British Columbia Hansard — 19 October 2021, p.m., Issue 109 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20211019pm-Hansard-n109

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 19, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 109 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Second Session, 42nd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...........................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries......................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing .............................................................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Mitzi Dean Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.....................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Education .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ........................................................................................Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Selina Robinson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations................................................................................. Hon. Nathan Cullen Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.............................................................................Hon.

Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation....................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.............................................................................................................. Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Municipal Affairs ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Josie Osborne Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction........................................................................................... Hon. Nicholas Simons Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport .................................................................................................................. Hon.

Melanie Mark Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of State for Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bowinn Ma LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition...................................................................................................................................................Shirley Bond Leader of the Third Party .......................................................................................................................................................... Sonia Furstenau Deputy Speaker..........................................................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Assistant Deputy Speaker..............................................................................................................................................................Norm Letnick Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services........................................................................................................................... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees.......................................................................................................................................................................

Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................... Karan Riarh Sergeant-at-Arms ........................................................................................................................................................................... Ray Robitaille

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ............................................................Abbotsford-Mission Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) .........................................................Nelson-Creston Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Penticton Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...............................................................North Island Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP).................................................. Vancouver–False Creek Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP).........................................................

Surrey-Newton Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ............................................ Abbotsford South Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) .......................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (BC NDP).................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...............................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party).................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP) ................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) .............................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ..............................................North Vancouver–Seymour Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ............................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP).................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)........................Columbia River–Revelstoke Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (BC NDP) ....................................................Kootenay West Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) .......................................................................... Chilliwack Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ................................................................... Stikine Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)................................................. Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)....................................Abbotsford West Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...............................................

Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) .........................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ................................................ Vancouver-Kingsway Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ........................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)............................................................... Langley East Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP).......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ..................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) .................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...............................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ..................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ........................................................Richmond-Steveston Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party) .........................................Surrey–White Rock Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) .........................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ......................................... Langford–Juan de Fuca Kahlon, Hon.

Ravi (BC NDP) .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) .................................................. Burnaby–Deer Lake Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party) ........................West Vancouver–Capilano Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)....................................................................Shuswap Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party) ..............................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...............................................

Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) .................................. Kelowna–Lake Country Lore, Grace (BC NDP)........................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP).....................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)........................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ........................................................................

Langley Merrifield, Renee (BC Liberal Party)......................................... Kelowna-Mission Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) .......................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ................................. Prince George–Mackenzie Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party).................................................. Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Osborne, Hon.

Josie (BC NDP)........................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ................................................................Chilliwack-Kent Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Delta South Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)........................................................ Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) .............................................Surrey-Whalley Rankin, Hon.

Murray, QC (BC NDP) .............................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...................................................................... North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)......................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) .............................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...........................................

Nanaimo–North Cowichan Russell, Roly (BC NDP).................................................... Boundary-Similkameen Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)......................................................Nechako Lakes Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) .................................................Vernon-Monashee Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)..........................................................Vancouver-Hastings Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party) .................................................... Kootenay East Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP).........................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ................................................................. Surrey-Panorama Singh, Aman (BC NDP) .............................................Richmond-Queensborough Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) .......................................................

Kelowna West Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...............................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ............................. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)....................................................... Fraser-Nicola Walker, Adam (BC NDP) ....................................................... Parksville-Qualicum Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ....................................... Richmond North Centre Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) .........................................

New Westminster Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)......................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ao, Henry (BC NDP) ..................................................... Richmond South Centre LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission................................................................................. Pam Alexis Abbotsford South...............................................................................Bruce Banman Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen........................................................................ Roly Russell Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds......................................................................Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ..........................................................................Lorne Doerkson Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ...............................................................................................Dan Coulter Chilliwack-Kent .................................................................................... Kelli Paddon Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...............................................................Fin Donnelly Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................. Sonia Furstenau Delta North................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Hon. Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ...........................................................................

Renee Merrifield Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon.

John Horgan Langley .............................................................................................Andrew Mercier Langley East....................................................................................Megan Dykeman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim............................................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne Nanaimo.............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ............................................................................. Brittny Anderson New Westminster.............................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside North Coast ........................................................................................... Jennifer Rice North Island................................................................................... Michele Babchuk North Vancouver–Lonsdale......................................................... Hon. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour...................................................................Susie Chant Oak Bay–Gordon Head..................................................Hon.

Murray Rankin, QC Parksville-Qualicum........................................................................... Adam Walker Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast..............................................Hon. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough..................................................................Aman Singh Richmond South Centre .......................................................................... Henry Y ao Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................

Kelly Greene Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine........................................................................................ Hon.

Nathan Cullen Surrey-Cloverdale .............................................................................. Mike Starchuk Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ................................................................. Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Surrey–White Rock .......................................................................... Trevor Halford Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek...................................................................... Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ..............................................................................Niki Sharma Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee .....................................................................

Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill............................................................................... Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Karin Kirkpatrick West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, October 19, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 3517 Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021(continued) S. Cadieux Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)....................................................................................................................... 3519 A.

Olsen Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 3519 Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021(continued) M. Dykeman B. Stewart M. Morris C. Oakes S. Chant K. Kirkpatrick A. Mercier D. Davies Hon. N. Cullen A. Wilkinson S. Furstenau L. Doerkson A. Olsen T. Wat

TUESDAY , OCTOBER 19, 2021 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:I call continued second reading debate, Bill 22. Second Reading of Bills BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIV ACY AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 (continued) S. Cadieux:I’m pleased to speak to this Bill 22, the Free- dom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amend- ment Act, today. [N.

Letnick in the chair.] I reflect back on this because, in 2009 when I was first elected, some of the first work I did as an MLA was on the committee that reviewed FOIPPA, at the time, and provided advice to government on necessary changes and then followed that up with chairing the committee to appoint the Privacy Commissioner at that stage. I’m really pleased today to be able to speak about this bill. I, for one, have always placed a great deal of both value and importance on freedom of information. I know, as an elected official, that is not always popular.

The act itself and abiding by it is not always easy, but it doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. It’s incredibly important to our democracy. As minister, in 2011 — in my six-month stint as the Minister of Labour, Citizens Services and Open Govern- ment — I was really proud when we launched the Open Information platform and the open data platform in Brit- ish Columbia. That allowed for the routine disclosure of a lot of information that previously had to be FOI’ d. [1:35 p.m.] Again, not everybody liked that. Not everybody was comfortable with it at the time.

It was seen by critics as something that they were cautiously optimistic about. “It was a good first step, ” I think, was some of the language used to describe it. It was uncomfortable for members of government, I would say, at the time, because government has to make tough decisions. Government makes those decisions and does the work on behalf of the people. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they get called out for things that they’ve done. It’s not easy when you’re in the position of answering for that. But it’s the right process in our democracy.

I don’t think the public should expect government to get it all right all the time. Government is representation of the people, by the people, for the people. We’re not perfect as humans. We make mistakes. But generally, I would say, all of us, regardless of our political leanings, are trying to do the best job we can for the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia have a right to access the information held by their government. They also have the right to have their personal information in gov- ernment’s hands held with the strictest of confidence and safety.

In 2011, when we moved to disclose more things pro- actively, I think it was a good start. When we opened gov- ernment’s data up to people — researchers, universities, the media — for people who wanted to use that data, I think that was a good step. I’m sure in the years follow- ing, more has happened and more has been released, and I’m sure, I am aware, there have still been calls for more. It will never meet all of the needs or desires, I think, of some advocates, and that’s okay too. Today we’re debating a bill that is being tabled at a really concerning time.

We’re dealing with a government that has taken, or it would appear to be a government that has taken, great strides to strip away transparency and accountability rather than improve it. Just today in question period, we heard about a number of those cir- cumstances. British Columbians — the media, members of the opposition — are waiting months, even years, for responses for documents requested through FOI, docu- ments they are entitled to. It’s challenging, I understand, sometimes, for govern- ments to process all of the documents.

We see that and we hear about how difficult it is, and there are so many things to do, and it just takes so much time and people are so unreasonable in their requests. The reality is if govern- ment didn’t hold on so tightly to those documents, people wouldn’t have to request them at all. Here we have a bill coming forward to make amend- ments to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, and government is ignoring all of the advice of the last all- party task force to review the act. They’re ignoring the fact that that all-party task force said fees should not be a bar- rier.

There is an all-party committee, constituted just in June, that has yet to be able to complete its work, but gov- ernment is choosing to bring this bill forward now instead. What does that say to a committee of members of this House who were tasked with looking at this? Guess they don’t matter. Guess the opinions of that committee — the work that they would undertake with the public — doesn’t matter. Government knows better.

Well, that’s not usually something you hear the public say. [1:40 p.m.] There is a member of the government who was previ- ously the critic for this file, and he’s had lots to say over the years on FOIPPA and on FOI and, when he was a crit- ic, on all of the things that needed to be better. In fact, 3517

in 2017, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan said that his party, if elected, would improve things a lot. He said that government would release so much more infor- mation so regularly that there would no longer be a need for FOI requests. He said that the benefit of releasing the requests as they are processed — so proactive disclosure — would save those making submissions from the effort and expense in fees of making requests. That government — his government — if elected, would enact legislation imposing a duty to document.

It would enact penalties for failing to observe FOI legislation and waive fees when government didn’t meet mandated time- lines for releasing materials. I will wait with bated breath to see that member stand in this House and support this legislation today, because it does none of those things. In fact, it adds a fee. It adds a barrier to accessing the information that should be pub- licly available. Now, yes, there have always been fees for large requests that can be issued by government after the assessment of a request, etc., but this is just for the right to ask for something.

This is telling the public: “Y ou don’t have a right to access government information unless you first pay a fee. ” I don’t think that’s right. As we move through the things that this bill does…. I’m going to go back a second. We have a committee that’s sup- posed to be reviewing the act. The B.C. Freedom of Infor- mation and Privacy Association is quoted this week say- ing: “They just undermined the public consultation pro- cess through the Legislature. Making unilateral changes rather than implementing the recommendations of a cur- rent or previous all-party task force.

Great way to say one thing and do another. The B.C. NDP attack transparency. ” That’s what this is about. It’s about making it harder for the public to get information from government. We’re in a pandemic. There are lots of concerns about what we do and don’t know about government’s actions, about our hospitals, our capacity, our schools. Govern- ment wants to make it harder for people to ask for infor- mation. Now, as I said a minute ago, the former critic said that government would bring forward a duty to document legislation. They haven’t.

But not only do we not have a duty to document legislation; we also, with this bill, don’t have a duty to preserve. The bill doesn’t include provisions to prevent documents from being destroyed prior to requests. [1:45 p.m.] The Information and Privacy Commissioner is con- cerned about that, very concerned about that, and says: “If somebody destroys records because they think they might be of interest but wants to destroy them before any request is made, there’s no offence for that. That can’t be right. It needs to change. It’s an offence in Alberta.

It could have been easily put in place here. ” Michael McEvoy, Informa- tion and Privacy Commissioner. Government is not listening to the independent officer of this Legislature, put in place by this Legislature to uphold this act. That’s something. So on to that fee again. The government’s plan is to add an application fee to every single FOI request. Any- one filing a freedom-of-information request that isn’t for their own personal information will be subject to a charge for every request they make. The minister is try- ing to sell it as a nominal fee — no big deal — to recoup the costs associated with filing.

There is no cost associ- ated to filing. It’s ridiculous. Not only does the minister seem to misunderstand the process of FOI, but it’s also disingenuous to say that the fee won’t be a barrier to access. In fact, the Minister of Indigenous Relations had this to say about fees for applications: “This is a really simple one. ” Now, here, he’s referring to the federal act. “The act requires people to pay a fee, a tollgate fee on the public’s right to know, of $5. It’s a tollgate fee which costs the government, by testimony, if it’s a cheque, $55 to process.

While it seems bizarre in terms of the economics, it should also be seen as an obstacle that doesn’t exist in most provincial free- dom of information laws. ” A member of that government’s cabinet fought against fees, federally, and is now sitting in the government that is choosing to impose the very same thing. It’s interest- ing. It’s also interesting, the language, because we have a government that on regular occasion likes to shout from the rooftops that they removed the tolls from the bridge. They removed the tolls, and now this government wants to toll the freedom-of-information highway.

That’s what they’re doing. A fee is a targeted effort to discourage people from being able to hold government to account — not just private citizens but the opposition — to try to keep us from doing our job of holding government to account. Our legislative duty. The media, from their sworn duty to uphold the truth and ask difficult questions…. A fee to file. Now, again, gov- ernment might like to characterize this as a nuisance fee to try and dissuade people from making too many requests. There is a simple solution. Just proactively disclose the information.

Make the information government holds available to the public. We started that process. It would appear this government would like to pull it back. [1:50 p.m.] Even before we began debate on this bill today, the pub- lic and the media have been making their feelings known. They’re not happy, not happy at all — pages of quotes of journalists concerned about this tightening of a hold on information that government wants to have. I’m not going to quote all of the journalists, because they have plenty of space to do that for themselves. I think it’s important that we recognize that government is bringing in

an act without taking the advice of the pre- vious committee that was tasked with reviewing the act and who made recommendations to ensure that fees not 3518 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 19, 2021

become a barrier. It’s bringing in legislation against and despite significant concerns of the Information and Pri- vacy Commissioner, bringing in legislation while another committee has been struck to look at it.

It’s distasteful that government sees that now is the time to tighten up their control on information that is in the public interest when so many important pieces of infor- mation have been held by this government and only been made public through FOI — like the health authority expense scandal just recently, the concealing of hospital outbreaks, the concealing of care home deaths, the con- cealing of the costs added by CBA agreements and parents forced to file FOI requests to try and understand what is going on with COVID in their children’s schools so they can protect them. Freedom of information is important.

Protection of privacy is important. It may not always be comfortable for government, but government shouldn’t have the abil- ity to make it harder for people to access what is already difficult. Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right) A. Olsen:I reserve my right to raise a question of priv- ilege regarding Bill 22 and the work of the Special Com- mittee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protec- tion of Privacy Act. Debate Continued M. Dykeman: It’s a privilege to rise in the House today to speak on this bill.

I have to say that listening to the members opposite speak today on this bill has left me quite shocked. The reason why is that these are important changes, and we’re here to discuss them, and this debate is important. But the sort of pall that it’s being cast in is that this is somehow preventing individuals or others from being able to access information. I argue the complete opposite. [1:55 p.m.] I do find it shocking coming from the opposition.

The reason why is that if we look back at the history of the opposition, we have the 2014 ICBC report, which was kept under wraps and ended up costing B.C. residents more than $1 billion and putting the health of ICBC at risk. The Attorney General had written the Leader of the Opposi- tion at that time to compel the former Finance Minister to release the entire report and act on key recommendations, and the government ended up deleting those recommend- ations.

We have the triple-delete scandal where before they were opposition, the previous government’s approach to transparency, really, can be summed up in three words which were delete, delete, delete, and when asked about this practice, said: “Well, I’ve triple deleted my emails from time to time, and some emails are deleted, and some are kept. ” That doesn’t sound very transparent, right? Then we also have the situation where other records haven’t been released either, when asked for.

It was just sort of like: “Well, those records aren’t there. ” I served on the school board, as I’ve mentioned in this House before, and one of the challenges that we faced as a school district was a rising amount of requests for infor- mation. These weren’t individuals. One thing about this legislation is it’s not going to be charging a fee for access for individuals that would like their private information. It’s for these larger requests and requests from people, like organizations.

What was happening was, as a school district, we were seeing a rising number of requests, and there was a real, measurable cost to this. Opposition should remember that this is not a new discussion. If we go back to 2012, the then Minister of Labour, Citizens’ Services and Open Gov- ernment was talking about $49,000 in total fees collected for a program that actually cost $10 million to administer. So the opposition at one time was defending the fact that some costs needed to be brought in to recoup the extensive amount that this costs governments.

As a school board trustee, I remember our staff coming and saying: “Look, we are just under immense pressure here. We have rising numbers of requests coming in. We are in a position where we’re probably going to have to face having somebody come in to help us administer all of these. ” This is something that’s being felt around different levels of government. So approximately 40 percent of requests are for personal records, which people are not charged for. These proposed amendments won’t change this. It’s introducing a modest application fee for non-personal FOI requests. Interjection. M.

Dykeman: Y eah, they should, but there are costs. Now, the thing is that the average cost to government for processing a single FOI request is $3,000. Those large, complex requests can exceed this. Fees to produce records are collected on less than 2 percent of FOI requests. As I said earlier, approximately 40 percent of those are for personal records. People are not charged for this, and they will not be charged.

So the province has processed more than 10,000 FOI requests annually with the volume of requests increasing by more than 40 percent over a two- year period, reaching an all-time high of more than 13,000 requests in the 2019-2020 year — a total of 13,055. These are important things to recognize. This is a small fee to help offset some of the costs. That’s something that taxpayers, individuals, that want to request their inform- ation have access to. Taxpayers also know that there are rising costs of government, and sometimes you have to off- set some of those.

Tuesday, October 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3519

That’s something that I think we spent an incredible amount of time on. There’s been an incredible amount of casting it as if it’s somehow obstructionist, and that’s simply not the case or the intent. Now, one thing that we should celebrate, and it hasn’t been brought up, and I’m really excited to talk about, is the increase in transparency of this government. The minister who’s introduced this legislation…. Our government has more than doubled the number of pro- active disclosures.

This minister has put out their estim- ates notes, corporate transition binders, minister’s trans- ition binders, deputy minister’s transition, expense sum- maries, purchasing cards, business transaction, account expenditures. [2:00 p.m.] There have been summaries of open and closed free- dom-of-information request records released in response to a freedom-of-information request — gam- ing grants, ministers’ and deputy ministers’ calendars, directly awarded contracts, travel receipts, contracts with values over $10,000, summaries of alternative ser- vice delivery contracts.

In the ones that I read first, there is an increase, more than double proactive releases. This is something which the opposition laughing about is almost hysterical, because it’s like the exact opposite. Instead of triple-deleting them, we’re proactively releasing them. So enough on that. I think we should get to some of the more exciting thing that are taking place in this legislation. The past two years certainly have had a significant impact on how we communicate, how our students and adults are learning, attending meetings, appointments, even our work as MLAs.

Even our swearing in was vastly different, taking place on Zoom. I have to say, after two years, I certainly didn’t want to see Zoom again. But what this did was actually make me appreciate some of the opportunities that we have here. I grew up in a house that really only had a couple of pro- grams that went on all day — TV shows. With my mom, she was a redhead, so you certainly didn’t have a lot of say on what TV shows were on. Y ou watched what she was putting on. They rotated betweenStar Trek,Monty Python, Fawlty Towersand’ Allo ’ Allo. Sometimes, if we were lucky, we gotJeopardy. But that was it.

There was nothing else going on in this house. That’s okay. What was really cool about it was withStar Trek…. I used to sit there and say: “Wow, that’s really cool. Ima- gine if we had access to some of this technology. ” I real- ize that at the end of the pandemic, I still can’t get some- thing to materialize hot tea in front of me, but we cer- tainly have accessed some really interesting technology that a long time ago would have only been something we could dream of. Our students this pandemic — obviously, we’ve had oth- er pandemics in history — have been in such a fortunate place.

They’ve been able to stay connected in a way that a number of years ago you wouldn’t have been able to. They were able to still visit with their classmates and see them and have two-way conversations. They were able to still stay connected, in some way, with their teachers. I’m a 4-H leader, and my 4-H members were still able to meet with each other. We actually did a lot of judging of animals. We could see a child with their llama or their chicken or whatever. It wasn’t the same, but the point is that that technology opened up so many opportunities for us to stay connected.

It didn’t matter where your family lived in the world; you could still see them. It also showed us in some ways, too, how that’s not really a substitute. Y ou can see the person. In some ways, it was sadder, because you didn’t have the connection, but it cer- tainly was much better than having no connection. There are elements with efficiency and environmental considerations and everything that we’re going to keep going forward. This bill allows us to maintain some of the good by updating FOIPPA ’s data residency provisions so that public bodies can use those modern tools while pro- tecting personal information.

Enhancing public sector privacy protections and in- creasing accountability by implementing mandatory pri- vacy breach reporting. Increasing penalties and adding new offences. We’re securing people’s privacy while still maintaining and allowing these technological changes that have taken place and the important utility of these techno- logical advances to be able to stay in place. I remember, once again, on school board. Without these changes…. We had teachers who wanted to be able to access certain programs. I remember there was a marking one.

Unfortunately, due to the FOIPPA restrictions, those teachers weren’t able to use those programs. There would have needed to be these legislative changes for them to be able to take advantage of these changes. It’s been a long time since this legislation’s been updated, and it hasn’t kept up with the technological changes. [2:05 p.m.] Those technological changes, I think, have certainly been spurred as we’ve been dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, because it’s changed the way we live, we work and we connect with loved ones and how we access ser- vices like doctors. How neat is that, to be able to just log on?

Y ou’ve got your doctor there, and they can see you. It’s certainly not perfect. It’s not a change, but for certain things, it certainly makes sense — you know, the non-emergency day-to-day things. How wonderful it is to have that flexibility? This legislation will allow for that — updating those data resid- ency provisions. It also helps with our commitment to diversity and inclusion, reconciliation and equity, by increasing infor- mation and sharing with Indigenous peoples, adding Indigenous cultural protections and removing non- inclusive language.

I know in the news release, for those of you that have 3520 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 19, 2021

seen it, there’s been lots of excitement surrounding this. I can tell you that post-secondary institutions and schools…. In my former role, we talked lots about the restrictions but also just the load, the load of these large applications coming through. Although, unfortunately, today we’ve had some of these changes cast in such a way that, like as I mentioned earlier, they’re obstructionist, they’re going to put up a massive wall….

The point is that you have to look at the larger picture and look at the fact that organizations are dealing with so many changes, from needing changes in the legislation to allow people to benefit from technological advancements but also dealing with the fact that there is a real cost to some of the applications. That’s what this legislation looks at. It looks at the necessary balance that needs to take place to be effective in the role as government. As I mentioned earlier, these are not new debates. Back in 2006 and 2012, these debates were taking place.

These are small changes that will make a big difference in the lives of British Columbians and still allow individu- als to access data, which, in a free and democratic society, absolutely people should be able to do, and for organiza- tions, they absolutely should be able to access that infor- mation. That nominal fee is in there to help offset some of those costs.

When you couple that with our government’s commit- ment to being so proactive in releasing documents — twice as many documents proactively have been released — that puts in the balance that needs to be put in to ensure that people have access to what they need. A lot of it they can access by going on and looking at the proact- ively released documents.

It really was wonderful to be able to rise to talk about how these changes will help us keep up with the changes that we’ve encountered from COVID-19, how we work and live and connect with people, while also looking at the challenges faced by organizations and addressing some of the obstacles that have come from administering such a large demand of documents and also looking at how we have changed the face of that by proactively releasing so many documents ahead of time. I’ d like to thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this. With that, I will take my seat. B.

Stewart:I think that it’s important to hear both sides of the House on this particular topic. It’s something that is very engaging with the public. The public themselves are very interested in the protection of privacy as well as hav- ing access to it. I think one of the things that people fail to remember is the history of where we have come from and the fact that we’ve moved from a paper-based system to something that’s electronic.

There have been a lot of incidents along the way that have made us question how and where we store data and how it’s done in British Columbia, protecting the records — health records, as we all know, but the records of gov- ernment — and the important things that sometimes we need to go back and look at to make certain there’s com- plete transparency in terms of the protection of the public interest and people’s information. [2:10 p.m.] I think one of the things that really kind of got British Columbia and really catapulted us into the forefront was that back in 2004, we made changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

One of the reasons…. What triggered that was the fact that there was 9/11. Of course, with 9/11, I know the Americans were very critical of their own agencies’ intelligence, etc., about the access to data and making certain they had access — that there weren’t these barriers that were in line that prevented people from actually being in a situation where they were trading information, whether in those days it was on cell phones or by computers. But the bottom line was that there was information that perhaps could have averted some of the damage or some of the things that happened.

Of course, the Americans introduced the U.S.A. PATRI- OT Act. George Bush introduced it on October 26 of 2001, just a short time after 9/11. Has that changed? Part of what comes out in the Patriot Act is the fact that data that is stored on servers that may be in the United States or that they have access to are open to their ability to investigate and look at. It is not protected. It is not private. In British Columbia, we decided, on our own, that we were going to protect our information by insisting that data was stored here.

As a matter of fact, the min- ister may know an address called 4000 Seymour Place, right down here in downtown Victoria, where there is a huge server farm underneath a building where a lot of this data has been stored for decades. Of course, with the increasing volumes, etc., there was new data storage built in about 2010 up in Kamloops, and subsequently, there are other data server farms that are also in Canada that are storing data. One of the things that we’re now looking at….

I know, as a former critic, that there were intermittent amounts of data that were being stored or transmitted through differ- ent networks. I think that the protection of data is, I mean, paramount in this whole discussion — and making certain that it is not accessed. About ten years ago I had the opportunity to have din- ner and host the former head of NSA, General Michael Hayden. He was NSA director from March of ’99 until April of 2005. He subsequently was appointed second dir- ector at the CIA, somebody who’s very knowledgable about what took place in September of 2001.

He told us, at a dinner with the people that were there in government that were responsible for that: “One of the things that the U.S. has looked at with the PATRIOT Act is the bottom line that…. What we are looking at is we want to protect you, and if you want our protection, we Tuesday, October 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3521

have to have access to all that data, and that means any- thing that’s transmitted through the United States. ” He told people that, and some people were shocked about that. When you do ask yourself about the fact that…. If you want the protection that you’re expecting, you want to make certain that other groups, terrorists or whatever, are not accessing that information. There’s a whole spectrum of other information. The NSA is looking at this informa- tion, and we know that it goes on here. As a matter of fact, there has been a certain inquiry that’s been going on deal- ing with illegal transfer of funds, etc.

That type of inform- ation we do want to have access to. Anyways, what’s more important is the fact that British Columbia was seen to be a leader in terms of protecting privacy by the rules, etc., that we established and — not only that — the fact that we insisted that we store the data both in British Columbia and in Canada. Secondly, we’re at a turning point now where, as the member for Langley East pointed out, there are certain things that are happening that we need to address — effi- ciency, technology. I couldn’t agree more.

I think that one of the things that’s happened is that big data has come at a cost because of the fact that we’re now having to have greater amounts of storage and what is easier is to farm that out, sell it or put it somewhere else on a server that we have no control over. [2:15 p.m.] I don’t know if that opportunity was looked at by the minister or the government. But the fact is that some of the things…. These server farms are located around the world, in some of the places that we would not want our data stored on.

A place where we could be doing a lot of this is right here British Columbia, away from earthquakes — reliable safe energy, in terms of electricity. The fact is that it’s not a threat. We’re not a likely site to be a target, like some of the other cities in other countries where data is stored. I think that that’s important. I think we’ve failed to look at the opportunities. I do think that we need to be investing. Now, who would be a likely candidate to invest, in terms of efficiency and data management, etc., and technology? The government is not an early adopter.

I found that out as the minister of this ministry. It was very slow and hesitant to adopt. As a matter of fact, there was a case management system used at MCFD that, believe it or not, in 2010, was green- screen technology. It was maybe MS-DOS. The bottom line was the people that relied on being able to have access to this. There was a hesitancy by people in government: “No, it’s a very stable system. ” And I’m thinking: “Well, stable, but it’s not very…. It doesn’t share information. It doesn’t work. ” We had to shut it down to issue cheques for three or four days a month.

Realistically, there is an investment that government has to make, and it’s got to become more savvy. I appre- ciate the member for Langley East, who brought up this point, in the sense that we do need to do that. I know — from some work that we’re doing mutually on a commit- tee — that she’s one of these progressive types of people. She needs to be listened to. On the other hand, data res- idency is extremely important when it comes to the pro- tection of that data. Most of the members on the opposite side…. There are a few that have been there for a few terms that would know this.

If we were to put the shoe on the other foot, the criti- cism that there may be some people that, they say, now are abusing the system…. Well, I’m not convinced that they forget what they did when they were in government. As the minister, I used to visit this regularly and go over to the FOI office, etc., and see the types of requests. I know that generally, they’re looking for information, the same as the opposition is here. They’re looking for information: “We want transparency, and we want to make certain that government is being accountable or held accountable. ” Now, there is a difference.

I know that there is open access for other individuals. I don’t assume…. There are individuals sometimes that do abuse that, in the sense of the repetitiveness of a request or the broad nature of a request. I do think that that needs to be reined in, and I don’t think it should all necessarily be for free. This organ- ization had at least hundreds of people working in it, but I know our record on delivery of records. We had about a 95 percent on-time delivery. I know that has been slipping over the years. There are all sorts of reasons or claims, and there are ways around it, etc.

I do think that one of the things that is distressing here is the fact that somebody that is extremely well respected around the world, the Privacy Commissioner…. His advice has either been ignored or not sought out. We have a committee that was previously sitting, and we have a new committee that has been working on updating this, etc., and we haven’t even waited for their results. We’ve jumped ahead: “We know better. ” To me, that’s just not right.

We should be listening to the Privacy Commissioner, working with him, to find a collaborative solution to how we make certain that we protect privacy and have accessibility. Now, the member from Surrey mentioned that in her time as the minister, she was responsible for open gov- ernment. I ended up taking that file, back in 2012-2013. I know that that was a big change, and — as she mentioned in her remarks — it wasn’t welcomed by everybody in gov- ernment because of the fact that calendars were published on a proactive basis. There were records that were pub- lished. It did kind of….

Y ou know, you hide behind that veil — if you want to call it that — of the fact that they have to request it or ask for it — that type of thing. [2:20 p.m.] No. Everything that’s in your calendar is open, and you need to make certain that it is open and that it is actively published. She mentioned open government. We should be working to be more proactive. Instead of holding back on things, we need to make certain…. I encourage the minister, and I’m sure that she’ll be 3522 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 19, 2021

advised by her staff that this is important in terms of trying to make certain that we find efficiencies. Some of it is tech- nology. Some of it is in proactive things that we should be publishing. I know that if we were in her role, there would probably be similar resistance to some things, but I do know that we need to make certain that we’re moving forward on this. I think that there is a place in the act currently for frivol- ous and vexatious repeated requests.

In the case of the branch that is responsible, Citizens’ Services, I think it’s really important that they use that tool for people that are clearly abusing a system that was set up so that it would protect privacy but, on the other hand, was accessible. I know that I can speak knowingly about the fact that there are some abuses that we know. It was difficult to try to change habits or say that we’re not going to do that, because how would you have a transparent system if you say no and you pick and choose, etc.? I know that there are times when carpet-bombing of…. “We want all the information.

As a matter of fact, we want it not just from one ministry, but we want it from all 23 ministries. ” But I do think that we’ve got to make certain that we modernize the act, and that’s why I go back to the committee. The committee is there to make certain that what we’re doing is we’re listening to the people that actu- ally work with data all the time.

As a matter of fact, I know the privacy conference has been cancelled or postponed the last couple of years, but I know myself, I’ve attended it many times, and every time I go to it, I continue to be impressed by the knowledge of the staff that are working in the technology department in Citizens’ Services, about their ideas. I think that there is an investment that needs to be there.

Maybe some of the rules do need to be changed, but being that I haven’t been on that committee, I can’t com- ment about whether this bill reflects on the changes that were recommended by the former committee or what might have come from the current committee in terms of what needs to be done. It takes a long time to bring legisla- tion forward. I do wonder what is driving the government to bring this in and do it in an arbitrary manner. I don’t think it would be completely arbitrary, but I think that the committee and the commissioner’s discussion comments have not necessarily been adhered to.

Let’s just talk about an example of where transparency is needed. In March of 2020, we came back to this Legis- lature. Some of the members came here for a very special session, an emergency funding bill which was completely a blank cheque. It had some notional kind of, “This is where we think we’re going to need the money, ” or whatever, and we agreed, and we supported that. But the problem with that…. We did it again in June, and we subsequently did another one before the House rose in August.

The situation is that we were supportive to make certain the government had the emergency funds to be able to do things, but the fact that it took not only a long time, the fact that there was very little transparency…. As a matter of fact, we’re still waiting for information about programs that were announced that weren’t fully subscribed or were very slow in being subscribed. I think that’s the type of stuff the public expects, where $8 billion has been written out and said to government: “Okay, spend it.

Do what you have to do to make certain we get through this crisis. ” I know the critic, I’m sure, of Jobs and the economy and innovation is still waiting for the outcome of some of the investments that were supposed to be made in busi- nesses. I think it’s been very slow in coming out. Either there is a hesitancy in terms of…. Why not just tell us what happened? Government and, as an elected official….

We don’t get everything right all the time, but the situation is: let’s try and improve the process by putting that informa- tion out there. [2:25 p.m.] By not providing it, what we end up with is this degree of secrecy, that there’s something wrong or that the money is going to a different place. That’s the whole reason that we ask questions about this. We ask questions about: was the money spent where it was expected to be allocated? We know that there’s been a huge increase in health costs, in the people that do the tracking of where things are going.

I think that it’s really important that the govern- ment expectation shouldn’t be any less than the fact that what we’re trying to do is make certain that we have the access to make certain that there is integrity with the fact that we’re spending taxpayers’ funds. Just because you’re government doesn’t mean that you get to not have to account for everything. I think the fact that there is a change in fees, the fact…. I know from commentary that we’ve heard in this House that the opposition is part of the problem, they say. I’m thinking, well, let’s work together to make it so that we get the information.

We heard earlier today about health requests to Fraser Health where 57 of 79 pages, I think it was, were completely redacted. Is that a system that’s really working? I don’t believe it is. I think we need to expect bet- ter from government in terms of the information. Probably when it comes to the changes, there have been some very quick remarks by the media about this. I think that we do want to make certain the media does have the ability to get information. It’s been very difficult in a com- petitive world where some of the media don’t have the resources that they once did.

I think access to informa- tion is extremely important to them. I know the fact is that when I look up in the gallery here, there are so many less reporters because the media is under this constant barrage of attack from social media, whether it’s all the different sources, or whatever. The bottom line is not to say that it’s well researched, but the whole idea is that we do want to make certain that the media can do their research and get access to information, as does the opposition. I think that’s important.

I did mention about storing data outside of the coun- Tuesday, October 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3523

try. I just think about the recent events. Well, look at the election in the U.S. a few years ago and Cambridge Analytica’s

part in it. The bottom line is that data can be manipulated, managed and used inappropriately, etc. I do want to make certain that we don’t allow that to move into British Columbia in a way that it can be utilized in a way that’s unfair to the voters, the people that are elect- ing. They want transparency. I think that’s what the media…. We want to make cer- tain that their access is not unimpeded, but we want to make certain that there’s a reasonableness to their access. I know that there are going to be lots of questions on this particular bill, in terms of the different clauses. It’s a comprehensive bill.

It’s going to take some time to go through that bill. We’re going to need time to make certain that we have an understanding of a lot of the provisions and clauses that have been put in there. I can’t help but think about the fact that when we did make those changes that the former minister made when she became the minister and the name was changed to Cit- izens’ Services and Open Government, I know that there was a lot of criticism from the government side, or from today’s government when they were in the opposition ranks, about the fact that they didn’t believe that that was going to happen.

I know firsthand that that did happen. I do think that there’s a degree of secrecy that is show- ing up in terms of some of the questions that we’ve had in question period about the fact that we want transpar- ency. We want to make certain that there’s access to this information and that it is not something that is glossed over in terms of the fact that there’s no need for that information or it’s redacted, etc. We do need to make certain that we have

an act that’s working for both sides of the House, the public. [2:30 p.m.] We need to make certain that its intentions are driven by the fact that we’re trying to improve a system that’s there to protect people, as well as to make certain that the people that are needing access to that can get access. Mr. Speaker, I will take my place. Thank you very much for allowing me to comment on Bill 22. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] M. Morris:My experience with the Freedom of Inform- ation and Privacy Act over the years….

Oftentimes, I have witnessed a misunderstanding of the legislation itself and how people guard information that really isn’t necessary. They protect the information, thinking that they are not allowed to disclose it without…. They don’t have a fulsome understanding of the legislation. Oftentimes what I have witnessed is people erring on the side of caution by not releasing information, rather than releasing it.

I think, reading through this bill and listening to some of the discussion, from the govern- ment side, particularly, I think government and I think a lot of the members probably forget what the purpose of FOIPPA is.

So I just want to, probably, go over a little bit of the legislation itself. “The purposes of the act are to make public bodies more accountable to the public and protect personal privacy by giving the public a right of access to records. ” It’s not an unfettered right, and the act does have a number of pro- visions in there to ensure that that’s not the case, but the purpose of the act is to give the public a right of access to the records.

The public. “Giving individuals a right of access to, and a right to request correction of, personal information about them- selves, ” which is pretty standard. “Specifying limited exceptions to the rights of access. Preventing the unau- thorized collection, use, or disclosure of use of personal information by public bodies, and providing for an inde- pendent review of decisions made under this act. ” So an independent review. Here we have…. I think my colleague who spoke before me mentioned it as well.

All the members of this House got together collectively and passed a large sum of money for government to spend in support of COV- ID, looking forward to what the needs were of the pub- lic and to ensure the safety and health of the public of British Columbia. The Legislature wasn’t sitting, didn’t sit during that period of time. There has really been no accountability as to where a lot of these funds were spent, up until this particular time. It only stands to reason that members of this side, of the opposition, are making inquiries as to how these funds were spent and the product of where this money was spent.

I’ve noticed, with interest, in situations that occur in my riding and throughout the province, the number of non- disclosure agreements that seem to be in force amongst public bodies, various ministerial offices throughout the province and the number of consultants that are signing non-disclosure agreements dealing with issues that affect the day-to-day operations of public bodies. That informa- tion needs to be made public as well. [2:35 p.m.] I see this, also, as another obstacle, where we see gov- ernment pretending to be transparent, pretending to be cooperative and collaborative with members of this House.

But at the same time, they’re putting up more roadblocks to make it more difficult for the members of the opposition to obtain information and members in the media to obtain information that they need to hold this government to account publicly as well. This is just another continuum of the obstacles that are being put in place to make it more difficult for us, for the media and for members of the pub- lic to gain access to the information that they truly need. Again, the previous speaker was talking about the cur- rent all-party legislative committee that was constituted in June to make recommendations.

They still haven’t made those recommendations yet. So this government has pre- 3524 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 19, 2021

empted the advice that this committee was supposed to provide. And, of course, the Privacy Commissioner being opposed to these new fees as well. I can understand fees in some situations. Back in my previous role as a senior manager in the RCMP , we were bombarded with requests for information under this par- ticular statute and other statutes. We had to comply within a very confined timeline in providing that information. We had to be careful, of course, because a lot of the informa- tion pertained to ongoing criminal investigations and oth- er police activities.

We had to make sure that we didn’t disclose information that would jeopardize confidential information; would jeopardize undercover operators, agents; or, worse, would jeopardize prosecution of a case that we have already spent millions and millions of dollars on and a lot of time on, over time, over a period of years, to bring a case to court. There are requirements.

But when we get into the civil side and the public bodies, the public agencies that are providing a service to the public, oftentimes I’ve seen them where they will not disclose any information because it may reflect a bad decision that was made by somebody within an agency or somebody within government, and they don’t want it to reflect badly on that particular agency. That decision could have had or would have or did have repercussions over a period of time. Under the Freedom of Information Act, public interest is paramount. It says so under Division 4.

It said: “Infor- mation must be disclosed if in the public interest. ” Under

section 25.1(a), it says that it must be released if it’s “about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or a group of people. ” Now, I’ve highlighted this because this is what COVID has been all about. This is a worldwide pandemic. The risk to public health has been significant, not only in British Columbia but around the world. The people of British Columbia, of all sectors across the province here, need to know the extent of the pandemic within their particular regional area.

They need to know the criteria used in determining whether or not govern- ment made the right decision in implementing a lot of the rules that they have — restricting access to bars, restrict- ing access to restaurants, restricting access to religious ser- vices. Without access to that information, it becomes a very subjective process where somebody within govern- ment may have access to all kinds of statistical information that leads them in that direction, but it’s not released to the public.

Oftentimes some of those decisions can be very subject- ive in nature and more detrimental to businesses and more detrimental to the people who are actually on the ground experiencing what some of those impacts are. So govern- ment is throwing up another roadblock — that if you want to access that information, you’re going to have to pay a fee, and then you’re going to have to pay, of course, addi- tional moneys depending on how much paperwork and how much work is involved in producing the information that that individual wants. [2:40 p.m.] A lot of this stuff is available at your fingertips.

The pub- lic agencies that are collecting this information and mak- ing those decisions — that information is available at their fingertips. There’s a

section in the act. I don’t have it in front of me here, but I think it’s right at the beginning of the act. “Duty to assist applicants. The head of a public body must make every reasonable effort to assist applic- ants and to respond without delay to each applicant openly, accurately and completely. ” Y ou know, I remember this from the days when I worked in public service. Our databases were complete. They were up to date for the most part.

And subject to ensuring that we weren’t going to jeopardize an invest- igation or release personal information about a person, that information was readily available, and we were able to respond right away. I hear more and more cases where media, where other agencies have applied for information under FOIPPA to this government, and it takes months to get that infor- mation back — months. And as we’ve seen recently, the majority of that information is redacted. It’s blanked-out pages, page after page after page. So I think some of these agencies are creating more work by taking this stance. Y ou know what?

I go back to situations in my own rid- ing. I saw a notable change — of course, we weren’t in government any longer — with several public ministries, offices located throughout my riding, where they could no longer speak directly to me as the elected representative for that area — that we had to go through the ministeri- al office. My staff would be requesting certain information from these ministerial offices, and we were told to access it through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act rather than give us the information right up front. I view that as more obstructionist than anything else.

There was no real purpose for that. It delayed getting the information to us by maybe two months, three months, four months, whatever the case is down the road. But it was just a…. I don’t know whether it was a provincewide decree by government that offices were supposed to keep information from MLAs on this side of the House as we were trying go about doing our business within our ridings to support the public that elected us in those ridings and provide them with the information that they needed to make decisions in the day-to-day course of their own par- ticular duties.

Going through the bill, looking at it, listening to some of the discussions on this, I see this as another roadblock. There’s no real purpose for it. Pending the results of the committee that’s been struck to review this legislation…. Let the committee do its work. Let them go out and hear back from the public as to what some of the concerns are out there, hear from some of these agencies what some of the roadblocks and impediments are within this legislation Tuesday, October 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3525

and then offer some advice and direction to government on how to correct that. Particularly when it comes to the privacy commission, the commissioner’s office, what are their concerns? They have some concerns over this particular bill that govern- ment has ignored and is just blundering ahead to try and put this through. Why? What does government have out there that they don’t want the public to be made aware of? I’ve heard the saying the tides come in…. This govern- ment has been in place now for a year, but it was in place before that for a time, spending billions of dollars under COVID.

The tide is starting to go out as we go through this term in office, and as the tide goes out, it’s going to reveal a bunch of stuff sitting on the floor. We want to know some of the decisions that were made that are going to cause this debris field that we’re going to see on the floor as this tide goes out. Hopefully that’s not what this bill is designed for — to try and cover that up. But I think that government needs to become more transparent and more open than it has been.

The people of British Columbia deserve that in every respect, particularly after the tough times that everybody has been through with COVID right across the province here. I look forward to further discussion on this bill from other members. We’ll see what the committee stage brings us. [2:45 p.m.] C. Oakes: It truly is a privilege to stand in this Legis- lature to talk about an incredibly important bill, and I want to thank the minister for the work on bringing it for- ward. Accountability and transparency is always critically important for any government. I think that the discussion today is very relevant.

I have heard some of the members previous in govern- ment who have talked about track records on transparency and accountability. I recognize some of the members are new. I thought this would provide me an opportunity to provide context of, often as an MLA working in our rid- ings, what type of use freedom of information may look like in our communities. I’m going to take this House back, as I’ve talked many times in this House about the devastating impact that the wildfires have had in so many parts of the province of Brit- ish Columbia.

Particularly, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the challenges following the 2017 wildfires, particularly the Plateau fire in the Cariboo, and the consequences on people, on our biodiversity and, in fact, as I have talked in this House before, the long-range issues that communities like mine have. I want to raise this, because on August 11, 2017, it was an absolutely devastating day for the folks in the Cariboo and for so many people. The consequences of that partic- ular day has led to impacts that people are still living with today in 2021.

That was a day where we had a firestorm, and we had an amalgamation of multiple fires that became the Plateau complex. Through that, some decisions were made. Many of my citizens that live in my riding had indi- vidual structural protection units on their homes. We are a hearty bunch in the Cariboo, and we like to make sure that when we are able that we absolutely take care to do the responsible thing to make sure that if we are living in these areas that we have things such as structural protection units available on our properties.

On that particular day when the fire blew up and it ravaged, burnt homes, burnt properties, had significant impact on livestock, significant impact on people who’ve invested absolutely everything into their homes and their lifestyle…. For many of them, it’s many generations that had been passed on. Some of the challenges that emerged out of that partic- ular day are that some of the structural protection units — the private structural protection units — were moved from private homes and shipped down to the Okanagan where fires were also happening in that particular area.

What does that particular issue that I described as an MLA, which I continue to fight for my constituents on…? The only ability that we had as a community, as an MLA, as an office trying to resolve and get support for constituents to resolve liability issues, to resolve things such as insur- ance and so many layers was to really utilize the freedom of information. I can tell you that in many instances that we are still waiting for certain reports.

We’re still waiting for certain very critically important pieces of information to thread what happened on August 11, 2017, and the weeks leading up to that and the years following that process. [2:50 p.m.] It tells a story about how critically important it is for constituents to be able to access very important financial support. Often, it relies on the very documents that the government has. The reason why when we start talking about the layer- ing of fees, whether it’s a $25 fee….

What I don’t think the members, to date, understand is that, in my exper- ience, the number of FOI requests that have to be sub- mitted in order to get information is enormous. If you do not have the exact language, if you do not have the exact word…. Was it the Plateau fire or the Plateau fire complex? Was it the Castle Rock fire or was it the Nar- cosli fire? There are so many dynamics on that particular date that we were asking questions for. Was it the com- plex fire? Or was it some name, because there was amal- gamation of fires that happened? I raise this because….

Look, I believe that there is good intent here. I believe that, as we are talking about this bill, there are, obviously, valid reasons for it. What I think is critically important for us in this House is to understand the unintended consequences and how it actually works on the ground as we try to support constituents, as the 3526 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 19, 2021

media try to get information to support people that are liv- ing in our communities go through…. So fast forward a year after 2017 — the wildfires. We knew that reports were coming out around hydrology reports. We knew that reports were being formed, because we would hear about a report that was happening. For example, I have talked in this House about the West Fraser Road. Now, we knew a report was going to be com- ing forward in March of 2018.

We had evidence from people who were on the ground that we were going to have significant challenges with many of our roads because of the soil erosion, the impact of the wildfires and the hydro- logy reports. We fought really hard to try and get that information so that we would understand what those next steps looked like. So I put in a freedom-of-information request about West Fraser Road and some of the reports that had happened — lo and behold, no reports found. Again, it was a back-and-forth process. Well, was it the West Fraser Road? Was it the Garner Road? Was it the Webster Lake Road?

Was it a connecting road? Was it a company that was actually doing the report — that you actually had to FOI the company who did the report — or how government had termed what that particular road was going to look like? Y ou would often be having to put in multiple freedom-of-information requests just to even try and find any information. Again, going to why that mattered, it was critically important because in April of 2018, we had a catastrophic weather event which led to us having a significant impact on West Fraser Road. They still live with a detour.

I am appreciative of the government — that they have finally got the approval through the disaster financial assistance program, federally, in order to invest. It’s over $100 million on that critical piece of infrastructure. Why it was important when I was raising the concerns that I had been hearing in March of that year was because people had advised us that there were challenges within the watershed. It was flooding out in Nazko. It was flood- ing out in the Narcosli. All of those watersheds were start- ing to get backed up because of the wildfires of 2017, and the rehabilitation hadn’t taken place yet.

We had tried to raise it in the House. I tried to raise it with the minister. We tried to do freedom of informa- tion. We tried all of these steps — all of the tools available to us as elected representatives, all of the tools. The media repeatedly tried to find the information. We all worked collaboratively together to try and get the right answers, because when these types of issues happen in our com- munities, the next thing that happens is that we have to go and mount an incredible defence of why we deserve to be prioritized in very important budgeting processes.

In this particular case, we had to make the argument. We needed information that would come through free- dom of information, because we just weren’t getting any- where with getting the reports that were needed to go to the federal government to say, under the disaster finan- cial assistance programs: “These were the steps that were taken, and this is why we are eligible for the investment in the infrastructure to make sure that these projects are moving forward. ” [2:55 p.m.] Again, it’s a challenging process.

And I know that mem- bers of this House who perhaps have been here longer than I certainly can go through many stories of the challenges of people as individuals — about the information that we try and seek to support our constituents or that the media or other organizations try to get. And layering addition- al costs on an already complicated, bureaucratic, red-tape nightmare is not a solution. I think the Privacy Commissioner has come forward and said, “Look, we’re taking a step backward, ” and that we should absolutely be looking at ways of making informa- tion-sharing proactive.

It’s in the best interest of our con- stituency. It’s in the best interest of citizens across British Columbia. I also wanted to talk about some of the other times that we’ve had to turn to freedom of information to gather crit- ically important data, again, to help our constituents. Fol- lowing 2017 and 2018…. When we talk about transpar- ency and accountability and how the government works with MLAs on all sides of the House, how that works to support constituents…. Look, as MLAs, we know that whoever walks in the door, we help them.

That’s our role as an MLA, and I know that every member of this House is proud of those accomplishments to be able to try and move those processes forward. Following 2017…. I heard the member for Langley East talk about how this is a government that’s so open to trans- parency and accountability and all of the steps that were taken.

I can tell you that there was a significant shift that happened, because as MLAs — I have talked about this in this House before — there were roadblocks put in place that we were no longer to go to our local, say, Forests, Lands, Natural Resource officer to talk about files that were impacting our constituents. I can raise the alarm bells for this House, having exper- ienced catastrophic wildfires in 2017-2018, then following up with floods in 2018-2019, and then having the land- slides that we now are faced with.

When I think of the impact of this last year on communities such as Lytton and Paxton Valley and right across the Okanagan, and you see anywhere where there are fires, there are going to be signi- ficant impacts in the years that follow. We need to make sure that there is transparency and accountability to help those constituents navigate a very, very complicated system. Whether it’s trying to get per- mits for…. Perhaps they need a new fencing permit. Per- haps they need a new grazing licence. Perhaps they need new tenure because of areas that have been burnt. Perhaps it is about trying to get insurance.

Perhaps it’s about all of those pieces and the ability for MLAs to have access to crit- ical information. Tuesday, October 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3527

That is going to make it hard for British Columbians to get the types of supports and services that they des- perately deserve. For people that have built this prov- ince, for people that have invested so much — in so many cases, multigenerations — to not only build but to pay taxes…. These are folks that are not asking much of government, but when something happens, when there is an emergency, they would hope that government would have their back.

If the only way that we can get information is to go through the freedom-of-information process — and I’ve outlined my experience of having to put in so many mul- tiple requests to get one single report — I think it identifies the challenge of: “Oh, it’s only $25. ” Well, is it $25 and it takes 40 attempts to try and get information on one partic- ular report? What does that look like?

For the media who are trying to get information to help support their com- munities, I think it’s very troubling. [3:00 p.m.] I think the other issue that I’ d like to raise in the context of this particular bill that is before the House is the fact that I’m incredibly proud and honoured to serve as the critic for Advanced Education, Skills Training and Sport. I take that role to heart. I’m passionate about the ability to try and make sure that everyone — students, faculty, staff — feels supported in this. I know for sure that our success as we lead out of this pandemic, and we all hope that that happens soon….

That level of expertise — our researchers, our innovators, our entrepreneurs — is going to be so crit- ical to that process of success for all British Columbians. When we talk about transparency and we talk about accountability…. I have some experience in this Legis- lature. I’ve sat on both sides of this House. I have a pretty fair understanding of how processes work and how we move things forward in this Legislature. When the estim- ates process came up in 2020….

For us, again, estimates is such a critical time, especially for critics of various portfolios, to be able to ask very important, relevant questions that have been brought for- ward to us by stakeholders in those areas, to bring forward these requests on behalf of our stakeholders, to help move the file forward. I think sometimes people look at this House, and they think that the work we’re doing is…. Y ou say yes; you say no. It’s always this combative process. I can tell you that more times than not… I think at least the approach I’ve always taken in my role as a critic is: how can we make it better?

How can we bring forward the information that we’re hearing from stakeholders to make sure that gov- ernment works better for all British Columbians? While we may disagree on how that looks and what that process means, I think every member of this House legitimately wants to make sure we have the best for all of the citizens of British Columbia.

Imagine my surprise to find out through this process in 2020 — or 2021, sorry; these years just seem to have stretched unbearably long as we have tried to process through Zoom and do the best that we can, as well, through a hybrid session — that critically important Advanced Education post-secondary questions got con- densed down to, I think, three hours.

Three hours to talk about the investments that we make into ensuring that we’ve got the best for students, that we’ve got the supports that we need, that we’re training for the jobs that we know are available through labour market information that the government does have available. I appreciate that those reports are available. Imagine my surprise when the only other option I had as a critic because of the condensed time frame was to make an agreement with the government to say: “Look, I will provide my questions. ” Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members, could we have some order in the chamber, please.

The member for Cariboo North has the floor. Thank you. C. Oakes:Imagine the frustration of not just the work that I’m trying to accomplish to make things better and to contribute and to bring stakeholders’ concerns forward to this House and to this legislative body. Imagine my sur- prise when there was an agreement. “Provide your ques- tions in writing. ” It was on Hansard. Again, I followed up. I said: “Okay, here are my ques- tions. They’re very important and relevant questions. ” That was in May of 2021. I still wait. I still wait for those answers from those questions.

Again, to the staff of the Ministry of Advanced Education, we have some out- standing issues. We’ve got some outstanding questions that stakeholders continue to wait to hear from you on — critically important, such as: where are we at on the scope of the funding review? That was supposed to be released. That was information that…. Certainly, I can tell you that the post-secondary sector is trying to understand what the new funding review will look like. What is the scope of it? What is the direction of that? Deputy Speaker:Sorry, Member. Is this relating to Bill 22? C. Oakes: Absolutely.

It’s about accountability and transparency and the steps that we have to take. So if I can’t get this information, Mr. Speaker, the only option left to us and our stakeholders is to say: “Look, we’ve going to have to utilize freedom of information. ” [3:05 p.m.] I don’t want to do that. I would like to believe that, in good faith, when we bring things forward to this House…. Maybe it was just that things get busy. But it’s an opportun- ity for me to raise it in this House, just because I think it is 3528 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 19, 2021

important. I hope I don’t have to put in multiple freedom- of-information requests to find out where we are at on the funding scope. I hope that information will come, because I know stakeholders, faculty, people in administration are trying to understand that. The other critically important file that came forward, and I’ve continued to raise it in this House, is about the concern that we have on campuses right now around sexu- alized violence and what that looks like. We’ve seen such a significant rise. The pandemic has certainly made it very difficult for so many people.

It’s important that a report was supposed to come out at the end of December of last year that talked about what that next step looks like and then that investment. The Minister of Sport is here, but the previous minister…. I want to thank the minister for the investment that, when she was the minister, was made, because I think it was crit- ically important that ending sexualized violence on cam- pus was a priority that I know that the minister worked hard on. I want to thank the minister for that work. The complication becomes when there are changes in ministers and priorities change.

Now we find that that there was no money for this particular program in this budget year. Why this is relevant to the accountability and transparency bill is the fact that, again, there was a report that was supposed to come out in December that would walk us through what the next steps were. There are 11 recommendations that various student associations across British Columbia put forward. We’re meeting next week with the Alliance of B.C. Students, who have put some thoughtful work and effort into what needs to happen on campuses to make sure that they’re safe for everybody.

Again, I’m hoping that I don’t have to go through free- dom of information. I hope that, again, by raising it today in this House, those reports and that information will come forward and that we’ll be able to share that infor- mation next week with the students who are coming to advocate to all members of this House. I think it’s critically important that that investment happens and that work continues. Incredible work has been done through mul- tiple different governments and different ministers. I hope that we don’t have to utilize this tool of freedom of infor- mation to access that information.

On Monday, I was really proud, as I know probably members were on both sides, to speak to a motion about the women tearing down barriers and taking significant pride in that. It has been a celebration of accomplish- ment of women. We’ve had the ability to share those stories. I think that’s critically important to do in this House. I also had the opportunity to talk about what is happening with universities and colleges and where that gender pay gap is. I had raised this previously, as we’re going through dis- cussions with the government, and somebody…. Deputy Speaker:Sorry, Member.

I’ve allowed very wide leeway for your remarks. I really would urge you to keep your remarks to Bill 22 and the clauses that are in it. Thank you, Member. C. Oakes:Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate the latitude that you have provided, and if you’ll allow me just to thread the needle a little bit again. It’s about important information that comes forward. I always appreciate the fact that stakeholders come to us in good faith, and they ask us to raise these things of gov- ernment. Some of the times it’s because they don’t want to have to go through freedom of information.

The fear that we’re hearing, whether it’s the Alliance of B.C. Students or other organizations, is: are they going to now have to have a fee placed on freedom-of-information requests?

I’ve already walked us through the fact that, through transparency and accountability, we’re just not getting that information that, perhaps, I think the stakeholders and the organizations I certainly meet with on a regular basis are looking for. [3:10 p.m.] I think people just don’t want to have that concern to what this bill is talking about, particularly about adding a fee, making it more complicated for stakeholder groups across this province or MLAs to be able to get important information.

Again, in the context of all of our goals in this Legislature, it’s to make government work better for the people of British Columbia. I think it is important to make sure that in the context of listening to our table officers…. The fact that the Privacy Commissioner has come for- ward and said, “Look, this is a step back when you start putting a fee onto accessing very important information that I think citizens of British Columbia have the right to get access to…. ” It does not contribute to that resolve of I think all members of this House to make a government work better for British Columbians.

It just doesn’t. It’s going to take us back. I worry about what those con- sequences — and unintended consequences…. Again, I think, in fairness to the legislative team that built and put this bill forward that we are discussing today, it is our job as opposition to look at what unintended con- sequences of any bill could be. I’ve stood in this House before and talked about…. I spent a few years talking to hundreds and hundreds of people across British Columbia about: how does government actually work for citizens? That initiative was reducing red tape, and I know that it’s been….

There’s always back and forth between members of this House about: “Well, what did that really mean?” But it was really, truly, about a reflection of having important conversations with British Columbians on how easy it is, really, to access and work to get information that the cit- izens of British Columbia really rely on. Again, we shouldn’t make things more difficult. I think the work that I know the ministry did on trying to reduce tape…. And I know that this government, the NDP government, has made…. They continue to Tuesday, October 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3529

have that commitment of net-zero regulation increase. I applaud the government for that. I think it’s an import- ant initiative. The reason why I think it is important is because I think, while governments change, we have outstanding public servants that work and have long- serving careers in the public sector. I can certainly share with this House that the challenges of this particular bill, when I look at the context of it…. Is this going to make it easier for British Columbians to have access to the government? Is it going to make it easier for British Columbians to get information that they need?

Whether it’s the media or an MLA who is trying to get an important report so that we can access disaster financial assistance for our region, for a road, or whether it’s us trying to work collaboratively across multiple ministries, multiple agencies, to get insurance for somebody that’s been burnt out, getting access to reports is critically important. Maybe my experience might be the anomaly in this Legislature.

Maybe the process that I’ve had as an MLA working to try and to access freedom of information and what that looks like and the fears that I have when I read this particular bill, what the unintended consequences may be…. Again, I’m just raising this because I want this to be the best government for British Columbians. I look at this particular bill, and there are certainly good points of the bill. I’m certainly not arguing against the entirety of this bill. I don’t want to…. I think having the ability to be transparent and to provide that opportunity is critically important.

But again, please understand how freedom of information works often on behalf of your constituents. If there is an issue that arises…. We saw the devastating impact this year of wild- fires, and I had significant challenges with spring freshet. [3:15 p.m.] What I can say, in closing remarks, is that we have to prepare for the incredible changes that are happening in our communities. We have to fight for our constituents, and we have to fight to make sure that we’re making things easier for British Columbians to access their government and to access government information.

Again, I ask the government to reconsider some of the sections of this bill. I think it’s going to be troublesome, and I think it’s going to have significant impacts and unin- tended consequences that, I worry, will not make British Columbia better in government. S. Chant:Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 22, amending the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, affectionately known as FOIPPA.

As a registered nurse in the community over the past 20 years, I have dealt with the current version of FOIPPA in a whole variety of ways — personal requests from cli- ents, families or family members, asking for extracts from charts; if I’m looking at reviewing serious incidents in the community, submitting requests to other agencies for information to help us see these incidents in terms of frequency and morbidity; and also in a whole variety of other circumstances. Oftentimes I, as a clinician, need to get support in understanding and interpreting the information that my team has received.

I’ve also been available to clients and their families to help them interpret the information they have been sent, because quite often, what comes from a FOI is quite different than what you had thought you had asked for. Having had all these experiences, I understand both the positive and negative impacts that information and the

interpretation of information can have on indi- viduals and communities. I’ve also been involved as an adult guardianship coordinator in situations where the confidentiality and privacy of seniors are being breached because someone else wants to make decisions about the elder’s care, fin- ances, housing, placement in a facility, or a myriad of other things — decisions that may or may not represent what the elder would want, exclusive of what might be considered for the best.

As a parent, I have heard from other parents whose kids — and I’m doing air quotes here — now over the age of where they are considered adults, have been in distress while away from the home, maybe in residence at a col- lege or university. Because the kid does not reach out to the parents, no one else does either, to protect the confid- entiality of that adult that’s involved. Sometimes this has had fatal consequences. All of these situations — and many, many more — are terribly challenging on moral, ethical and philosophical grounds. Many of them involve the use of information to work through.

However, information is a double-edged sword and must be gathered, stored and accessed in a way that serves the people of British Columbia effect- ively and safely. The other side of this equation is that information sources are now almost infinite in number, or so it seems. Access to information — be it correct, appropriate or nefarious — appears to have become much easier, in many ways. Apparently, my phone number is on many databases of entities that want to tell me many things, sometimes in languages I don’t understand. Somehow Facebook seems to always have ads for things that catch my attention.

I wonder why that is. Although this information flow is not new, it is significantly expanded, and the variety of medi- ums has grown immeasurably. FOIPPA legislation was implemented a while ago, pre–Zoom, Teams, TikTok and Amazon. The list goes on and on. Even ten years ago, when FOIPPA was last updated, many platforms were new. Information collec- tion processes were very different, and the rights of many had not yet been recognized or acknowledged.

Sub- sequently, it is critical that the FOIPPA legislation be updated to reflect our current state, which is what our gov- ernment is committed to doing. 3530 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 19, 2021

[3:20 p.m.] Through consultation with those who use FOIPPA to either protect or gather information throughout the diverse populations that make up B.C. — some of whom have never had a strong voice, if any, in the past — these amendments will allow B.C. to stay abreast of the ever- evolving wave of technology, ensure that privacy protec- tions are strong and improve services to those who request information for appropriate reasons. How many of us have used some type of data tool in our public service work and found it to be clunky or challenging or only useful for part of what we’re try- ing to do?

When we look around, we find that there are other reputable tools out there that perhaps we could consider using but are not allowed to do so because they’re not available to us. The FOIPPA amendments will update provisions so that we can use some of these modern tools yet continue to maintain a high standard of privacy and confidentiality. Through these amendments, breaches of privacy direc- tions will be updated. Breaches of privacy are incredibly important to recognize and deal with. In the field of health care, we have breaches, and they must be dealt with. That was a particularly important point to me.

These breaches will be updated to ensure that there’s mandatory reporting, that it doesn’t just get dealt with on a one-to-one basis. More effective consequences and a broader outline of offences to ensure that those in posi- tions of trust are clear in the understanding of their roles and responsibilities and are accountable to those roles and responsibilities.

Non-personal FOI requests, which expend a signi- ficant amount of time, energy and money — ongoing, to generate responses — will have an application fee attached, something which is associated with a whole variety of services currently and is long overdue in being implemented. Of course, in keeping with our government’s commit- ment to DRIPA, the amendments will support the increase of information-sharing with our Indigenous partners, inclusive of cultural protections and finally removing the non-inclusive language.

This will help our government remain accountable to the public, provide people with a way to access records held by our public bodies and pro- tect their privacy by establishing how this information is collected, used and disclosed. There are so many public bodies that this act covers now. Y ou can’t imagine trying to name them, count them, say them — 2,900, apparently. These are Crown corpora- tions, municipalities, universities, colleges, health author- ities and many others. These amendments have not been updated since 2011. They had a bit of a tweaking in 2019. However, that was pre-COVID.

COVID has given us a really big window into what we do with information, how we would distribute infor- mation, how information is requested, the importance of information to people and the importance of the right information going to the right people for the right reasons. So we’ve learned a lot through COVID, and this allows us to implement some of that learning in updating these amendments. Additionally, since 2017, we have consulted.

This gov- ernment has consulted with many, many stakeholders in order to try and make sure that all of the voices that rep- resent the diversity that is British Columbia are included in these amendments and all the applications of these amendments are spoken to. As well, the Privacy Commis- sioner has been very much involved in this, and the pri- vacy commission. If we can be confident that information is well gathered, well stored, well protected and accessed appropriately, we’ve gone a long way with our FOIPPA amendments.

They bring us in line with the rest of Canada, and they allow us to manage people’s information safely while also making people able to use those tools that are out there now that weren’t there ten years ago, to get the services that they need. [3:25 p.m.] I understand, speaking to what my colleague was saying beforehand, that people want access to information. I understand that. I’ve been on the face of that. I understand that information is very important to all of us to make decisions about how we work our lives.

I also understand that information needs to be kept in the place that it’s appropriate for the people that need it and want it and that it needs to be accessible and that we need to figure out ways to make it accessible when the requests are appropriate. This set of amendments is allowing us to show the people of British Columbia that we are committed to diversity, inclusion, reconciliation and equity through increasing information-sharing with our Indigenous part- ners, adding the Indigenous protections and making sure that the non-inclusive language is replaced.

If we achieve all these things through these amend- ments and more, we will have achieved a lot, because the FOIPPA that we have right now, while it was started in a time when it was really needed, was started in a time where the information flow and the information highway was a lot different than it is now. These amendments — I’m very pleased to stand in front of this group of people to say that I support them, and I feel that it is definitely the time that they were done. K. Kirkpatrick:I rise today to speak to Bill 22, the Free- dom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amend- ment Act.

This is important legislation. It needs updating. There are so many good components to it. We live in a time where — I guess all times have been, but now more than ever — data-driven decision-mak- ing…. It’s so important for us to be able to access inform- ation so that we can make decisions, we can make them Tuesday, October 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3531

quickly and we can make informed decisions. But this bill, as it is, appears to go against that and against the nature of a democratic society, where people should have easy and open access to information on what government is doing. This government attempts to paint itself, or themselves, as transparent, but as we heard in question period this morning and as has been asked many times of this govern- ment, that does not seem to be the case, and this stands in complete opposition to transparency.

There is a current all-party legislative committee, which has been put together with the purpose of actually looking at FOIPPA and making recommendations. They have not even had a chance to meet and to prioritize the work that they’re doing. So we have to ask: why is this bill coming forward at this time? Why is there a rush to bring this to the House prior to that work being done? Is there still a purpose or a reason for that committee? What will that committee be doing once these amendments to the act have already been made? The government’s already begun to strip away transpar- ency and accountability.

We’ve seen it in some of the legis- lation that’s been brought forward so far this year. We’ll talk about the role of the Information and Privacy Com- missioner. They are appointed to protect the information and privacy rights of British Columbians. They are the place to look in terms of best practices. [N. Letnick in the chair.] This government is dismissing and undermining that role of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commis- sioner is opposed to imposing new fees, which we find is part of this new legislation, and other elements of the bill.

This government has ignored his concerns, and he has called this bill “a step in the wrong direction. ” That’s the Privacy Commissioner. [3:30 p.m.] It looks like the Premier has a total disregard for the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Com- missioner, because earlier this year, we saw him ignore the commissioner when it came to making the decision about a half-billion-dollar investment in the InBC investment fund and the government deciding not to make that trans- parent under FOI legislation.

So the Privacy Commissioner: “My understanding is that InBC will manage some $500 million of public funds for the purpose of investing in B.C.-based businesses…. Because InBC will be making decisions about the alloca- tion of significant public moneys and discharging import- ant public functions, it should be subject to transparency and accountability under FIPPA. ” This goes, again, back to listening to the Privacy Com- missioner, understanding what true transparency is and the obligation that this government has to being trans- parent with British Columbians.

But government chose not to make these changes and not to make the man- agement of a half-billion-dollars of British Columbians’ money transparent. Now we’ve learned that when it comes to something as basic and as fundamental as our freedom-of-inform- ation system, the Premier blatantly ignores the recom- mendations given. It already takes far too long to respond to FOI requests. British Columbians, media, members of the opposition are currently waiting months. Sometimes they’re waiting years for documents requested through FOI. Information requested through FOI is often timely.

It is required to make other decisions. By the time we finally get information, it can be stale-dated. There can be some- thing else going on that has actually changed the validity or purpose of the information that we’ve already asked for. An example that I’ve got is a submission that we made to MCFD for a report that government had received on the work that had been done on the pilot sites with the $10-a-day daycare. We had requested…. We knew gov- ernment had commissioned this. We knew government had received this information. In my role as critic, it was important that I understood what that information was.

We made the request. We then had…. The response was a request for more time. Then, without notifying us, without getting back to us, I just happened to find that government had uploaded the information onto a public website, which is great, and we wanted that information to be public, but the process felt, again, like there was some hesitancy in providing that information to us in a timely way and being open about it. Government has to be able to provide information quickly.

With the substantial increase in public sector employment, government should, I would presume, have a greater capacity to be able to respond to those freedom- of-information requests. Let’s not forget about the supply bill from last spring.

With no accountability on how the money was going to be spent, it was: “Trust us, and we’ll give you the details later. ” Employment standards amendment, child care bill — sub- stantial pieces of information are being put into regulation so that they don’t have to come to this House, so that they don’t have to be debated and so that they don’t see the light on them when these decisions are being made. It just goes to a theme of putting up obstacles to British Columbians, to the opposition, to the media, for their abil- ity to see what is happening with government and what decisions are being made.

Over the last 20 months, we’ve seen government keep vital information from the public with respect to COVID data — again, as we heard this morning in question peri- od. This is a time when British Columbians are nervous. They need to know what’s going on. They have a greater need for transparency and access to information, but at that time, government is introducing a bill here, which 3532 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 19, 2021

will, inevitably, put up increased barriers for people to be able to access that information. [3:35 p.m.] When we talk about government not providing open- ness in information, you can add schools to the top of the list for that. Information with respect to COVID should be readily available, openly available, and it shouldn’t take parents setting up their own Facebook pages and websites and Twitter accounts to be sharing information the gov- ernment should be sharing. The Premier started the school year by hiding detai

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20211019pm-Hansard-n109
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20211019pm Hansard n109
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ad2d28096d3a8307ae4d04abea572c9a1fc763dc

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).