Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 25, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 114

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. J. Whiteside

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Reconciliation and fundraising initiative by Steveston businesses

K. Greene

Karin Kausky and social prescription approach to health care

J. Sturdy

Libraries and reading

R. Glumac

Breast cancer awareness and fundraising by Crystal Gala group

B. Banman

Honorary Citizen Award recipients in Victoria

G. Lore

School libraries

J. Tegart

Oral Questions

COVID-19 booster shots for Indigenous communities

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

COVID-19 booster shots for seniors

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

High-dose flu shots for seniors

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. A. Dix

Affordable housing and wealth inequality

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Robinson

COVID-19 vaccine policies for teachers and school staff

J. Tegart

Hon. J. Whiteside

T. Halford

COVID-19 vaccine policies for post-secondary institutions and use of rapid testing

C. Oakes

Hon. A. Kang

COVID-19 response in schools and use of rapid testing

S. Cadieux

Hon. A. Dix

Tabling Documents

B.C. ferries commissioner, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2021

Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, annual report, 2020-21

Environmental emergency program 2020-21 report to Legislature

CleanBC climate change accountability report, 2021

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

T. Shypitka

J. Sturdy

P. Milobar

On the amendment

P. Milobar

B. Banman

A. Olsen

K. Kirkpatrick

R. Merrifield

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

T. Stone

MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: Joining us today in the gallery is Grand Forks city councillor Everett

Baker. Councillor Baker is owner, along with his family, of the Grand Forks

Funeral Home. He is a strong believer in volunteerism. He’s been president of the

Boundary Food Bank; member, president and padre of the Grand Forks Royal Canadian

Legion; and past chair of the Grand Forks Social Services Advisory Group. He’s a

Rotarian.

It appears he is the president of the B.C. Liberal Boundary-Similkameen

Riding Association. I’ll tell you this. He is my favourite B.C. Liberal right now.

Some members might say that’s a low bar. I disagree.

He is an exceptional person. I’ve been working with him on the issue of

housing in Grand Forks. He is committed to finding solutions for Grand Forks with

me for people who are on the margins in Grand Forks. He’s put himself on the line.

I’m incredibly appreciative of our relationship, trying to solve this problem —

and that we put the politics aside to work for people. I’m very grateful for

that.

Will the House please join me in thanking Councillor Baker and

council.

Hon. H. Bains: In the gallery today are a number of good friends and labour activists. Laird Cronk, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Sussanne Skidmore, secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour; Pam Charron, restaurant worker and organizer with the Worker Solidarity Network; Ellie Callaway, bud tender and member of the United Food and Commercial Workers; Lisa Langevin, staff rep of BCGEU; Karen Ranalletta, president of CUPE; Martina Boyd, legislative coordinator of CUPE; Justin Schmid, K-to-12 co-coordinator for CUPE B.C.; and Kirsten Daub, K-to-12 co-coordinator for CUPE B.C.

[1:35 p.m.]

My understanding is that they were out there again today, advocating on behalf of the workers of British Columbia to improve their working conditions. My understanding is today they were advocating paid sick days, I understand, for all workers. I’m advised, over there, they’re talking about ten days. We will be making that decision before the end of the year.

Please join with me and give them a warm welcome.

A. Mercier: I’d just like to welcome my wife, Kate Makarow, to the House — I wouldn’t be able to do anything I do in life if it wasn’t for Kate — and my three-year-old daughter, Charlotte.

Charlotte had a great meeting with the Premier today, where I think her first question

was: “What do you do?” I can tell you that as soon as she found out that the

Premier’s office doesn’t have ice cream, she said: “I want to go see Mr. Speaker’s

office.” We’re looking forward to stopping by after.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that Baby Yoda is also in

attendance.

A. Walker: I, too, have my daughter in the gallery today. I would like to introduce

Addison Walker to the House. I know she is paying attention not because she is the

diligent 11-year-old daughter of an MLA but because security would not let her

take her book in with her. Props, I know. If the whole House could join with me

and make her feel welcome.

B. Bailey: I have three guests with me today here at the Legislature, the three part-time constituency association members for Vancouver–False Creek — Dario Garousian, Apollo Chung and Thandi Nzeku.

Now, this talented trio not only supports me in my MLA work, but most importantly, they do

a wonderful job supporting the needs of the people of Vancouver–False Creek. And

may I mention that between the three of them, they do so in eight

languages.

Would this room please join me in thanking them and welcoming them to the

precinct.

H. Sandhu: Today I am honoured to introduce two very special guests from my riding,

Vernon. Lucy Cross and her spouse, Rob Cross, are joining us in the gallery. They

have travelled all the way from Vernon and are excited to be here.

My friend Lucy and I worked together as patient care coordinators and

bedside nurses at Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Lucy has been working as an RN for 37

years. She worked in ICU, emergency infection control, education and medical

units, both as an RN and as a patient care coordinator. Lucy loves to support

clinical practice for nurses, and she’s great at it.

Rob is recently retired after 40 years of work as a power engineer.

However, Rob is still passionate, and his greater passion is Vernon Search and

Rescue, where he has been a volunteer for over 24 years. Rob is currently involved

in the planning of a new search and rescue building in Vernon.

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

thank them for their incredible contributions to save lives and help our

community.

R. Russell: Even though the Attorney General stole all of my lines of introduction, I

want to reiterate the welcome to Coun. Everett Baker and also the fact that it’s a

good indication, a good representation, of how, I think, especially in rural B.C.,

we’re able to set aside the political differences to actually get things done that

are important for our communities.

Thank you, Everett, for being here today.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I am so pleased that we are joined today in the gallery by a very special,

dedicated, passionate advocate from the First Nations Education Steering

Committee. Deborah Jeffrey is a member of the Tsimshian nation, has a master’s

degree in education, a law degree and has been the executive director of FNESC

since 2010. Really, more than all of that, Debbie has been, for decades, a fierce

advocate for the right of Indigenous children to quality education.

[1:40 p.m.]

I would also like to recognize FNESC president Tyrone McNeil, who was

unable to attend today but is also a very passionate advocate and a trusted

partner as we work together to ensure all Indigenous students can thrive and

succeed in culturally appropriate schools and, indeed, throughout their

lives.

Would this House please extend a warm welcome to Debbie Jeffrey and thank

her for her important contributions to building a better future for Indigenous

children.

H. Yao: I want to take a moment to congratulate Lucy and Derrick Quinn for their

50th anniversary on October 17, 2021. I’m just going to say, very simply, for a

young person like myself, it is definitely an opportunity to witness the

everlasting love and commitment to one another. Will the House join me in passing

on congratulations to them, please.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. J. Whiteside presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 25, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, which will make a number of amendments to the First Nations Education Act, the Teachers Act and the Criminal Records Review Act to support the exercise of First Nations jurisdiction over education in British Columbia.

First Nations in this province have been working to advance jurisdiction over education for more than 20 years. Today marks an important milestone in that work as we bring forward legislation to support the broader jurisdiction initiative.

A number of negotiating First Nations are currently finalizing individual agreements with the federal government to exercise jurisdiction over education on their First Nation land in British Columbia. The negotiating First Nations will become participating First Nations once these agreements are brought into effect.

The legislation we are bringing forward today has been co-developed with the First Nations Education Steering Committee, which is acting under the direction of the negotiating First Nations. It will enable the province, at the request of the participating First Nations, to provide operational support to those First Nations’ own teacher certification and regulation processes under their jurisdiction.

This legislation is a step forward in our work to implement the Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act and the calls to action of the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission. Ultimately, supporting First Nations control over

First Nations education will help to provide First Nations students with access

to educational opportunities that will ensure they are confident in their

self-identity, their families, their communities and their traditional values,

languages and cultures. It will give them skills they need to thrive in

contemporary society, and it will prepare them to access any opportunities they

choose for higher learning and employment.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1:45 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RECONCILIATION AND FUNDRAISING

INITIATIVE BY STEVESTON

BUSINESSES

K. Greene: One of the things that makes my community of Steveston and Richmond so special is that we have strong connections to each other and the desire to learn from others in the community to make our little place in the world a better place for all.

On September 30, National Truth and Reconciliation Day, two Steveston businesses decided that taking the day off wasn’t constructive action, and they wanted to see that action for reconciliation.

Steveston Barbers’ Raymond Tsuji, who is Indigenous, stressed the importance of “people taking action and doing something for a day to make a difference.” He knows that there is a lot of work ahead of us for reconciliation in Canada and that we should have a designated day for learning and action, not a day to take off of work.

From Steveston Tattoo Co., Métis tattoo artist Logan Howard feels the emotional weight of what happened to generations of his ancestors. While many people he spoke to were using the day to learn, reflect and listen to Indigenous voices, he expects that that number will grow even more for the next National Truth and Reconciliation Day.

Both Steveston Tattoo Co. and Steveston Barbers agreed that the day wasn’t a holiday but a

day that needs action to create change. They teamed together to raise over

$5,000 for the All Nations Outreach society, a charity run by James Harry Sr.,

who is Raymond’s cousin.

The government of British Columbia is working with Indigenous peoples and organizations to understand how best to commemorate the day in a way that is meaningful and respectful. I appreciate the efforts of those in my community of Steveston that have demonstrated to all of us the principles of reconciliation through dialogue and action.

KARIN KAUSKY AND

SOCIAL PRESCRIPTION APPROACH

TO HEALTH

CARE

J. Sturdy: Today I’d like to recognize Dr. Karin Kausky, a Whistler physician, for her exemplary leadership in the challenging field of family practice, be it in Whistler or around the province. Dr. Kausky was recently named Citizen of the Year at the Whistler Excellence Awards for her efforts to elevate family practice medicine by deeply rooting it in the wider community. She achieved this success through the practice of social prescription.

Social prescription enables health care professionals to refer patients to non-medical community resources to aid in supporting their health and well-being. In Whistler, this meant expanding the role of health care professionals to supporting and advising the community on many social determinants of health, such as food security, housing, financial stability and emotional supports as well as many more.

During the height of the pandemic last winter, Dr. Kausky and her colleagues were meeting with patients who were struggling to pay rent or for groceries or were just feeling lonely and unsupported. To help with this need, Dr. Kausky helped set up partnerships between health workers, community-based social services, non-profits and the local government that will, hopefully, continue far beyond the pandemic.

Through the practice of social prescriptions, patients were able to access more of the supports they needed, like food bank deliveries, rent relief and emotional support. Recognizing that people’s health and well-being are largely determined by a set of social, economic and environmental factors, doctors are encouraged to work with the communities to create social prescriptions.

Beyond this, Dr. Kausky has been a mentor to newer physicians and has been integral in community initiatives to increase the ratio of family doctors to residents, which has become a crisis, as the business model for family practice becomes increasingly challenged.

Dr. Kausky is a shining example of a commitment to community, a leader in the benefits of implementing social prescription and a visionary who is working on the future of family practice in the Sea to Sky, all with the goal of improving patients’ overall health and well-being.

I’m sure you’ll all join me in congratulating Dr. Kausky on her well-deserved award.

LIBRARIES AND READING

R. Glumac: What books are you reading right now? I’m reading Mission

Economy , a book that challenges us to rethink the role of government,

to put public purpose first to solve problems that matter to people. It’s

written by Mariana Mazzucato, someone who is working very closely with our

government on our economic recovery plan.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’m sharing what book I’m reading because today is Drop Everything and

Read Day. It’s also School Library Day, and October is Library Month in B.C. If

you aren’t currently reading a book, why not stop by your local library and

pick something up. Libraries offer children and learners of all ages, including

new Canadians, a welcoming, supportive place to develop a love of

reading.

Of course, libraries are about more than just books. If you go to your

local library’s website, you’ll see many events where you can connect with

others in your community on common interests. My own Port Moody library has a

very popular baby time that’s not only for babies but their parents, too, where

they can come together and socialize.

Throughout the pandemic, libraries have been on the front lines,

delivering services, helping people stay connected, entertained, informed and

prepared. That includes getting access to computers and even printing out your

vaccine card if you need help with that.

Library Month is a great time to recognize the critical role that

libraries play in building healthy, resilient communities and supporting

families and learners of all ages.

I want to extend a heartfelt thank-you to all library staff, volunteers

and board members across the library sector. Thank you for all you

do.

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS AND

FUNDRAISING BY CRYSTAL GALA GROUP

B. Banman: I rise in the House today for two connected reasons. The first is to

recognize that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Breast cancer can

afflict both men and women. I would encourage women under the age of 40 to

learn how to do a regular self-exam and women over the age of 40 to get a

mammogram on a regular basis.

The second reason is to thank and bring awareness to a dedicated group

of women in Abbotsford who, since 1999, have raised over $3.2 million to help

those fighting breast cancer. They are affectionately known as the Crystal Gala

Gals. They have an interesting motto — “No overhead, no office, no fluff” — and

they mean it.

The idea was hatched by Tammy Preast and Gerri Charles. The committee

met around a kitchen table and continue to do so. They are fiercely proud that

not a penny raised goes to overhead, as so they should be. They have raised

funds that purchase specific equipment in Abbotsford, Langley, Mission and

Chilliwack hospitals.

The annual Crystal Gala is one of the best-loved and most popular events

held in Abbotsford, raising approximately $400,000 each year. Sadly, due to

COVID restrictions, for the last two years the Crystal Gala was cancelled.

Undeterred, the Crystal Gala Gals pledged to raise $250,000 for a new mammogram

for the Abbotsford Cancer Centre, as the current one is aging and is used to

screen a daunting 60 patients a day.

They are also proud to sponsor a state-of-the-art breast optical probe,

a painless probe that measures the size of a mass so treatment can be

fine-tuned for better outcomes. The scanner is used in a study directed by Dr.

Jenny Ko.

Mr. Speaker, if you or anyone else is looking for a way to help those

fighting breast cancer and would feel better knowing that 100 percent of your

hard-earned money goes directly to those in need, call the Crystal Gala Gals.

They’ll be happy to take your donation.

HONORARY CITIZEN AWARD

RECIPIENTS IN VICTORIA

G. Lore: Every four years the city of Victoria recognizes individuals who have

dedicated their time, energy and lives to improving life here in Victoria and

the capital regional district.

This year one of the honorees needs no introduction: Dr. Bonnie Henry.

Dr. Henry has guided us through this pandemic with compassion and expertise,

and her reminders to be kind, be calm and be safe have epitomized her approach

to these uncertain and traumatic times.

Another honoree is familiar to this House. Carole James has created

change, improved people’s lives and inspired others to do the same, always with

compassion and connection. She has done this in her community, our city, our

province and beyond.

[1:55 p.m.]

The immense contributions of all 24 recipients would far exceed my time

this afternoon, but to recognize a few briefly: the incredible Carey Newman, a

Coast Salish artist behind the Witness Blanket, marking the horrors of

residential schools and the work of truth and reconciliation; Eddy Charlie and

Kristin Spray, the tireless and inspiring pair behind Orange Shirt Day here in

Victoria; Raven Lacerte from the Carrier Nation, working to end violence

against women and children by calling on the help of men and boys through the

Moose Hide Campaign; Kim Dixon, leading the work to support seniors in James

Bay through New Horizons, in these unprecedented times; Jean McRae, leading the

work of the Inter-Cultural Association of Victoria, building connections and

supporting newcomers to our communities; Florence Rose Dick, a fierce advocate

for and tireless promoter of the Songhees people, whose land we gather on when

we are in this House together.

This year we also lost a 2014 recipient, Mavis DeGirolamo. She’s a giant

in my community. Her impact, warmth and energy continue to inspire me and so

many others.

To all the recipients, past and present, thank you. Your dedication to

our community is truly inspiring.

SCHOOL LIBRARIES

J. Tegart: Shhh. Today we celebrate Canadian School Library Day. I want to start out by acknowledging school librarians, their love of books that they share with students, their ability to make stories come alive as they read out loud to groups of children.

Remember the special voices they would use to make the characters come alive? Sometimes

scary, sometimes gruff. Sometimes they made you laugh out loud. My school

librarian was the person who so quickly realized what my interests were and

would save special books for me.

Remember how excited you were when you learned that you could actually check out a book

and take it home to read? You learned to be responsible for ensuring it did not

get damaged, and hopefully, it was returned on time.

Remember starting a book series you loved and couldn’t wait to borrow

the next book? I don’t know about you, but losing yourself in a book any day of

the week was a wonderful thing.

Libraries are the hub of the school for so many students — a place to gather, a place to study, a place to learn, a place for contemplation and a place that shows the importance of books. The school library sets us up for lifelong learning. Whether you like the convenience of downloading books on your electronic device or the actual touch and smell of a book that’s been enjoyed by others, libraries are one of the few free services in our communities provided to everyone.

There is nothing like an afternoon of stormy weather, a cup of tea, a snuggly blanket and a good book. I hope you visit the library soon.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 BOOSTER SHOTS FOR

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

S. Bond: The lack of a government plan to administer booster shots is causing increasing anxiety and concern across the province. The B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, the Lake Babine First Nation are all calling for immediate booster shots for their communities.

Tragically, there have been two deaths in less than two weeks in the Wet’suwet’en community and six deaths among the Lake Babine Nation, which is under a state of emergency. The Regional Chief of the BCAFN, Terry Teegee, has this to say: “We are alarmed and are urging quick action, as the situation is becoming an emergency. It has now been approximately seven months since many First Nations in B.C. received their second dose.”

Can the Premier tell us today exactly when First Nations like those who are calling out to

the government, as a state of emergency, to deliver booster shots…? When

exactly will that happen?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. I think these are, obviously,

critical questions for everybody, and there’s enormous anxiety in communities

across B.C.

[2:00 p.m.]

Last week we discussed the issue in long-term care and assisted living.

Happy to know between 200 and 250 care homes have been completed now, and we

expect most care homes to be completed next week.

With respect to other people in the community, I just want to note that,

in general, jurisdictions who have looked at this question have looked at six

to eight months after first doses in terms of when a possible booster shot

might be provided. In B.C., eight months ago we had completed about 68,000

second doses. Six months ago, about 89,000. To date, we’ve done about 88,000

booster or additional, third, doses in B.C.

Tomorrow — and there will be a detailed briefing for the opposition and

for others in B.C. — we’re providing a detailed plan for everyone in B.C. with

what they can expect with respect to booster doses. It will be provided by

myself, Dr. Ballem and Dr. Henry. I expect those questions will be answered

then.

In addition to that, Northern Health is, obviously, reaching out and

working with both the Lake Babine First Nation and the Wet’suwet’en First

Nation — I know the member’s colleague from the area is also very interested in

this question — to work on their specific and detailed questions.

Wiith respect to the Wet’suwet’en, for example, right now the first dose

rate is about 77 percent, and the second dose rate is 69 percent. So what’s

required there is, obviously, consideration of the potential for booster doses

but also to continue to raise up first and second dose immunization.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental question.

COVID-19 BOOSTER SHOTS FOR SENIORS

S. Bond: The vast majority of British Columbians did everything they were asked

to do and more. They went for their first shot. They showed up for their second

shot, and now anxiety is increasing about their booster shot. In fact, we saw

last week, and the minister can list the numbers….

The fact of the matter is that this government should have been far more

ready to deal with booster shots, particularly for frail, elderly British

Columbians in long-term care. British Columbia is lagging behind other

jurisdictions.

As of October 15, residents in Yellowknife aged 60 and up have been able

to receive a booster shot if they are six months past their second dose. Third

doses for Albertans 75 and over as well as First Nations 65 and over are also

available. Starting today in Saskatchewan, people who are 50-plus and living in

the North or in First Nations communities will be eligible for a booster.

That’s what other jurisdictions have managed to roll out.

We’re still waiting to hear the details from this Premier and this

minister. Let’s be clear — and the minister knows this — that 93 percent of

British Columbians who are over the age of 65 live independently. They live in

a community.

They are anxious, they are concerned, and they want to hear specifically

from this Premier exactly when they will get their booster shot.

Hon. A. Dix: Again, I will be providing detail tomorrow. We started our booster shot

program in the middle of September with those most clinically vulnerable.

First, those whose effect of the first and second shots wasn’t complete and

required a third shot. That process is essentially, or in large measure,

done.

We’ve added to that long-term care and assisted living, obviously. That,

I think, by the end of this week, will be largely completed in terms of

eligible third dose immunization amongst that group of people. We’ve also

added, at the end of September, 100,000 clinically vulnerable

people.

What I’m pointing out to the hon. member is that different jurisdictions

did have different approaches. It’s true, especially with first and second

doses. So some jurisdictions had a shorter interval between first and second

doses. We want these immunizations to be effective, and we want to follow the

science on that. As I noted to the member, eight months ago it was about

65,000. Six months ago it was about 84,000, in total, British Columbians who

had received both doses.

We’re well in line. We’re preparing it. We’re going to lay out a

detailed plan for people tomorrow with respect to third dose immunizations.

We’ve already and are already acting in key areas and will continue to work

with the First Nations Health Authority and everyone else to ensure that the

third dose process rolls out as successfully as the first and second dose

processes did in B.C.

[2:05 p.m.]

HIGH-DOSE FLU SHOTS FOR SENIORS

K. Kirkpatrick: NACI has recommended that anyone over the age of 65 should benefit from

a high-dose influenza shot. Other provinces — including Ontario, Alberta,

P.E.I. and New Brunswick — provide all seniors with a high-dose flu

vaccine.

My question to the Premier is: why aren’t all B.C. seniors offered the

high-dose flu vaccine as well, as seniors are offered in other

provinces?

Hon. A. Dix: In British Columbia, as part of our partnership with the federal

government, all seniors living in long-term care and assisted living, and other

residents — obviously, there are other people living in long-term care and

assisted living — will be eligible for the high-dose flu shot.

In addition to that, some Indigenous seniors will be eligible under

certain specific circumstances. We have dramatically expanded our flu shot

campaign this year. For the first time ever in British Columbia, it will be

free for everybody, and I think everybody in this House would agree that’s the

right thing.

Two years ago we ordered about 1.5 million flu shots. This year it’s 2.4

million, which shows the expansion of that campaign. At the heart of it, at the

centre of it, is the work of pharmacists, who delivered the majority, for the

first time, of flu shots last year and who will deliver the vast majority this

year. We’re expanding our flu shot campaign. We’re using high-dose shots in

long-term care and assisted living.

I encourage every British Columbian — over the age of six months,

obviously — to get their flu shot as soon as possible.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I just heard that the majority of seniors — I believe it’s 93 percent of seniors — are

living independently in the province of British Columbia. So what the minister

has just said to us is that those seniors living independently are not going to

be getting this.

High-dose flu shots provide better protection, and our seniors deserve it. Seniors represent about 15 percent of the population, yet they account for up to 70 percent of the flu hospitalizations and 90 percent of those deaths.

Here’s what happened to 75-year-old Janice Newman: “I have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma…. So as

soon as flu shots were available, I phoned my pharmacy…. I was told that the

high doses were not available.”

To the Premier, why aren’t all seniors in British Columbia eligible for high-dose shots

and given the protection that they deserve?

Hon. A. Dix: Our campaign in B.C. goes forward, obviously, with my support and our

effort and the procurement of very significant numbers of flu vaccine — an

unprecedented amount this year — and with the advice of public health. We are

proceeding with that this year.

We encourage all seniors, especially all seniors, to get their flu shot

as soon as possible. This is an effective campaign, and it’s made more

effective when more people take part. That’s why we ordered 900,000 more doses

than we did two years ago and 300,000 more doses than we did last year — in

order to give all British Columbians the opportunity to do that. We’re going to

continue to work and allow and encourage British Columbians to get their

shot.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AND WEALTH INEQUALITY

A. Olsen: In British Columbia, inequality is on the rise. I’m not talking about income inequality, which is a huge issue unto itself. I’m talking about wealth inequality. The gap is visible in our housing market.

For decades, we’ve treated having safe, secure housing as a privilege, not as a right. As

a result of the commodification of housing, those who are lucky enough to own

real estate see their wealth growing, while those who do not own their own home

are struggling to keep up with the rising costs of living.

This government has been reactive by investing public money to decrease some costs, but in reality, we can’t spend enough money to make up for the structural changes that are needed to combat the growing wealth inequality that the status quo policy protects.

To the Minister of Finance, what is the minister doing to combat wealth inequality?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to express gratitude to the member for the question. I, too, am

concerned. I think everybody here in this House is concerned about the

challenges.

British Columbians have certainly been telling us for some time about

affordability and about what it means to them to be able to have a family,

raise a family and age with dignity here in this province. That’s why we’ve

taken, over the last four years, significant steps to address that.

It’s why we addressed, from a housing perspective…. It’s why we brought

in a speculation and vacancy tax. It’s why we brought in the largest investment

in housing in this province’s history.

[2:10 p.m.]

It’s why we removed tolls on bridges so that there’s more money in

people’s pockets. It’s why we undertook a wholesale revamp of ICBC to make sure

that, again, we can put money back into people’s pockets. That’s really

critical to British Columbians. We’re going to keep doing that work because we

know how important it is to British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: What I’m hearing from constituents and many British Columbians is….

While the minister is able to provide examples of what’s happening, the actual

structural changes that are needed are not happening quickly enough in order to

make life actually more affordable. We can talk about life being more

affordable, but life and affordability are still out of reach for many British

Columbians. Entire generations of people cannot afford to live in the

communities that they work in.

As a result, the business and service providers that they work for are

chronically understaffed. The housing market is detached from the economic

reality of most British Columbians, except for those who’ve been able to

accumulate wealth over decades. The cost of child care is making having

children more difficult. The costs of transportation and food are also

increasing.

We achieved our legislative poverty reductions largely because of

actions the federal government took. We need structural changes across a number

of ministries, but it starts with the budget from the Minister of Finance. She

must remove her reliance on revenue on real estate transactions; ensure that

public money is only financing true, non-market housing solutions; and

coordinate with her colleagues to ensure that restrictive community planning

and zoning does not further entrench wealth inequality in housing.

To the Minister of Finance, generations of British Columbians need this

government to take the bold, progressive measures we’re seeing other

jurisdictions take. What is the government doing to combat wealth inequality in

the housing market?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I think the members opposite seem to forget about a whole list of

other actions that this government has taken and continues to take by

eliminating MSP — again, putting money back in people’s pockets — by starting

the largest social program in decades and decades with the child care

plan.

Average hourly wages have increased to over $30 an hour. Before, in

2017, it was only $25 an hour. That makes significant differences to people.

The largest increase in social assistance rates, too, has made a difference for

those who are at the bottom, those who have been struggling so hard.

We also have the child opportunity benefit, again, putting about $130 —

up to, I think — in people’s pockets. That really makes a difference in their

ability to care for their families.

We know that there’s more work to do. No one is saying that that isn’t

the case. We’re off to a fabulous start, and I can’t wait to continue to

deliver for the people of this province.

COVID-19 VACCINE POLICIES FOR

TEACHERS AND SCHOOL

STAFF

J. Tegart: The patchwork education vaccine guidelines unveiled by the Premier late last Friday night are nothing short of ridiculous.

Sixty-one school boards are faced with a 17-step process, including 61 different legal reviews. You can barely get two lawyers to agree, let alone 61 legal opinions for school districts. This is a provincial health issue that impacts children, teachers and staff, and the Premier refuses to lead.

To the Premier, how is this anything more than a delay tactic?

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

I have to say that I don’t think there’s anything ridiculous about a

process that ensures we’re respecting the co-governance relationship that we

have with boards of education in this province. There is nothing ridiculous

about ensuring we are working in collaboration and cooperation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …with educators, with workers, with superintendents — with finesse — with everyone who has worked so hard through the course of this pandemic to ensure that kids are safe, that kids have access to in-person learning, because we know that that is what is best for the children of this province.

[2:15 p.m.]

We are working with our partners to ensure that they are supported in assessing the impact

of such potential policies, that they’re gathering the data so that they can

understand what the potential impacts are and that they are supported in this

process by BCPSEA, by the Ministry of Education.

We have a provincial framework that is going to support boards in moving forward, and I am so proud of the work that boards are doing and that we are going to continue to support.

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

J. Tegart: These complex guidelines admit “there is value in having a coordinated approach…to avoid highly variable health and safety standards.” But the Premier prefers a set of complex guidelines instead of protecting our children.

Ironically, these guidelines even say that school boards need to adhere to FOIPPA when checking vaccination status, something the Premier is radically changing as we speak.

Why won’t the Premier take the lead and implement a provincial standard?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I mean, one thing I will say is that I do believe that everyone in this House shares a concern for what is happening in our education system with respect to COVID and kids.

I want to say this is the third school year that educators, our board trustees, district and school leadership have been grappling with COVID. Boards are supported in the work that they are doing right now by the B.C. Public School Employers Association. They are supported by the Ministry of Education. And they are grappling with the diversity of opinions that they are receiving from their communities on what is a very serious and complex issue that deserves the level of attention it is receiving by boards being supported by our provincial framework.

That’s the work we’re going to continue to do to make sure we can keep schools open, keep them safe, keep kids accessing in-person learning.

T. Halford: Let’s be clear. The reason that districts are grappling is because this

minister, this Premier have not shown any leadership on this issue. Sixty-one

school boards against each other. It’s children, teachers and staff who are

going to pay the price.

The Minister of Finance can laugh all she wants, but it is going to take

months and months for parents and students and staff to get

directions.

In the North, people are making death threats. This Premier and this

minister are throwing school trustees to the wolves.

Will the Premier show some leadership and stop hiding behind school

boards and make sure that we aren’t seeing this 61 different times?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I have to say it has not been my experience that boards are actually

against each other on this point. I’ve had considerable opportunity to meet

with board chairs, to meet with district leadership over the last two weeks. My

experience is that there’s actually a high degree of collaboration and a strong

will to cooperate in moving forward on these questions…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …as there has been since the pandemic.

Boards are working in collaboration with their school medical health

officers, in the context of a provincial framework, with one set of advice from

BCPSEA, with support from the Ministry of Education, and that is what we will

continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: Just over a year ago the Premier said: “Safe operation of our schools is not the responsibility of the Premier.” That’s pretty telling. Well, it’s unacceptable for the Premier to be missing in action when our students’ safety is on the line.

For the minister’s clarification, we’re already hearing mixed opinions. In Surrey, they’ve issued a statement doubting the value of a mandate. Other districts are saying it’s a possibility. And other districts have said they have no plans to do this Premier’s and this minister’s job.

[2:20 p.m.]

Will the Premier put public health first and stop hiding behind school boards?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I will say again that the work that boards are doing is extremely important with respect to the consultation that they are engaging in with their communities, with their employee groups, with First Nations in their communities. The situation they are dealing with is different from community to community, but it is critical that this work is done, in collaboration with communities, in the context of a provincial framework that respects the role and the authority of school boards to make decisions for their communities.

They are being supported in this work by our provincial guidelines, through our provincial framework. We are working closely, collaboratively with all of our education partners, as we have done, to continue to achieve the remarkable work that has been achieved…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …in our education sector in British Columbia throughout this pandemic.

That is keeping our schools open, keeping our kids safe and mitigating the

transmission of COVID in schools, which is exactly what is happening now and

will continue to happen.

COVID-19 VACCINE POLICIES FOR

POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

AND USE OF

RAPID TESTING

C. Oakes: Well, it’s not just our K-to-12 education system. The Premier has also rolled out a patchwork vaccine plan to universities, and this has created confusion and worry.

At UBC, there appears to be no enforcement of the vaccine requirements whatsoever. Prof.

Mauricio Drelichman of UBC said: “When an unvaccinated person at UBC refuses to

submit a ‘mandatory’ declaration, no action is being taken.”

Will the Premier take action to ensure that students, faculty and staff are properly protected?

Hon. A. Kang: To the member across: thank you so much for my very first question in

question period, and thank you for being such a great partner to work with in

advanced education.

The past two years have been really difficult for students in

universities and colleges. I, first and foremost, want to say thank you to all

the students for being very resilient, as well as thank you so much to all the

faculty and staff and all the presidents for working with our health

authorities.

Post-secondary institutions are independent organizations autonomous of

government, which will implement their own protocols following the public

health office guidelines. Also, I am very proud to know…. Most recently most

post-secondary institutions have reported that 90 percent of their students and

faculty are vaccinated. So we know that students are safe on the

campuses.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: To be clear, this patchwork system is simply not working. People are able to walk onto a campus, attend a class with up to 300 people, and there’s no enforcement in place. You can go online and click a little button that says, “Yeah, I’m vaccinated,” but they’re not checking. There’s no proof of vaccination, and further, there is no rapid testing available.

We can provide some considerable results today. Will the minister stand up today and

provide rapid testing across the province in colleges? Will the minister stand

up and provide the additional resources that many institutions across this

province, like the University of Northern British Columbia, the College of New

Caledonia…? When you look at communities that are so impacted right now with

some of the restrictions that are being put in place in northern British

Columbia and that simply do not have access to additional

resources….

The minister could stand in this House today, put those valuable resources into the system, make rapid testing a priority. Please do the right thing, end the patchwork approach and provide the much-needed resources and the rapid testing available to ensure that students, faculty and staff are going to be safe.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Vaccination rates in post-secondary institutions and across campuses in B.C. are very high. This is the largest vaccination program in history, and our rates are really good.

When I visited campuses of colleges, institutes and universities, they were very excited

to return back to campus. Not only that, professors are very excited to have

students in their classrooms.

Vaccination rates on our campuses are 90 percent. We have our baseline. We have our

institutes’ safe support for a return to in-person learning on campus, with our

masks in classrooms as well as B.C. vaccination cards on campus to ensure that

students in restaurants, in pubs, in ticketed events are safe.

Students are excited. They want to be back. They’re excited to be back. They’ve told me that they’re excited. What I hear is that they’re happy to be back. Everyone is following the guidelines of Dr. Bonnie Henry.

I’m very proud that presidents continue to work very closely with our public health.

COVID-19 RESPONSE IN SCHOOLS

AND USE OF RAPID TESTING

S. Cadieux: The idea of not using a resource that’s available while we’re waiting for another resource is just unthinkable, but that’s what’s happening. Complete lack of leadership on this.

As the Surrey school board notes, the vast majority of cases in schools are students who

are ineligible to be vaccinated. We have rapid tests. We could be using those

to assist. So let’s use the tests and upgrade later. Let’s not let the tests

gather dust in a warehouse any further. It’s what Ontario is doing. It’s what

Saskatchewan is doing. They’re even sending some tests home.

To the Minister of Education, will she do the right thing and advocate with the Minister of Health to ensure that we use rapid tests in our education system?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question.

As the member will know, since December of 2020, rapid tests have been

used in our COVID response as directed by the experts — our experts in the

provincial health office and at the BCCDC. Members will also know that

take-home rapid tests, which will have real utility for children, will soon be

available in significantly wider numbers in B.C. and, as Dr. Henry has said and

as I have said, will provide another option, especially for parents who are in

a circumstance where their child has some mild illness, to be able to provide

such tests.

Those tests, especially the Roche tests, which are available in

sufficient quantities to make that happen, will be available soon. I think that

will be very much part of our response on COVID-19.

I just say, finally and in a general sense, that what we’re going to see

in the coming month, we believe, is a real advance in safety in schools. That

is the expansion of immunization to children five to 11.

Our task, all of us together, I think, is to ensure, here in B.C., that

everyone who’s eligible to be vaccinated gets vaccinated. I hope everyone in

this House will support that effort.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the annual report of the B.C. Ferry

Commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021, and the Public Guardian

and Trustee of British Columbia Annual Report 2020-2021 .

Hon. M. Farnworth: On behalf of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, I

have the honour to present the environmental emergency program’s 2021 report to

the Legislature, which covers the accomplishments of the program of the previous

fiscal year from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. The report I present to you

today provides an overview of the environmental emergency program, compliance and

enforcement updates.

I also, on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy, have the honour to present the 2021 Climate Change Accountability

Report .

[2:30 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 22, the FIPPA amendment act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

T. Shypitka: Well, I’ll continue on where I left off last week on the bill that’s in front of us right now, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. As I suggested last week, this bill is an attempt to modernize or to update, as we’ve heard, a piece of legislation that has been in practice for the past ten years as it sits right now.

Now, there are those that support it for what this bill appears to be, and there are those, especially the ones on this side of the House, that oppose it because of what it actually does. The devil is always in the details. I kind of highlighted that a little bit last Thursday, and I’ll continue from that. The fact that we are seeing no debate on the government side right now on this bill is a little concerning. It also kind of is a testament to the awareness that they must have on this bill that it is not in the best interests of British Columbians.

I talked about the timing of this bill. I talked about why now, what the urgency is and what the priority is with this bill going forward right now without a comprehensive review from the Privacy Commissioner himself nor a decision or recommendation from the committee that has been struck from the government side. It’s a non-partisan committee. It’s a committee that I sit on. This committee is to sit until June 2022 and to examine this piece of legislation that we’re actually seeing right now.

We’re wondering on this side: what is the urgency? There are so many other priorities in this province right now that we could be focusing more on. The fact that there’s nobody that is actually calling for this amendment…. I have no knowledge of any group or any individual that is saying that we have to amend this act. So we’re concerned about that.

This morning I did a private member’s statement on the lack of government services due to,

in part, the COVID pandemic. Those are things we could be looking

at.

The opioid crisis is at record highs of mortality. Our housing market is

crashing. School districts, as we heard in question period today, are

scrambling in putting in their own COVID protocols without government, failing

to participate…. Our wildlife populations — I know in my region alone there are

a lot of issues. More right now are on the whitetail doe hunt. Those are things

— regulation, legislation, things like that — that we really could be focusing

on. These are a few issues that I can think of just off the top of my head

right now.

The fact that this piece of legislation right now needs amendment, with no groups or no concerns that I know of, is a bit of a head-scratcher. I talked last week about data storage. I talked about how this bill allows our critical and delicate private information to be stored by a third party outside of B.C., outside of Canada even. Sarcastically, what could ever go wrong with that? We look at some of the world’s most major data breaches over the last eight years. I highlighted last week Facebook, LinkedIn, Alibaba and Yahoo. There’s a long list of data breaches that have happened over the last eight years, and this is in the billions of people.

[2:35 p.m.]

The U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, for example, allows data and records to be stored, to be held and to be revealed at literally any moment’s notice. These are concerns that British Columbians have, so this is why we’re concerned with this bill right now.

I’m confident that the good people of British Columbia would not want to have their private and confidential information held by a third-party contractor in a country such as China. This should be setting off some alarm bells, and it certainly does on this side of the House. It actually sets off alarm bells on the other side of the House as well.

I’ll go to a quote here, if I can find it. This quote comes from Jenny Kwan, former NDP MLA from Vancouver. She’s a current MP. She said:

“The government plans to turn over the MSP to either IBM or Maximus, both American multinational corporations, by the end of August. There have been issues raised around this privatization, particularly the issue around privacy.

“Accordingly, there’s an issue around the notion that the information contained under the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act could be in violation, in my view, of privacy for Canadians and British Columbians. More particularly, this includes information in terms of health treatment, pharmacy, income tax, mental health and criminal records, as well as records from the Ministers of Children and Family Development and of Human Resources.”

She was very concerned.

We could look at Joy MacPhail, a long-term member and MLA for the NDP.

She said: “Under the Patriot Act, American secret service agencies can access

the private information of British Columbians held by American companies or

their subsidiaries without any of us knowing.” That was from, like I said, Joy

MacPhail, on March 25, ’04.

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: We have members on the other side that are very interested in what I have to say, and I encourage them to get up and stand and debate. That’s what we want to do. We need to hear from the other side. So I encourage the member and all members from that side to get up and speak to what they think is true. I welcome that. That’s what this forum right here is all about.

Once again, this government is telling us not to worry. “Don’t ask silly questions. We’ll fill in those answers after the legislation is amended.” Nobody is going to be okay with that. A lot of constituents in my riding aren’t. I’m sure there are going to be a lot of constituents on the other side as well.

When we talk about data storage and saving it outside of our provincial borders or outside of our national borders…. I look to projects inside B.C. I’ve got a company that’s in Canal Flats. That’s just outside my riding. It’s in the Columbia River–Revelstoke riding, but it’s not too far from me. It’s about 40 minutes away. It’s a company called IRIS and Columbia Lake Technology. It’s a technology farm, a data server farm. It reappropriates an old sawmill that used to be there years ago, so it has a lot of infrastructure in place already.

This company has come in and built affordable housing in the small town of Canal Flats. They’ve got mortgage options for their employees. They have greenhouses there that use server heat. The server that’s out there puts out a lot of heat, and they recycle that heat. They make greenhouses out of it. That’s great. They use clean hydro energy.

This is in a location that’s cool, temperature-wise, and free of earthquakes. They utilize fibre optics that are available in the area. So why not direct all our data storage to sites like this? It seems practical. It seems like we should be looking out for our people in our riding and storing that information within our riding and within our province.

Once again, this is not about modernizing a bill. This is stepping backwards and diving off a cliff into water when you have no idea what lies beneath the surface. A leap of faith, in my opinion, is an understatement. I’ll read something from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that kind of illustrates this is for me a little bit.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is a quote from the OIPC: “What is exceedingly troubling, however, is that government

now proposes to allow public bodies to send British Columbians’ personal

information outside Canada without explaining how they will properly protect

it. Without concrete alternative protections for people’s data, the government

is effectively asking the Legislative Assembly for a blank cheque to eliminate

the current restrictions on public bodies accessing and storing people’s

personal information outside of Canada.”

That comes from the OIPC. This is the Privacy Commissioner, an independent body that’s to look after the storage and enforcement of our private information.

It also goes on to say here: “On access to information, some provisions of the act improve the law while others do not. While making it an offence to willfully destroy records to avoid complying with an access request is a welcome change, greater clarity is needed to capture improperly destroying a record before somebody specifically requests it.” That’s something else in this bill — that it identifies the destruction of records before it’s actually requested for FOI. That’s a concern. That’s what we’re talking about here.

This bill does not include provisions to prevent documents from being destroyed prior to FOI requests. This was a request outlined, as I mentioned, by the OIPC that has not been addressed in this legislation, leaving a significant gap in the protection of documents that the public has a right to.

That was a quote from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Here’s

another one: “If somebody destroys records because they think they might be of

interest but wants to destroy them before any request is made, there is no

offence for that. That cannot be right, and that needs to change. It is an

offence in Alberta, and it could have easily been put in place here.” That’s

from, as I said, Michael McEvoy, the Information and Privacy

Commissioner.

The other day in this House — this was last week I announced this — I announced that the

initialism NDP meant “never delivering promises.” Today, reading this bill, I

take that back. In seeing how this bill allows the destruction of records, the

initialism of NDP should be “no documents produced.”

All this may be funny to some. A recent FOI request from CTV in regards to receiving the true numbers of the COVID pandemic was received. Of the 60-some-odd pages received, I was told that there were 50-some-odd pages that were totally blacked out. The remaining pages were partially redacted. And that’s not right.

I’ve got a couple of minutes here, Mr. Speaker. I could go on a whole bunch of tangents here. There’s more than enough information. As a matter of fact, the information on why this bill is not right actually encompasses more than the bill itself. A whole bunch of quotes from a lot of different high-level representatives, a lot of them NDP representatives.

Maybe I’ll turn to one last page here. It was on fees. A lot of fees attached to this.

That provides a barrier. There are three fees. There are three changes to fees

included in this bill: a new application fee, potential fees for certain

documents like manuals and also a new allowance for the public body to charge

applicants for simply providing a copy of the record. The introduction of an

application fee under

section 44 is nothing less than a tollgate. I believe it

was the Minister of Indigenous Relations that echoed that — that fees are a

tollgate for access to information. It is a strike against accountability and

transparency.

The minister, as I mentioned, claims that this will not be a barrier to access. Sorry, that is the minister presenting this bill. He said it would not be a barrier to access. But the commissioner is clear once again. Here’s another quote from the commissioner: “This would be a significant step in the wrong direction. Application fees pose a real barrier for many who seek information that should be readily available to the public.”

[2:45 p.m.]

This application fee will apply to all public bodies, universities, health authorities, school boards and local governments. In the bill, the government has assured that there’s no ability for the commissioner to waive the application fee, even if the matter of public interest as his office is able to in the case of other fees under

section 55. The bill proposes a prescribed application fee, and not even the head of a public body will be able to waive it.

With these fees, with a minute left to go…. There’s so much wrong with this bill that

we’ll be definitely opposing it. It’s amazing. With fees like this that stop

the media from accessing, to keep us all accountable, to keep us all

transparent…. It absolutely blows my mind. With fees like this…. And I shake my

head. It’s only the NDP that can take the “free” out of freedom of

information.

With that, I’ll wrap my comments up. I know that my colleague has got a whole bunch more

here. I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you very much.

J. Sturdy: I am slow getting up. I thought to give the opportunity for the government side to speak to this important bill, but I didn’t want to risk losing my place.

This is an important piece of legislation. Why? Well, it’s in the title of this bill, in fact, in many ways. This is not a miscellaneous type of bill. This is about freedom. This is about freedom of information and the protection of privacy. It really doesn’t get much more fundamental than freedom. Yet in this bill, your government is proposing to allow your information to be under the regulatory control and oversight of jurisdictions outside of this country.

In this bill, your government is enabling your personal information to be scraped and linked. In this bill, people will, for the first time, have to pay for access to information. In this bill, there will be new opportunities for public bodies to ignore freedom-of-information requests. In this bill, the Premier’s office is proposed to be removed as a public body for FOI purposes. This bill, much of which is essentially enabling legislation, will generate a mass of regulations about which we know nothing.

These regulations can move the dial on outcomes and impacts — move the dial 180 degrees.

We have no idea where our cabinet will land on this, other than…. I guess we

can get some sense of it. This government tends to like big government and Big

Brother and appears to feel that they know better how you should live your

life. So we should get some sense of it. We should also, perhaps, get the sense

from the Premier, who, just last week, dismissed it as: “Hey, man, who cares?”

Well, I do, and many others do as well.

Now, we should probably have seen this coming. For example, look at the current type of media avails — what we have seen over last while, up to last week, where his predecessors…. The Premier’s predecessors and even the Premier, earlier on in his term, held press avails where you could bring on all comers and where there were a couple more people on the phone, and everybody got all of their questions answered.

Nowadays, if last week was any indication — it was a late start — it’s one question. You

get one question and one follow-up, and somehow we run out of time after 20

minutes. Now, some reporters never even get picked for a question. Many

questions never get answered. The tough questions don’t get asked, because the

media handler will make sure that you never get another question. Limiting

media avails is about restricting access to information — maybe not as formal

as what this bill is about but just as insidious.

We know that information is power. This bill is about controlling the flow of information, ergo this bill is about power. This is about people’s rights to have access to information that government uses to make decisions. It is about people having access to power and control.

[2:50 p.m.]

As opposition, we have a job. People expect us to complain, sometimes to our detriment. It is our job to examine pieces of legislation like this, and it’s expected that we’re going to express criticism and concern and to shine a light on it, to poke holes in things and highlight the inadequacies.

As I say, our criticisms are to be expected. But what is surprising and actually alarming, or should be alarming to the members of this House, is the position of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Now, this statutory officer is no stranger to these issues or this legislation. He was involved in drafting the original bill almost 30 years ago. This gentleman, Mr. McEvoy, who, as the House knows, was appointed to a six-year term in 2018. But prior, he helped lead the Information Commissioner’s office of the United Kingdom investigation into Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.

Since his appointment, he’s held a series of investigations aimed at strengthening access to information and privacy. He authored a report on B.C.’s political parties and collecting and using personal information there and the massive health breach for LifeLabs. He’s also the chair, incidentally, of the governing committee of the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities.

This gentleman is well respected internationally. We could dismiss our concerns, but I don’t know that dismissing the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner is in the government’s best interest. The Privacy Commissioner did not condemn this whole piece of legislation, and nor would I. There are positive pieces.

The new requirements relating to privacy impact assessments, new privacy breach notification rules, duty of public bodies to have a privacy management program…. You remember, of course, that the duty is only to have the program, it’s not actually to use it. And the inclusion of snooping offences.

These are positive pieces that build on the work of successive governments, including the B.C. Liberal government in 2011 and 2016 who made significant changes to this legislation. However, the rest of the letter was scathing in what the Privacy Commissioner describes as “a step backwards” for British Columbians.

Much of this legislation, as I mentioned, is just a framework. Much of it is enabling. In other words, the devil will be in the detail. Much will be unknown for now and left to cabinet to structure as they see fit, done under the cloak of cabinet secrecy.

Interestingly, the Privacy Commissioner says, on that issue of regulatory intention, that

it “is of greatest concern in relation to the proposed repeal of the data

residency requirements in

part 3 of FIPPA, discussed below. It is crucial for

government to disclose now what it intends to do to protect the personal

privacy of British Columbians whose personal information may be exported

outside of Canada.”

I am grateful to the Privacy Commissioner for the work that he has done, for the letter that he has written, for helping me better understand the concerns of this legislation.

It’s important that we know now, and for legislators, for us, to set the goalpost in a fundamental way about what government can do with our information and not just hand it over to a company in a foreign jurisdiction under which we have no regulatory oversight.

However, in the future, the government is proposing to remove data residency requirements, which means our data could go anywhere, and I mean anywhere.

[2:55 p.m.]

The Privacy Commissioner says: “The proposed amendments remove the data residency requirements altogether, leaving any protections to regulations, about which we know nothing.” Who will have access to that data? Could it be scraped and cross-referenced?

We lose control as a society if we don’t have strict regulation administering personal and government data. Imagine servers in countries all around the world that may or may not be secure, that could be sold or accessed, that could be used for all sorts of nefarious processes or uses.

The commissioner expresses concern about data linking as well. It has value as an analytical tool, certainly, but the commissioner says: “Bill 22 leaves the details of how data-linking activities are to be conducted to regulations, about which we have no details. These regulations must include rules and requirements for data-linking programs that bring transparency to these activities and include protections that are common in other provinces.” In other words, we’re missing significant protections, and we should be concerned.

Now, the one issue that has received much of the media coverage has also been flagged by

the Privacy Commissioner, and it’s a desire of government to delist the

Pre­mier’s office from the

schedule of public bodies covered by the act.

Again, this is a “trust us” moment. “Don’t worry. Be happy. It’s all good,”

says the government. Well, not according to the Privacy Commissioner. Again, I

quote: “I’m very concerned that Bill 22 would remove the Office of the Premier

as a public body under

schedule 2 of FIPPA.”

Now, I understand that the government believes that the designation is not necessary. However, again the Privacy Commissioner disagrees with this:

“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. The Office of

the Premier lies at the heart of provincial governance.” I want to emphasize

this. “I call on 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.”

So what is the motive? Well, the Premier is beginning to look very much like a secrecy Premier, for he clearly isn’t supporting transparency. This government has said not to worry, it will be fine, while the Privacy Commissioner raises the alarm. Who do we believe? Who do I believe? What source should I rely on? Well, I tell you, in this case, it’s not the government.

The Premier has been complaining, as well, about the use of FOI by political parties. Well, ironic for a guy who made his career out of sifting through FOIs, but now he describes it as an abuse of the system, talking about opposition and certain media. But that in and of itself raises some very, very troubling questions. Origins of FOI requests are supposed to be unknown.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

How does the Premier know where these requests are coming from? How does he know that certain journalists are abusing the process? He can’t know. He’s not allowed to know. But somehow he does. Clairvoyance, I suppose, is a possibility. Super second sight. What is it? The Premier having access to information that he’s not supposed to have while moving forward a bill to expand the denial of basic information to the public should alarm this House.

So what have those FOIs actually generated — those ones that the Premier doesn’t know where they came from? The list is pretty long, actually. The provincial health authority’s expense scandal came as a result of FOI, the champagne lunches. The B.C. government concealing hospital outbreaks. Dozens dead, hundreds infected, but the health authorities fight to conceal it. The Little Mountain care home deaths. Or WC2, the Wilderness Committee, uncovering that this government, the NDP government, misled B.C. about how many hectares it had protected from old-growth logging.

[3:00 p.m.]

Or the friends and benefits agreements that add millions to the cost of Cowichan Hospital. I think it was identified through an FOI. A 23 percent increase. Hundreds of millions of dollars added to the cost of that project, found as a result of an FOI. Or, of course, parents being forced to file FOIs for COVID school exposures.

The Premier wants to slow down these inquiries or even stop them. What’s the best way to do that? Not necessarily the best but a simple way is let’s create a barrier. Let’s impose some fees. If you’re going to charge them, well, charge them large.

I heard the Premier obfuscate last week on fees. “Oh,” he says, “they’re not set. Oh, we

don’t know.” Frankly, that’s true, because only cabinet knows because they are

setting the fees by regulation. The minister was clear that she was going to

recommend a $25 fee as a gatekeeper. How to keep the public and the media away?

The easiest tactic is tolls. In this case, the toll is $25 to start and much

more after that.

What does the Privacy Commissioner have to say about this?

“Bill 22 would authorize the government to impose application fees for access to information requests, fees that could be charged by all types of public bodies. This would be a significant step in the wrong direction. Application fees pose a real barrier for many who seek information that should be readily available to the public. I am unable to understand” — this is a good line — “how this amendment improves accountability and transparency when it comes to public bodies that operate in a free and democratic society.”

Well, maybe this government isn’t interested in taking our public bodies in a free and democratic way. Maybe for this government, it is just another step backwards.

The minister says it’s a modest fee. In fact, she said it about a dozen times, I think, in a row. There’s a great clip online: “It’s modest. Oh, it’s modest. Modest. Oh, comparable, modest. It’s in line.” I think there’s a loop out there somewhere that I’m sure is going to make it onto TikTok one of these days. It’s pretty funny. But you know what? The fees aren’t funny.

The minister says it’s comparable to other jurisdictions, but is it? In fact, no. Five provinces — the fee is zero. The feds and three other provinces is $5. The only one that is $25 is Alberta. Somehow that brings us into alignment. That’s nothing short of ludicrous.

What is in alignment is the chorus of voices that say the fee is a barrier. The member for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head, in his previous incarnation as an MP, said: “Canadians

also need to know that government has not abolished the $5 fee, which is a

tollgate on citizens’ right to access.”

I’m glad that the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan is here, because he’s been pretty prolific in terms of his condemnation of FOI fees. I can quote him here and say: “We’ve seen fees put up as obstacles. We’ve seen exemptions expanded and stretched beyond their original meaning.” I couldn’t agree with you more, and the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan is not alone.

The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 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.”

The Privacy Commissioner made his voice very clear: “I think this is a step in the wrong

direction.” Another quote: “I am concerned about that because any time a fee

structure is put in place, it acts as a barrier and a deterrent to people

making access requests.” I actually have about a dozen of his quotes, and I

won’t belabour them.

I think the list also goes much beyond the minister or the commissioner.

The administrators of the B.C. freedom-of-information program, investigative

journalists…. Oh, one NDP candidate for Kelowna–Lake Country: “This is just bad

policy. Please reconsider.”

[3:05 p.m.]

It goes on. The professor of environmental and climate journalism at UVic: “There’s only one other province that charges $25 merely to ask for government information: Alberta, one of the most secretive and undemocratic jurisdictions in North America. The B.C. NDP is proposing to take B.C. in the same direction.”

It goes on, and it goes on. But beyond that chorus of condemnation that barriers, through the imposition of fees, is another concern of the commissioner — new exclusions of records from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. Here’s another quote from the commissioner: “Another significant concern is the right of access under FIPPA would no longer apply to certain electronic records, a change that would, in turn, limit public bodies’ duty to create records from electronic records.”

We know that electronic records are the way we live. Some members may or may not have embraced this, but they are the exception. What will be excluded from requirements of document isn’t clear, but electronic records are the bulk of records and their potential for exclusion is alarming. Cabinet will be the arbiter of the limitations which, frankly, is an even greater concern.

Next, government intends to broaden the grounds for public bodies to disregard requests for access to information, to widen the scope where public bodies can simply ignore you. This is, again, from the Privacy Commissioner: “The bill proposes a troubling new criterion under which the commissioner could be asked to authorize a public body to disregard a request.”

Obviously, this is a big concern. Government could seek to disregard access to briefing notes, to issues notes, decision notes, calendars, expense claims. Well for staff, anyway, because all our expense claims are out in the public. But the grounds would be that the request is too broad. Now, these documents provide important insights into understanding how government is operating and their intentions and motivations and potential conflicts, which are harder to obscure in these briefs and filings and notes.

Again, the decision around regulations will be determined in the Premier’s office and the cabinet room. This is death to freedom of information by a thousand little cuts. Bit by bit, access to information is being removed, restricted and imperiled by this government. We are all the poorer for it.

The commissioner also goes on to talk about missed opportunity. The inappropriate

destruction of records, which should be penalized any time, according to the

commissioner, not only when there’s an access-to-records request in play. This

should include oversight over destruction of records other than in accordance

with the approved disposal schedules.

In other words, destroying records before they’re asked for should be an offence, not only after they’re requested. The NDP has chosen to do nothing about it. Most of us, I think, would agree that there should be no inappropriate destruction of records. There should be oversight of destruction, but this government has made the decision not to correct the problem. That, in and of itself, is a decision.

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, as it stands, provides for periodic review of the statute by an all-party special committee of the Legislative Assembly. Well, we actually have that all-party committee. It was appointed last June and tasked to assess and make recommendations to the House how best to serve the interests of the people of British Columbia, with regard to freedom of information and protection of privacy.

The commissioner — he’s full of great quotes — says: “It’s not at all clear why government has chosen to move forward with an amendment ahead of the special committee’s legislated work to review the act.” He goes on to say: “To move forward with these amendments, in a year that the special committee is tasked to do the work, is baffling.”

Well, I would suggest, not terribly baffling. It’s concerning, certainly. It is self-serving, absolutely. This is because this is about limiting access to information that may be inconvenient to government or worse.

[3:10 p.m.]

The committee held only one meeting, two minutes long. Its only accomplishment was to

elect a Chair, and then they essentially stood down. So what’s the net result?

Well, the stipend gets authorized, but that’s about it. Call me

cynical.

I did have the opportunity to look through the 2018-19 report on the administration of FOIPPA, authored by the now Minister of Finance, and a couple of things jump out. The mandate was to improve access to information, and clearly, this legislation sends us in another direction.

This one’s good. One of the headings was: “Fees Collected from FOI Applicants Remain Very Low.” Well, I guess this legislation was intended to correct that issue.

Another heading: “Government is Committed to Enhancing Proactive Disclosure.” Well, frankly, there’s no indication that this is a priority for government. The commissioner has recommended it. The Premier has actually mentioned it in the past, but actions speak louder than words. There is no action or discussion of proactive disclosure in this bill — none whatsoever.

If this bill is any indication of government’s intent, and it clearly is, the public of this province should be very concerned about our ability to hold government to account. As the Privacy Commissioner says, and I’ll wind up with this last quote: “This legislation is a step backward for British Columbians.” I couldn’t agree more.

P. Milobar: Sorry for the moment to rise. Like the speaker before me from West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky, I was just making sure no one from the government benches

was wanting to take their time on the floor. Apparently not. Their time on the

floor was better spent admonishing us for not wanting to speak to a

miscellaneous statutes bill than dealing with something as important as the

citizenry right to get access to government documents.

It’s very interesting. As I’ve been watching the coverage of this bill,

we have a minister that’s spent all of about a minute and a half introducing

this bill and then leaving. Those were the opening comments on this

bill.

In fact, the Minister of Education, today, went over the allotted

two-minute time, which is fine. That’s understandable — excited, introducing

her first piece of legislation. Her introduction speech for second reading

today — to take the bill to second reading on education — was actually longer

than the minister of this bill spent discussing this bill in this chamber for

debate. That’s how proud this government is of this bill.

Then that minister went out and did a media scrum, as the previous

speaker said. And clip after clip after clip, “modest fee,” “reasonable fee,”

“reasonably modest fee” were used over and over and over again for every

question.

At the same time, the government talks about the fee as being necessary

to try to drive down the overall number of freedom-of-information requests. So

which is it? Is the fee meant to reduce the number of free FOI requests? Or is

it supposed to be modest? Can’t be both. If the goal is to drive down the

number of FOI requests, that automatically means the fee is prohibitive,

because that’s the tool being used to try to drive down the number of requests.

It’s shameful.

This morning, when I spoke on political intimidation, I was talking

about how governments around this world use things like restricting access to

make sure that their opponents are held in the dark and not able to truly

access what’s going on in government behind closed doors, with private

discussions that are deemed not worthy of public scrutiny.

Members from the other side were all nodding their heads in agreement.

Don’t see any of them asking to speak to this bill. Highly doubt they’re going

to vote against how they’re instructed to vote on this bill — yet all the while

talking about how important things like this bill are for democracy and for the

public to know what’s going on.

[3:15 p.m.]

There’s a long list of things that are required through FOI, because

this government refuses to proactively release them. Perhaps the most telling,

last week, was the Premier’s stunt where, in an attempt to try to change the

channel and try to have people talk about something different…. If that’s not

what it was, I guess it was just showing the Premier’s total lack of

understanding of technology. I think it has been well documented in social

media circles how the Premier called his smartphone his telephone. That’s

probably the least used app on anyone’s phone these days — the telephone

function of it.

The Premier’s response to FOI requests is: “Who cares? Who cares what’s

on the Premier’s phone? Who cares what’s on the Premier’s computer?” That is a

damning look into what is really behind this legislation.

Who cares is the public. Who cares what’s on a smartphone is the public,

because we all know that in this day and age, a smartphone is not really a

phone. Perhaps someone could send the Premier a memo. A smartphone is actually

a fairly powerful hand-held computer that has all sorts of files. It has all

sorts of capabilities on it for documents — document management, information

storage, messaging back and forth.

That’s who cares — the public. The public wants to know what’s going on.

It’s no different than the tower that used to be at somebody’s desk. It’s no

different than a laptop. It contains critical information of governmental

decision-making.

The Premier’s response: “Who cares?” The Premier is right. I could care

less what his Scrabble score is. That’s not what we were asking as opposition.

For the Premier to continually dismiss requests from the opposition for

information as nothing more than a fishing expedition…. I touched on this, this

morning too. The taxpayers of British Columbia pay everyone in opposition to

ask those questions on their behalf, because they don’t have the time, the

know-how or the wherewithal to properly word and structure an FOI

request.

Do you know why? It’s because if they make one mistake, it comes back:

“Records not found.” When we put in requests for wildfire suppression

information from this current wildfire season, it came back, “Records not

found,” probably because we misnamed one log, because somebody within the

bureaucracy has decided to rename their logbooks. So we got: “Records not

found.” We’re supposed to believe that this government went through a wildfire

season — Lytton, Monte Lake and areas around West Kelowna wiped out — and there

are no records, nothing.

So how is a member of the general public supposed to get that

information? This bill does nothing to help that access. This bill actually

restricts that access even further. It makes it even harder for the average

person. It’s unfortunate that the Premier feels that it’s an inconvenience to

him to provide information to the public that they’re requesting and that’s

coming through his office.

I would point out to people…. I’ve seen some come to the Premier’s

defence, saying: “He doesn’t have time for that.” You’re absolutely right; he

doesn’t. We’re not sure what he’s doing these days. He’s ducking and hiding a

lot, but we’re not sure what else. He doesn’t have time for that. No Premier

should have time for that. Last I checked, the Premier has close to 500 people

working in his office. I’m pretty sure that one or two of them probably know

how to pull off some computer files really quickly.

As the mayor of Kamloops, I was subject to FOI requests repeatedly,

several a month. Between there and as chair of the regional district at the

same time — lots of FOI requests. I’m no tech wizard, by any means. It

certainly wasn’t that onerous to pull the emails in the date range that people

were asking for, and the subject matter, and send them off to the people that

were responsible for dealing with vetting the information to make sure of what

was supposed to be redacted or not, around the rules of FOI.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s simply not believable that the Premier finds it so onerous. It’s

just inexcusable. We saw that with a seven-page letter from the Privacy

Commissioner. A Privacy Commissioner that is very well respected. A Privacy

Commissioner that is seen around the world as a leader in the exact job he has

been hired to do in British Columbia.

In fact, he was here 30 years ago when this was brought in. Under the

NDP, I might add, it was brought in. And now it’s being dismantled by the

NDP.

You know who was around as staffers back then? I believe the Premier and

the Health Minister were staffers back then when it was brought in. I’m not

sure if we needed FOI to get the back-dated memo from the Pre­mier’s

office that was the now Health Minister as a staffer. But if it wasn’t

proactively released, FOI would have actually shown that to be what

happened.

Not under this legislation. Things like back-dated memos in the

Premier’s office would no longer be accessible. That’s why it’s important.

That’s why the Privacy Commissioner has problems around the Premier trying to

remove his office out. That’s why there’s a lack of trust right now of what

this Premier is trying to action within his own office. He was around when

interesting things were happening in the Premier’s office. Makes you wonder

what he doesn’t want you to see right now.

We have a Privacy Commissioner with a seven-page letter, of which about

two paragraphs actually have anything favourable to say whatsoever, and even

the favourable things come with an asterisk. Right direction. However, kind of

concerned that it’s being left to regulation. Shouldn’t happen. And that’s

around data linking.

Data linking, as we saw with Cambridge Analytica, can be a very

problematic thing if the government has an overreach on it. You know who should

know about that? The Privacy Commissioner. Last I heard, he actually worked on

the post–Cambridge Analytica and Brexit issue, because he’s that good at what

he does.

Here we have a Premier that chooses to ignore all recommendations, to

run roughshod over the legislative process, a legislative process that says….

Section 80 in the FOIPPA act actually says that every six years, the committee

must meet. And in fact, 2021 is that sixth year. By law, the committee has to

meet to review the legislation and the act to make recommended updates and

revisions. It’s very important that it’s done properly and that it’s done

without the backdrop of political interference — and political intimidation,

frankly — from the Premier’s office.

When we look at other aspects of this bill…. And we shouldn’t really

just get hung up on the fee. The fee is one of those interesting things that

the government, I think, is probably happy that everyone is debating right now

and talking about so they don’t really dig into the links and the abilities

that this bill would provide them for things like removing the Premier’s

office, for things like data linking, for things like data being stored out of

country.

Just because other jurisdictions have jumped to allow data being stored

out of country doesn’t make it right. Just because we are one of the last

jurisdictions to protect — and rightfully so — the residency of our data

doesn’t mean we’re wrong.

It’s interesting, you know. This government has no problem if Dr. Henry

says: “It doesn’t matter what the rest of the world is doing. This is what

we’re doing for COVID.” They have no problem jumping behind that message,

taking two steps behind Dr. Henry and letting her weather the storm of B.C.

doing something different than the rest of the world. No problem at all. The

Premier doesn’t mind being three steps back then whatsoever. He’s been doing it

all pandemic long.

The going gets tough; the Premier disappears. The Premier shows up, has

a bunch of confusing statements that contradict everything else we’ve been

hearing from ministers and Dr. Henry; the Premier disappears again for a little

while. It would take freedom of information to find out where he actually is,

probably, right now.

[3:25 p.m.]

Here’s the actual true seriousness of that. All of a sudden, with

freedom of information, with no one else clamouring…. Yes, some agencies are

clamouring, because it would make their life easier, but easier doesn’t make

better.

In a very self-serving move, we’re going to see our data shipped

offshore with no guarantees of end-to-end encryption, no guarantees what rules

it will fall under within that host country, moving forward — zero. At the same

time, the government is enabling itself to severely expand its abilities around

data linking and collecting people’s information, collecting information on

indication what they’re going to do with that.

The Privacy Commissioner is quite clear about his concerns around that

as well, because it’s heading down that road of Cambridge Analytica. But

silence from this government. Quite literally, silence from this government.

You get the odd heckle. They don’t have the temerity to actually stand up and

actually say anything other than a heckle through a mask that’s kind of

muffled. That’s pretty sad.

I find myself saying that bill after bill in this House that when they

were in opposition…. Oh, this bill. Well, first off we would have never brought

forward a bill like this. Secondly, we routinely checked with the Privacy

Commissioner on every piece of legislation that might remotely impact people’s

privacy.

There might be the occasional single clause that was up for debate and

disagreement between the Privacy Commissioner and ourselves, but there was

never a seven-page letter that rips apart pretty much every fundamental piece

of this bill. There was never a complete avoidance and ignoring of

section 80

in the act that says that you must actually have your committee meet and go

through this process, with all parties of this House represented through that

process, to properly dig into things, to properly consult with the Privacy

Commissioner around possible changes and possible moves that could be

made.

That’s not how this government operates. It’s a flat-out full assault on

people’s ability to try to access information. They’re shameless about it.

There’s not a hint of apology. There’s contempt and arrogance all over the

place. There are nodding heads of agreement at other moments from the other

side, but those agreements that are nodding will not have the courage of their

convictions to actually vote against something like this. That’s pretty

sad.

We’ve heard from experts out there that once data residency is gone,

it’s never coming back. Do you know who really wants the change in data

residency? This is amazing — that a government like the NDP would be siding

with big data. We are one of the outlier jurisdictions. They don’t like that.

It makes their life a bit of a pain too.

We have two major data centres in Kamloops built. Some handle

exclusively things like B.C. health information. Data seems to be able to be

stored in Kamloops, no problem. We have backup redundant fibre that comes into

Kamloops. That’s why it was chosen — as well as seismically stable, as well as

its climate.

The two data centres literally share a property line. They don’t seem to

have a problem having a big enough pipe to get the information in and out to

store it. They have got tons of room for expansion. The one is still only on

its first footprint. Its buildout has five modules of space, the same as the

first footprint on that same site. That’s how much growth they have the ability

for — just in Kamloops.

When you see things like data residency completely ignored by this

government, and the concerns and the refusal to go to committee, it really does

make one wonder what exactly this government is hiding.

[3:30 p.m.]

I think the important part about this is this bill needs more time. This

bill needs more time for the public to fully understand the clauses and the

complexities, the true ramifications. This bill needs the courtesy, the actual

proper due process to be dealt with at the committee, the all-party committee,

that legislatively, it’s supposed to do.

We’re not expecting that legislative committee, in its sixth year, which

it’s supposed to review, to do a bunch of housekeeping things. The public

expectation is that that committee is going to read the bill, read the act,

look at the two, talk with the Privacy Commissioner and figure out how to truly

make it a better bill — a better act — moving forward, that, actually, truly

protects not the Premier and his office but the public on what’s happening with

their data footprint and their access to government records.

That’s really what was at its core. Not the fee. The fee is going to be

the fee. I think we all see it for what it is. It’s going to be a bit of a

pain, and frankly, as opposition, we’ll have to rework our budget a little. But

really, the fee — and it’s been said before — means we’re going to take our

caucus budget, which is taxpayers’ dollars, to pay the government to go hire

someone else to process that fee with your tax dollars so we can file the same

piece of information.

Who the fee really impacts is the average person and the media. I make

no bones about it. It’s no secret. The $25 fee is not going to come out of my

personal pocket when I put in an FOI. It will come out of our caucus budget.

And me, you, and everyone else that’s a taxpayer in this province will pay that

fee on our behalf.

Then we’re going to have somebody…. There are estimates. It will cost

about $35 to process the $25 fee. So taxpayers will pay us $25, and then

taxpayers will pay a system another $35. So the taxpayers will pay about 60

bucks so this government can charge a $25 fee. Just so that average people

won’t have access to the Premier’s office, because as the Premier says, who

cares?

Who cares what’s on the Premier’s computer? He certainly seems to care.

I have no idea what’s on his computer, because he won’t tell us. He won’t tell

us basic things. Why that’s important is when he tells us basic things around

file names and things of that nature, it enables us to go file another FOI,

because they won’t just give us the information they know we’re looking for.

Then we need an expert to go and file a third FOI, so we can finally get the

document we’re looking for, because each one is linked to the other. They just

play a game of let’s delay.

On something as critically important as wildfires, they just flat out

say: “No records found.” We’re supposed to believe they have no records of

resourcing a wildfire three months ago. But there’s none available. It’s simply

not acceptable. That’s why the special committee needs to actually have the

respect of doing their job, not the contempt, from the Premier, of process, and

the contempt the Premier is showing to regular citizens of this province with

this bill.

With that, I’ve provided notice to the Clerks. I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 22) intituled

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act,

2021 be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting

therefor the following: “Bill (No. 22) not be read a second time now but that

the subject matter be referred to the Special Committee to Review the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”]

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has moved an amendment for the second reading of Bill 22.

[3:35 p.m.]

Members, debate is now on the motion moved by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: Thank you very much for this time to speak to the amendment. I touched on it a little bit in my comments about the problems with the bill, but I think fundamental and core to it is: the bill needs more time to breathe. The bill needs more time for the public to fully understand it.

More importantly, the bill needs more time so that this government can actually let the committee, legislative, that is supposed to be doing the work of reviewing the act, deal with the act review and now have the context of this bill to compare and see exactly what the government had in mind.

It does not preclude the government from bringing this bill back after the committee does

their work. Hopefully, the government would listen to changes being proposed by

the committee. Certainly, it does not change the government’s ability at the

end of the committee doing their work, to bring forward a bill — an amended

bill, hopefully — to make changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection

Act.

It does enable people to do the work that, legislatively, they’ve been tasked to do. They

were not tasked in

section 80 of the act to meet once every six years to

convene a two-minute meeting as a committee so that a Chair could kick in their

stipend for the next two and three years. That’s not what the committee was

tasked to do every six years.

The committee was tasked of meeting to properly review and properly advise the government on updates to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act to make sure, in conjunction with the Privacy Commissioner, that amendments are in line with keeping of best practice.

We have a seven-page letter from the Privacy Commissioner that very clearly shows us this

bill is not in keeping with best practice. It’s important because, as I say,

when we want to start talking about data linking…. Again, I think we’ve more

than thoroughly put out there how problematic this bill is when it comes to

fees and how problematic this bill is when it comes to the Premier’s office and

his removal through this and his utter disdain for the public to even remotely

try to have access to governmental data.

There are bigger, long-term problems for people, and it relates with data linking. We see

that in the Privacy Commissioner’s letter that he acknowledges that data

linking needs to be updated and modernized to reflect modern practices and

standards, but he also goes on to say that leaving it to regulation, to not

knowing exactly how the government is going to deal with data linking leaves a

very problematic and troublesome path forward for people.

Does the government intend to analyze the online behaviour and personality traits of

British Columbians, just as they would on a political campaign? We don’t know.

But this amendment actually allows them to do that. It’s the type of

information that’s usually captured by advertising companies, political

campaigns. Again, what legiti­mate reason does the government have to

want to capture this type of information?

[3:40 p.m.]

That’s why the Privacy Commissioner has some problems, because it’s all through future regulations. Nothing is set in stone. Just like fees, the answer you get back from the Premier is: “Don’t worry about it. Nothing to worry about here.”

Well, by the silence from the other side, I know they don’t seem to worry, which makes you wonder if they actually have read their own bill.

We’ll find out in committee stage eventually, hopefully after the special standing committee has actually done their work, as they’re supposed to be tasked to. Hopefully, the government members can at least have the courage to vote to put this over to committee so the committee can do their work for the next few months. I’m not sure that’s going to actually happen.

The changes are challenging to our freedom of information, our privacy and our data. There are times that data linking can work. There are people that…. Someone experiencing homelessness may require multi-cross-ministry supports from Social Development and Poverty Reduction, Housing, Mental Health and Addictions, etc. So that can be a good thing.

Your data, your personal data, is supposed to be sacred when it comes to the government,

especially in this modern age. The government has a responsibility to have

proper protections, but we don’t see those protections in here. We don’t know

the checks and the balances to make sure that that privacy is respected. It’s a

very significant concern.

The NSA scandal of 2013 showed us the dangers of how government collects and uses people’s data and how it can be abused. Cambridge Analytica scandal, 2018. They mined Facebook to build voter profiles to influence the election.

I have news. Contrary to the Premier not wanting to take any responsibility for school

districts, schools are a provincial government purview. How does this data

linking impact your child’s online presence through their school? We don’t

know, because there is no detail, and no committee has properly looked at

this.

The sick day surveys that are out there right now — take our survey. Click online here.

Guess what. Under this act, under these changes in this bill, they’ll be able

to start linking what you say on that with what you said about B.C. Parks, with

footprint all lined up quite nicely for targeted government marketing. Nothing

in here prevents that from happening — nothing. That should scare a lot of

people, especially when you layer that with the amount of oversight of the

Privacy Commissioner that is being stripped away in this bill.

No wonder the Privacy Commissioner has reservations about this bill — seven pages of reservations, actually. Well, let’s be fair, 6½. Half a page he had reasonably complimentary things to say about a couple of the clauses.

[3:45 p.m.]

This government, this Premier, has such contempt for the public that he won’t even allow that to go to a committee, a legislatively convened committee that…. Within the privacy bill, it says it has to meet once every six years, and 2021 is that sixth year. That’s how little respect for this whole process this Premier has, and that’s how little respect this Premier has for the public to access documents that he may be linked to.

“Who cares?” according to the Premier. He doesn’t want us to see any information that’s linked to him, but he sure went out of his way to make sure there’s a lot of information they can start collecting off of every single private citizen, including school-aged children, to link together, to make sure they have a nice, tight profile built up.

Believe me. I am the farthest thing you’re going to find from a conspiracy theorist. But you can start to see why people start to get the feelings around government overreach when you see pieces of legislation like this and an unwillingness from government to stand up and defend it, to explain it, to describe it. Instead, we had a minister that stood up for a minute and a half, and the only clip you could get from a press event was “a modest fee.” That’s it. That’s the depth of defence of this piece of legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that you’re speaking to the amendment, on the referral.

P. Milobar: That’s right, Madam Chair. Thank you.

That’s why it’s important to go through the committee, and that’s what

the amendment would do. Put it to the committee so those questions can actually

be properly canvassed in an all-party way so that the public can properly

understand the implications — specifically, and most importantly, probably,

about their own personal information.

The $25 fee that the committee could discuss will impact those that

actually file a freedom-of-information request. We know that that’s a few

hundred people a year, and we know it’ll be a financial hit to them. We know

it’ll be a financial hit to media, newsrooms with ever-shrinking budgets, but

we already kind of understand that.

What the committee could look into, to shine a light on and expose for

the public, is that every single British Columbian under this act actually has

their data put at risk, and we don’t have a full understanding of that. We

don’t have a full understanding of what the government wants do with that data

linking, and we don’t know how that interconnects with their desire — and no

one seems to understand what this desire is for — to move data residency out of

the country.

Not only does this bill allow for an increased overreach of government

to collect personal data like never before and link it all together on you,

every single resident of British Columbia…. Let’s be clear. Unlike the fee that

will only be for those that file, data linking impacts every single British

Columbian in their daily lives.

Then you layer that with all that data going to an offshore entity

beholden to the laws of the country where the data is being held — not the laws

of British Columbia, not the disclosure rules of British Columbia, but whatever

that jurisdiction is. That is a problem. That’s what the committee needs to

look at.

[3:50 p.m.]

That’s why this motion to defer it over to the committee, to let them

properly do their legislatively mandated work, is so important — so that when

we deal with an FOI bill at this House after the committee has properly done

their work, we’re dealing with an FOI bill, Bill 22, that has been properly

vetted, properly looked at, has proper safeguards in place for all British

Columbians’ personal information and data residency.

This bill is…. It’s bad enough that the Premier is worried about hiding

his own data from us. But in the very next breath, in this bill, the Premier

wants every bit of data about us. That’s wrong. It should be the other way

around.

Residents in British Columbia should know that the government is not

collecting data on them every time they click on some sort of governmental

webpage. Last count we heard, there were some 150 webpages the government

directly oversees, and many other in their other partner agencies, that would

all be subject to this. People click on governmental-linked sites much more

than they might realize. Their kids click on governmental sites much more than

they realize.

The committee needs to look into this to figure out why this government

is so bent on making sure that the public is an open book to government and the

Premier gets to slam the book shut when it comes to his office.

That’s why I’ll be supporting this amendment. I’m highly doubtful anyone

from the government is going to bother speaking to the amendment, because they

haven’t bothered to speak with any depth to the bill, which is completely

shameful in itself. But I look forward to hearing other speakers and their

comments and their opinions around the amendment to move this to committee to

take a look at it properly, as legislation actually calls for.

B. Banman: I, too, took a moment before I stood to see if those on the other side of the House had anything to say with regards to this. Sadly, their response of silence is pretty much what we’ve heard throughout the entire portion of this.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House. Unfortunately, it’s not a pleasure, necessarily, to talk with regards to Bill 22. I am pleased to talk to the amendment, however.

I hold in my hand a letter from the Privacy Commissioner. If I was on the other side of the House…. I challenge the other side of the House to look through the records to see if there has ever been a letter of this magnitude from the Privacy Commissioner, pointing out as many issues with a piece of legislation as there are on this particular one.

Prior to politics, I was proud — and I am still proud — to be a chiropractor, a doctor. I would record people’s health care records, as is required and should be. I took that oath of privacy of what happened in that room. It’s sacred. I was not allowed to tell a partner what the other one had said in the room unless I had full consent. I was to keep those records secure, because someone’s privacy to the most personal thing, their health care records, depended on my duty to do so.

This particular legislation means that my health care records, my wife’s health care records, all of our records, will now end up going offshore. That is not something that we should take lightly. As was mentioned, once it goes offshore, we can never get it back.

[3:55 p.m.]

We are opening up a Pandora’s box, where we will not have the legal recourse to ensure that those records are held privately, that they’re secure. I am deeply troubled with the rapid pace that this went through.

Now, I was also a mayor of a city. I’ll be honest with you. Freedom-of-information

requests are an absolute pain. They cause a lot of work. There are certain

frequent flyers that ask questions, over and over again, and ask for requests,

but it’s part of the democratic process.

As much of a tedious chore as it was to endure, democracy requires an awful lot of sunlight. The fees, I agree, can be a burden for some. It will act as a toll, which I find interesting coming from the side that loves to tout that they got rid of tolls. They’re now tolling the freedom-of-information highway. It’s no different.

However, in this case, I believe sometimes it’s worse, because this involves the heart of this place. We are supposed to be open and transparent. The taxpayers have paid for the information that they’re asking for, and it helps keep government accountable.

Seven pages of the Privacy Commissioner’s report, and it lists grave concern after concern after concern. I believe it needs a sober second thought. I believe that the committee that was put in place…. Rather than just issuing paycheques or stipends to those that are on that committee, I believe that they want to actually work to earn those stipends, on behalf of the taxpayer, by reviewing this legislation.

When one of the most respected privacy commissioners in the world sends a seven-page letter, it is time to heed those warnings. It is time to heed what the Privacy Commissioner has said. When one of the most respected privacy commissioners in the world says the proposals would be a step backwards for British Columbia, this House has a duty to listen. That’s why we hired the expertise of the Privacy Commissioner.

The Privacy Commissioner is waving a red flag of danger. To just boldly carry on is incredibly troublesome to me. It should be incredibly troublesome to British Columbians.

When it comes to data linking, I’m not so sure I am comfortable with my grandchildren accessing government-linked websites and their data now being linked. I’m not comfortable with where and what that data means and where it will end up and under whose control it will be.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Every parent in British Columbia, every individual in British Columbia, should be concerned as to where this data is actually going to go, who is going to have access to it, and what it’s going to be used for. This is a travesty, in my opinion, of what the intent is for.

[4:00 p.m.]

We have seen — as has been mentioned prior, with the Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2018 — what happens when data ends up in the wrong hands. It begs the question: what’s the government going to do with all this data? Why are they not wanting to put it through the actual committee who is to ask these questions? Why is this being railroaded through this House?

Actually, what bothers me, in some ways, the most is that the Privacy Commissioner has said: “At the very least, it is imperative that my office be consulted on the draft regulations, as soon as they are available, as their content will provide the crucial legal substance on data residency protections and other important matters.” Regulations that will not be debated on this floor; regulations that, behind the secrecy of closed doors, government makes up as they wish. It is far, far too much power and far, far too important for regulations of this magnitude, when it involves our privacy, to be made up as government wishes.

This House should defend our privacy. We need to remember why it is that this nation was formed in the first place. Democracy deserves that we protect it. Now, in the new digital age, the data that’s going to be collected — if put in the wrong hands, if the proper safeguards are not in place — can never, ever be taken back. To have this data go offshore to who only knows what, and who only knows what they’re going to do with it, and who knows who is going to be able to look at it — every British Columbian in this province should be outraged by that.

This House has a duty to protect our citizens, not to expose them to this kind of threat. It’s all fine and well if it’s in the right hands and the proper things are done with it. But this House needs to consider, itself: what happens if it ends up in the wrong hands? I’m not so sure that I’m comfortable with the data being used in those hands. What are they going to find out about me, my family, my neighbours, my granddaughter? British Columbians should be concerned about what’s going to happen to this data, how it’s going to be collected and who’s going to use it for whatever nefarious purpose that may end up if it’s in the wrong hands.

We have a duty — when the Privacy Commissioner says, page after page, that there’s a concern — to listen to that. This is going to be, I believe, one of the most important pieces of documents and legislation that’s going to come across us in these three years. For the other side of the House to sit there silent….

Interjection.

B. Banman: I’d love to get over it. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I’d love to get over it, but I can’t. I lose sleep at night because this is the kind of poorly written legislation that acts as a huge pitfall. This should be disturbing to all members of the House.

[4:05 p.m.]

This is not to be a partisan issue. We have a duty to protect our citizens, to protect our citizens’ data, to protect their health care records, not to use it because we don’t want to do freedom of information, and we’re just getting too many of them and it’s: “Boo hoo. It’s a big burden on us.”

This isn’t child’s play here. This is incredibly sensitive information, and we have a duty to ensure that it’s protected. This data that is going to end up Lord only knows where should be very, very concerning to us. In addition to that, not only is the data going to end up anywhere, but we have reduced the oversight. At a time when we should increase the oversight of the Privacy Commissioner, this legislation takes the power away.

It boggles my mind. We have taken and reduced the powers of the Privacy Commissioner. What’s the point of even having one then? If government is going to do whatever they want with this data, what’s the point of having a Privacy Commissioner, if we’re not going to listen to the Privacy Commissioner? This is incredibly flawed legislation.

I plead with the other side of the House to heed the non-partisan person that we put in power to overview what we’re doing, so we don’t end up inadvertently walking off a cliff. That’s what we’re about to do with this. This isn’t about one side versus the other. This is about protecting those we hold dear, that we all took an oath in this House to do so, and that is every single citizen within this province.

I am deeply, deeply troubled with this legislation. The data should stay within the confines of this province. We have the capability to do so. Only then will our legal system be able to properly prosecute those that make a mistake, even if it’s a mistake, whether intentionally or not.

It is unthinkable that any government would allow the privacy of their citizens, their most personal records, to not only be mined so they know what social links I’m talking on, what social links we’re all interacting on…. A group of paren