if it’s

medical or if it’s other health issues or if it’s political issues we’ve

had or statements we’ve all had in the papers. Let’s just keep it at

home and make sure that it is safe and sound the way it should

be.

The privacy officer says that it’s routine for governments to

disclose draft regulations for consultation and legislative scrutiny.

Really, he says that there is no legal or constitutional impediment to

doing so here. He urges the government to publish any draft regulations

or the detail of regulations for public comment. That should happen

before this bill is passed in this House. As a matter of fact, it must

happen before this bill is passed in the House.

[2:40 p.m.]

He also urges…. He’s a man incredibly well connected across not

only this wonderful country of Canada but around the world. He says, at

least, it is imperative that his office be consulted on those

regulations. Those regulations are going to make a difference. It’s not

just a bill that we’re going to pass in this House. The government can

pass it because of the majority, but the regulations that are going to

be put into effect are the ones that are going to concern individuals

like him and should concern the people of British Columbia.

No, they call it data residency. I apologize that I couldn’t

remember that before. But it has to align with the rules and the

regulations that this government is bringing forward. I really think

that I would concur with what he has said. He said: “Without real

assurances that meaningful protections will be put in place, this

proposal represents a step backwards by British Columbia at a time when

other jurisdictions are modernizing their data residency

requirements.”

Please, please, Mr. Speaker, through yourself to the government,

let’s listen to the Privacy Commissioner. Let’s listen to his staff.

Let’s listen to his peers across this wonderful world, and let’s ensure

that our information is protected.

He has brought some other concerns about criminal investigations,

and he has stated in here, there are important protections for British

Columbians. He says he notes, however, the proposed 36.3(3) would not

enable a public body to hold off notifying affected individuals or

disclosure of a breach could compromise a criminal investigation. He

really feels that that exception should be added.

Also, he feels that other entities as public bodies…. Again:

“There are no criteria governing when this should be done. The recent

concern about InBC Investment Corp. not being made subject to FIPPA — as

it clearly ought to be — is an example of why this change does not go

far enough.”

We heard one of my peers talk about this investment and the money

that the government is putting forward to try and make a difference in

British Columbia. But for goodness’ sake, let’s just make sure that

everybody in B.C., including all members of this Legislature — the Third

Party, the official opposition — have an opportunity to scrutinize the

investments of those public dollars that are being invested by the

provincial government for British Columbians. Let’s just make sure that

the availability is there to be a check and a balance in that

situation.

One of the big, big concerns of the privacy information officer

is:

“I am very concerned that Bill 22 would remove the Office of the

Premier as a public body under

schedule 2 of FIPPA. My understanding is

that the government believes this designation is not necessary, on the

basis that the Premier, a first minister, is a minister and therefore

his office is a ministry and is therefore covered by

schedule 1 in the

definition of ‘public body.’

“This is not, with respect, clear in law or constitutional

convention, and this change would introduce, at the very least,

uncertainty in the application of law. Moreover, I am not aware of any

harm flowing from the retaining of this designation, which obviously

begs the question as to why the change is being made when the outcome

is, again, not as clear as I am told government believes it is.

“The Office of the Premier lies at the heart of provincial

governance.”

The Premier, the person that we all actually look up to as the

leader of the government of British Columbia.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner: “I call on this

government to delete this proposal from Bill 22, for greater certainty

that FIPPA’s transparency and accountability provisions will continue to

apply, as they have for decades, to the Office of the

Premier.”

Boy, is that ever important.

There’s a lot in this bill. We have reams and reams of paper that

we have concerns about, that we will be addressing. My peers will be

addressing this on a continual basis. But, through yourself and then to

the Premier and to the executive committee of the NDP government, I

don’t think this is going away. I really do not think this is going

away.

[2:45 p.m.]

To be frank, in my opinion, the fee, the $25 fee, is a red

herring. I’ll never forget. I had a lawyer friend that would always hook

a red herring on a line and throw it out. If you took a bite of that

line, that red herring, he would play you all day. That was his

forte.

Right now the fees have the opportunity to be waived. Do I think

that there’s been abuse under freedom-of-information requests? I’ll say

yes, there has. I think all governments in the past, all current

governments, have possibly abused it. I think there are citizens out

there that fire these things in because they’re free on a continual

basis. There is a way that the minister, the ministry and the

freedom-of-information commissioner can address that.

So let’s just get rid of the fees. Let’s take a look, an in-depth

look, at what this bill is going to actually be doing to the people of

doing, what they’ve done and possibly may do in the future.

I’ve almost used my time up. I would like to close. I really want

to thank each and everybody in here. You are individuals, again, that I

know have a great cause and concern that you’ve been able to bring

forward to the constituents that have elected you. You’ve been

successful. We’re here.

I wholeheartedly believe that as the people’s House, we actually

work pretty good together, but I think we could work better together. I

would like to echo the words of the Premier, and I hope he means the

words that he said, where we need to be more transparent. We need to be

more accountable. We need to have more cooperation. We need to ensure

that what we do is the best thing possible, at the best time, for the

people of British Columbia.

I really hope that those words mean a lot to each and every one of

us. They do to me. They do to me because I know deep in our hearts that

we’d each like to do that, again, for the people that we

represent.

In closing, I would like to quote a man, Patrick Leahy. I think he

sums this up. This is to the people of this House, not the citizens

outside. It says that press releases tell us when government agencies do

something right; freedom of information let’s us know when they do

not.

I will leave those words with you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

thank you. I hope that you have a great weekend, and I look forward to

seeing you next week.

T. Halford: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill, Bill 22, the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment

Act.

Like the previous speakers on the opposition side, I do believe

that what we are seeing is an overreach. It’s an overstep. As some in

this House and others outside of this House have said, we are about to

take a massive step backwards with this piece of legislation.

Now, I understand the roles of opposition and the roles of

government. I do understand that when we come in here and we speak,

whether it’s for five minutes, 20 minutes, 25 minutes or half an hour,

we do often rely on a set of speaking notes. That’s fair.

I think, though, when we’re talking about an issue as important as

this one…. I think, maybe, when the government put this forward, they

didn’t realize the reaction that it would have endured — I would be a

little bit shocked by that — but what we’re seeing is there’s a

backlash, a public backlash. I think that’s appropriate.

When we have MLAs coming into this House and saying things like

the member for Langley said — that “British Columbians can take

heart…they have a government right now that cares about transparency,

that cares about freedom of information. That’s seen in this act” — I

don’t agree with that. I think my colleagues on this side of the House

wouldn’t agree with that. Furthermore, I would believe, in my heart of

hearts, in this place of democracy, that there are government MLAs that

don’t agree with that.

[2:50 p.m.]

But to come into this House and make a statement like that when we

are looking at implementing things like fees on basic

freedom-of-information requests…. I think it’s quite

disheartening.

We had the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour saying that this is

long overdue in being implemented and that we are bringing this in line

with other jurisdictions. We’re not. This is in line with one other

province. But to say other jurisdictions…. You can say “jurisdiction.”

That could be correct. But when you say “jurisdictions,” I don’t think

that’s accurate.

Furthermore, the member for Langley East said: “This is a small

fee to help offset some of the costs. That’s something that the

taxpayers, individuals that want to request their information, have

access to. Taxpayers also know that there’s a rising cost of government,

and sometimes you have to offset some of those.”

So what the member for Langley East is saying is that taxpayers

also know that there are rising costs of government, and sometimes you

have to offset some of those costs. Well, that’s a little bit troubling.

So we are going to offset the government costs with people trying to

access basic information that they have had a right to for years? That’s

how government is going to offset costs?

We’ve got another one here. Furthermore, this is the member from

Langley East:

“…today we’ve had some of these changes cast in such a way that,

like as I mentioned earlier, they’re obstructionist, they’re going to

put up a massive wall….

“The point is that you have to look at the larger picture and look

at the fact that organizations are dealing with so many changes, from

needing changes in the legislation to allow people to benefit from

technological advances but also dealing with the fact that there is a

real cost to some of the applications. That’s what this legislation

looks at. It looks at the necessary balance that needs…to be effective

in the role as government.”

I guess I wonder if that’s in somebody’s speaking notes or if

that’s just done on the fly. Because if we’re saying that we are going

to try and offset government costs with British Columbians trying to

access information that they’re entitled to, I just think it’s

undemocratic.

We even saw the Premier today in question period. He spoke about

transparency. He spoke about the fact that — I think it was an

off-the-cuff joke — we could come and take…. Who wants to see what’s on

the Premier’s computer? Well, if it’s a government device, a government

computer, I think British Columbians should have the right to know what

their government is doing, what their Premier is doing. I am sorry, but

I will not apologize if that is an inconvenience.

We have things in this House. We have Hansard , and I think it’s great that we can all look back and see what has

been said in the past. Some things I think we say in the past — I wonder

if it keeps us up at night, because we have to confront those words

later on in the future. I would say when we look at the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and comments that he made on

December 5, 2017, in parliament…. He says: “Canadians also need to know

that government has not abolished the $5 fee, which is a tollgate on

citizens’ right to access.”

Now, I understand that the legislation before us was probably

discussed and canvassed at a cabinet meeting. Maybe the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation took a coffee break or missed

it. I don’t know. But his quote is: “Canadians also need to know that

the government has not abolished the $5 fee, which is a tollgate on

citizens’ right to access.”

[2:55 p.m.]

Now, I just had a conversation with my son on his report card,

specifically on math. I am not one to lecture on math, but he’s talking

about a $5 fee. We’re talking about a 500 percent increase on the fee

that he was discussing on December 5, 2017.

Then I think almost a month earlier than that the Minister of

Indigenous Relations said in parliament: “This is really a simple one.

Section 11 of the act requires people to pay a fee, a tollgate fee on

the public’s right to know, of $5. It’s a tollgate fee which costs the

government, by testimony, if it’s a cheque, $55 to process. While it

seems bizarre in terms of the economics, it should also be seen as an

obstacle that doesn’t exist in most provincial freedom of information

laws.”

Well, I don’t know. It seems like a bit of a…. I guess we’re in

second reading. I’ll check to see if the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation has come to speak to this bill, because it

would be good to clarify the remarks that he has made in the

past.

I’ve got another one here. I want to make sure that I get the

right date. This is June 13, 2019, and this is the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation:

“Access to information sounds like a good idea when one is in

opposition and can use it as a tool, but when in government, it is

expensive and is a pain. The public servants do not like it and one

certainly does not like seeing embarrassing information, to which the

public has a right, nevertheless on the front pages of the Globe and

Mail …. That is a reality facing every government from left to

right to centre, and I understand that, but when our courts say it is a

quasi-constitutional right to know and the government takes half

measures, at least some measures that are considered regressive, then it

is a question we have to ask.”

I guess we could do a GoFundMe or a crowdfund or whatever they

call it and try and figure out if the minister asked any of these

questions. I don’t take a lot of comfort in the answers that we’d get

back, but I would hope that he would. Maybe we will have the opportunity

to have him come and speak to this bill and clarify his passionate and,

at times, accurate remarks regarding fees that we’re currently

discussing today.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

I think the public has an expectation that they have a right to

understand the inner workings of government. We, as an opposition, have

an obligation to hold governments accountable, as inconvenient as that

may seem at times. It’s a lot of work. It’s things through FOI and other

means…. The government of the day used this in the past, and the Premier

spoke quite passionately and glowing about it — and I’ll get to that in

a second — about his support for FOI.

Now we are seeing an attack on that, and I think it’s our

obligation to stand up and say that this is wrong. It’s through FOI that

we get items like this. I think it’s the Minister of State for Lands and

Natural Resource Operations. It’s through items like FOI that we get to

know the fact that, as of July 20, 2020, the minister of state received

just over $87,000 for work on behalf of the province at a rate of $250

an hour — currently billed 351.22 hours, $2,593.57 in expenses. Yeah, I

said at a rate of $250 an hour, maximum of $2,000 per day. That’s what

we get through FOI.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s important that the public realizes the work that the minister

of state is doing prior to seeking an election in October of 2020 and

then before that, months before, departing the federal government — or

actually, he was in opposition, so he would understand how FOIs

work.

It’s through that that we understand that on January 24, 2020, the

minister enjoyed sushi for four people for $73. Now, I’m not asking if

he had sashimi or nigiri or anything like that, or a California roll,

but on January 31, the minister of state had two pints of Last Cast. I

don’t know what that is. It sounds…. One pint of ISA and two fried

chicken servings — $25 worth of alcohol. The meal totalled $81.83.

Doesn’t say how many people were there.

I’m not asking if the fried chicken was extra-crispy or original.

I just think that people need to know that when people are working on

behalf of this government, we have a right — the public has a right, the

opposition has a right, the media has a right — to understand what is

going on.

Let’s just see what else we’ve got here. Just want to make sure

that I’m fair here. February 2, one pint of Blacksmith, one pint of Last

Cast — must be popular. Four guests. Total of $152. February 4, two

pints of Smithers Brown, a six ounce of Cab Sauv. Yeah, $141 dinner from

the taxpayers on February 4 and February 2.

Here’s another one. On contract No. 2, the minister of state got….

Somebody has got to tell me how we can get a gig like this. This is

February 8 to March 3. This is all through FOI, and this is what we’ve

received through FOI. Total contract of $41,000 for…. This must be

February 8 to March…. Is that a leap year? So we’ve got 22 — my math —

25 days?

Interjection.

T. Halford: I should call my kid.

Total contract value of 41,000 bucks. Hmm, okay. Professional

administrative and management support services. I got to check. I did

not see this on the minister of state’s LinkedIn file, but I can’t FOI

that.

Okay, this could be embarrassing. I get it. But it’s things like

this that we need to know through FOI, because if we don’t FOI it, this

isn’t posted on the government website. This isn’t on a Facebook page.

This is acquired through FOI.

Is the Minister of Labour going to speak to the bill too? Is he

going to come up after me?

I have 14 minutes, if….

Interjection.

T. Halford: Because this is through…. I want to hear you speak after me —

through the Speaker. Apparently the Minister of Labour is offering to

speak on this bill after me. I won’t be on House duty, but I will stay

to hear his remarks.

I understand that this is sensitive stuff that we’re talking

about. FOI — you get sensitive material. I am not judging the minister

of state for a sushi dinner, for a fried chicken dinner, for his taste

in lagers. I am just saying that that information comes through FOI, and

the public, if they are paying the bill, deserves to see that

information. You know who agrees with me? Or he did agree with me at the

time? The Premier.

His comments. This is the Premier on April 30, 2015: “I think all

British Columbians should be concerned when their government hides

things from them. The whole point of having access to information is so

we can all make reasonable judgments about the effectiveness or the

ineffectiveness of our political leadership.” Now, if the minister of

state ever decides to run for leader, I guess I can critique him on his

choices of lager. But we’re not doing that today.

[3:05 p.m.]

Another quote is from November 19, 2020. This is from the Premier:

“We are not hiding anything. We have been as transparent as any

jurisdiction in North America on a daily basis, for months giving

appropriate information to the public.” Well, that information will now

come at a price, right?

Here’s another one. This is December 2, 2020. “It is my view that

those requests” — from political parties — “are not designed to improve

understanding of the delivery of programs.” It’s not designed to ensure

that privacy infor­mation is protected. “They’re designed for

political benefit, and we’ll continue to work with that. I was a

beneficiary of that as an opposition member, so I understand

it.”

Well, then, what changed? This is less than a year. Obviously, the

Premier has had a massive change in heart when it comes to

transparency.

It’s times like this when I wonder if…. The Minister of Labour

spoke passionately a couple of seconds ago, and maybe he’ll speak again

and defend this. I get that it’s awkward.

Interjection.

T. Halford: If the minister wants the quotes, I can give him the quotes, and

he can read them back. That’s all good. But I will say this.

The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation spoke so

passionately in our nation’s capital about the protection of FOI. He

sits at the cabinet table, yet this happens. So what’s changed? What’s

changed with the Premier, where he spoke so passionately about FOI when

he was the Leader of the Opposition, when he was House Leader in the

opposition, when he was Premier of the province? Something has

changed.

Even the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour has said that the Privacy

Commissioner was consulted. Well, my kids consult me when they want to

go spend $200 on video games, and I tell them it’s a bad idea. My

expectation is that they may listen to my counsel.

You can consult all you want, but at the end of the day, if you

are not listening to the experts, that’s what we call a red flag. It’s a

red flag.

I think that when we’re looking at this legislation and we’re

talking about limiting British Columbians’ access to information through

fees, or trying to access information through the Premier’s office,

which apparently looks like it could be exempt…. That seems unique and

odd and a little bit troubling. Kind of makes you wonder what’s hiding.

I don’t know. We’ll find out through FOI.

I wonder, too, when we’re talking about the importance of….

Especially in this day and age. I think everybody in this House has

probably, at some time, had their information compromised. I get a phone

call from the CRA about once a day, telling me that there is going to be

a raid on my house. Then I hit 1, and the call magically gets

disconnected. But every minute, at every day, somebody’s information is

compromised.

It’s the Crown’s responsibility to do everything in their power to

try and protect some of that information. Does this bill do that? I

don’t think it does. Does it weaken that? I think it does.

[3:10 p.m.]

I will make the offer if somebody at the…. We’re new MLAs. The

minister of state — maybe there’s an opportunity, while we’re in

Victoria, that we can go and…. I like sushi too. I’m not a huge fan of

fried chicken, but I’ll do the sushi thing. I don’t drink, but I’ll buy

him a beer. It would probably be cheaper than me putting in an FOI to

try and figure out how a government that prided itself on transparency,

on openness could come to a decision like this. It’s troubling. It’s

egregious.

I think that we need to take a look back in self-reflection and

figure out what it is this government wants to accomplish with this

legislation.

Now, if you ask the member for Langley East, it may be to offset

government costs. In fairness to the member, she didn’t define what

those costs were. There are a lot of government costs right now. They

continue to rise. So I don’t know if it’s to offset those costs. I don’t

know if it’s to offset costs, whether they’re costs for an $87,000

government contract for a few months or a $41,000 contract for 25

days.

If it stops at those costs, then okay, maybe. But I think we

really need to reflect on what damage this legislation will do to the

democracy of this institution — the importance that British Columbians

have in terms of finding how this government is operating.

There have been some blunders with this government, and it’s not a

new government. But there have been some missteps. I understand that

those missteps are embarrassing. But there has also been some arrogance,

and I find this piece of legislation to be somewhat arrogant.

The fact is that this legislation would put the burden of these

costs on the people seeking that information, whether they be an

opposition party, whether they be the media, whether it be non-profits.

To put the burden of those costs on those organizations, I think, is

wrong. I think it’s undemocratic. I think that there may be a few

members of the government that agree.

Now, we all are stewards of these seats. We’re not going to hold

them forever. I would think that when we go back and we look at items

where governments have overreached and overstepped, this will be at the

top of the list if this legislation passes. But it doesn’t have

to.

I think it’s important to note that when you have a Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that spoke so passionately about

a tollgate of fares on the highway of information…. It is never the

wrong time to do the right thing. Somewhat embarrassing, sure. But you

know what? That’s better than getting this wrong.

Newsrooms don’t have the budget. We all know that. We all see our

local papers shrinking. We all see radio rooms shrinking. Budgets are

tight. We rely on the media, whether it’s good or bad. We rely on the

media, whether we agree or disagree. It’s important that those stories

be told. Some of those stories occurred through FOI. A lot of those

stories occurred through FOI.

[3:15 p.m.]

For the Minister of Labour…. I’m going to wrap up here in two

minutes, so if he does want to speak to it, I will cede my time. But I

do want to assure the House…. The fact is I think this is short-sighted

legislation. I think it’s got arrogant components. I think that we have

not properly taken the counsel of the experts, particularly the Privacy

Commissioner, who, in a fairly lengthy letter, critiqued this

legislation in a very, very harsh way.

I think that we still have the opportunity to do the right thing,

and I hope members on that side of the House — some of them sit on this

side of the House — will agree with me and have a sober second

thought.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and welcome to the

chair.

May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: Tomorrow marks a very important day in my life. It marks the 33rd

anniversary of the day on which I took my bride Georgina’s hand in marriage.

So I just wanted to wish Georgina a very happy 33rd anniversary. I’m not

going to be with her tomorrow, unfortunately. I’ll be down here doing

committee work.

Georgina and I have been blessed with an amazing family. We’ve got

four beautiful daughters and nine grandchildren, with No. 10 on the

way.

Georgina, I just want to tell you how much I love you, and thank you very much for the

amazing family that you’ve provided for me. Happy anniversary.

Debate Continued

G. Kyllo: Now for the exciting and the fun part of the day.

Bill 22. Wow. Why are we here? Who’s asking for this? Who was

asking for this piece of legislation, with all of the very important

pieces of legislation that British Columbians are looking for? Why is it

that we are taking time to talk about Bill 22 today?

We have a commissioner that has the sole responsibility for

upholding the laws of British Columbia when it comes to freedom of

information and protection, yet that very individual was not adequately

consulted with respect to this legislation. So I can’t help but ask

myself: who was asking for this? Why are we actually debating a bill on

very harsh and damaging changes to our existing freedom of information

and protection legislation?

I certainly have not heard any news articles, any stories. There’s

certainly been nobody coming to my constituency office expressing any

concerns. I kind of wonder: why this is so important on government’s

agenda that they’re taking time out of this legislative calendar to

bring forward amendments that have had such scathing criticism by

mainstream media and the very commissioner who was appointed to uphold

the laws in this province?

You know, I really do hope that there’s nothing nefarious going

on, but I can’t help but wonder: what is the motivation of government to

move this piece of legislation forward this week?

We know that there have been many bills tabled that British

Columbians have been looking for. I heard, in question period earlier

today, a question asked of the Premier: what are the reasons why the

Premier announced the snap election last fall, which caused considerable

hardship to British Columbians, postponed the delivery of funds that

were needed by businesses across the province with the circuit breaker

grants?

The Premier pointed to a piece of legislation, the safe care

protection act, and the fact that he did not have unanimous support in

this House — that that was the reason that his relationship with the

Greens was apparently falling apart, and that was the reason by which he

called a snap election.

[3:20 p.m.]

Yet here we are, 12 months later, and we still haven’t seen this

legislation. The broader consultation was promised over a year ago. We

still haven’t seen it.

Governments have choice. I understand. I get that. But when you

have the Premier of this province and the current government trying to

hang their hat on the reason for the snap election last fall being the

fact that the safe care act did not have the support that was necessary

to bring it forward in this House…. Yet a year later, 12 months later,

we’re still standing here, waiting to see that important legislation

that could actually save the lives of British Columbians.

Again, who is asking for these changes? The whole tenet of

democracy is based on trust and transparency. It’s not a dictatorship.

British Columbians deserve to have the ability to understand why

government is making the decisions that they undertake. None of these

are easy, but government has a duty to actually share with British

Columbians why they are acting in the manner that they are. What

information are they relying on around making their decisions? That is

very necessary for upholding and determining what the truth is and

providing the clarity to British Columbians to have a true and full

understanding of why government acts the way that they do and what is

driving their decisions.

As I stand here in the Legislature and look towards the members

opposite, there is likely a very solid reason why the government members

are not speaking to this bill. How do you defend the indefensible? How

does government stand up and take time to share with British Columbians

that this piece of legislation before us today…?

It erodes democracy, takes away transparency, impedes the ability

of British Columbians for accessing information. How is it this piece of

legislation is more important than all of the other many pieces of

legislation that different organizations and British Columbians are

looking for? It’s the absence of speakers on the government side which I

think really tells the tale.

This is a very sad day for British Columbians. You would certainly

think and appreciate that government, of all entities, would be taking

heed of the processes that are currently in place, to allow for that

transparency, to pro­vide that opportunity for broader public

consultation. The special committee was struck in June of this past year

with the sole purpose and the ability to actually undertake that very

necessary work. Yet the committee has sat for an entirety of two

minutes. Two minutes to appoint the Chair and the Deputy Chair, and that

is it. That is all the work that that committee has

undertaken.

The work of that committee…. The positions of Chair and Deputy

Chair come with a significant stipend. Maybe that was the reason that

the committee was struck, so that those individuals on that committee

were entitled to an increase in pay. But why has the work not started?

Why would government establish the committee and then, over the course

of the months of July, August, September and now into October, the

committee has not met, has not consulted, has not met with the existing

Privacy Commissioner?

The reason that these committees are available is to help to

undertake that work in a bipartisan way, with members both of government

members and opposition members, but that has not happened. The very

individual that has been appointed unanimously by this chamber, by this

government, by all members of the Legislature, to uphold the legislation

protecting the rights of individuals when it comes to protection of

information, the very individual who has been put in charge and placed

to uphold those laws, again, was not consulted.

[3:25 p.m.]

Even worse than that, even worse than the fact that the

consultation was not undertaken, he was blindsided by this piece of

legislation, was not even provided the advanced opportunity to review

the legislation and pro­vide input back to government before this

legislation hit the floor, the individual that’s charged with actually

undertaking to enforce and ensure that the legislation is followed. All

of these substantive changes that are set out in Bill 22 were not shared

with our Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Why would government not do that, even afford him the most

simplest courtesy? If it’s not our Information and Privacy Commissioner

that is giving the direction to government, who in government has

actually had their hand on this piece of legislation?

If the government is aware and can share with this House a list of

all of the wondrous individuals that have qualifications that surpass

our existing commissioner, and they’re the ones that were consulted in

order to help develop and draft this legislation, please share it with

us. I would love to hear. I think British Columbians would like to hear

who was actually directing government on these very substantive and

damaging changes to the current piece of legislation.

As we look to process, the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner tabled a letter yesterday addressed to Minister Beare, the

Minister of Citizens’ Services, setting out succinctly, over the course

of six pages, all of the concerns associated with this bill. The

commissioner indicates: “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 commissioner goes on to say: “The work of the special

committee is essential, as the committee is able to pull information and

consultations from a variety of sources, encouraging fulsome public

dialogue about proposed amendments.” He goes on to say: “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.”

In any relationship, what’s the most important tenet? Trust.

Government has a duty to ensure to the citizens of British Columbia that

that trust is not broken or breached. Trust starts with full disclosure

and government having the ability and the willingness to actually share

with British Columbians why they are choosing to make decisions as they

are.

I certainly appreciate that there are many discussions that are

subject to cabinet confidentiality. But the bulk of the work that drives

legislative change, changes that are supposed to be in the best

interests of all British Columbians, that direction also needs to be

shared with British Columbians. Just the fact that we’re here today with

a government, for reasons that are yet unknown…. We certainly haven’t

seen any firm direction being given by our Infor­mation and

Privacy Commissioner to effect these changes.

[3:30 p.m.]

The special committee that this government, the Premier himself,

actually, established back in June hasn’t met, yet they run in, in the

middle of fall session, to debate a piece of legislation that makes very

significant and damaging changes to the manner in which the public have

access to the information on how government is making

decisions.

Taxpayers in British Columbia already contribute approximately $70

billion a year — seventy thousand million dollars — to provide all of

the wondrous services that we rely on in this province. Taxpayers are

already paying for all of the staff in these ministries. It’s not

government’s money. Taxpayer dollars are what is paying for all of the

staff and all of these offices. The minister’s offices, the Premier’s

office — taxpayers are already paying. If there is a request for

information that goes forward to a minister’s office, those staff are

already being paid by tax dollars.

If it’s going to be bit of an inconvenience for them to maybe pull

up past documents to provide the opportunity for British Columbians to

better understand how they arrived at a set decision, so be it. That is

the way democracy works.

But for the member of Langley East to make the comment that this

is about cost recovery…. Please. That’s laughable. Estimated fees, from

my understanding, are around $150,000 a year. Now, the Premier gave

himself and his own office a $3 million lift this year — a $3 million

lift. Why? The justification? Who knows. We have yet to see it. Over 100

staff working in the Premier’s office, largely to project all the

wondrous values of the government and what they’re providing for British

Columbia.

We have a separate ministry called government communications and

provincial engagement that I believe has about a $30 million budget,

with approximately another 500 staff. Just in those two offices, that’s

600 employees whose job is to communicate to British Columbians all the

wondrous new projects and proposals that government is doing on their

behalf.

Now, do you think those 600 individuals might have the time and

opportunity to maybe provide a bit of detail and backup to British

Columbians? I certainly think they do. So cost recovery is a laughable

comment. It does impede access.

The role of an opposition is to hold government to account. How do

we have that ability to hold government to account? It’s through

inquiry. If, in making those inquiries, government chooses not to

disclose information, or should they choose to be selective in the

sharing of information, or should they choose to be, I guess, selective

by blacking out — we heard recently of one document; of 73 pages, 55

pages were blanked out — how is opposition, on behalf of British

Columbians, able to actually scrutinize and hold government to

account?

The very purpose of an opposition is to uphold the democracy and

to question government’s actions. I’m sure it’s uncomfortable for

government in many instances. But many of the government members,

including the Premier, sat in opposition and made very bold and strong

comments about the need to ensure full access to information. But boy,

things turn. Not a year into this current parliament with a majority, we

have a significant overreach of government.

[3:35 p.m.]

Some of the words and terms that I’ve heard that shed some light

on this piece of legislation: “selfish,” “truth suppression,” “a

deterrent,” “an obstacle to democracy,” “putting up roadblocks to reduce

access to information,” “undermining democracy.”

I’ll go back to the relationship that government has with the

citizens of this province. It’s an important relationship. I certainly

appreciate that not all British Columbians are always going to be

supportive of every initiative that a government undertakes, but at the

very least, government has a duty and obligation to share with British

Columbians the reasons why they’re moving forward in a certain

direction. Our job, the job of an official opposition, is to do just

that — to make those important inquiries through question periods,

through requests for information, so that we can better understand why

government is moving forward in the manner that they are.

Now, that letter that I referenced earlier — an approximately

six-page letter submitted by Mr. Michael McEvoy, the Information and

Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia — sets out, very succinctly,

many of the concerns with respect to the legislation that is before us.

Again, I just want to remind the viewers at home that might be listening

that this legislation was not vetted through the Privacy Commissioner’s

office. To my knowledge, he was not provided an advance copy or an

opportunity to have input into the drafting of the legislation, to

ensure that concerns that might be coming forward from his office were

actually addressed in this piece of legislation.

He set out, very succinctly, different headings on many of the

areas of concern. The first one: absence of information about key

regulations. The letter indicates: “An overriding concern with Bill 22

is the unknown impact of key amendments because their substance will

only be filled in through regulations, about which we know nothing.”

Well, the whole purpose of this chamber and this Legislative Assembly is

so that if there are going to be substantive changes, they can be

debated here in this House. It’s a sad day when government chooses to

allow themselves to make broad, sweeping changes through regulation

without the scrutiny of this Legislative Assembly.

Now, it’s not new for this government. We saw that last spring

with Bill 13, the paid-sick-leave legislation brought forward by the

Minister of Labour. There’s going to be a paid-sick-leave policy that’s

going to be placed and determined and set out for British Columbians on

January 1 of this coming year. We know nothing about it, because

government has given themselves the blank cheque, the ability to make

their own determinations, sitting around a cabinet table. Well, that’s

not transparent.

They’re talking of between three, five and ten days. I tell you,

for those listening at home, for ten days of paid sick leave, the cost

to the businesses, the employers in British Columbia, is upwards of $4

billion. Government is giving themselves the ability, through a piece of

legislation…. They hammered it through — with lots of opposition, too,

but they had the numbers — last spring. On January 1, this government

has decided, the scrutiny of this House doesn’t matter: “We’re going to

cast that to the wind. See, this chamber, this whole assembly, is a

nuisance.”

[3:40 p.m.]

The Premier and his cabinet are going to sit around a table, and

they’ll make their own determination on what kinds of additional costs

are going to be placed on the backs of B.C. businesses. As valid and

necessary as this legislation may be, they’ve chosen to take away the

opportunity of British Columbians for having that scrutiny and that

public dialogue. They’ve taken that away. They’ll make a decision around

a cabinet table. They’ll plead cabinet confidentiality, and businesses

in B.C. will just see the outcome of that decision.

We will not have the ability to even understand what it was that

was driving government’s decision. That’s an erosion of trust. I’m sad

to say the relationship with this government and with British Columbians

is quickly eroding and evaporating. It’s a disgusting abuse of power.

Don’t just take my word for it.

Data linking. It’s another change set out in this piece of

legislation. The Privacy Commissioner sets out and states in this

letter: “I support the proposed improvements to the provisions dealing

with data-linking initiatives, which had previously failed to capture

many types of data linking. The new definition of data linking and

related concepts would, in my view, capture the types of programs

anticipated in 2011, when the data-linking provisions were first

enacted.” In ten years — but nobody asked the Privacy Commissioner for

his input.

The commissioner goes on to say: “However, Bill 22 leaves the

details of how data-linking activities will be conducted to regulations,

about which we have no details.” Again, government is choosing to give

themselves the sole opportunity to make wide-sweeping changes and

regulations without the scrutiny of this House. Absolutely shameful that

the government is acting in this high-handed manner.

The letter goes on, speaking about data residency, proposed

privacy breach notification rules. In each of these points, although

there are some merits to some of the legislation and some of the

language, there are also many pitfalls, missed opportunities and, again,

concerns around the lack of transparency on what is driving these

decisions, what further decisions will be made through regulation and

what those broader impacts will be about the ability of British

Columbians to fully understand what government has undertaken and

why.

I spoke earlier about how the Premier’s office has had a $3

million budget lift in this last fiscal — $3 million. No scrutiny, no

real justification on why it needed to have such a significant lift. I

think the $3 million was approximately about a 35 percent lift in one

year. This is a time when businesses are struggling. Individuals across

the province are struggling under COVID and all of those challenges.

Inflation is pegged around 3 or 4 percent, but the Premier decides to

give his own office a 35 percent funding lift.

But listen to this. The Office of the Premier lies at the heart of

provincial governance. Yet, the legislation under Bill 22 that’s before

this House removes the Office of the Premier as a public

body.

[3:45 p.m.]

The commissioner states: “I am very concerned that Bill 22 would

remove the Office of the Premier as a public body under

schedule 2 of

FIPPA. My understanding is that the government believes this designation

is not necessary, on the basis that the Premier, a first minister, is a

minister and therefore his office is a ministry and is, therefore,

covered under the

schedule 1 definition of ‘public body.’”

Now, the commissioner goes to say: “This is not, with respect,

clear in law or constitutional convention, and this change would

introduce, at the very least, uncertainty in the application of the

law.” It doesn’t provide greater clarity. It provides more uncertainty.

So if the intention of this bill is to provide more clarity and

certainty, this piece does exactly the opposite. So who is this to

serve?

The commissioner goes on to say: “Moreover, I am not aware of any

harm flowing from retaining this designation.” No harm done. What

problem are we trying to solve? Doesn’t appear to be one. The

commissioner goes on to say: “Which, obviously, begs the question as to

why the change is being made when the outcome is, again, not as clear as

I am told the government believes it is.”

The commissioner goes on to say: “I call on the government to

delete this proposal from Bill 22 for greater certainty that FIPPA’s

transparency and accountability provisions will continue to apply, as

they have for decades, at the Office of the Premier.”

The Premier talks the talk about openness and transparency. I’m

certainly not seeing it. British Columbians aren’t seeing it. The

hesitancy and resistance and reluctance of government to share very

important data around COVID numbers, around deaths and fatalities in our

long-term-care facilities, and now this — government’s direct efforts to

put their boot heels on the throat of democracy.

I will not be voting in support of this bill. If government were

wise, they would throw this one in the shredder, as Vaughn Palmer has so

eloquently stated.

T. Stone: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 22, the Freedom of

Information and Protection Privacy Amendment Act.

I want to start by referencing the government’s news release,

which went out with this piece of legislation the other day. The title

of this news release is: “Amendments strengthen access to information

and protect people’s privacy.” It sounds great. That sounds really good.

How could anyone argue with that?

Much to, I think, our dismay, much to the shock of British

Columbians, when you actually dive into the legislation, you realize

this legislation is actually the complete opposite of strengthening

access to information and it’s the opposite of protecting people’s

privacy.

I’m going to walk through a number of areas in this legislation

that I think are extremely problematic and that, really, at the end of

the day, require the government to take this piece of legislation, go

back to the drawing board, properly consult with the all-party

legislative committee, the statutory committee of this Legislature, and

do the heavy lifting on this in conjunction with, in consultation with,

the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner and

others to fix some of the gaping challenges which currently exist in

this legislation.

Our FOI system in this province today is broken. There’s no other

way to describe it. We all say the right things, I think. I think most

British Columbians would agree with the suggestion, with the comment,

with the assertion that access to information in a timely manner — free

of barriers, including financial barriers — is a fundamental tenet of

any democracy. It’s a fundamental tenet of any democracy for the

independent media to be able to access public records, government

information.

It’s a fundamental tenet of democracy for political opposition,

including opposition parties, to be able to access government records

and information.

[3:50 p.m.]

Of course, most importantly, it’s critical and fundamental to a

functioning, thriving democracy for the public, to be able to access

information in a timely fashion without barriers.

What we’ve seen under this government over the past four years is

a continuation of an erosion of the freedom-of-information framework in

this province — increasing delays to access information, increasing

redactions to information, blacking out of documents. Now the

consideration of fees for access. It’s not right. It shouldn’t be

happening here in British Columbia. Bill 22 makes all of this worse. It

makes the access to that information worse.

The all-party legislative committee should have done this work,

and they should have brought forward recommendations. The

recommendations should have been properly considered by cabinet, and

they simply weren’t.

I think we’ve lost the plot here on FOI changes, in the sense that

people are no longer seen to be at the centre of the FOI process, the

intention of FOI, the purpose for it to exist in the first place. I want

to just run through, quickly, an example. It relates to the recent

wildfires that have taken place up in the Interior this past

summer.

The member for Fraser-Nicola, who is sitting right here beside me;

the member for Cariboo North; the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin; the

member for Kelowna West…. And there are others. We all, along with our

constituents, experienced a very difficult summer with these wildfires.

In some of our communities, entire neighbourhoods were lost. In Lytton,

the entire town practically burned to the ground. In my riding of

Kamloops–South Thompson, in Monte Lake and the Paxton Valley, there are

32 families today that do not have a home. They do not have a roof over

their head.

In addition to the separate discussion and the separate debate

that we will have and continue to have in the coming days and weeks

about the supports that were promised, the supports that aren’t there,

the very real human needs that these people have, they also have very

valid questions about decisions that were taken in the fighting of these

fires when they were much smaller, before they ripped through their

valleys and wiped out their communities.

The problem is that this information is not readily available.

It’s not easy to access. It’s not, obviously, included in the

duty-to-assist intent within the legislation. People have to submit

freedom-of-information requests. So you know what? I did it on behalf of

my constituents.

The fire that ripped through my riding, which burned down 32 homes

in Monte Lake and Paxton Valley, happened on August 5. We in the

official opposition submitted a freedom-of-information request on August

16, so shortly after the fire. The intention of this request on behalf

of our constituents was to access records, documents, critical

information that would provide answers to the questions that people have

about what resources were made available and when to fight those

fires.

What were the decisions and the timing of those decisions and the

allocation of ground assets and air assets in actually doing everything

possible to fight that fire and prevent structure damage, which ended up

happening?

We submitted the FOI request on August 16. We got a letter back

from the ministry on August 27 that basically said: “Yeah, we’ve got

these records. We can provide these records. But you’re going to have to

pay a $300 fee.” We pushed back on the fee and said: “Look, we would

humbly request that the fee be waived in the context of an exclusion

that exists in the act today.” That will no longer exist if this

legislation passes, but the exclusion that’s there today is that a fee

can be waived if it’s in the public interest.

I will say, to the ministry’s credit, that they did waive the fee.

They came back to us, and they said: “We will waive the fee.” They came

back to us in early September.

[3:55 p.m.]

Then, throughout September, we kept getting letters back and forth

with the ministry, requesting extensions — extensions to, actually, the

timelines that are mandated in the legislative framework for a response.

Fair enough, until our shock on October 1. We got a letter from the

ministry that says: “Although a search was conducted, no records were

located. Your file is closed.”

Now, how can that be? Everyone who looks at this objectively, not

the least of which are the residents in question that have lost their

homes…. Anyone that looks at this objectively would say there is no

possible way that there are no records that reflect the allocation of

resources during this fire. Yet we got back a response from the ministry

saying that that actually is the case. There are no records that fit the

request.

Now, fair enough. We go back and forth again with the ministry.

We’re like: “Well, can you help us here with the naming of documents or

how we have to write the request or the wording in the different fields

of the request and the time frames and this and that?”

The point is that it’s been over three months since these fires

ripped through. People want answers to their questions, and we’re

sitting here trying to figure out: did we get the grammar right? Did we

word the request properly? Did we include the right date frame? Did we

do this, do that? The intent of the request is pretty bloody obvious.

People want to know what resources were allocated to this

fire.

Now, the context matters. Residents showed up on the day that the

White Rock Lake fire started. They showed up on the day it started, and

they were beginning to try to put it out. These are ranchers and forest

contractors that live in the area. They allege that they were told to

stand down by B.C. Wildfire Service staff.

Now, all we’re looking for here are answers. We’ve had the

Solicitor General very emphatically state that the B.C. Wildfire Service

was there within 30 minutes and was on this fire, and we threw all kinds

of resources at it. In fact, so many resources that they left all kinds

of contractors on the sidelines throughout the balance of the fire. The

locals don’t believe it. I don’t believe it. But prove us wrong. Provide

people that information. It shouldn’t be this difficult.

We’re not going to give up. We’re going to continue to do whatever

we have to within the confines of the legislation. I will say that if

this bill passes, those confines become much, much more strict, much,

much more constrained and costs involved, abilities for government to

say: “No, we’re not going to respond to that. It may not be vexatious,

but it’s too repetitious of a request. It’s too systematic of a

request.”

This is not good enough. We should be improving the system.

Documents like flight logs and incident command reports and resource

allocation updates are documents that, frankly, should be proactively

disclosed. The government should be looking for ways to take this kind

of information, in the public interest, and push the information out,

unless there’s a reason for why government doesn’t want to do

that.

I prefer to look for the good in people and the good in situations

and be positive. So I reserve ultimate, final judgment on this. I will

say it’s very concerning that it’s taken this long to basically get

nowhere and to be told, as of weeks ago, that “no records were located

in response to your request” on a fire that destroyed 32 homes of

families in Monte Lake and Paxton Valley. That’s not

acceptable.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Let’s turn to InBC Investment. We canvassed this earlier today in

question period. We canvassed it back in May. The government sets up a

$500 million high-risk venture capital scheme using taxpayer dollars, of

course.

[4:00 p.m.]

On May 19, the commissioner sends a very strongly worded letter to

this government, calling out their plans to, as he called it, shroud

this investment plan in secrecy. In fact, the commissioner went so far

as to say: “There are many other examples of Crown corporations or

agencies that manage public funds or assets for the benefit of the

province while being subject to FIPPA.”

There is no reason for InBC not to. But this continues a pattern.

The government is not subjecting InBC’s business plan to FOI. They’re

not making available impact scorecards for investments. They’re not

subjecting InBC to FOI legislation. It’s not included. It’s not in

part

2. It’s not there in the list.

Of course, one of the most egregious aspects of this bill,

speaking of things that aren’t going to be included in the purview of

the legislation…. Well, let’s talk about the Premier’s office. How is it

possible that the Premier’s office is being exempted from this

freedom-of-information legislation? But that’s what is happening. It’s

in this bill. They’re striking out inclusion at the Premier’s office and

executive council operations from

part 2 of the act. They say: “Oh no,

don’t worry. We’re still going to be subject to the requirements of

freedom of information.”

That’s not what the FOI commissioner has to say about it. He said

this in his letter, this seven-page letter that he provided to the

government only days ago expressing his absolute concern with a lot of

what the government has included in this bill. The commissioner

said:

“I am very concerned that Bill 22 would remove the Office of the

Premier as a public body under

schedule 2 of FIPPA. My understanding is

that the government believes this designation is not necessary on the

basis that the Premier, a first minister, is a minister, and therefore,

his office is a ministry and is therefore covered by the

schedule 1

definition of ‘public body.’ This is not, with respect, clear in law or

constitutional convention, and this change would introduce, at the very

least, uncertainty in the application of the law.

“Moreover, I am not aware of any harm flowing from retaining this

designation, which obviously begs the question as to why the change is

being made when the outcome is, again, not as clear as I am told

government believes it is.”

Yeah, why is this change being made? I’m going to go with the

Information and Privacy Commissioner on this one, not the government.

The commissioner feels that this is an egregious move on the part of

government and that the Premier’s office should not be exempted. I agree

with him.

The government has said that part of the challenge is this high

volume of requests that come from the official opposition — lots of FOI

requests. But I think that it bears noting that the volume of FOI

requests from the opposition actually reflects a number of factors. Very

often gathering information on a single topic requires multiple FOI

requests, as responsive records can exist in more than one ministry or

school district or health authority or local government. It’s left up to

the individual or the media person or the opposition party to actually

try and stitch all of this together. You want to get some answers on

some things? You might have to put in multiple requests to multiple

agencies in order to get your answers.

Requests that government considers broad are assessed significant

fees. So those requests have to be narrowed as much as possible. That

also increases the total number of requests. Submitting monthly

recurring requests are also critical to understanding government

decisions. The opposition submits that: “Yeah. We do. We submit hundreds

of requests annually for documents such as calendars and lists of

briefing notes, and so forth.” Recurring requests for calendars of

senior staff or lists of briefing notes give the public, first and

foremost — and, yes, the media and, yes, the opposition, all of which

play a role in the accountability that is a feature of a democracy….

It’s all of those entities that apply that accountability.

But the question is: why are these kinds of documents not

proactively disclosed? Why are they not just made available voluntarily,

upfront, as the Premier was talking about earlier today? The Privacy

Commissioner had this to say: “Oppositions gathering information about

how government systems are running is part of a free-flowing, properly

functioning democracy.”

[4:05 p.m.]

Let’s bring it down to a retail level here. Let’s talk about some

examples of where the FOI legislation as promised was really, really

integral. It was important. It was a critical tool that was used to

unearth something about something government was doing that the public

had a right to know about. How about the discovery that the NDP were

politicizing constituency offices in January of 2009? That was a

$127,300 cost to outfit a bunch of constituency offices to place

political EAs into a bunch of constituency offices. The government

didn’t want to proactively disclose that. The public only found out

through FOI.

How about B.C. Housing’s affordable housing investment plan,

which, back in early February of 2020, got a pretty interesting reaction

from government when, through FOI, after multiple requests, the

opposition was able to access B.C. Housing’s quarterly reports on the

updates as to the progress that they’re making towards the government’s

objective of 114,000 new units of housing? Much to our shock, did we

discover that government, at the three-year point in their mandate, was

at 2 percent delivery. Government wasn’t proactively disclosing that.

That wasn’t easily accessible anywhere.

We also discovered in the Q1 report — again, only because we got

this document through FOI — the NDP’s crafty use of the term

“initiated.” Do you remember that, Members? Do you remember the use of

the word “initiated”? This was an attempt by the government to inflate

the progress being made on their housing program.

We learned that “initiated” was defined in the Q1 report as “homes

that have been announced, but no commitment has been made towards them.”

How critically important is that for the public to know? It’s one thing

to make announcements. It’s another thing to cut ribbons. It’s quite

something different to actually fund your projects. We only found this

out through FOI.

Government took that in the Q2 report. Again, we got that report.

The government changed the definition. The word “initiated” just

disappeared from the report. In its place, it said that the definition

was…. Instead of saying “initiated,” it was “these are projects that

don’t yet have their final B.C. Housing approval” — an obvious attempt

to disconnect financial commitment from approvals. This was further

massaged in subsequent reports, but my point is that this document would

not have come to light. The public would not have had access to this

document and the information in it if it hadn’t been for freedom of

information.

Let’s talk about a few more examples here. Child care spaces in

November of 2019. It was only because of FOI that the public learned

that despite promising 22,000 new child care spaces over three years,

the NDP had only created 5,717 in their first two years in office. Or

how about the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority expense scandal

— $100,000 in living expenses paid to ousted executives? The public only

found out about that because of FOI.

The B.C. government concealing hospital outbreaks. The Little

Mountain care home deaths. The Wilderness Committee uncovering that the

NDP were misleading British Columbians about how many hectares it had

protected from old-growth logging. Or the fact that CBAs, a community

benefit agreement, a union-only agreement, was going to add millions of

dollars of additional costs to the Cowichan Hospital. The only way that

the public found out about that and any of these other things that I

have mentioned was because of FOI.

Let’s talk about fees. There are three changes in fees in this

bill. One is a potential fee for certain documents, like manuals. The

second is a new allowance for a public body to charge applicants for

simply providing a copy of the record. Thirdly, the application of an

application fee. We don’t know exactly what it’s going to be, but it’s

strongly suggested by the minister that it might be somewhere in the $25

range.

[4:10 p.m.]

Let’s be really clear about this. This application fee, and let’s

assume that it’s 25 bucks per application, is a tollgate on accessing

that information. That’s what it is. It strikes right at the heart of

accountability and transparency. The minister claims that this will not

be a barrier to access, but again, the Information and Privacy

Commissioner differs in his view. He sai