Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 115

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 24 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill 26 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Hon. J. Osborne

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

COVID-19 impact on airports

N. Letnick

Feezah Jaffer

G. Begg

West Vancouver Place for Sport and Harry Jerome Oval

project

K. Kirkpatrick

Hybrid work model and workplace equality

J. Rice

Elizabeth Toigo

I. Paton

COVID-19 impact on rural B.C. and local economies

R. Russell

Oral Questions

Emergency calls system management and government response

to heatwave

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

K. Kirkpatrick

CleanBC plan and LNG development

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Ambulance response times and emergency health system

T. Stone

Hon. A. Dix

M. Morris

G. Kyllo

I. Paton

J. Tegart

P. Milobar

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Report on the Audit of the Public Accounts —

Fiscal Year 2020-21

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

T. Stone

On the main motion

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Beare

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: M. Dykeman.

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: In the gallery today is a joint delegation of Unifor and Domtar mill:

Bob Stephens, vice-president, Unifor Local 10-B; Sheldon Morice,

vice-president, Unifor Local 10-B; Jean-Claude Allaire, general manager,

Kamloops pulp mill; Tom Hoffman, manager of forestland and fibre; Kristin

Dangelmaier, technical quality and environment manager; Stephanie Blier,

human resources manager; and Bonny Skene, regional public affairs manager.

Please help me give them a very warm welcome.

[10:05 a.m.]

T. Stone: I, too, would like to join in welcoming this joint delegation from

Unifor and the Kamloops Domtar pulp mill, on behalf of the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson and myself. Domtar is a major employer. In fact, the

pulp mill in Kamloops has been there for decades, a huge contributor to the

local economy and the community generally, currently employing 317 folks in

the mill, with about 1,500 direct and indirect jobs. We’re very appreciative

of everyone that works with and for Domtar.

With us for meetings today with the government and with the opposition

are Bob Stephens, vice-president of Unifor Local 10-B; Sheldon Morice,

vice-president of Unifor Local 10-B — who, I understand, was actually a

pretty darned good centreman on the hockey team with the member for

Kamloops–North Thompson; Jean-Claude Allaire, the general manager of the

Kamloops pulp mill; Tom Hoffman, the manager of forestland and fibre;

Kristin Dangelmaier, the technical quality and environment manager;

Stephanie Blier, human resources manager; and Bonny Skene, the regional

public affairs manager.

Would the House please make this joint delegation very

welcome.

Hon. M. Dean: The only United World College in Can­ada is Pearson College, in

beautiful, rural Metchosin, and today we’re blessed with having 11 students

from grades 11 to 12 here visiting. They’re here today with their teacher,

Michelle Moon.

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2021.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

This bill proposes enabling amendments to the Environmental

Management Act to establish provincewide bans on the sale, distribution

or use of prescribed single-use and short-term products, to apply fees

and alternatives to single-use products, where necessary, and/or require

that businesses make items available only by request. This authority

would be in addition to existing authority to make regulations

prohibiting or restricting the use and nature of specified kinds of

packaging, including plastic packaging.

This legislation will support our government’s commitment to the

provincewide phase-out of single-use plastics. It will reduce the

environmental impact caused by the amount of plastic waste created in

this province, as well as reducing the negative impact of plastic

pollution on human health and the environment. It will also minimize the

risk of unintended consequences posed by other non-plastic single-use

alternatives. The public expects strong action on problematic single-use

products, and local government and industry expect a coordinated,

provincial approach.

This legislation responds to those expectations.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is on the first reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Environmental Management 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.

BILL 26 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2021

Hon. J. Osborne presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2021.

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 26. This bill amends the Community

Charter, the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter, among other

statutes.

[10:10 a.m.]

Bill 26 does three things. It gives local governments new tools to

deliver more housing for people more quickly, it responds to requests

from local governments to help serve community needs, and it provides

authorities necessary to dissolve the Jumbo Glacier mountain resort

municipality.

Our government is listening to the needs of communities and the

requests of local governments, and we’re working closely with them to

provide more tools so that they can build more housing, more quickly,

for people in their communities.

Specifically, Bill 26 proposes to enable local governments to

delegate decisions on minor development variance permits to staff;

remove the default requirement for local governments to hold public

hearings for zoning bylaws that are consistent with an official

community plan; modernize local government public notice requirements by

allowing for community choice in addition to existing methods for

providing public notice; enable the Islands Trust to meet its

specialized mandate more effectively by responding to specific needs and

requests of the Islands Trust, including enshrining their collaborative

and cooperative processes and engagement with First Nations; facilitate

economic development for the city of Powell River by removing historic

regulatory restrictions on city-owned land in the mill-site area;

support the responsible conduct of elected officials by requiring local

governments to give consideration to developing or updating codes of

conduct.

Finally, I’m pleased to share that these amendments will provide

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with specific authorities to dissolve

the Jumbo Glacier mountain resort municipality and remove the authority

to incorporate a mountain resort municipality without residents in the

future to prevent a situation like this from ever happening

again.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I’m pleased to table these

amendments, which respond to the needs and requests of local

communities.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Osborne: 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 26, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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)

COVID-19 IMPACT ON AIRPORTS

N. Letnick: As MLAs, we are no strangers to airports, and many of us probably

visited one this past weekend. For many, an airport is a simple and

necessary stop on a long journey, either for work or to see friends and

family or to take a vacation. But the value of airports for our

communities cannot be understated.

Airports serve crucial purposes. They keep our province and our

nation interconnected. They serve as the first impression of our

communities for many who take their first steps into our hometowns, and

they serve as key economic drivers, supporting thousands of jobs and

hundreds of millions of dollars in economic output for our towns and

province.

When you live in such a desirable location as the Oka­nagan,

the value of such a fantastic airport as YLW truly cannot be

understated. The Okanagan and Kelowna probably wouldn’t be the same as

they are today without YLW. Prior to COVID-19, YLW’s total economic

impact was 4,500 jobs and $789 million in total economic output to the

province of B.C.

Like all airport hubs around the world, COVID has had a tremendous

impact on YLW and the thousands of people who earn their living keeping

it running. At Kelowna International Airport, air service in 2020 and

most of 2021 has been down by more than 90 percent. Airlines who have

scheduled international flights through Kelowna International Airport

are already at a point where they are cancelling routes and will need to

continue to cancel routes if we do not receive confirmation of YLW’s

international status reopening.

I hope my statement today serves not only as some recognition and

gratitude for the thousands of staff at YLW and airports across B.C. who

have kept them running throughout this incredible challenge of COVID-19

but also serves as a call to action for this House and all members to do

whatever they can to convince our federal authorities to reinstate

international status to the Okanagan’s airport as soon as

possible.

FEEZAH JAFFER

G. Begg: I am pleased today to pay tribute to an amazing and dedicated

community leader who has been a driving force in Surrey for many years

in her work with the Surrey Food Bank. Feezah Jaffer has been the

executive director of the food bank since 2017, and during that time,

the bank has undergone and continues to undergo dramatic and remarkable

progress and change.

[10:15 a.m.]

Today the Surrey Food Bank serves roughly 14,000 peo­ple

monthly, with more than 40 percent of that being children. The charity

serves a diverse spectrum of clients from working families and seniors

to those on assistance and new immigrants and refugees. Known as an

expert in food security and the food bank industry, Feezah has grown

substantially through many years of hands-on leadership serving the

not-for-profit sector.

A passionate collaborator, Feezah was responsible, among other

things, for leading the food bank into its next stage of growth and a

new building. The organization, under her leadership, found a new home a

block and a half west of King George Boulevard and measuring 23,000

square feet, three times the size of the former building.

Earlier this year Feezah was honoured in what is probably best

described as at least slightly ironic but, at the same time, very

fitting…. She got to see her face mem­orialized on the front of a

box of breakfast cereal. Feezah was one of five food bank workers from

across Canada chosen by General Mills to appear on a Cheerios box. Her

photo is on the trademark yellow box, along with a red maple leaf, under

the banner “Cheer on the front line.” Next to Jaffer’s photo is her name

in big bold letters and “food bank hero.”

Not surprisingly, a quote from Ghandi, “Be the change you want to

see,” has been a guiding principle of Feezah’s life.

I know that this House will join with me in thanking Feezah Jaffer

for her tremendous, continuous and ongoing community

contribution.

WEST VANCOUVER PLACE FOR SPORT

AND HARRY JEROME OVAL

PROJECT

K. Kirkpatrick: “Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to

inspire, to unite people in a way that little else does. It speaks to

youth in a language that they understand.” That’s the much-quoted Nelson

Mandela.

West Vancouver’s only running track is almost 70 years old. It has

a proud history as a staple community amenity and a place where

extraordinary athletes got a start. But due to the track’s

deterioration, there’s been a call for an upgrade to it for many

years.

With the North Shore’s growing population, the de­mand for a

safe, all-weather, multisport and leisure facility for all ages has

never been higher. Demand has far outgrown the current field’s

availability. There’s no other public track facility in West Vancouver,

and the last competition-sized track in North Vancouver was removed last

year as part of the Handsworth high school replacement.

A small group of dedicated volunteers has been working to raise

funds to build the West Vancouver Place for Sport to fill this need, and

so was born the West Vancouver Place for Sport in the community. The

heart of this new facility will be a running track named in honour of

one of the North Shore’s most inspirational residents, Harry

Jerome.

Jerome grew up on the North Shore and trained at the West

Vancouver track in the 1950s. He went on to hold the title of the

world’s fastest man, setting a total of seven world records over his

career. Jerome was Canada’s male athlete of the 20th century and has

inspired countless individuals with his commitment through

adversity.

The West Vancouver Place for Sport and the Harry Jer­ome

Oval will be a reminder of his great contributions in the future. The

community continues to raise funds to make this dream become a

reality.

For anyone that wishes to help and support this important project

and has sport in their heart, please contact the West Vancouver

Foundation. We look forward to welcoming you to the track.

HYBRID WORK MODEL

AND WORKPLACE

EQUALITY

J. Rice: While some of us are experiencing Zoom fat­igue, many women

are embracing the technology and feeling empowered by it. While many

companies are using a hybrid model of working, where employees spend

part of their time working from home and

part in the office, many

organizations are considering keeping large meetings online.

The thinking is it helps productivity, saves time, money, GHG

emissions, and it increases gender equality. The U.K. Permanent

Secretary of the Department for Digital recently told staff that she

would keep online meetings because they were more effective and also

helped women participate.

Digital meetings can be great levellers, because everybody is in

the same-sized box. Dr. Heejung Chung points to new research that shows

people from an ethnically diverse background and LGBTQ2S+ workers may

find that not having to be present in physical work environments that

other them makes work more accessible.

[10:20 a.m.]

Research from Slack’s think tank Future Forum, based on American

workers, found that only 3 percent of Black workers wanted to return to

full-time in-person work compared with 21 percent of white

workers.

Jean-Nicolas Reyt, assistant professor of organizational behaviour

at McGill University, states:

“Even as modern organizations are challenged by attracting,

retaining and promoting talented employees, they underutilize one major

source of available talent: women. Women account for half of all

entry-level employees, yet they compose only a third of senior managers

and a fifth of C-suite executives. One of the reasons women have a

harder time advancing professionally is that they are much more likely

than men to prioritize their family responsibilities over their

careers.”

If organizations continue to offer remote work opportunities after

the pandemic is over, more women will have a level playing

field.

ELIZABETH TOIGO

I. Paton: I rise today to speak of the recent passing of a beloved

constituent, Elizabeth Toigo.

Born in 1933, Elizabeth and her family moved from Vancouver to

Powell River at an early age. In high school, she met, and eventually

married, Peter Toigo, who, even at a young age, was, like Elizabeth, an

upstart entrepreneur.

Peter and Elizabeth moved the family to Tsawwassen in 1964. As the

family grew, so did the Toigo business ventures of Shato Holdings,

including White Spot Restaurants and many other real estate

developments. Due to Peter Sr.’s untimely passing in 1993, Elizabeth

became not only the matriarch of the family, but she also became

chairperson of the Toigo family’s thriving businesses, which, under her

guidance, continued to thrive to the present day.

Elizabeth Toigo was a wonderful mother, grandmother and great

grandmother. She was welcoming. She was fun­ny. She was a generous

host, a great philanthropist, a great cookie maker and a tremendous fan

of the family’s Vancouver Giants hockey team. More than anything, she

was a class act who somehow managed to remember all 29 grandkids’ and

great grandkids’ birthdays and made each and every one of them feel they

were her favourite. She also made a special point of taking each of her

grandchildren Christmas shopping each year.

Elizabeth was an immensely kind and generous person. She gave

significant contributions to many charities, in­cluding cancer

research, Variety Club, the Delta Hospital Foundation and a historical

donation which resulted in the Peter C. and Elizabeth Toigo diagnostic

centre at our Delta hospital. Her kids think she even picked up the

phone every time she heard Sarah McLachlan’s melodramatic singing during

an SPCA commercial.

Mrs. Toigo was the glue that held the family and their businesses

together. She was an extraordinarily kind, car­ing, generous and

selfless person with a great sense of humour. It’s been an honour for me

to be a friend of the Toigos.

On behalf of Delta residents, I pass along my condolences to

Elizabeth’s adult children: Louise Greene, Wendy Toigo, Peter and Lesley

Toigo, Roy and Monica Toigo, Ron and Michelle Toigo, and Rick

Toigo.

Her grace, her class, her support and encouragement, her constant

positivity and, above all, her unconditional love helped shape her

family’s lives for the better.

COVID-19 IMPACT ON RURAL B.C.

AND LOCAL

ECONOMIES

R. Russell: A few years ago I found myself in the world of community economic

development, a critically important focus, especially for the new rural

economy on our horizon. In that space, there’s a strategy, developed by

the New Economics Foundation, called plugging the leaks.

At its core, it’s an idea that for local economies to thrive, we

need not just a focus on bringing new resources into our communities but

optimize what assets we already have. This focuses on regenerating our

local economies from within and leveraging the great assets already

resident in rural B.C.

While COVID has been brutal for so many and for so long, it’s

certainly temporarily plugged some of our major economic leaks in rural

B.C. While our international border was closed, for example, we saw some

businesses in our border towns, such as clothing, retail and hardware,

ending up with record sales numbers. Staffing was tough, mental health

was tough, and uncertainty was tough. But the financial statements were

good. Money was flowing.

Likewise, some local food supply chains, able to be nim­ble,

have done very well. The Kettle Valley Food Co-op, for example, saw a

300 percent increase in sales, tied to their ability to pivot to food

delivery and the increased demand for local food.

[10:25 a.m.]

Indeed, we are seeing an example here of triple-bottom-line

benefits. A recent research paper stated: “The reconnective

characteristics of alternate and local food systems are not only a

source of social cohesion but also drivers of sustainability.” By

boosting social innovation with the help of technological innovation,

the pandemic made us accelerate a transition to

sustainability.

We have the potential to redesign supply chains with our economy,

nutrition and human health in mind. In rural B.C., we saw the resilience

of shorter, fairer and cleaner supply chains that addressed local

priorities. So we have a choice ahead of us: we can return to the path

we were on, or we can actively work to retain these glimmers of hope

that have shone through the COVID gloom.

Shortening supply chains and supporting local businesses can serve

as a triple win — supporting resilient economic systems and local

entrepreneurs, reducing environmental impacts and building social

community connections.

That’s my call to action: shop local.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY CALLS SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

AND GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE TO HEATWAVE

S. Bond: Emails obtained under FOI show that alarm bells were ringing at

E-Comm 9-1-1 well in advance of a heatwave that took the lives of 569

British Columbians. According to E-Comm’s vice-president of operations,

delays in transferring ambulance requests from 911 call takers had been

increasing for 12 months prior to the heatwave.

On June 3, nearly a month before the heatwave, an internal email

says: “There are spikes we cannot manage in our current underfunded

model. B.C. emergency health services is compromising public safety due

to delays with their call answers.”

This is a question for the Premier of British Columbia. Why did

his government fail to act before these delays cost the lives of so many

British Columbians during the heatwave?

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

question.

The Leader of the Opposition will know, because I brief on these

subjects regularly, that the situation around ambulance calls was

something I raised in public around June 3, because those days were

record days in British Columbia. They weren’t heat dome days; they were

regular days.

We were seeing an extreme uptake in the use of our ambulance

service, such that I think that it was June 4 or 5, in that range, that

it was the highest day of ambulance calls at that time in the history of

British Columbia, except for New Year’s Eve 2017 and 2018.

We have been adding extraordinary resources to our ambulance

system. We’ve gone from a funding level of $424 million to $559 million.

During that period, we were adding resources to the ambulance system.

The events of the heat dome, as the member will know, in that weekend

saw an increase in calls so significantly beyond even what we saw in the

first week of June. It was unprecedented, as Dr. Henderson has

suggested, from the BCCDC — a one in a 1,000-year event, which has now

happened and we now have to respond to.

The member will also know the significant investments we’ve made,

including in dispatch — 30 new dispatchers in the BCEHS part of the

system and the ambulance dispatch part of the system — to address that

issue.

But there are extraordinary challenges facing our ambulance system

and health care system today because of two public health emergencies.

We are responding with more resources, more ambulance paramedics, more

ambulances, more air ambulances and more dispatchers.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Almost 600 frail, elderly British Columbians, for the most part,

died, and this government had a warning. The time period that the emails

reference was 12 months where call volumes were increasing at

unprecedented rates. It was too little, too late, and the outcomes,

frankly, were deadly.

The emails obtained under FOI make it clear that the crisis in 911

dispatch and the Ambulance Service were ignored by the government in the

months leading up to the heatwave. E-Comm felt so frustrated at their

concerns being ignored that they considered holding a press conference

to directly appeal to the government — not in 2018 or 2019 but prior to

the heatwave.

[10:30 a.m.]

This is what the president and CEO of E-Comm wrote on June 30:

“The government needs to get in. This is for BCEHS and the Ministry of

Health to fix.”

Again to the Premier, why did his government fail to fix the

problems that led to 911 being absolutely overwhelmed during the

heatwave?

Hon. A. Dix: The people of B.C. know the situation of the Ambulance Service,

because we regularly reported on that situation throughout the pandemic.

There were periods in the pandemic when ambulance calls were down. There

were more significant periods, particularly on Vancouver Island earlier

on in January and February, and then in the whole province, starting in

May and June, where we saw ambulance demand increase in advance of the

heat dome to an extent that it had never been seen before.

This is a fact and something we regularly reported on. It is why

we responded by significantly increasing resources to the Ambulance

Service in 2018, in 2019, in 2020, and now in 2021, to deal with the

situation we dealt with at those times and to see a significant increase

in service.

It is clear that the extraordinary events of that week and the

continuing extraordinary events facing our province put pressure on the

Ambulance Service. We have responded, as the member knows, as all

members of the House know, in, I think, the best way possible: by adding

supports and resources, by strengthening both the leadership and the

on-the-ground supports to Ambulance Service, by providing more service

in 24 rural communities, in adding services to 26 other rural

communities and in adding ambulance paramedics and dispatchers in urban

areas.

That is the way you respond to the challenge, and we’re going to

continue to do that.

K. Kirkpatrick: These FOI documents show deep concern from E-Comm about a crisis

that has been growing for 12 months.

On June 29, the president and CEO wrote: “The signi­ficant

risk to public safety posed by call-answer delays in transferring 911

calls for the Ambulance Service to BCEHS has significantly worsened.

BCEHS’ ability to accept our calls is being fully exhausted.” This was

the very day that the Premier was giddy and said fatalities are a part

of life and people need to take personal responsibility.

My question to the Premier: is this an issue of personal

responsibility, when it was clearly a failure of his

government?

Hon. A. Dix: The Ambulance Service has been, I think, since its creation, a

source of pride in B.C. It’s why, when I became Minister of Health, I

doubled our rate of increase of investment, because I think it is, and

because it did require that at the time, and I think everyone knew

it.

Efforts didn’t start when I became Minister of Health. George

Abbott started the community paramedicine system when he was Minister of

Health, and others saw it. But we had a level of investment in the

Ambulance Service that was significantly below what it needed to be, and

that’s why this government doubled it, why we added full-time

paramedics, ambulances, air ambulances and dispatch

resources.

We are continuing to do so, because at this point in our history,

when our primary care system has been disproportionately virtual, there

are extraordinary pressures on our Ambulance Service that we’ve seen.

We’re responding again by adding ambulance paramedics — hopefully, we

all agree that’s a good idea — adding cars, adding air-ambulance

services, adding dispatchers, reforming the management of BCEHS and

putting outstanding leaders in charge to help us through this

period.

I want to thank our ambulance paramedics, who continue to do an

extraordinary job on the ground. We are going to continue to do what

we’ve been doing, which is significantly support them in the time of two

public health emergencies.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano on a

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I thank the minister. This government often talks about doubling

investments, increasing how much money is being spent. That is not how

we judge success. We judge success by the outcomes, and these outcomes

are not good.

[10:35 a.m.]

This is what else the president of E-Comm wrote: “BCEHS is 100

percent maxed out. I was told last night that over 200 calls were

waiting in queues to be assigned to an ambulance to attend.

Fundamentally, BCEHS must remedy this problem.”

We know that by June 3, E-Comm was convinced that the problems at

B.C. emergency health services were compromising public safety, yet

nothing was done to fix the problems, and the system collapsed during

the heat wave.

Why did the Premier describe the failure of his government as a

matter of personal responsibility?

Hon. A. Dix: We are judged on what we do and our outcomes. I always try, in

answering questions in this House, to take responsibility for that in as

simple a way as I can.

The member says that hiring more paramedics, hiring more

dispatchers, adding cars, adding air ambulances, which this government

did on the base that had been left to us — and people can be judged on

that, too — was not the right course, but I think it is the right

course. What we know is that we need to continue to add such resources

to meet the current demand.

I think when people call 911, they should get an ambulance. That’s

what I think. That’s why we’re adding re­sources to meet that,

because that’s what our ambulance paramedics think and our dispatchers

think and people at E-Comm think and everyone thinks. So we’re going to

continue our efforts to improve the system in both rural and urban B.C.,

in every community in B.C., to meet that challenge in the current time.

I’m very proud of our ambulance paramedics and our teams for all of

their efforts to make this happen.

CLEANBC PLAN AND LNG DEVELOPMENT

S. Furstenau: Last week the International Energy Agency released their World

Energy Outlook report. The report is designed to be a handbook

for policy-makers at the COP26 climate change conference. It is long.

However, what it found is that fossil fuel development is inconsistent

with keeping climate change below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Fossil fuel

expansion is inconsistent with avoiding disaster.

The questions this morning in this chamber really show us that

climate change is a public health emergency, and it will continue to

affect every aspect of our society. Yesterday this government announced

their CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 . It included a new GHG cap on

natural gas, or LNG, but made sure to include compliance pathways so

that industry can get away with continuing to develop LNG. The Premier

proudly proclaimed LNG as a bridge fuel. It is not. It is a fossil fuel

with intensive greenhouse gas emissions, including methane.

To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, despite dire

warnings, will this government allow future LNG development in British

Columbia?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. British Columbians, like

people around the globe, have experienced the effects of climate change

in the last couple of years, and particularly this year, that exceed

anything that they thought they would see, although climate scientists

obviously knew what was coming.

We’re concerned about that as well in our government, and we

understand we need to address the issue of climate change with great

urgency. The member, the Leader of the Third Party, worked with us in

the previous parliament to develop our CleanBC climate plan. I think we

were all proud of that, but we know that we needed to design a road map

that took us to our targets. We needed to close that loop, and we needed

to up our ambition.

We’re proud of the road map we released yesterday. It is

significant. It contains measures across all sectors of society and the

economy. They’ve been independently modelled to reduce emissions to meet

our target. That includes mandating methane emission reductions in the

oil and gas sector of 75 percent by 2030, and it includes a commitment

to work with the sector, with oil and gas, with Indigenous Nations and

with experts to design the measures that will take us to our 2030

sectoral target of 33 to 38 percent reduction in oil and gas

emissions.

[10:40 a.m.]

The CleanBC roadmap is modelled, including a 33 percent

reduction.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister’s response, how­ever, it did not

answer the question I posed very clearly, which is: will this government

allow future LNG development?

I’m curious about a specific part of the road map as well. The

road map puts in place a cap on greenhouse gas emissions for LNG, but

that cap is only for domestic use. That’s interesting, given that this

government has been intent on LNG for export.

To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, if LNG is

developed for export, will it be exempt from the greenhouse gas

emissions cap included in this government’s climate plan?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member apparently continues to try to find reasons not to

believe that we’re serious about meeting our climate targets, but I

assure you that we are. The member has also incorrectly interpreted the

road map. There is a cap on emissions from oil and gas use,

domestically, and there is a commitment to work with the oil and gas

sector, with Indigenous nations and with experts to put in place

programs and policies to ensure that we meet the emission reduction

sectoral target for oil and gas in B.C.

The member keeps looking for a dramatic statement. I don’t know of

a more dramatic statement than outlining exactly the amount of emission

reductions — upstream, transmission and compression — that we expect to

achieve with this plan. It is clear that we’re committed to reducing

emissions from the oil and gas sector.

AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES

AND EMERGENCY HEALTH

SYSTEM

T. Stone: Tragedy struck at the B.C. Supreme Court recently when a judge

fell ill with stroke-like symptoms.

Now, we’re all taught the acronym FAST to recognize the signs of

stroke. As everyone knows, the “T” stands for “Time to call 911.” But

after waiting on hold with 911 for more than 30 minutes, the B.C.

sheriff’s service had to drive this Supreme Court judge to the hospital

using one of their own vehicles. It turns out that not even a Supreme

Court justice can get an ambulance under this Premier.

My question to the Premier is this. When is the Premier going to

acknowledge that B.C.’s emergency system is in crisis, and when is he

going to fix it?

Hon. A. Dix: Any time that people have to wait too long or don’t get the

service they need in our health care system — at these times or any

other time — it’s a serious question. I take the question very

seriously, of course. It doesn’t matter who you are. It doesn’t matter

who you are in our province. That’s what the public health care system

is all about.

It’s why, when I became Minister of Health and clearly a major

upgrading and reform of the Ambulance Service was needed, we engaged in

that, and we substantially increased resources. The numbers are there.

They’re undisputed. I don’t think they’re disputed in the

House.

This dramatic increase, other than Mental Health and Addictions,

is the largest increase of any area of health care since I became

Minister of Health, which is a significant investment. We are continuing

to make those investments to upgrade service not just in urban B.C. but

in rural B.C. — where the gaps can be, as the member will know, even

more stark. We are continuing our efforts to add dispatchers, to add

ambulance paramedics, to add ambulances, to add air ambulance capacity,

keeping in mind the needs of people who depend on that

service.

[10:45 a.m.]

M. Morris: We’re adding resources in rural parts of the province, perhaps,

but we certainly don’t see it up in my area. The sad reality is that

British Columbians across the province are having to deal with

life-threatening situations without proper support. The minister can

read from a laundry list of stats, but it doesn’t change the trauma

inflicted upon people.

A few weeks ago a constituent had a heart attack at a remote

logging camp and was transported to the Mackenzie hospital, which was

closed when they got there. They were turned away at the door and told

to call 911 from the parking lot of the hospital. The next closest

hospital was two hours away. But when they called the ambulance, there

was none available. The only one in town was tied up. The wife of the

victim rattled the doors and was finally let in. Hours later that

patient was medevacked to St. Paul’s Hospital.

Under this Premier, health care has gotten so bad that hospitals

are closed, and ambulances are unavailable in emergencies.

Does the Premier think patients need to shake doors to get the

care they need?

Hon. A. Dix: Currently in British Columbia, as the member knows…. I know,

because we’ve spoken about issues in Mackenzie, including the story he

describes. It’s one that we’ve taken, obviously, a careful look at and

that will be the subject of a review, as it should, in our health care

system. I think that our health care system, in the time of two public

health emergencies, has done an exceptional job. I don’t think the

member’s characterization is the correct one.

Moreover, I think our health care system has responded in a way

that British Columbia can be proud of. Now, 67 people have been taken

from critical care in the north to critical care in the south, mostly

related to COVID-19 and mostly because this has become a pandemic of the

unvaccinated. People take those steps unhesitatingly and provide the

care unhesitatingly. We’ve added air ambulance resources — air

resources, ambulance resources — in the north.

These are exceptional times and exceptional stresses. I appreciate

the concern of the hon. member for his constituents, and I’ve been

engaged with him on that question. But I also think that our public

health care system in this time has responded with courage, with

dignity, with effort and with passion to deal with some of the most

extra­ordinary conditions we have ever seen in our province, and

it will continue to do so.

G. Kyllo: Nobody here is questioning the herculean efforts that have been

undertaken by the Ambulance Service. This line of questioning is all

about a lack of resources and a lack of action by this government. It’s

like the Premier has forgotten that this is his second term in office,

that these are his decisions and that the impacts are real.

In my riding, a woman fell into a fire and suffered severe burns.

Her husband and neighbours rushed to assist her and, as anyone would,

called 911, expecting assistance. Help failed to arrive. After that

failure, they transported the woman to Shuswap Lake General Hospital.

She was then flown to Kamloops and then flown to Vancouver General

Hospital.

Residents expect care when they need it. They don’t expect to have

to act as an ambulance crew.

To the Premier, health care in this province is getting worse, not

better. What is the Premier going to do now to make sure that people get

the care that they need?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I suppose it’s a time for clip lines. But those aren’t true;

they’re not true. Yes, I’ve been Minister of Health for more than four

years. Yes, each of those years has involved a record increase in the

Ambulance Service. Yes, I gave twice as much priority as had been given

before to those issues.

But as you know, on the ground, we’re dealing with two public

health emergencies — two. In that time, we have reduced surgical

wait-lists; our urgent and primary care centres — outstanding primary

care. The outcomes of people with COVID-19 in critical care are some of

the best in the world, and we are continuing to work to address

services.

[10:50 a.m.]

To say these aren’t extraordinary times, a time of two public

health emergencies, is simply to ignore what’s in front of us. I know

the members know that, because they’re fully engaged on these issues

every day and in their community. That’s why we’ve got to continue to

work together to increase levels of immunization and vaccination so we

can move to a new stage of the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to support

our health care system with unprecedented resources and support in

challenging times.

I. Paton: The mayor of Delta is fed up with the unacceptable ambulance

delays in our community. In a letter to the minister, he writes: “On

August 22, there was only one call taker for all of Vancouver because 25

of 26 BCEHS dispatcher seats were empty. On September 24, only one

ambulance was operating for all of Richmond and Delta.”

This is incredible incompetence for an area of over 300,000

people. We haven’t heard the NDP MLAs from Richmond speak up about this

ambulance delay, but I will.

Will the Premier act now and fix this ambulance crisis?

Hon. A. Dix: What I would say is that the challenges facing the ambulance

system are not of a new date. It’s why we’ve responded the way we have,

with budgets every year that have significantly increased paramedics,

ambulances, dispatchers and air ambulance services across B.C. This is a

recognition of both a structural need for reform, and that’s been

happening, and of urgent services that are provided to support

communities.

Yes, these were necessary steps, and more will be re­quired.

That is why I think, given the circumstances, I am so proud of the

response of our ambulance paramedics and dispatchers, who, on the

ground, in challenging times when we’ve seen an unprecedented increase

in demand, have responded with courage and skill and dignity and are

working so very hard.

We’re going to continue to do what we have done, which is to

increase the investment in our ambulance service and hire more

paramedics, add ambulances and hire more dispatchers.

J. Tegart: As the minister knows, the ambulance situation is also being

complicated by staffing shortages and ER closures.

Now the mayor of Ashcroft says that the Ambulance Service isn’t

even being told about the closed ERs. “We have an ambulance station in

Ashcroft. Sometimes they aren’t even aware that the emergency department

is closed or whether it’s closing at 8 p.m. or 10 p.m.” They’re taking

people in the ambulance to the ER in Ashcroft and then, finding it

closed, have to divert.

Does the Premier find it acceptable that ambulances can arrive at

emergency rooms only to find out they are closed?

Hon. A. Dix: Certainly, if the member has brought that to my attention, I’ll

look into the issues raised by herself and the mayor of Ashcroft,

because those are things that shouldn’t happen. They sometimes do

happen, but shouldn’t happen in our system. We have continued to invest,

particularly in rural primary care.

The member will know that the issue in Ashcroft is one of some

long date, that the move away from full-time emergency room services

occurred under a previous government, for reasons that were real at the

time. I don’t pass judgment in that, but we are working hard with the

community in Ashcroft to improve emergency room services and to improve

hospital and primary care services and, with regions across B.C., to add

not just on-call paramedics but full-time paramedics all over B.C. to

ensure that our service is ready in rural B.C. for what’s coming over

the next decade as well as this year and this month.

I thank the member for her question, and I’m happy to look into

the issue she has raised.

[10:55 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, the problem is very clear, and the problem is very clearly

this government’s failure to act in a timely fashion.

The minister can stick to the speaking notes all he would like,

but the reality is all of our email boxes are filling up with story

after story of delay and wait and delay and wait, and a failure in our

health care system. We’ve heard about the closed emergency rooms, closed

actual hospitals. We’ve heard time and again about that. I will

guarantee the members opposite in government are getting those same

emails yet doing nothing about it.

This minister used to be the Health critic. I wonder what he, as a

Health critic, would say about the total failure of the health care

system right now to address these needs.

We’ve had warnings, 15 months ago, about a shortage of dispatch.

Ignored. Then a heat wave comes, and 569 people lose their lives. We’ve

heard the problem is very clear — a lack of resources. A car accident in

Smithers requires an ambulance. No one was answering. A passerby drove

to the ambulance station and a fire hall, and an ambulance on call just

happened to be driving by but already had a patient. But they still

stopped. One person died in that scenario. Another had to be airlifted

to Vancouver.

Health care by luck and circumstance, not by phoning 911 and

actually having somebody pick up the phone in dispatching. According to

E-Comm, as reported in the Tyee , that call was one of 5,000,

and that’s actually a typical Wednesday. The delay was actually a lack

of dispatchers. E-Comm quotes: “During this time, we were seeing longer

delays in transferring 911 callers with a request for ambulance to B.C.

emergency health services.”

Again, when will this Premier actually address the shortcomings

and actually acknowledge the critical crisis of the health care system

across the board in British Columbia and actually take steps to fix it,

instead of blaming people for trying to actually get health care they

need in a timely fashion?

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the last line the member made, no one’s done that

ever, right? No one’s done that ever. I think when the member suggests

that we don’t take this issue seriously, he is wrong.

He refers to my time as Health critic. Yeah, I thought the

government there had underinvested in the ambulance service, and they

did. That’s why I doubled the level of funding to the Ambulance

Service.

And yes, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, the members know. They raise in their

questions the unprecedented number of dispatches and the unprecedented

number of responses, and we have to continue to do….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, it was day one. And, yes, when I was Health critic and the

previous government decided to take away the independent bargaining

rights of ambulance paramedics to raise these issues at the bargaining

term, I was opposed to that. I was opposed to that, because I

believe….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the answer, please. Members.

Order.

Hon. A. Dix: I believe that it’s working together with our ambulance paramedics

that we can do a better job, so I restored those rights at the

bargaining table. Many of the increases in services, the creation of

hundreds of full-time positions, are a direct result of that

collaboration.

And yes, I take very seriously the questions asked by members of

the opposition, in spite of the Opposition House Leader’s yelling out. I

would say this. We have to continue to do better. We just have to

continue to do better. And that’s why we, on July 2, posted hundreds of

positions. We’re adding positions. We’re adding supports in rural and

remote B.C. And there are significant challenges facing our health care

system during two public health emergencies, and we are responding to

that with resources and effort.

[11:00 a.m.]

This public health emergency of COVID-19 and the public health

emergency in the overdose crisis, I think, have shown our health care

system working together to help people in difficult times, just as the

people of B.C. have done the same.

I am proud today to be the leader, as Minister of Health, of a

public health care system, and I’m proud of the people of B.C. for our

joint response in difficult times.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s Report

on the Audit of the Public Ac­counts — Fiscal Year

2020-21 .

Orders of the Day

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. Let’s get this sec­ond reading underway.

I believe it’s the member for Kamloops–South Thompson to

continue.

Proceed, Member.

T. Stone: I appreciate the opportunity to continue my comments today to the

amendment that the official opposition moved yesterday to Bill

Just to remind folks, the amendment that the official opposition

moved was to refer this bill to the Special Committee to Review the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and a number of us

in the opposition, both the official opposition and the Third Party,

walked through our rationale for believing that this is the appropriate

thing to do — the right thing to do.

I’m hoping that in what little time we have left today in debate

on this amendment, and potential additional debate on second reading

more generally, that someone, anyone, from the government will stand up

and articulate the rationale for bringing this bill forward now. That

someone from the government will stand up and actually explain to this

House — and through this House, to British Columbians — how such a

deeply flawed bill is even in front of us here today.

Why is the special committee that is statutorily required to

review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act…? Why

was this bill brought forward prior to that committee actually meeting

and undertaking its important work engaging with stakeholders, not the

least of which is the FOIPPA commissioner himself, to better inform

through those recommendations the content of the bill — or of a bill

that would amend the FOIPPA act?

But we find ourselves here with one of the most sweeping packages

of changes or reforms to this legislation and no one from government

seemingly wanting to speak to it. I think that’s a very disappointing

day in the history of this place. Again, it’s not too late. Hopefully

someone from the other side will jump up and offer some insights into

the government’s rationale for moving forward with this deeply flawed

bill.

[11:05 a.m.]

Back to the purpose of the amendment. Again, in light of the

disconnect that seems to be at play here between the purpose of the

special committee that statutorily has the obligations to review the

FOIPPA act and bring forward recommendations…. The disconnect between

letting that committee do its work and then bringing forward

recommendations through legislation…. Because this bill is so deeply

flawed, again, the amendment would basically provide for the bill not

being read a second time at this time but rather be referred to the

appropriate committee, which I’ve talked about.

The issues, however, that we have with this bill and that so many

British Columbians are articulating about this bill…. The more and more

people actually dive into it and realize what is actually in this bill….

The reasons for our concern also form an important foundational

motivation for moving this amendment as well. It’s a deeply flawed

bill.

When I say that, amongst a number of flaws we believe are

contained within this bill, we’re very much opposed to the imposition of

financial barriers, fees that will now — through this legislation, if it

passes — be imposed on British Columbians. It’s not just opposition

parties that will end up having to pay these fees.

When I say opposition

parties, let’s be clear here: it’s actually the taxpayers. It’s not any

member of the opposition, per se, that has to dig deep into their pocket

to pay fees to access government information that should be public. It’s

members of the opposition, which are funded by the taxpayers of British

Columbia. I mean, it’s ridiculous.

But it’s also news outlets, it’s media organizations, it’s

journalism schools, and it’s all kinds of stakeholders that, again, have

indicated significant concern with the financial barriers that are being

imposed in this legislation.

We’re very concerned that the Premier’s office is being excluded

from the purview of freedom of information. We will get into that in a

lot more detail, I believe, in committee on the bill. But that, again,

forms part of the basis for our bringing forward this amendment to refer

this to the special committee. We believe that’s a significant flaw with

the legislation. The reduction, generally, of oversight of the

commissioner’s office…. He’s a highly respected, very professional,

internationally acknowledged expert in privacy and

freedom-of-information matters, and his office and his authorities are

being significantly watered down in this bill.

The fact that the government is leaving most of the changes,

through this legislation, to regulation — so they are not even defining

in detail or providing those details to this House and to British

Columbians — is deeply concerning.

Then there are the provisions that are referred to in the bill as

data linking and data residency. So with the remaining time that I have,

I want to focus the balance of my comments on these two areas. The

definition for “data linking” is being rewritten in this legislation.

It’s being rewritten to provide for three implications. One is health

research, the second is all personal records within the custody and

government.

within the scope of data collection that is contemplated through this

legislation. This is totally new. This is a piece that, again, the more

British Columbians realize what this could potentially mean…. They’re

concerned. Now, we don’t know exactly what it means, because it’s not

defined, it’s not detailed, and there’s no light shining on what exactly

the government’s intentions are with this.

The specific

section of the legislation says that a public body

may disclose information if the information “was disclosed on social

media by the individual the information is about” and it “was obtained

or compiled by the public body for the purpose of enabling the public

body to engage individuals in public discussion or promotion respecting

proposed or existing initiatives, policies, programs or activities of

the public body or respecting legislation relating to the public body.”

That’s the

section from the legislation.

[11:10 a.m.]

What this means…. And it’s important to understand what data

linking is. Data linking is bringing together disparate data sets and

linking them, to enable the analysis of trends, to build out a profile

on individuals, to — when used properly and appropriately, with

guardrails wrapped around it — enhance service for people. But the

that British Columbians make — again, in relation to policies,

protocols, engagements, consultations, initiatives of government or of a

public body of government — is very, very concerning, not to be defined

anywhere.

What is the government’s intent here? If my neighbour posts on her

Facebook page that she was really upset, for a number of reasons, with

her recent experience at a provincial park, what is the government going

to do with that data? If another individual is unhappy with the road

maintenance in the province, what is government going to do with that

data?

The government is going to have the right to go in and scrape

those posts, that content, the metadata wrapped around it. Government is

going to be able to go in and scrape that data, harvest that data,

obtain that data. Use whatever word you want. The government is going to

Columbians.

This has the potential to be a significant invasion of personal

privacy. As I’ve said, the details are all pushed into regulation. The

commissioner, in his tersely worded, seven-page letter, that was

provided moments after the legislation was introduced, was very, very

clear about his concerns related to data linking — and data residency,

which I’ll get to in a moment.

He was very clear in saying that he doesn’t believe that there are

guardrails built in to this legislation — that his office should have

oversight, that there should be draft regulations provided to his office

so that his office can better understand what government’s intentions

are here and provide its view of those intentions to government. Those

concerns were all expressed by the commissioner, but again, they have

fallen on deaf ears.

I want to talk a little bit about the data residency side of this.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand it. As a former tech CEO, and

someone who knows a few things about data co-location and the importance

of strict security protocols in terms of how data is stored and managed

and backed up and protected, I have no idea what the motivation is for

government to eliminate the current data-residency requirements, which

require that data, that personal health data, of British Columbians —

Columbians….

Why in God’s name would the government of British Columbia want

to, potentially, take that data out of Can­ada? That is what this

act will do. That is what this bill will do if it passes. It will

eliminate the need for the storage of that data here in our

country.

Now, we have state-of-the-art co-location facilities. A couple of

them are up in my hometown in Kamloops — state of the art. They have

additional capacity; I’ve checked. Yet the government is saying: “No. We

need to take this information. We need to at least have the flexibility

to store this information outside of our country.”

[11:15 a.m.]

British Columbians should be very concerned about that. Am I

somewhat putting words into the mouth of the government? Perhaps, but I

have no choice. I don’t understand what the motivations are, because no

one in government will stand up and speak to this legislation — this

amendment, in particular — and the details of the government’s

intentions aren’t included here.

When that data is stored here in Canada, there are very specific

policies and protocols that have to be respected, right down to the

staff person that has access to where the servers are located. Those

kinds of arrangements — you have much less protection, much less

control, when it’s outside of the country.

I could go on more, but my time is running out. I just want to,

again, say: the financial barriers that are imposed in this bill, the

Premier’s office being extracted from purview of freedom of information,

these insidious data-linking and data residency requirements or changes

that are contemplated in this legislation, the reduction of oversight,

the attack on the commissioner’s office and moving all of this into

regulation means that this is a deeply flawed piece of

legislation.

I encourage everyone in this House to support the amendment to

push this legislation to the special committee that is charged

statutorily with the responsibility to do this work and bring forward

recommendations in the future.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call a vote on the proposed

amendment moved by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Division has been called.

[11:20 a.m. - 11:25 a.m.]

Division has been called on the following amendment proposed by

the member for Kamloops–North Thompson: “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 therefore 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.’”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

Wilkinson

NAYS — 50

Alexis

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Dykeman

Eby

Farnworth

Fleming

Greene

Heyman

Horgan

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

Deputy Speaker: We will now return to the second reading debate on Bill 22. We’ll

just wait a minute, Members, while the House does what it needs to do.

Thank you.

Members, if you could make your way out of the chamber if that’s

what you’re planning to do. Otherwise, we do have a member who wishes to

have the floor.

On the main motion.

M. de Jong: I made a prediction yesterday that I was — I made two, actually —

fairly confident would be accurate. I was genuinely hoping I would be

wrong, but as it turns out, I’m not. We are confronted by a bill that,

as others — my colleague from Kamloops just a few moments ago — have

justifiably described as being flawed.

[11:30 a.m.]

As persuasive as his remarks may be, it is perhaps more important

to acknowledge that similar criticisms derive from an officer of this

Legislative Assembly, the Privacy Commissioner himself, who has been, I

think, well chronicled in this — well, I guess, politically speaking —

monologue. You can’t call it a debate.

The Privacy Commissioner has reinforced the challen­ges with

the legislation before the House, all of which has taken place against

the backdrop of there being a fully charged, empowered, statutorily

authorized, statutorily directed committee of this House awaiting the

opportunity to do its work, which it has done regularly and is ready,

willing and able to do today.

Against that backdrop, an amendment, a proposal, was made not to

defeat the bill but to send it to that body for further consideration,

consideration of the concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner,

consideration of the concerns expressed in this House, consideration of

the concerns expressed by others in the public to tap into the expertise

that exists on the committee itself. By any measure, a reasonable

proposition. An entirely reasonable proposition, consistent with the

conventions and procedures of this House.

Now, the government, not surprisingly, I suppose —

disappointingly, but not surprisingly — did not view that reasonable

amendment positively. All right. That’s not the first time it that has

happened that governments and oppositions have disagreed on what

constitutes a reasonable procedural approach to legislation.

But 50 members of the government just voted against that very

reasonable approach. Not one of them could muster one word, nay, not one

syllable to justify the vote that they’ve made, and that is despicable.

Not one of them had the temerity to stand in this House and provide any

rationale, any argument, any opinion for why the proposal to send this

to a committee was improper, unreasonable, unworthy of

support.

I made another prediction yesterday. I said: “This marks a turning

point, a seminal moment in the life of this government.” And we have

just seen it. A government armed with a majority that now governs on

this basis: we’ll do what we want, when we want, because we can. The

proce­dures, the opportunity to argue, the opportunity for an

exchange of opinions — it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s not relevant.

It’s not part of how this government is going to govern.

Fifty-seven members. For the purpose of this discussion, I think

55 were entitled to participate in the debate, 50 of whom cast a ballot,

cast a vote against this proposal.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill voted against this proposal,

didn’t have anything to say about why it was unworthy of support. The

member for Vancouver–False Creek, the member for Coquitlam–Burke

Mountain, the member for Nelson-Creston, the member for

Surrey-Cloverdale, the member for North Island, the member for

Parksville-Qualicum, the member for North Coast. They all apparently

believe that fulfilling their parliamentary duties involves coming into

this House, voting against proposals en bloc , en masse with

their colleagues and not even providing a reason to the public for why

they have cast that vote that way.

[11:35 a.m.]

If there is a better demonstration of a government that has come

to embrace and be consumed by its own arrogance, I do not know what it

is. I’ve not seen that before.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Stop the presses. A member of the government side just spoke. He

didn’t stand up to speak. He didn’t stand up to explain why he voted

against this amendment. No, he’s here heckling. He’s here

heckling.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: He’s just full of commentary after the vote. He’s just full of

commentary. But we’re not done. We’re in second reading. In fact, if

he’ll indicate to me now his willingness to stand up, I will defer. I’ll

sit down. He can stand up right now. All he has to do, the member for

Maple Ridge–Mission, is look my way, give me a thumbs-up, and I’m going

to sit down, and he can stand up, and he can make arguments on behalf of

the government.

He’s not nodding, and I don’t see any thumbs.

I haven’t even gotten to the minister. I haven’t even gotten to

the minister who, on behalf of the executive council, brings a message

from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, commends it to the House for

support, makes brief remarks, very brief, is confronted by the concerns

of the House, the concerns of the parliamentary officer of the House,

and then confronted by an amendment that says, “You know, in this case,

absent any urgency….”

By the way, no one on the government side has offered a single

argument about the urgency of this. Confronted by all of that, the

minister has chosen to simply ignore and offer, again, not a single

syllable of justification or argument, on behalf of the government, for

why the suggested amendment is unworthy of support or why the government

won’t support it. They may have their own reasons.

It’s a parliament. Now, I’m no linguist, but even I understand

that it comes from the word parler , to speak, and when the

members of this government choose to ignore, arrogantly ignore and

refuse to provide any sort of rationalization for the course they’re on,

people understand what’s taking place.

I talked about the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam. He’s the Chair

of the committee that the government, by their actions, has

disparaged.

Now, I actually have been around here long enough that I didn’t

expect him to get up and trash the government. I didn’t expect that. I

did, however, expect that given his role as the Chair of the committee,

given his role as a member of the government caucus, he would feel

compelled to explain to the House, if this was his view…. Apparently it

is, because he voted that referring the work to the committee he was

Chair of was a bad idea.

[11:40 a.m.]

I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of a Chair of a committee…. I

don’t know if I have ever, in my time here, seen a Chair of a committee

vote and say, by virtue of that vote: “Please don’t send us the work

that we’re statutorily obliged to do.”

I guess it’s easy to stand here and make fun of the situation, but

there’s really an important principle at stake here. It gets back to

that second prediction I made, that turning point in the life of a

government armed, as this one is, with a healthy majority in this place,

that is now saying to British Columbians: “We actually don’t have to

explain anything. We can do it because we want to and we have a

majority.”

Is that why the Minister of Social Development wanted to enter the

cabinet? Is that the kind of government that he wanted to be a part of,

a government that demonstrably believes it is unanswerable for the steps

it takes? That’s what he’s done today, he and 55 of his colleagues. A

sad day, a sad demonstration, and a day that I think will come back to

haunt this government as people increasingly become aware of what has

taken place.

I’m not going to go on much longer. But I hope that whether it’s

this evening or over the weekend, the members of the government, who….

On every other occasion, they have no hesitation and seem to have plenty

to say when it suits their purpose. But when confronted by a situation

that is uncomfortable for them, when confronted by a situation which

they and their government have chosen to pursue and it’s strictly an

entirely political agenda and they have adopted positions that are

difficult — I say, in this case, impossible — to defend, they could not

rise to that challenge. They would not rise to that

challenge.

That is weakness. That is weakness, and that is what we have seen

here today — weakness coupled with arro­gance, by a government

that believes the majority it has achieved allows it to proceed as it

wants and is un­answerable and no longer obliged to in any way

defend the steps it wishes to take.

We will continue our questioning and our opposition to this bill.

We will do so within the rules provided to us in the standing orders and

in this House. We will pose the questions that one would expect to be

posed. What I am less confident about, I have to say, is whether we’ll

get any answers, because we couldn’t get a single answer from a single

member of the government caucus about why a reasonable proposal to refer

this to a special committee that is already empowered was a bad idea.

We’ll see.

[11:45 a.m.]

At some point, the second reading debate is going to conclude. I’m

fascinated to anticipate what the minister will say. I am fascinated

because the minister, as we now know, refused to explain why a referral

to the committee in the manner suggested in the amendment just voted

upon was unreasonable and not worthy of support.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re drawing close to the line around the question of

reflections on previous votes, as the member knows, so just a caution

that we can bring it back to the second reading debate on the bill.

Thank you.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the caution and the reminder, because reflecting on

that earlier vote profoundly disturbs me, and the manner in which it

occurred.

The minister still, by the way, has options available to her. She

could — of her own volition, of course — refer the matter to the

committee. I don’t think she’s going to do that. I wish she would, but

what I particularly hope she will do is explain to the House why cutting

the special committee statutorily responsible for this out of the

equation is the appropriate thing to do.

I hope, in the course of this second reading debate, she will

touch upon the criticisms, observations and concerns addressed to her by

the Privacy Commissioner. I hope she will table the letter that she

undoubtedly has sent in response to those concerns to the Privacy

Commissioner, or at least, for the purposes of today’s conversation,

confirm that she has responded in writing to the Privacy Commissioner,

because heaven forbid she has to admit that she hasn’t even written back

to him. We can end that speculation right now.

Having received a letter unlike any that I have ever seen from a

statutory officer, this minister can at least inform the House that

she’s had the courtesy of responding in writing. My prediction is in a

few moments, she’ll have that opportunity. I hope she’ll do it. If she

doesn’t, we’ll draw our own conclusions.

By any measure, however, what we are about to experience will be

somewhat unprecedented, and that is at least one person on the

government side who’s prepared to speak to this bill. I know members of

the government are uncomfortable. I think many of them are embarrassed.

I hope they are. That would at least speak to their character a little

bit. I hope the minister’s embarrassed. I hope she’s not proud. If she

stands up and says how proud she is, I’ll be profoundly disappointed,

but that, too, will speak to character.

A sad and disappointing day, not because one side or the other

lost a vote. That happens here every day. A sad day because the side

that persevered no longer feels obliged to explain how they have come to

their decision, no longer feels obliged to participate in the exercise

of debate. Sad indeed.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close second

reading debate?

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank all the members that I’ve been listening to

through the second reading debate. It is very interesting, because there

seems to be a whole lot of misinformation being spread by the members

opposite about what this bill is.

[11:50 a.m.]

It makes me sad that the members opposite feel it necessary to

invoke fear in the public, rather than actually have a conversation

about what this bill is and how it’s going to continue to improve the

lives of British Columbians by allowing them to continue accessing the

services that they need, by continuing to strengthen their privacy

protections and to continue to give them access to their personal

information in a timely manner.

With that, I look forward to committee stage, which is where we’re

going to have this debate — clause by clause, line by line — through

this legislation, and I’m going to get the chance to outline what this

means for British Columbians and how important it is.

I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 22.

Division has been called.

Point of Order

B. D’Eith: I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the clock started about 20 seconds after

you rang the bell. I was just wondering, on a point of order, if perhaps we

could add those 20 seconds…?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. We will take that into consideration and account,

Member.

[11:55 a.m.]

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 22.

Second reading of Bill 22 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 52

Alexis

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Dykeman

Eby

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Horgan

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 29

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

Wilkinson

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order. We will have order, Members.

Minister.

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment

Act, 2021, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House will adjourn until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

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.