Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 4, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 125

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 M205 — British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2021

J. Sturdy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas

T. Wat

Apprenticeships in skilled trades and scholarship program in Langley

A. Mercier

World War I service of Alec Dawe and return of medal to family

K. Kirkpatrick

Celebration of Diwali by MLA’s family

N. Sharma

Koksilah watershed and water sustainability project

S. Furstenau

COVID-19 response by city of Coquitlam

F. Donnelly

Oral Questions

Service model change for children with support needs and

funding for autism services

S. Bond

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

Housing affordability and role of intergenerational wealth and systemic racism

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Robinson

Service model change for children with support needs and

funding for autism services

T. Halford

Hon. M. Dean

J. Tegart

D. Davies

P. Milobar

Tabling Documents

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report, 2020-21

Motions Without Notice

Membership change to Finance Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

B. Banman

Hon. L. Beare

E. Ross

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency,

Vice Skračić, the Ambassador of the Republic of Croatia to Canada. He’s

accompanied by Mr. Manjot Hallen, the honorary consul to the Republic of

Croatia in Vancouver.

I had the honour of meeting the ambassador in February of last year.

Today he is here to meet with the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and

Innovation and the Minister of State for Trade, and with you, Mr.

Speaker.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: We’re joined today by what appears to be a travelling medical clinic,

of sorts. We’ve got a whole bunch of doctors up in the gallery today, and I

hope the House will make them feel welcome here.

Dr. Peter Paré is a retired respirologist and scientist. Lisa Baile is

a retired scientist as well. Dr. Robert Stowe is a neuropsychiatrist at UBC.

Of note, he’s the son of Irving Stowe, one of the founders of Greenpeace.

Dr. Tom Perry is a former member of this august assembly, and his wife, Beth

Chambers, is here as well. Dr. Douglas Courte­manche is a plastic

surgeon at B.C. Children’s Hospital. Dr. Rashmi Chadha is a specialist in

complex pain and addiction medicine, from VGH. Dr. Maura Brown is a

radiologist from the B.C. Cancer Agency, and Mr. Michael Varabioff is the

husband of Dr. Brown. Dr. Linda Theyer is an SFU student health MD. Dr.

Janet Ray is an addiction physician from Saanich.

Would the House join me in making them all welcome. I hope they stop

by my office after question period to say hi. Please make the doctors feel

welcome.

J. Sturdy: It’s my pleasure today to introduce to the House Karen Elliott, mayor

of the district of Squamish. She’s here in Victoria in her role as a member

of the B.C. Transit board and as, certainly, a strong advocate for Squamish

and the Sea to Sky.

Karen moved from Australia in 2012 after spending ten years there, I

believe, has served on council, and has spent the last term as mayor of a

community which is very much in transition, away from a resource-dominated

economy towards a clean innovation, technology and recreation economy, with

a growing and innovative business sector, yet still linked to the natural

environment and its natural assets.

In spite of the many challenges facing the community, I think Squamish

is well on its way to success, and it’s in no small part because of the

energy, creativity and contributions of Mayor Elliott.

I hope the House will

join me in making her feel very welcome.

J. Sims: Joining us in the gallery today are Luv Randhawa and his companion,

Karm Rai. Luv Randhawa is an international-award-winning singer and artist

performed alongside many Bollywood artists and mainstream

musicians.

Awarded the 2020 Best International Artist, most recently he reached

No. 1 in the world, iTunes chart, with his album Taqdeer , or in

Luv for Humanity is a foundation created by Luv, which aims to give

back to the community in support and promotes young, upcoming artists. Luv,

through his foundation, gives scholarships to young artists graduating from

high schools and planning to pursue a career in the music and arts industry.

Luv has donated to Khalsa Aid, as well as to local food banks.

This past month, Luv was the winner of the Surrey Arts and Business

Awards in the music category.

Please join me in welcoming Luv and Karm Rai, his companion, to the House this

morning.

S. Chant: Today I would like to introduce a long-time friend. We met when I was

a new grad working in Camp Hill Hospital in Halifax.

Dr. Maureen Ryan is the

associate dean of academics at UVic, working in the faculty of human and

social development. She is a nursing education scholar with a focus on

Indigenous initiatives in the school of nursing and other schools, with

another focus on Indigenous health and wellness.

She shares history with the Mi’kmaq on her father’s side and with the

Irish settlers on her mother’s.

I would like the House to join me in making

this true representative of women in science, Dr. Maureen Ryan, welcome in

the House.

[10:10 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I just want to acknowledge the individuals that the Attorney General

introduced into the House. I’m not going to go and repeat their names again,

but I wanted to say that it was a wonderful opportunity to have breakfast

with them this morning and welcome them into this place.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M205 — BRITISH COLUMBIA

TRANSIT AMENDMENT ACT,

J. Sturdy presented a bill intituled British Columbia Transit

Amendment Act, 2021.

J. Sturdy: I move that a bill intituled British Columbia Transit Amendment

Act, 2021, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper,

be introduced and read a first time now.

The 2006 to 2009 Sea to Sky Highway improvement project was

transformative for communities throughout the whole Sea to Sky region.

Travel times, reliability and public safety all improved dramatically,

while economic opportunities expanded, and the communities have

responded.

While this world-class piece of infrastructure has proved a great

investment, the highway is still, in essence, a single lane in either

direction, albeit with expanded passing opportunities. With the region

growing, the local governments and First Nations have realized that we

must steward this valuable transportation corridor capacity and that a

regional transit service would be the most cost-effective option to

provide the public, visitors and workers transportation alternatives to

the single-occupancy vehicle in a way that would connect Lillooet,

Pemberton, Whistler, Squamish, Britannia Beach, Furry Creek, Lions Bay

and each other with Metro Vancouver.

British Columbia Transit led a comprehensive 25-year transit

futures plan in 2016 that identified a path forward for a regional

transit service to serve the Sea to Sky. Squamish and

Líl̓wat First Nations and all

local governments subsequently signed an MOU that, among other things,

identified the preferred funding model and governance

structure.

A transit commission governance model was agreed upon. This bill

corrects a shortcoming in the B.C. Transit Act by expanding the

composition of a future Sea to Sky transit commission membership to

include not just local government elected officials but Squamish and

Lillooet First Nations representatives as well, who would currently not

be eligible to serve.

In order for the Sea to Sky regional transit service and

commission to be implemented, this amendment is necessary and will,

hopefully, stimulate this government to move this badly needed transit

service into reality in the next fiscal year.

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

Motion approved.

J. Sturdy: I move that this bill be moved forward on the orders of the day

for the next sitting after today.

Bill M205, British Columbia Transit 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DIWALI AND BANDI CHHOR DIVAS

T. Wat: It is my great pleasure to stand in the House today to recognize

today as the beginning of Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas. This festival of

lights is celebrated throughout South Asian communities, by Hindus,

Jains and some Buddhists. It signifies peace and joy, the victory of

good over evil and light over darkness every day. It is a celebration of

prosperity, in which people give gifts to their loved ones and follow

the message of illuminating our inner selves with clarity and

positivity.

This celebration is also significant in the Sikh communities as it

commemorates the day the sixth guru of the Sikhs was released from the

fort after he was able to secure the release of 52 kings and political

prisoners with him.

During this festival, it is customary to decorate homes with

lights, lamps, diyas, flowers, rangoli and candles.

This year’s Diwali embodies the spirit of this great celebration

in more ways than one. It is the first Diwali since the pandemic where

friends, families and communities can gather to safely celebrate

together. In the many challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, nothing

signifies a triumph of light over darkness more than the incredible

action of our South Asian communities, who embody the spirit of charity

and hope, not just for the five-day festival of lights but all year

round.

[10:15 a.m.]

Our South Asian communities have gone above and beyond to help

those in need — charitable food drives, donating food and PPE — and have

undertaken endeavours to support our front-line workers and

neighbourhoods.

Although people can still come together in a limited capacity,

many of the large gatherings and iconic festivals that exemplify Diwali

have had to be suspended for another year. But I know the spirit of

Diwali will be as strong as ever.

Would the House join me in wishing everyone a happy Diwali and

Bandi Chhor Divas.

APPRENTICESHIPS IN SKILLED TRADES

AND SCHOLARSHIP

PROGRAM IN LANGLEY

A. Mercier: It’s an honour to rise in this House on behalf of the Minister of

Advanced Education and Skills Training, as well as myself, to recognize

Apprenticeship Recognition Month.

We have 37,000 registered apprentices with the Industry Training

Authority in British Columbia, and we graduate 6,100 of them into

journeypeople every year. But that is not enough. We have a real

skilled-trades crisis in this province. We’re going to have 73,000 job

openings in less than the next ten years in the skilled

trades.

While that is, in many ways, a real crisis, it’s also an

opportunity for enterprising young people to get into a profession where

they can work with their hands, gain some skills and see the productive

value of what they do every day. There is so much work in B.C. right

now.

Going into the skilled trades can take you across this province

and across this country, from Site C and LNG Canada in the north to the

Pattullo Bridge, the SkyTrain, the Broadway corridor and many other

projects across the province. There is so much opportunity to build a

life in the skilled trades, and we need to be encouraging our young

people in this province to get involved in the skilled

trades.

One of the things that I’ve done, Mr. Speaker, in my community of

Langley, is set aside a scholarship for grade 12 students in school

district 35 looking to enter the skilled trades.

I’d just like to give a shout-out to the three apprentices who

received that scholarship in 2020: Corbin Alexander from Langley

Secondary School, my and the Minister of State for Child Care’s alma

mater, for piping and plumbing; my favourite here, Maya Pressman from

Brookswood Secondary School, who is going to be going into hairstyling,

which I hear is in high demand, at least in my household; and Chris

McEwen from Vanguard Secondary, who is going to be going into doing

electrical work. All three of them were part of Youth Train in Trades,

the ITA program at school district 35.

Can we give a big hand for the 37,000 apprentices in this province

and the work that they do.

WORLD WAR I SERVICE OF ALEC DAWE

AND RETURN OF MEDAL TO

FAMILY

K. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Speaker, 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of Remembrance

poppies in Canada, and I wanted to share a personal story.

In 1917, Alec Dawe fought in the bloody Battle of Passchendaele

during which 15,000 of his fellow Canadians were killed. Alec was the

only remaining soldier in his battery and took control of the machine

gun that held off the German line until the gun was knocked out. Alec

was my grandfather.

According to The London Gazette , on March 28, 1918, Alec

was awarded the honour of a Distinguished Conduct Medal for his

“conspicuous gallantry and devotion and his supreme contempt of

danger.”

Three years after arriving in Europe and barely out of his teens,

he came home to Canada at the rank of corporal and brought his medal

home with him. Our mother doesn’t recall her father ever speaking of the

war. We can only imagine the horrors that he and all those others

witnessed.

After my grandfather died, we were surprised to discover that she

had sold that medal at some point. We didn’t know to who, we didn’t know

why, and we did not know where it had gone. A few years ago, my sister

was doing some research and was astonished to find my grandfather’s DCM

for sale on a website in Ontario. The owner told us she’d purchased it

in an auction in London, England and was very kind to sell it to us for

what she had paid.

This closed a century-long journey. It had travelled from Canada

to London, where it was originally awarded to my grandfather; then to

Ontario after the war; then to Alberta, where my grandmother took it;

and then back to London, England; back to Ontario. Now, finally, it’s

here in British Columbia, where it’s been reunited with a snippet of its

original ribbon, a handwritten letter of commendation and his daughter,

my mother, 102 years after he first brought it home to

Canada.

[10:20 a.m.]

I would like to thank my grandfather and the thousands of other

Canadians who have defended our country, served as peacekeepers, served

in humanitarian roles and so many other contributions made by our

veterans. [Applause.]

CELEBRATION OF DIWALI

BY MLA’S

FAMILY

N. Sharma: When I was growing up, every year around October and November my

parents would turn on the Christmas lights. It was the only house on the

block, probably the only house in my small town, that had their

Christmas lights on around and during Halloween. I’m sorry to say that

as a young girl, I was embarrassed, not wanting to be different or stand

out. As I made my way home from school, I avoided my classmates so I

wouldn’t have to answer questions about why the Christmas lights were on

during Halloween.

In my house, there was always a celebration. Although on the other

side of the world, Diwali was alive in the four walls of my home. The

house was filled with the smell of food we only made on special

occasions. We took out our Indian clothes that usually only came out for

weddings. We lit sparklers and celebrated as the snow fell outside our

window, and our Christmas lights shone down the street.

As an adult, I now cherish those memories, and I think about how I

am passing this on to my children. When I look back, I understand the

meaning behind my parents turning on the Christmas lights. It was a

beacon my parents lit, away from their home country, to say, “We are

here, and we are proud” — a symbol of resilience, perseverance and

hope.

Diwali is a festival of lights — light which dispels the darkness

of our ignorance, light which guides us through our darkest days. At

this time, millions of people are celebrating across the world. On these

days, we face many challenges. We can all take a moment to appreciate

that our collective light will always guide us through the

darkness.

I wish everyone a very happy Diwali. May you share some good food,

light a candle or a sparkler and spend some time with your

family.

KOKSILAH WATERSHED AND

WATER SUSTAINABILITY

PROJECT

S. Furstenau: The Koksilah watershed is central to the identity of the Quw’utsun

Mustimuhw. There are many sacred places and cultural stories associated

with this watershed. In recent years, summer flows in this critical

watershed have been exceptionally low.

In August 2019, when the flow of water in the Koksilah dropped

below 180 litres per second, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development issued the first-ever fish

population protection order under the Water Sustainability Act to

protect the critically threatened fish populations.

In August 2021, another protection order was issued to respond to

critically low flows. In times of drought, low water flows prevent fish

from reaching their spawning grounds. As climate change intensifies,

periods of drought are becoming more common and more severe.

In response to the critical situation in the Koksilah, Cowichan

Tribes engaged the provincial government in a government-to-government

relationship. One of the central goals in this relationship has been the

creation and implementation of the first-ever water sustainability plan.

A number of partner groups — including the Cowichan Watershed Board,

Polis water sustainability project, the UVic Environmental Law Centre

and the B.C. freshwater legacy initiative — provide advice and technical

support to the steering committee, which has met every two weeks for

almost two years.

The project has been rooted in relationship-building and

collaboration, and it is thanks to the commitment and vision of Cowichan

Tribes members and staff that history is being made in the Koksilah

watershed. Funding for this work has been a critical dimension of its

success, and long-term funding is needed to ensure that relationships at

the heart of this partnership are not lost.

A permanent watershed security fund is needed to ensure this

long-term funding is met and to help realize the values of

reconciliation and watershed security across the province.

COVID-19 RESPONSE BY

CITY OF

COQUITLAM

F. Donnelly: We all know the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unforeseen

challenges to residents, businesses and community organizations

throughout our province. Local governments have had to respond to the

impact of the pandemic in innovative ways.

[10:25 a.m.]

These unique circumstances prompted the Union of B.C.

Municipalities to establish, in early 2020, a Presidents Committee

Choice award, which goes to a community exhibiting an outstanding

response to the pandemic.

At this year’s UBCM convention, the city of Coquitlam’s community

support and recovery plan was honoured as the first recipient. The

Coquitlam CSRP was created in the spring of 2020 and provided a number

of valuable services to residents, businesses and organizations,

including property tax and utility bill payment extensions for property

owners in 2020, meals for isolated seniors, reduced fees for recreation

programs, revenue replacement and response grants for non-profits and

community organizations, donations to local food and rent banks,

expansion of public Wi-Fi in the city, development of an interactive

bicycle map and the creation of a community volunteer support

hub.

In addition, the city provided support for businesses, including

waived late fees for business licences, temporary outdoor patio

expansions, free city centre parking, and marketing campaigns. They

continue to add more initiatives, such as an expanded and updated

financial assistance recreation program, pop-up parks in various

neighbourhoods and doubling the number of block party grants in 2021 to

safely support neighbourhoods coming together again.

Clearly, the city of Coquitlam expended significant time, energy

and resources to support all sectors of the community during the

pandemic.

Members, please join me in congratulating the city of Coquitlam

for being chosen for this UBCM award.

Oral Questions

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT

NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

S. Bond: Carla Christman has 50 years of lived experience as a person who

is neurodiverse. She is a mother of two neurodiverse children and a

grandmother of two neurodiverse grandsons. She has also worked in the

social service field for 20 years.

Carla said that she had meetings with CYSN policy-makers and

believed that she was being heard. But now she is angry. She says:

“These changes will be devastating for my family. I have had to fight

for the services we currently have, and now we are threatened to have

them taken away. I am very capable of managing my family’s support

services. Individualized funding enables us to have a choice about

service providers. We know our children best.”

Will the minister listen to Carla and reverse her decision to claw

back support?

Hon. M. Dean: I appreciate the question from the member, and I do understand the

concerns that families have. But I heard a lot yesterday from the

members opposite, and today, about how families have struggled to put

together a package of care for their children and youth. Families

shouldn’t have to be the ones who have to struggle for years, wait for a

diagnosis and put that package together. Our government is here to

support families, and that’s what we will be doing.

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

S. Bond: Well, with due respect to the minister, it’s not about families

having to — a significant difference, and that’s part of the problem

here — it’s that parents want to. In fact, they’re capable of doing

exactly the things they have been doing for years to ensure that their

children are well-supported. The minister wants to change

that.

Yesterday she basically said in this House that government knows

better than parents. What parents are saying….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s hear the question, please.

S. Bond: I would suggest that members opposite might want to open their

email boxes and read the stories of parents who said exactly that about

the answers that were given in this House yesterday.

Carla also said that her family believes that the behaviours in

her grandchildren have a reason, and that they’re not bad. She values

what neurodiverse people bring to the table and she has chosen therapy

that fits within their cultural values and traditional Aboriginal

parenting.

[10:30 a.m.]

She said: “My family has had three generations of trau­ma,

and as an Aboriginal grandma, we contend with the historical trauma.

This MCFD framework is very patronizing, and it fails to recognize the

strength that families bring to the table. I am very capable of managing

my grandson’s autism programs.”

It’s not that parents have to do this. It’s that parents want to

do this, and it is that parents across British Columbia are begging this

minister to reconsider her clawback and allow them to continue to design

the programs that will best support their children.

Will she do that today?

Hon. M. Dean: I understand that parents are experts in the lives of their

children and their families. But when the pandemic hit, we saw that so

many services just stopped, and those families were abandoned. They had

no services — the packages of care they had put together. There was no

way for government to help. We, under the new framework, will be

building a public system that will create a safety net and will be

supporting all families with neurodiverse children.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer.

Hon. M. Dean: Indigenous families. Families where there’s a single mom who’s

working two jobs and who can’t put a package together. Families who have

struggling.

K. Kirkpatrick: With all due respect to the minister, I don’t believe that hub

services would have been available during the pandemic either. I’ve

heard that as a reason, which does not make sense.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yesterday the minister said that parents “don’t have the capacity

or the time” to manage services, and “with the individualized funding,

there was no accountability.” Parents are watching and are

outraged.

Koryn Heisler says: “I have three children, two with autism. They

are my priority, and I deserve to have choice. Parents like me want

choice. How dare you insinuate that I am not capable of managing their

home teams and am not accountable for the services they

receive.”

Will the minister listen to parents like Koryn and reverse her

decision to claw back individualized funding?

Hon. M. Dean: I understand that parents are experts in the lives of their

children and families. But what happened when the pandemic hit was that

those services were no longer available for those families. Government

services continued to function. We have social workers who continued to

deliver services. Under individualized….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order now.

Minister, take your seat, please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Dean: There was no way for government to help those families. There was

no safety net. There was no public system. Under the new framework, it

will be possible for government to continue supporting those families

even in times of a global pandemic. Through the new system, families

will co-create the care plan for their child and youth. They will be

working with support to be able to make sure that the needs of their

child and youth are met.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Again, with respect to the minister, I know firsthand that those

government services supporting young people with autism ended. They were

government services, ended during the pandemic.

Heather and Ray Harrison watched the minister’s answers yesterday.

This is what they had to say: “I want to correct the minister. Most of

us want to manage our kids’ service providers. I don’t begrudge the

minister offering an option for families who want this, but I am

vehemently opposed to having my right to decide on the treatment and

therapies of my own children taken away from me against my

will.”

[10:35 a.m.]

No one is saying not to expand services, not to support children

with FASD, with Down syndrome. They’re saying don’t destroy what already

exists.

Will the minister respect parents’ choice and stop this

clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: I want to make sure that children and youth with support needs get

the services they need. That’s what’s important. Our government is

making choices of investing in services for children and youth, as

opposed to the other side that gutted my ministry.

So many parents tell me that their children are forced to wait for

years because they have to wait for a diagnosis to unlock services.

Children can’t wait. We’re going to build a system that responds to the

needs of children earlier, so children with autism will continue to

receive services. Their families will be supported through this

transition, and children with other diagnoses and other needs will also

get services. They’ve been locked out of the system, and children with

autism will no longer have to wait for a diagnosis. They will get

services earlier.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

AND ROLE OF INTERGENERATIONAL

WEALTH AND SYSTEMIC RACISM

S. Furstenau: In the last year, parents in Canada gave their kids more than $10

billion in down payment help. On average, parents gave $82,000 to help

their kids buy a house, but fewer than 30 percent of first-time

homebuyers got this help. It’s a lot of money.

I know that every parent would want to help their child if they

could, especially in a housing market as out of reach as B.C.’s, where

it can take 35 years to save for a down payment. But not all parents

have access to the same resources, and B.C.’s housing crisis is

exacerbating the inequality.

We treat housing as an investment, as a commodity, so once you’re

in the market, it pays back in dividends. Those with well-off parents

are likely to benefit from their parents’ wealth, but those without

family wealth are priced out of the home market.

My question is to the Attorney General and minister for housing.

Does this government have a stance on the role and impact of

intergenerational wealth in the housing market?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question.

In addressing affordability here in British Columbia, particularly

when it comes to the housing market, it continues to be a priority for

our government. We’ve taken significant steps in our first few years in

government to bring stability to the housing market. We’ve had some

positive results. Certainly, we’ve seen through the pandemic increased

volatility in the market. That’s why one of the things we did after our

re-election was to invest $2 billion in the HousingHub to bring

affordable home ownership to bear.

That’s a significant investment. That’s on top of the 30,000 homes

that are already either open or under development or being built. That’s

a significant investment in housing affordability. There is certainly

much more for us to do, and we’re eager to continue doing that

work.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for listing these things, but it hasn’t

actually answered the question that I asked.

It’s great that some families are able to help their kids out, but

the reality is it isn’t an option for many British Columbians.

Racialized British Columbians, for example, tend to earn less, are less

likely to receive income from capital gains and investments and are more

likely to be housing disadvantaged.

We lack race-based data, and I know government is currently

holding an engagement period on that. Even without the data, it’s not a

stretch to infer that in B.C.’s overblown housing market,

intergenerational wealth is a key factor, and racialized British

Columbians are being left behind.

To the Attorney General and minister for housing, what does he

believe government’s role is in addressing the impacts of

intergenerational wealth and systemic racism in the housing

market?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question.

She said we are gathering the data to better understand how to

address the situation, and I know that the member appreciates good data,

so that work is being undertaken.

I want to provide members of the House with an example of how the

HousingHub is working. Morgan is a 27-year-old who works in non-profit

and has a university degree, stable income, a partner, has some savings.

Owning a home was just actually very, very difficult for her and her

partner.

Last summer Morgan found a partnership with B.C. Housing and Chard

Development that would match buyers’ some form of down payment on a

presale condo and, as part of the HousingHub, with support, was able to

get more support for the other part of the down payment.

[10:40 a.m.]

You know what that meant for her? It meant that the down payment

matching program changed everything for her. This is a quote. She said:

“I couldn’t believe it. The 10 percent down payment was suddenly

possible, and it was amazing to think that my partner and I could really

own a home in a city that we love, right here in Victoria.” She’s

excited and grateful for the opportunity, and she and her partner will

be moving into their condo in 2023.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT

NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

T. Halford: Let’s be clear. If you were a parent of a child with Down

syndrome, if you were a parent of a child with FASD and if you were a

parent of a child with dyslexia, you’d want your child to have support.

No parent or this opposition is against more support for our

children.

Down Syndrome B.C. calls the minister’s announcement “a slap in

the face.” “MCFD is proposing another version of top-down support

services…in which families often receive lower standards of care and

long wait-lists. We know from experience this type of model” does not

work.

Will this minister do the right thing and end this

clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. I know, from talking to

very many families across the whole of the province, that, actually,

this change can’t come soon enough. There are families with children

with neurodiverse needs and other support needs who have not been able

to access services. Of course, they want to do the best for their

children, and it’s a patchwork of programs that’s very difficult for

them to navigate, and services in many parts of the province simply

aren’t there.

Indigenous families, families living remotely. There aren’t the services

for them to be able to support their children and youth. This important

area of need in our province was underinvested for so many years, and

our government, since 2017, has been making investments in every single

budget, which is a demonstration of our commitment to children and

families who need our services.

I think of the many families who I know who have come and spoken

to me and who have said: “This change cannot come fast

enough.”

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: Well, we’ve heard from parents too. And what they’ve said is that

clawing back support is not a way forward for the children and youth of

B.C.

Cathy McMillan, founding member of Dyslexia B.C., says the

dyslexia community does not feel included in this minister’s plans.

Tamara Taggart, of Down syndrome B.C., says that instead of providing

adequate funding from the start, the ministry “makes families in the

disability community compete against each other and fight for access to

any support.”

Will the minister support all children and stop her

clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: Our commitment is to support all children and youth who need

services in the province of British Columbia. Having worked in the field

for 30 years myself, I know that delivering services through a

multidisciplinary team is the best-quality approach for successful

outcomes for children and youth. We know that that collaborative

process, bringing together lots of different expertise and perspectives

to work with families and co-create that care plan, is the way that’s

going to support those children and youth and create successful outcomes

for them.

When I was working in the community, here in British Columbia for

over a decade, I just saw cutbacks and cutbacks in my community. I’m

actually now able to envision that there will be services for all

children and youth in British Columbia.

J. Tegart: We’ve stood in this House day after day sharing stories — not our

words but the words of parents who are absolutely distraught.

[10:45 a.m.]

Yesterday one of our members shared a very personal story from a

parent who lives in Surrey-Newton. Families who have worked tirelessly

for their children and have had their world turned upside down are

watching the heckling and the yelling from government members as we

share their personal stories.

Interjections.

J. Tegart: Bring it on.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Tegart: This is what parent Kaye Banez says: “I was greatly dismayed to

hear the MLAs who were heckling the member for Richmond North Centre

while she was reading the plight of a mother. The hecklers do not

realize how demeaning and demoralizing for the parent, a mother, to hear

this, as this was their voice, their message to the minister that was

being lost and dismissed by people who are supposed to represent

us.”

Will the minister listen to families and stop this

clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. We will be listening to

families. We have been listening to families. I hear from families every

day, and for 30 years I’ve worked with vulnerable families as well. We

will continue to be listening to families as we develop the framework

and the implementation of the framework. We’re delivering this new

service in two areas as early implementation sites, and we’ll be

listening to families receiving those services and incorporating their

feedback as we move forward.

We’ve seen — not only with the pandemic, but we’ve been hearing

from families for years that the existing services are just a patchwork.

They’re difficult to navigate, and in many parts of the province,

services aren’t available. And we saw with the pandemic that they’re

just gone in times of a pandemic.

We’ve also heard from the Representative for Children and Youth,

and she’s been listening to families. She’s brought their voices — not

just families where their children, for example, have a diagnosis of

autism but families where their children have a diagnosis of fetal

alcohol spectrum disorder as well and families with other neurodiverse

children too. And the legislative committee on Children and Youth also

listened to families, and we’ve heard the recommendations from that

committee as well.

Our commitment is to be putting children and youth at the centre

and wrapping services with families around them. That’s what we’ll be

doing in the new system.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Fraser-Nicola, supplemental.

J. Tegart: The minister suggests that government services continued during

the pandemic.

Here is what parent Heather Harrison wants to the minister to

know:

“These service providers did their absolute best under terrible and

unprecedented circumstances during the pandemic. They were working under

strict guidelines from the government to not be physically with other

people. These small business owners worked tirelessly to continue to

provide any support possible so that our children were not left feeling

abandoned.

“I’d like to know why the minister is disparaging these providers

who were doing their best for our children.”

The right thing for the minister to do today is to stand up,

acknowledge the distress she’s caused and reverse this

clawback.

Hon. M. Dean: Well, we heard from very many families during the pandemic that

their support systems actually were no longer available. We implemented

emergency measures to be able to support families with children and

youth with support needs.

One of the things that families told us was that they wanted more

flexibility with respite, so we provided that. For example, a family

told me that they used the funds to buy a freezer, because then that

meant that they didn’t have to go to the grocery store so often, and

that took a burden off them and meant they had more quality family time

together. Another family paid for housekeeping, again so that the parent

could spend more quality time as a mum with her family and not burdened

by the stress and strain of running a family and having children and

youth with support needs.

[10:50 a.m.]

What we’re doing with building a new system is we’re creating a

public system that parents can access with no barriers. They’ll be able

to walk into a centre, be connected immediately with a key worker and

work as a family, in partnership with the services that are available,

to create a package of care that meets the unique needs of their child

and youth and their family. A range of services. It could be mental

health services, occupational therapy, speech therapy.

What we’re creating is a safety net, because we are committed to

the health and well-being of children and youth in this

province.

D. Davies: Yesterday the minister and today the minister is trying to tell

everybody that the clawbacks will make things better. But families from

across the province…. You’ve all heard, all of us in the room have

heard, the same emails — that it is going to make things

worse.

This is what Joel says: “The minister’s answers are simply not

good enough. Our daughter is severely autistic. As a family in the

north, we put in a tremendous amount of time and personal resources to

create a community of therapy support. Families in Gitwangak, Fort

Nelson, Anahim Lake and McBride shouldn’t be forced to travel yet

further distances to access the resources that they desperately

need.”

Can the minister tell Joel why she is clawing back his child’s

services and making it harder to get new ones?

Hon. M. Dean: I hear again today about the struggles that families are facing,

from other members on the other side, but that’s the model of

individualized funding. It creates that struggle for families. In a

public system….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Earlier we heard the member for Fraser-Nicola making a point about

heckling from the other side. Now it’s happening from the other side.

Let’s apply the same standard to both sides, okay?

The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

Our government has shown our commitment to children and youth by

increases in the budget for my ministry every year since 2017. We

increased funding for respite for children and youth with support needs

by over $6 million in 2019. Budget 2021 included a $13 million increase

for children and youth with support needs. That included $2 million

extra for programs for children who are deaf and hard of hearing. That

was the first increase in those programs in over ten years.

We’re also investing $10 million in the At Home program. That’s

for children’s equipment so that they can have a regular daily life with

their family — braces and adapted beds, for example, so that they have a

good quality of family life.

This is, I will say, in comparison to when I was delivering

services, when the other side were in government, and we were seeing

cutbacks across my community.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister may want to characterize it as a patchwork of

care. Parents consider that individualized care for each of their

child’s special circumstances that they need to get the proper care that

they need to properly support their child. That is what they want to see

continue on.

Families and experts are worried about lining up at hub centres

just like they have to line up at walk-in clinics currently. Wanda Eddy,

of the Chris Rose Therapy Centre for Autism, says: “If we’re looking at

a hub, is everyone going to have access to them? Somebody in a smaller

community gets services in that smaller community. Now if you’re going

to a hub, what does that mean in terms of travelling and those kinds of

things?”

As we just heard, communities in northern B.C. and in the Interior

have very long distances to try to drive to get to a hub — not exactly

conducive, when you have a child that maybe doesn’t like to travel very

easily. When it comes to parents with children with special needs, that

is the last thing they want to see.

There is already a shortage of trained specialists. This is going

to exasperate that issue.

When will the minister end this clawback and provide the proper

supports to families that they need?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: I do understand the challenges that are faced in different parts

of the province and how difficult it can be to access services. That’s

why we’re going to be implementing the framework. The services will be

delivered in ways in the community, by the community, with knowledge of

the community and could involve a range of methods of delivering

services — not just a centre but also satellite services, virtual

services and outreach services as well.

We’ve heard from families. We know that it’s difficult for them to

travel to get to see specialist services. We are listening to families.

We’ll continue to listen to families and design the services with the

community, understanding the community and in response to the community.

One of the early implementation sites is in the north so that we will be

able to test that system.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Perhaps the minister should maybe go up north and try driving the

ten hours it might take people to go from one community to get to the

hub, which will undoubtedly be in Prince George, and then try to do that

with a child on the autism spectrum. It’s simply not workable, nor is

thinking that every child in that situation could sit on a Zoom call

appropriately. And here’s a news flash for the minister: most of those

communities don’t have the bandwidth to actually go on Zoom to get

treatment for their children.

Again, families and experts are worried about this new system

pitting parents against each other, because there is a shortage of

services already. No one is saying that other children should not get

the care they need. What the parents of kids with autism are saying is

that those kids shouldn’t have their system blown up to add extra

capacity to the system.

When will this minister end this ridiculous clawback and actually

start providing the proper supports to people that they need for their

children and their families?

Hon. M. Dean: For far too long, parents have been telling our ministry that it’s

a patchwork of programming out there, that services aren’t available and

they’re not able to get the services for their children and youth with

neurodiverse needs across the province. And they tell us that they have

to wait for too long for a diagnosis for their children.

Children in British Columbia deserve services at the time that

their parents are concerned about them, as early as possible, to be able

to help them develop from as early an age as possible. We need to move

to a needs-based approach. We’ve been told that by families, by

advocates, by community agencies, by service providers, the

Representative for Children and Youth and many, many others. Indeed, the

member for West Vancouver–Capilano has also expressed agreement with a

needs-based system.

We will continue to deliver services based on a needs-based

system. We have early implementation areas that we will be evaluating

that will inform our provincial rollout. At the end of the day, more

children will receive services. All children will receive services based

on their individual and unique needs.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to table the police commissioner’s annual

report, 2020-2021.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE

TO FINANCE

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to substitute a member on the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That Pam Alexis , MLA substitute for Jagrup Brar ,

MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage, Bill 22.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 22;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

The Chair: Members, friends, we’re going to take a short recess as we

prepare the House for the committee stage.

The committee recessed from 11 a.m. to 11:03 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 9 (continued) .

The Chair: We’ll draw this committee into session. I believe we finished

up on clause 9.

The member for Abbotsford South on clause 9.

B. Banman: Well, thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s a pleasure to see you

again.

I believe the last question on clause 9 that was asked was for the

minister to find what could reasonably be expected to harm with regards

to 18.1. I do believe the minister provided an answer for that, as I

recall.

The next one is: could the minister please give an example of

that?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: This was the question we ended on last night. The answer I gave to

the member was that an example would be sensitive information provided

to support land settlements or treaty negotiations.

B. Banman: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that.

Is this going to be subjective for different heads of public

bodies? Or is there a criteria of some sort to maintain consistency? If

so, can the minister please explain the criteria and explain how that

criteria was actually formulated?

Hon. L. Beare: The reasonable harm test is well established under FOIPPA already

and through commissioner’s orders, so this

section also outlines, for

the member, that the subsection “does not apply if the Indigenous people

has consented in writing to the disclosure.” So the decision will be

decided by Indigenous partners. Nothing will be released without

Indigenous partners’ consent.

B. Banman: Thank you for that.

I have a situational question. Under these new criteria, is it

possible that an individual or an organization wanting to see briefing

notes regarding deliverables say, just as an example, for an Indigenous

language program…. Is it possible that that briefing note may not be

released?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: There has to be a potential for harm in the information, and

that’s what this

section outlines. It’s designed to protect information

that could potentially cause harm and so that information would not be

released without the consent of Indigenous partners.

B. Banman: To the minister: thank you for the question. But now I’m

confused.

Let’s say, for instance, that the request on that particular

scenario of Indigenous language, as I pointed out…. Let’s say a band

member wanted to ensure that the funding was being spent in an accurate

or appropriate manner. Would an individual band member seeking the

information be able to get that?

Who would decide whether or not that’s going to be released if,

potentially, there could be a disagreement between the body and the band

member themselves? Furthermore, would the band member actually have to

pay a fee at the same time?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: This clause is intended to protect the most sensitive information

as asked for by our Indigenous partners, which is why we have it in our

draft legislation before us today. I gave the member a few examples of

land settlements and treaty negotiations as examples of potential harm

in information.

The member’s example would not likely meet a reasonable test of

harm, and it is designed to protect that most sensitive information and

to ensure that Indigenous people provide consent before any information

that is of potential harm be released.

B. Banman: I’m not so sure that “most likely would not” is very comforting.

That’s a pretty big gap in a door as far as I’m concerned.

So I’m going to ask the minister maybe in a different way, in a

different example. The minister did not provide me an answer as to

whether or not the band member asking a question would be required to

pay the application fee and any other fees that may be determined to get

said information. I would like an answer to that.

[11:20 a.m.]

And secondly, who gets to decide whether that’s harm? If there is

a disagreement between the Indigenous governing entity and the band

member, how is that decided? Is there a mechanism, then, to force

against the will of an Indigenous governing entity to provide

consent?

Hon. L. Beare: This

section does not change how fees are applied. People seeking

their personal information will not pay any fees. There is a fee

application proposed in the legislation for general requests. Sensitive

information that could cause harm can only be released with the consent

of Indigenous partners and, as we have said, the Indigenous governing

body.

If any individual has concerns about how this

section is

interpreted, that individual can apply to the commissioner, as is the

correct process.

[11:25 a.m.]

B. Banman: So what I’m hearing is that a band member will have to pay a fee.

That’s what I heard the minister say. I’m not so sure that I heard the

minister correctly to say that there’s any kind of board that

adjudicates whether or not what is deemed to be subsections (

a) through

(

c) creates harm. But clearly….

What I am going to say is…. Judy Wilson, from the Union of British

Columbia Indian Chiefs, the secretary-treasurer, noted that First

Nations experience high levels of poverty and would be

disproportionately impacted. “The fee will deter First Nations from

filing FOI requests,” she said in a statement. She says: “While First

Nations and their umbrella organizations participated in consultation,

there was no discussion of imposing any new fees.” I find it disturbing

that a group that is disproportionately impacted due to high levels of

poverty was not consulted with regard to a fee.

I guess the question to the minister is: does she disagree with

Judy Wilson, and is Judy Wilson being factual?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: For the first part of the member’s question, the reasonable-harm

test is well established under FOIPPA and under the commissioner’s

orders.

I do want to remind the member that this legislation does not set

a fee. That is done at a later date through regulation. This legislation

provides the ability for government to create a fee, and it’s very

important that we hear feedback like the member just outlined for us. Of

course, my office has received that, and we’re hearing feedback from

British Columbians on what they feel is reasonable in a potential fee.

So I thank the member for highlighting that. I always welcome that type

of feedback and information.

I think what’s really important to say is that what this

legislation does do is increase our ability to share more information

with Indigenous partners without the need for FOI. Now, that’s coming up

section 21, but the goal here is to provide information to Indigenous

partners, on that partnership basis.

B. Banman: Well — and all due respect, Minister — that’s great that we share

information with them, as we should. They’re our partners. We need to do

a lot more of that moving forward. But what I hear is that considering

the extreme poverty that exists, according to Judy Wilson, there is no

consideration made, and this will now deter a band member from asking

their own Indigenous governing entity a question. It may or may not be

due to languages. That was just an example. It could be due to a host of

things.

How will that member, then, insist that they get a copy of the

freedom-of-information request? What is the exact process? Let me go

through this. If consent for disclosure is not provided, but the

criteria for 18.1 are not met, according to the head of the public body,

how would the request for information proceed? Which is the public body

that has the ultimate say? Is it…? According to 18.1, it appears as if

it’s Indigenous self-government.

Where’s the safety valve for a band member wanting an FOI from

their own band, from their own self-government? What’s the mechanism if

it does not meet the area of 18.1? It says it has to be in writing.

Specifically for this committee, please lay out the process in which

that band member will get the information that they are rightfully

entitled to.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Just for the member, I want to be very, very clear that this bill

does not stop band members from requesting information from their band.

That is an entirely separate process than what we are discussing here.

What we are discussing here in the legislation we have before us is for

public bodies and for government information.

The member referenced a potential individual. Any individual who

wants to access government information can do so by submitting an FOI

request to a public body. In the case of a potential appeal of a

decision, that process has not changed either. That individual can apply

to the OIPC. Just to be very, very clear, we’re talking about public

bodies and government information, and the process for requesting

information through FOI has not changed.

B. Banman: Another concern. Basically, can the minister please confirm, yes

or no, whether Judy Wilson is correct that there was no discussion of

imposing any new fees in the consultation with First Nations or any of

the umbrella groups?

The Chair: On clause 9, any further questions?

[11:40 a.m.]

B. Banman: With all due respect, Chair, the fees do apply to that. I can

bring up fees later. Sooner or later the minister will have

to….

This

section affects the clause that includes fees. This

section

is about Indigenous self-government and the consultation that went along

with Indigenous self-government. The minister has made many broad,

sweeping statements about the consultation that was done.

With all due respect, I believe that this is directly applicable

to this particular section. It’s a simple yes-or-no question. Judy

Wilson has said there was no discussion of imposing fees. She’s also

said that First Nations will be disproportionately impacted.

It’s a simple question I’d like on the record because this is

about Indigenous in clause 9. Yes or no, were fees discussed with these

stakeholders?

Hon. L. Beare: While I do disagree with the member — we are on

section 9 here,

which talks about protecting from harm — I’m happy to answer the

member’s question in the interest of continuing our bill along its

journey here.

[11:45 a.m.]

In 2018-19, substantial engagement was completed to identify

stakeholder concerns and priority issues through an online govTogetherBC

public engagement. A series of round tables were held with key

stakeholder groups, discussions with Indigenous communities, a mailout

campaign asking for input and recommendations from over 200 First Nation

communities.

Now, building on these earlier conversations, between April and

August 2021, the Ministry of Citizens’ Services re-engaged with many of

these same groups — including government ministries, broader public

sector public bodies, municipalities, Indigenous leader communities, the

tech sector, the OIPC and the general public — to confirm previous

inputs and so that we could gain an understanding of potential

impacts.

The feedback was received through the minister and assistant

deputy minister round-table meetings. We re­ceived feedback

through presentations to stakeholder groups; meetings with ministry

staff; two public surveys available to all British Columbians,

administered by govTogetherBC and Ipsos; and a questionnaire distributed

to leaders in over 200 First Nations in B.C. And there were

conversations held with treaty First Nation representatives.

E. Ross: This is why it’s important to determine what the definition is of

“Indigenous governing entity,” based on a definition in Bill 41, the

UNDRIP act. I did take it under advisement that the minister would

return with an answer, and hopefully, it’s before the end of this

debate. I won’t ask that question again, but I am looking forward to the

answer.

I understand the intention of clause 9, but I think it’s got to be

reworded, based on the definition that comes back on the definition of

“Indigenous leadership.”

But in response to my colleague’s questioning around the

individual band member, we’ve got to remember that we’re talking about

two different topics here. In relation to what the minister is talking

about, the First Nations are not, in fact, partners. The Crown has a

specific duty when they’re trying to address the Aboriginal rights and

title in question, in terms of evidence, and I assume that’s what the

minister is talking about.

Specifically, maybe we’re talking about strength of claim, that

the Crown has a duty to assess and determine what next steps should be

made in terms of Aboriginal rights and title.

The First Nation member in question that needs access to

information regarding their community and their Aboriginal rights and

title is probably not covered by their band council or their band

leadership that we’re talking about, because many band councils and

leadership around B.C. do not have freedom-of-information

policies.

Maybe in questioning, the band member is not looking, really, for

a response in regards to what their band member talked about but is

looking for the information regarding how the government reached a

decision in relation to Aboriginal rights and title that he’s asking

about — or maybe some other issue related to that community’s

interests.

On top of this, you’ve got to remember that when we’re talking

about Aboriginal rights and title, we’re talking about a unique set of

interests held by the rights of First Nations of B.C. It’s referred to

as sui generis in terms of case law. That’s important.

Does the minister agree that the band member in question, although

they have these rights under the Aboriginal rights and title case law,

also has the added rights of being a B.C. citizen and, therefore, should

be treated in two respects in terms of getting information from the

Crown?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, I will have an answer for the member, as we discussed, on the

Indigenous governing entity this afternoon. I’m going to be very happy

to share with the member.

On the very specific question, every single individual in British

Columbia has access to freedom-of-information requests to public bodies,

to government for information. That has not changed. Every individual

can access it, and the process has not changed.

It’s simply to make a request to the public body or to one of the

ministries for that information, and it follows the regular FOI process.

That right is held by every British Columbian, and that will not change.

If there is a dispute in a decision through an FOI, through a public

body or a ministry, the right to appeal that decision with the

Information and Privacy Commissioner has not changed.

Just to be very clear to the member…. The member was referencing

potential individuals. Their rights are protected to request information

under this legislation, and the process has not changed.

E. Ross: With all due respect, that’s not true. The clause clearly says:

“The head of a public body must refuse to disclose information if the

disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the rights of an

Indigenous people to maintain, control, protect or develop any of the

following with respect to the Indigenous people….”

The question is specific, from a band member who wants to know

what the conversation was from the Crown that led to a decision that

might affect their community or their Aboriginal rights and title. That

was the question. On top of the specific, unique rights that Aboriginal

people have as a community in terms of Aboriginal rights and title, they

also have the rights as B.C. citizens.

This is actually a limiting clause here, unless it’s actually

further explained apart from this.This is actually a limiting clause

here, unless it’s actually further explained apart from this.

In all honesty, it’s not. It actually gets more confusing, unless

the definition of Indigenous leadership actually relates to subsection

9(2), which says: “Subsection (1) does not apply if the Indigenous

people has consented in writing to the disclosure.” It doesn’t talk

about Indigenous leadership.

What we’re asking about is: does a band member, an Aboriginal

member, who wants information in regards to how the Crown reached a

decision that can affect their community, have that right as a community

member, as well as that right as a B.C. citizen, to know what the Crown

was discussing in relation to a decision?

Hon. L. Beare: A band member, and every British Columbian, has the right to go to

the commissioner if they disagree with a decision.

E. Ross: That is not what this bill talks about. “The head of a public body

must refuse to disclose information….” It actually doesn’t explain what

the minister has just described. It actually doesn’t really follow the

commitments made in Bill 41, the United Nations declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples. It’s a very confusing, vague

section that

we’re talking about here, whether we’re talking about the Indigenous

leadership or Indigenous people.

This is going to have to get sorted out in law unless the parent

document actually describes this in detail. But there are two interests

we’re talking about here: the band member, in terms of rights and title

interests, in terms of the Crown decision, and their right as a B.C.

citizen to access information.

[11:55 a.m.]

Right here this clause is actually limiting, right from the

get-go, that the head of a public body must refuse to disclose

information to a band member, even though the band member is actually

asking questions about issues relating to their own

community.

Will a band member get refused to disclose information from the

Crown, under

section 9, if it potentially offers some sort of harm to

their own community’s interest or their own rights and title interest,

when we’re talking about a band member of that said

community?

Hon. L. Beare: I am going to have to disagree with the member that this isn’t

clear, because it is very clearly outlined in the act as it currently

stands and has not changed.

A person who makes a request to the head of a public body, other

than the commissioner or registrar, under the Lobbyists Transparency Act

for access to a record or for correction of personal information may ask

the commissioner to review any decision, act or failure to act of the

head that releases to that request, including any matter that could be

the subject of a complaint under

section 42.

Again, it’s very important to know that all British Columbians,

every single British Columbian, has the right — that has not changed —

to request information to public bodies under the act. Every British

Columbian — that has not changed — has the right to apply to the

commissioner to review a decision. This

section right here was requested

by Indigenous partners to increase protections and remove potential

harms.

With that, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.