Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 28, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 118

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M204 — Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act

S. Furstenau

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Reid Roberts and outdoor education program in school district 57

M. Morris

Registered disability savings plans

M. Starchuk

Agnes Keegan

D. Davies

Dalvir Nahal

H. Sandhu

Linda Jack and FETHERS literacy program for Indigenous Elders

S. Furstenau

Stroke awareness and MLA’s experience of stroke

P. Alexis

Oral Questions

Emergency calls system management and government response to heatwave

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

K. Kirkpatrick

Access to free contraception

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

COVID-19 circuit breaker restrictions and support for businesses in northern B.C.

D. Davies

Hon. R. Kahlon

T. Stone

Government recordkeeping and freedom-of-information requests

B. Banman

Hon. L. Beare

Premier’s response to questions and information request on polling

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Beare

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: D. Coulter.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: Joining us in the House today is Kenton Duncan. Kenton just joined my

ministerial team as my new executive assistant. He is young, bright and

incredibly talented, a graduate from the prestigious entrepreneurship

program at BCIT. He brings the perfect combination of compassion, discipline

and creativity to the team.

A Vancouver Island surfer boy, Kenton made positive contributions to

my MLA office as my constituency assistant over the past year, and I’m

thrilled for this new

chapter in his career.

Would the House please join me

in welcoming Kenton to the Legislative Assembly.

R. Leonard: I’d like the House to welcome Mike Laatsch and Silke Pfeifer. They’re

visiting from the rural area of my constituency. It’s wonderful to have

people coming in and expressing an interest and a desire to get to know this

place better.

Please join me in welcoming them.

M. Dykeman: They say that you can pick your friends but not your family. Well, I

have to say that I disagree with that.

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce and wish a very happy

birthday to a friend of mine that I have known since she was in high school

and has been in my life and instrumental in my children’s lives as a friend,

a personal assistant and confidante and has been there through all of my

children growing up and actually had planned on being here today for her

birthday but is at home helping me so that I can be here today.

I was wondering if the House could please give very warm wishes for a

happy birthday to my friend and family member, Cassandra

McMaster.

Hon. K. Chen: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for allowing me to do an introduction. I

promise I’ll behave today.

The person I’m introducing actually loves to say, “Order, order,”

every time he sees the Speaker. That’s my seven-year-old son, Yoann, who is

in the gallery joining us here today. I’m pretty grateful that he’s

accompanied by one of his favourites, Auntie Amber, also Sherry from our

child care team.

I really want to take this opportunity to thank all the colleagues and

members in the House for always being so welcoming and kind to Yoann, who

spent a lot of his early years in this building since I got

elected.

I also want to take this opportunity to really thank Yoann for being

such a courageous, strong, loving and kind boy who is always there,

motivating me to do this job well and to do my best and to do better every

single day.

Mommy loves you so much, Yoann. Thank you for being on this

journey with me.

S. Furstenau: I have a couple of introductions to make. First of all, Jessica Singh

took me up on the invitation that I often make when I speak to groups of

younger people, especially, to come and spend the day with me here in the

Legislature. I’m so delighted that she’s come. I think we are already fast

friends.

Jessica grew up in Victoria, studied at UVic, has a master’s in

political science, is working with the Ministry of Social Development and

Poverty Reduction as a policy analyst and really believes — and I share this

with her — that we always have to dream that we can make change in the

world.

Secondly, I have a group, a formidable team of young Greens here. Ryan

Clayton, Christina Winter, Bob Warwick and Kalea Kray-Domingo are all in the

gallery today. They are extraordinarily hard-working and wonderful. What I

like is how well they work together with each other. They really show us the

power of collaboration.

They have helped us work on a bill that I will be introducing shortly,

and I’m very grateful that they’re here for that.

One last…. He’s not in the building, but he’s on his way. He has

arrived recently. Christina Winter recently gave birth to her son, Rowan

Winter. We’re so delighted.

Congratulations, Christina.

[10:10 a.m.]

R. Russell: At risk of getting known for day-late introductions, unbeknownst to

me, yesterday evening in the gallery, we had Gina Burroughs, who, in our

community, was one of the people who really put their shoulder to the wheel

when we went through our recovery and helped lead our community. It was a

real honour to have her here listening, as she also happens to be our

government agent for our region.

Please join me in welcoming

Gina.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We got recognition of Yoann, who is young, but we have someone even

younger than Yoann today. We have Katie DeRosa, who is a reporter for the

Vancouver Sun , who has brought her new baby, Baby Nathan, to

the Legislature. Please behave for him on his first-ever question period.

Welcome to the House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M204 — SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND

GENDER IDENTITY PROTECTION ACT

S. Furstenau presented a bill intituled Sexual Orien­tation and

Gender Identity Protection Act.

S. Furstenau: I move that a bill intituled the Sexual Orientation and Gender

Identity Protection Act, 2021, of which notice has been given in my name

on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to stand in allyship with the LGBTQ­IA2S+

community today to introduce legislation aimed at banning conversion

practices in British Columbia. The proposed legislation would restrict

all attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity

and expression.

Conversion practices deny, devalue and demoralize anyone who is

not deemed as the norm of being cisgender and straight. Unfortunately,

many conversion practices are targeted at young people and have

devastating and lasting effects on their mental well-being. This bill

would protect the LGBTQIA2S+ community from the harms of these false

treatments and would penalize any person who might try to administer

them.

This bill prohibits the provision of a conversion practice by a

health professional and by a person in a position of trust or authority,

the payment or reimbursement of costs tied to conversion practices and

the expenditure of public funds for the provision of a conversion

practice. The bill provides that a person who knowingly provides or is

paid for teaching conversion practices has engaged in unfair and

deceptive practice. The bill also allows those who are subjected to

conversion therapy to recover damages.

These proposed amendments expand on the bill of the same name

introduced by the B.C. Greens caucus in 2019. This new version has

updated language by request of the community to better capture

conversion practices and the harm they cause and has expanded the

definition to include both minors and adults. We have also changed the

language of “conversion therapy” to “conversion practices” to

delegitimize the idea that these practices are therapeutic. Everyone

should be welcomed as exactly who they are.

I sincerely hope to debate this bill at second reading to allow

this Legislature to stand in solidarity with the LGBTQIA2S+ community in

B.C.

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

Motion approved.

S. Furstenau: I move that the bill be placed on the or­ders of the day for

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

Bill M204, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

REID ROBERTS AND OUTDOOR EDUCATION

PROGRAM IN SCHOOL

DISTRICT 57

M. Morris: Reid Roberts teaches high school at D.P. Todd Secondary School in

Prince George. He’s also an avid outdoorsman and a licensed trapper. He

owns and operates a registered trapline close to Prince

George.

In 2019, working with senior administrators at a school, he

developed an outdoor education program as an option for disengaged

students who were facing suspension and as an option for students

struggling to find their way. Working with the school administration in

school district 57, they developed five objectives for the

program.

The first is to support students with behavioural challenges

develop a positive self-concept and to stop the suspension cycle. The

second is to build connections and engagement between students in the

school. Third, to support and enhance student interest in land-based

learning. Fourth, to provide opportunities for engagement in Indigenous

knowledge, cultural practices and language and connect with Elders. And

the fifth, to support cross-curricular learning and connect land-based

learning to the classroom.

[10:15 a.m.]

He’s found a way to incorporate curriculum requirements into the

field experiences of the students, and his program has evolved and

expanded to now include hundreds of interested students. Subjects like

science, biology and history are delivered by ecologists, wildlife

experts and others. In a three-week period last winter, over 500

students from surrounding schools participated in ice fishing

activities.

Since this year’s trapping season started earlier this month, Reid

Roberts has made over ten trips out to his trapline, taking a dozen

students per trip from a variety of schools in the district. For the

past couple of years now, hundreds of students have benefited from his

unique outdoor educational program, dubbed the Dead Pine Trappers,

referencing the habitat transformation resulting from the deadly

mountain pine beetle. The transformative adventures of the Dead Pine

Trappers can be followed on Facebook.

Thank you, Reid Roberts, for initiating this program, and the

vice-principal, Katie Marren, for your support and school district 57

for supporting new learning initiatives.

REGISTERED DISABILITY SAVINGS PLANS

M. Starchuk: I’ve always had the passion for volunteering, and I’ve had the

privilege of giving back to amazing organizations like Variety Club and

the Centre for Child Development, both of which support children with

disabilities and show them that they have a life full of

possibilities.

But the reality is that many children with disabilities will grow

up to experience poverty. More than 926,000 British Columbians over the

age of 15 live with some form of disability and, depending on the type

of disability, are 5 to 15 percent more likely to be living in poverty

than people without disabilities.

I rise today to stress the importance of raising awareness of the

Registered Disability Savings Plan, the long-term savings plan designed

to help people with disabilities and their family save money for the

future. RDSPs help people with disabilities to be better prepared for

their future and take advantage of up to $90,000 in federal grants and

bonds. The program includes an annual Canada disability savings bond up

to $1,000 for people who can’t contribute themselves.

Thanks to the Vancouver Foundation, low-income residents are

eligible for a one-time grant of $150 to start growing their RDSP, which

could receive matching grants of up to $450. The RDSP was developed to

make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities, and there

are no restrictions on how the money can be spent when it comes

out.

Next month we will also celebrate Indigenous Disability Awareness

Month. If you’re an Indigenous person in B.C. living with a disability,

the B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disability Society RDSP navigation

program can help you open an RDSP and provide you support. RDSPs bring

us a step closer to achieving our poverty reduction goals, and they help

folks be better financially prepared for their future.

I would encourage all of you to go to rdsp.com for more

information. Together, we can ensure B.C. will always be full of

possibilities for people with disabilities.

AGNES KEEGAN

D. Davies: Agnes Keegan, née Penman, was born September 20, 1920, in Hawick,

Roxburghshire, Scotland. At the age of 101, she recently passed away

just this past October in Vancouver.

Agnes had an incredible life of service. At the start of the

Second World War, her and a friend went to Birmingham and worked in a

munitions factory for a couple of years. Knowing she wanted to do more,

she joined the British Army in 1942 at the age of 22. She trained in

Wales and subsequently transferred to the 27th Lancaster Ordnance Corps,

where her trade was vehicle driver.

After honourable service and attaining the rank of corporal, she

released from the British Army in 1946, transferred to the supplemental

army reserve and moved to Vancouver shortly thereafter.

I first met Agnes when I moved to Vancouver for university in

2003. While there, I was appointed as the commanding officer of the 2290

British Columbia Regiment Cadets. My very first evening, when I walked

into the armoury, I was introduced to a volunteer, a then young

83-year-old Agnes, who was in charge of the cadet can­teen. I was

quick to learn of the incredible impact and the important role that

Agnes played with the cadet corps — since 1980, I might add.

She was a devoted volunteer that never missed a night. She knew

every single cadet and was deeply connected and admired by all. During

my time at 2290, I appointed her as the Honorary Sergeant Major. I tell

you, she had no problems keeping me in line.

[10:20 a.m.]

Agnes was equally respected by the British Columbia Regiment, the

Duke’s. In fact, the commanding officer bestowed upon her the honorary

captain appointment for her work and dedication to the regimental

family.

Not only was Agnes known for her work with the military, she was a

life member and sergeant-at-arms of the ANAVETS Unit 100, as well as a

life member of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 179, with nearly 60

years’ service to the Vancouver community.

Agnes will be remembered and missed by many. Lest we

forget.

DALVIR NAHAL

H. Sandhu: October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I want to highlight the

need to create more awareness around early detection of breast cancer in

memory of my friend Dalvir Nahal.

Unfortunately, in Vernon-Monashee, we have lost our incredible

long-time community advocate, volunteer, city councillor and great

friend Dalvir Nahal to cancer at a very young age. Dalvir kept on going

to serve her community even after her diagnosis in 2011, when she was

only 35 years old. Dalvir left many legacies in her community which

cannot be stated in two minutes.

Dalvir was a founder of one of her community’s biggest and

successful events, Bollywood Bang, which raised hundreds and thousands

of dollars for charities and non-profit organizations in her community,

including a hospital foundation, where money was used to build rooms in

the hospital and cancer clinic and to provide cancer treatment to

patients without health benefits. This event also brought us all

together, where we celebrated our community’s diversity and

generosity.

Dalvir received a B.C. achievement award in 2017 for her work in

the community, as well as the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Award in

2019, which was presented to her by our Premier.

Dalvir always encouraged others. One of her messages to me last

year was: “Just sending you positive thoughts and positive energy.

Almost there. Keep smiling. Don’t stop believing,” Dalvir maintained

such a positive outlook about life. She always helped and inspired

others, despite her own battle with cancer. Her smile was

infectious.

Dalvir was an inspiration for many, and her legacy will live on

for generations to come.

Would the House please join me to pay tribute to Dalvir for her

contributions toward her community.

LINDA JACK AND FETHERS LITERACY

PROGRAM FOR INDIGENOUS

ELDERS

S. Furstenau: Drop everything and read. But what if you can’t? That is the fate

of thousands of Indigenous Elders across Canada who were sent as

children to what we call residential and day schools, a so-called

education that left many of them illiterate for life. But Elder Linda

Jack is changing that.

Linda’s father was a residential school survivor, and Linda is a

day school survivor. For the past year, she has worked with local

champions to create the First Elders Training, Healing, Education and

Respect Society, also known as FETHERS. The goal of the FETHERS program

is to provide in-person culturally appropriate lessons for Indigenous

Elders who want to learn how to read. Linda said: “We need to get back

to what was stolen before more of our people die without their dignity

and respect returned.”

There have been barriers to this program’s success at every step,

but Linda and her team have been unrelenting. Last Monday Linda’s dream

came true. She joined 14 Elders from First Nation communities on

Vancouver Island on their first day of school. Their seven-week course

is hosted by Vancouver Island University, in Nanaimo. London Drugs

donated school supplies, Country Grocer donated food for the class, AC

Taxi is donating the transportation of the food, and handyDART made a

van available at the last minute to transport these students to and from

school.

Linda has goals. She wants to be in grade 6 by summer, but this

goal is in jeopardy of not being met. FETHERS needs just over $75,000

per year to cover all of its costs. Funding for the program is

precarious, and January’s intake is at risk of not going ahead. VIU and

local businesses have been generous, but this program should be funded

entirely by the provincial government, in line with its reconciliation

goals.

I hope all of us who have benefited from a rich education will

agree that this is one cost the public purse should bear, so that this

time next year these Elders, indeed, will be able to drop everything and

read.

[10:25 a.m.]

STROKE AWARENESS AND

MLA’S EXPERIENCE OF STROKE

P. Alexis: I would first like to acknowledge that I’m coming to you today

from the unceded and ancestral territory of the Stó:lō

people.

I rise today to acknowledge World Stroke Day, October 29, a day

meant to highlight the high rates of stroke, raise awareness of its

prevention and treatment, and ensure better care and support for

survivors.

As many of you know, this day will have personal significance for

me this year. On September 21, I was not feeling my best, but I

foolishly decided to push through and continue working through a Finance

meeting. In a way, it’s a good thing I did, as my quick-thinking

colleagues on both sides of this House took charge when I fell ill,

ensuring my safe passage to Vancouver General. When I regained

consciousness, I was told that I had experienced a bilateral stroke,

very rare and very serious. I’m very lucky to not have died.

The reason I didn’t die was the speed of the response from my

colleagues, paramedics and hospital staff. The sooner a person having a

stroke gets help, the better their outcome is likely to be. Stroke

symptoms to look out for include paralysis; numbness or weakness in the

arm, face and leg; confusion; slurred speech and more. So please, be

aware.

I want to thank the doctors at Vancouver General, the paramedics

who ensured my safe travel to VGH and my colleagues who sprang to action

so quickly. I want to especially thank the member for Vernon-Monashee,

who did the best possible thing when I told her I was fine: she ignored

me and quickly got help.

I urge all of you, if you are ever in the same situation: please

don’t hesitate to do the same.

Thank you, and I’ll see you next week. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. Welcome back.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY CALLS SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

AND GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE TO HEATWAVE

S. Bond: Well, the Premier has been hiding. He has refused answers for the

hundreds of families who lost loved ones during the heatwave. Documents

obtained under FOI show that E-Comm 9-1-1 was desperately trying to warn

the Premier and his government that public safety was at

risk.

For a year, call volumes and delays were increasing at an alarming

rate, and by early June, well before the heatwave, the delays were

overwhelming, and the system compromised public safety. When the

heatwave hit, hundreds of British Columbians died, many of them waiting

on hold for help that never arrived. The Premier not only failed to act

on the warnings but callously said, “Fatalities are a part of life,”

and: “There is a level of personal responsibility.”

Why did the Premier ignore the warnings of 911 dispatch, and will

he today commit to an independent review that includes his office and

the lack of action by this government?

Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for her question. The member will know that

since I became Minister of Health, we’ve added, every year,

substantially, investment in the Ambulance Service. This means more

paramedics. This means more full-time paramedics. This means better

coverage in rural and remote communities. This means more

dispatchers.

What we have seen, especially since the last part of the third

wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, is a dramatic increase in ambulance

dispatches. We’ve seen that. I reported on that regularly in our regular

health briefings to British Columbians. That’s why on July 2, for

example, we added hundreds of new positions, effectively. We put out and

posted hundreds of new positions.

[10:30 a.m.]

We have been responding consistently — doubling the increases that

the ambulance service received; adding paramedics, dispatchers and

others to support the system — and will continue to do so.

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

S. Bond: With all due respect to the minister, it’s time the Premier showed

some accountability. Those words mean very little to the families of 569

British Columbians that died. The warning signs were there. It was too

little, too late, and the minister and the Premier know it. British

Columbians deserve accountability from their Premier.

We all understand the important role of the coroner. She will

review the medical history of each and every circumstance, and we are

grateful for that. But the coroner won’t review the details that were

revealed through a freedom-of-information request this week. Who knows

what else we don’t know?

But here’s what the Premier ignored. He ignored warnings from his

own 2019 climate risk assessment, which said this would happen. He

ignored ambulance call delays that increased for a year before the

heatwave. He ignored the conclusion of 911 dispatch, desperate to get

this government’s attention, even calling the government out, knowing

that public safety was being compromised.

Those are the words of dispatch, not our words — the words of

people involved in the system who were franticly trying to get this

government’s attention. We don’t know what else the Premier ignored,

because there is a refusal to be transparent. British Columbians deserve

better.

Will the Premier stand up and acknowledge the lack of action by

his government and commit to a full, public, independent review? That’s

what families, and that’s what people who lost loved ones in this

province, deserve.

Hon. A. Dix: That is precisely what the independent office of the coroner does.

They review every single case, because every single case matters. The

member talked about people who passed away. I know some of those people,

so I’m aware of that. You bet I’m aware of that.

The member will know how important ambulance service is in every

part of the province. It’s why — and this is largely because opposition

members represent large parts of the Interior — we’ve increased

ambulance services in community after community, not just since the

summer but since 2017. It’s why we’re adding and reforming the ambulance

service to improve services across British Columbia.

The coroner is conducting a comprehensive review that treats not

just all of the cases together, but every single case, as important. We

will, of course, be following closely that review and taking action in

the meantime, as we have, to make British Columbia more resilient as we

deal with the challenges of climate change and deal with the fundamental

questions of climate change in our province, as the Minister of

Environment, the government and all the people of B.C. are

doing.

K. Kirkpatrick: The Premier made up his mind long ago about a detailed independent

review. He said it’s “not a failure of the government…there’s no fault

to be apportioned.” Almost 600 vulnerable people died, and his response

was: “Nothing to see here. It’s just a fact of life.”

The revelations under FOI this week show the Premier was wrong and

his government did fail our vulnerable seniors. So as the minister

knows, this is not simply a coroner’s review.

Will the Premier stop hiding and call a full and independent

review to show how government reacted to this?

Hon. A. Dix: The ambulance service — because that’s at the core of the

questions, B.C. emergency health services — has been responding to the

circumstances across B.C. over the last number of years by adding

resources, by substantially increasing….

[10:35 a.m.]

In fact, other than mental health and addictions, the largest

increase of any part of the health care system has gone to ambulance

paramedics because of two reasons. One, what we are seeing is an

increase in demand, and, more important than that, an increase in purple

and red calls, which are the most serious calls that our health care

system received, on the one hand. On the other hand is a system that

historically — and this goes back decades — does not meet the challenges

of 2021, particularly in rural and remote parts of B.C.

That’s why, from day one, we’ve been adding ambulance paramedics,

dispatchers, ambulance and air ambulance capacity; why, in the beginning

of the pandemic, in rural and remote areas of B.C., we added even more

capacity to that system; and why we’re going to continue to do that.

It’s to respond in substance to the challenges that the ambulance

service faces across B.C.

There is a comprehensive review going on right now by the coroner,

who is highly respected, has the powers to conduct the review and is

treating every single case as important. That’s what I believe needs to

be done. What I also believe needs to be done…. This event that was

defined by Dr. Sarah Henderson as a one-in-1,000-years event has now

happened. We need to respond collectively — not just in the health care

system, but collectively — to become more resilient to the challenges of

climate change.

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

K. Kirkpatrick: We know that this one-time-in-​1,000-years event was

anticipated. This was not a surprise. Government had been warned about

this for a year prior to that, and 569 people died. We need a full and

independent review of the Premier’s failure to act. This minister says

there are more and more resources being deployed. We need more resources

— that’s wonderful — but are these the right resources? They don’t have

the right outcome.

As Human Rights Watch has said, the Premier has failed to act on

his own 2019 climate risk assessment. He failed to do anything about

call wait times, which were steadily increasing for the 12 months prior

to this heatwave. He failed to listen to 911 dispatch, which had

concluded, a month before this heatwave, that the delays compromised

public safety.

The Premier callously told grieving families that they had a level

of personal responsibility.

Will he accept his responsibility today and order a full and

independent review?

Hon. A. Dix: The full and independent review that’s taking place — everyone

acknowledges that it’s comprehensive. Every case….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: Every case, and the circumstances of those cases, will be reviewed

— every case. That’s a full review. The coroner is, of course,

independent, in one of the most important independent reviews that can

take place.

In addition, it seems to me that in this time of climate change,

it calls on us to take the action that we’re taking — in this

government, and I hope around this world — to address the issues of

climate change. This event was unlike any event we had ever seen in the

history of British Columbia. There was a predecessor event….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: The opposition can heckle all they want. They can heckle all they

want.

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

Hon. A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, 140 deaths are important, and the more than

500 deaths are important as well. Every one of them is. What we are

doing, I think, is doing what needs to be done: taking every case as

important. Every person who passed away is important.

Having that review taking place, while taking important actions to

ensure that we’re more resilient in the future, to what we’re going to

deal with in the days, in the weeks, in the months, in the years, in the

decades ahead — the need, as a society, to become more resilient to the

fact of climate change.

ACCESS TO FREE CONTRACEPTION

A. Olsen: One of the B.C. NDP platform planks from the election from last

year was making contraception free.

In their platform, the B.C. NDP stated: “Cost should not prevent

individuals, particularly young people, from their right to make choices

about their reproductive health. While condoms can be easily found for

little or no cost, and vasectomies are covered by MSP, prescription

contraception is not covered. It’s time to make contraception free for

all.”

[10:40 a.m.]

My question is to the Premier. It has been one year, and still no

free contraception has been provided to British Columbians. When will

this government fulfil its election promise?

Hon. A. Dix: The commitment of the Premier was personal. It was also in our

election platform. It’s under, of course, review in terms of

implementation. But it’s something that of course we support and intend

to implement during this government.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: During this government. I’m assuming that the government is giving

itself a three-year longer runway to review this.

Certainly, this has been an issue that AccessBC has been

advocating for with me as an MLA for the last three or four years. It’s

an issue that AccessBC has been advocating for with this government for

three or four years. It was far more than just a personal promise made

by the Premier. It was, as the Minister of Health noted, a commitment in

their election platform.

My question again is to the Premier. When is his government going

to do…? As AccessBC put it, people in B.C. have been waiting for this

for too long. When will British Columbians have free contraception? Will

it be by 2022?

Hon. A. Dix: We are continuing to work, and it’s our absolute intention to

implement the commitments made by the Premier, the government and the

New Democratic Party. In this respect, as we have said and as we’ve

shown since the beginning of our mandate, we have taken, I think,

extraordinary efforts to make all prescription drugs available,

especially to those who are the most vulnerable in our society. So

105,000 British Columbians benefitted from our changes to PharmaCare

deductible.

We continue to take steps to both save money on PharmaCare and

then apply that money to support people and give them more access to the

prescription drugs they need. We’ll continue to do so. As noted to the

hon. member, we fully intend to follow through on that

commitment.

COVID-19 CIRCUIT BREAKER

RESTRICTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR

BUSINESSES IN NORTHERN B.C.

D. Davies: Businesses across the North have been brought to their knees

recently again. A week ago the Premier said businesses in Northern

Health impacted by the new circuit breaker could “still have

opportunities to access programs that have been put in place by the

provincial government.”

Can the Premier tell us exactly what provincial programs are open

and available today to desperate northern businesses?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the question from the member. Certainly, it’s a hard

time for many businesses across British Columbia. The pandemic is not

over. We are seeing strong job recovery rates, but we know that still

pressure is being faced.

I’ve had a chance to talk to many of the chambers that represent

businesses in the North. We’ve discussed what the pandemic, and the

impact it’s having now, has meant to their businesses. All are grateful

for the vaccine card, because we know the vaccine card allows businesses

to be able to continue to operate in a safe way to ensure that when the

patrons come into their business….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Take it easy.

The minister will continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. You asked a question. The minister will

answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will continue. The minister has the floor.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The member also knows that over $4 million has gone directly in

grants to businesses, so directly to businesses to support them through

the pandemic. The new orders that have come in place continue to allow

business to operate in safe ways. There are some limits on what time the

alcohol can be served, 10 p.m., but businesses can continue to operate.

We’re going to continue to monitor the challenges they face over

time.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River North, supplemental.

D. Davies: Well, the question was: what is open right now for supports to

businesses?

Unfortunately, I think maybe the Premier has been playing a little

too much Scrabble on his telephone to actually understand what is going

on in the North. But I’ll enlighten the Premier as well as the

minister.

[10:45 a.m.]

The circuit breaker grant closed June 4. The small business

recovery grant closed July 2. The launch online grant ended September

30. Now the new circuit breaker measures in Northern Health are in

place, and businesses are desperate. They need help now.

Will the Premier bring in a new round of supports to support

northern businesses, yes or no?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have provided the highest per-capita supports.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order. Order, please. Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker. We have provided the highest per-capita

support for people and businesses in all of the country. That’s why B.C.

is positioned in the strongest position for a strong economic recovery.

We’re very proud of the supports.

There is a digital bootcamp available still for businesses,

because we know lots of businesses….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you’re losing your very precious time in the question

period.

Minister, take a seat.

Any further comments?

The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member mentions connectivity. In government for 16 years, no

time in history….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order.

Members, what part of “order” don’t you understand?

Please. The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: At no time in history have we seen the type of investment we’re

making in connectivity in this province of British Columbia. These

members represent communities where they now claim they don’t have

connectivity. They were in government for 16 years. Where was the

investment to connect the communities?

Rest assured, members from northern communities, we will make

those investments. We will bring connectivity to your

communities.

T. Stone: The member for Peace River North asked a serious question, and his

constituents expect a serious answer. Businesses across northern British

Columbia are hanging by a thread — not sure if they can meet payroll,

not sure if they can keep their lights on — in large part because of the

latest circuit breaker health measures, which apply in Northern

Health.

When asked about supports for businesses in B.C.’s north, the

Premier said last week that his minister would “observe activities in

the region”. Well, if the Jobs Minister was actually doing his job, he

would be hearing the same stories that we are.

I will quote one of those stories. “It will only be a matter of

time before a business like ours closes its doors due to bankruptcy or

business ownership exhaustion.” That’s a local small business in Fort

St. John. That’s a business owner that has never previously had to lay

off a single person, but is now faced with having to do exactly that for

the third time during the pandemic.

The question to the Premier is this. When will the Premier step up

and provide the supports, the circuit breaker supports, that businesses

across British Columbia’s north so desperately need today?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Premier has made clear from the beginning of this pandemic

that a healthy B.C. and a healthy economy go hand in hand. We know the

best thing we can do for communities throughout this province is to

ensure that we increase the vaccination rates so that we can control the

pandemic, so we can have our businesses continue to operate in a safe

way.

We have provided the highest per-capita supports for people and

businesses in all of Canada. We have waived PST for new equipment and

machinery so businesses have that support. We’ve reduced liquor pricing

by 20 percent, which is something the industry has been calling for, for

well over 16 years. We made that change and we know that’s making a

major difference for businesses.

[10:50 a.m.]

The $4 million just in that community alone that we’ve injected

has made a massive difference to businesses. We know because we’ve been

hearing from them as well. We’re going to continue to work with our

partners to support businesses that are being challenged, but right now

businesses can remain open. They can continue to operate. There are some

limits on when liquor can be served, but that’s the only limit we have

in place, and we hope that the vaccination rates increase so that we can

see businesses open up again.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.

T. Stone: Businesses across B.C.’s north are hanging by a thread. They’re

not sure that they’re going to make it. This is not a time for this

minister and this government to do another victory lap. The businesses

in the north need support, and they need it now. Two-thirds of the

supports that the minister brags about were in the form of debt and

deferred taxes that these businesses have already had to pay

back.

The minister’s own data shows that B.C. has provided the least

amount of direct supports, direct cash in pocket for businesses, of any

major province in this country. All of those grant programs, as the

member for Peace River North mentioned earlier, have ended. None of them

are open. None of them are accepting applications for additional

supports that are needed.

Another Peace region business owner said this: “Business-wise, we

are getting killed right now in every area possible. It’s daily to watch

the bank accounts depleting. It’s going to get tighter, too, with these

new restrictions in the north.”

Like Premier, like wannabe Premier. It’s all talk and no

action.

The question for the Premier is this. Will the Premier actually

keep his promise? Will he keep the promise that he made to northerners

last week and direct this minister to flow supports to those businesses

who desperately need the help?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the number one thing we can do as British Columbians to

support our business community is by getting vaccinated. We know that

that is the number one thing we can do, so we’re continuing to urge

people to get vaccinated. Right now there are some restrictions on what

time liquor must stop being served. We know that adds some pressure to

communities, but most businesses can continue to operate in a safe

way.

The member is incorrect when he states the facts that he is using.

We have provided the highest per-capita supports for people in

businesses. The original budget for direct supports for businesses was

$300 million. We have spent $529 million, going directly in the pockets

of businesses. We hear from them every day. If the member has a couple

of businesses that he wants to highlight, he can share them with me. He

has in the past, and we’ve done our best to support them.

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING AND

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION

REQUESTS

B. Banman: Over the course of a year, we asked for the records of text

messages by political staff, but all we got back were “no records

found.” Here are some of his staff’s excuses: “All messages sent by the

minister’s senior ministerial assistant were transitory in nature and

deleted.” “The senior ministerial assistant does not keep or use

notebooks.” “All records, if they existed, were deleted as transitory.”

“No records were located in response to your request.” “The ministry did

not locate records because the ministerial assistant did not use any

messaging applications.” That’s simply not believable. It

isn’t.

Question to the Premier. Does the Premier really believe that his

political staff don’t use any messaging applications at all?

Hon. L. Beare: I’m just struggling with the temerity of the question, considering

the members opposite had a minister who refused to even use

email.

Interjections.

[10:55 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, Members.

Hon. L. Beare: I very much appreciate the member from Abbotsford’s thespian ways

in his master class in question period and in committee and second

reading. I’ll be looking forward to that continued action.

We do follow the advice of public servants when it comes to

recordkeeping. All our political staff have gone through FOI training.

We know that transitory records are not to be kept, and non-transitory

records being kept are recorded in the appropriate systems. I can let

you know, I don’t make decisions via text. I make sure that it’s done

over email, which is the appropriate way to record decisions in this

case.

In many cases, it may not be a text account. It may be an email

account. It may be a signed document by the minister. That works out to

about five billion pages a year, which actually — this is a great fact

for all members — if you lined it up, would be three times the distance

to the moon. So we need to make sure that we’re keeping our records in

the appropriate manner.

PREMIER’S RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

AND INFORMATION REQUEST

ON POLLING

P. Milobar: Well, it’s been quite a bad week to watch the complete disdain and

contempt and downright arrogance exhibited by this Premier on a wide

range of issues. All week we’ve been asking direct questions to the

Premier, directly about his words, about the Premier’s actions and about

the Premier’s commitments that he has made and continually breaks. But

the Premier, despite 36 direct questions to him this week about his

words, actions and commitments has decided it’s appropriate to not

provide the public any answers whatsoever. He has not answered one

question this week about any of his words, actions or

commitments.

We know that through FOI and in the months leading up to the snap

election, the Premier’s office conducted taxpayer-funded daily tracking,

daily polling paid for by the taxpayers as this government was figuring

out what their election platform was going to be. When asked about the

polling on June 16 during estimates debate, the Premier said: “We’re

happy to release the information, where it was garnered and what the

content of the questions was.” Again, the Premier’s words, the Premier’s

commitments. But 4½ months later, still hasn’t kept his promise. We

still can’t get that information.

The Premier certainly doesn’t want to answer any questions about

it. These were taxpayer-funded opinion polls developing a platform for

the government. Again, the Premier said: “I’m not aware of any

restrictions in releasing that information…. I’m happy to get back to

the member with a release of that information.” Again, the opposition

sent a letter on June 22. We have not had a response from the

Premier.

When is the Premier going to stand up in this House and answer

this question, but at a minimum, one of the now 37 questions that have

been directly directed at him this week — with complete

silence?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. As members

will know, the Premier is the head of the executive council, and the

executive council consists of cabinet ministers who have

responsibilities for their distinct and different portfolios assigned to

them by the Premier.

The Premier is more than able to answer questions. But one thing

about this Premier is that he expects each of us, as ministers, to be

responsible for our file and answer our questions.

Interjections.

[11:00 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question was asked. Now is the time for the

answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Premier will answer questions, as will every responsible

cabinet minister.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 22.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 22;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

The Chair: Members, I’m going to ask that we go into a short recess to

allow staff and everybody else to get here for the committee stage

of this, so we’ll be in recess for about five minutes. Thank

you.

The committee recessed from 11:02 a.m. to 11:05 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. de Jong: The minister, I think, is aware that in the bill before us, clause

1 and subsequent sections have attracted a significant amount of

commentary — a significant amount of that commentary negative

criticisms, critiques. I thought that in this early section, it might be

appropriate and fair simply to ask the minister whether she and the

government acknowledge that criticism and the objections that have been

registered in the public domain and what her reactions to those

criticisms is.

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you to the member for the question. Glad to see the member

joining the debate today.

Yes, of course as government, we listen every day to people, as we

did through the consultation process and as we will continue to do,

moving forward. We are now in committee stage and get to go line by line

through the bill. I’m happy to answer any questions on the specific

concerns, line by line.

M. de Jong: Is the minister at all concerned about the level of criticism and

objections that have been registered? She seems, quite frankly, rather

indifferent. But that’s my word, not hers. Is she at all concerned about

the level of objection and criticism that has been registered about Bill

22?

Hon. L. Beare: Absolutely. We listen to British Columbians, and we as government

take that very seriously. We did, through consultation. We do now. We

will continue. And we will be able to address and have a conversation

about any of the concerns as we go through the bill, line by

line.

M. de Jong: I’ll only try one more time, because in the absence of a direct

answer from the minister, I’ll feel entitled to draw my own conclusions,

and so will others. Is she at all concerned about the significant level

of criticism that has been levelled at Bill 22?

Hon. L. Beare: I have answered the question three times. It’s very important to

us that we listen to British Columbians. We listen to businesses, we

listen to people, and we adjust. Our government acts

accordingly.

Very happy to go line by line through this with the member, and we

can talk about any concerns the member has about the bill that is before

us.

M. de Jong: One of those general concerns, as it relates to clause 1 and the

subsequent clauses, relates to a concern regarding the decision by the

minister and the government to prevent or usurp any participation by the

special committee that has been established by this House.

[11:10 a.m.]

In the oft-referred-to letter from the Privacy Commissioner dated

October 20, he had this to say on the final page of his

letter:

“It is not at all clear” — and this is the quote from the letter —

“why government has chosen to move forward with amendments ahead of the

special committee’s legislated work to review the act. The work of the

special committee is essential, as it is able to pull information and

consultations from a variety of sources, encouraging fulsome public

dialogue about proposed amendments. I have to question how meaningful

the first substantive amendments to the act in over a decade can be when

there is no time for all stakeholders to provide dialogue. To move

forward with these amendments, in a year that the special committee is

tasked to do this work, is baffling.”

Those are the words of the legislative officer this assembly

charges with the task of reviewing and critiquing this work.

Now, last day — and if I get this wrong, I hope the minister will

correct me — the minister, on I believe three separate occasions, told

the committee that every one of the criticisms contained in the letter

from the Privacy Commissioner were concerns that had been communicated

to her prior to tabling this bill.

I’ll start there. Have I paraphrased the minister’s re­marks

correctly?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, that’s an accurate reflection — that the commissioner and his

team shared all of the concerns into the letter with us.

And on

section 1, the member is incorrect. The only change that we

have made to

section 1, which is the

section we’re on in this bill, is

removing the letter “s” — which is plural term “rights” — changing it to

singular “right” in

section 1.

M. de Jong: Of course, we’ll get to very specific dissection of the drafting

in the bill, as is customary, in addition to discussing issues relevant

section 1. We will take advantage of the opportunity to discuss

issues relevant to

section 1 and the entire bill.

Having established — and I thank the minister for this — that the

concern around the decision to preclude the involvement of the committee

was communicated by the commissioner previously, will the minister

confirm that the decision was made to ignore that advice that she and

the government had received earlier and deliberately take steps to

preclude the involvement of the committee in addressing the issues

contained in Bill 22?

Hon. L. Beare: The

section on the committee is much later in the bill. We are on

section 1 right now, but I will answer the question for this

member.

The committee does not review draft regulations. What we have

before us is a bill amending legislation that has been reviewed by two

special committees prior to today — a committee in 2016 and a committee

in 2010. None of those recommendations have been acted on

today.

[11:15 a.m.]

We have those outstanding committee recommendations before us, and

I would imagine that the committee, when they meet again, will get the

chance to be the first committee to review a brand-new piece of

legislation, provided at the will of the House before us.

M. de Jong: So was the Privacy Commissioner misguided in the submission he has

made to the minister on the final page of his letter? I’m not going to

read the passage again. He describes what the minister has done as

“baffling” — his word, not mine. Does the Privacy Commissioner not

understand the role of the committee?

Hon. L. Beare: I won’t presume to speak for the commissioner in any way. I’ve

outlined my answer to the member that committee doesn’t review draft

legislation. We have two committees that have previously met on this

item. A committee meeting, again, would be reviewing the current

legislation, and I would imagine that a number of recommendations would

be the same on the existing piece of legislation that’s before

us.

We now have a new piece of legislation that we’re working on. That

is before the House at the moment, and I imagine the new committee will

be given the chance to be the first committee to review that

legislation.

M. de Jong: But the fact that the observation comes from a parliamentary

officer, an independent officer of this Legislative Assembly, leaves me

feeling that the question is deserving of a more detailed answer than

the general one the minister is offering.

The Privacy Commissioner has not suggested that a piece of

legislation, per se…. He has suggested in his letter that the issues the

minister purports to address in the legislation were deserving. In his

view, it was essential, insofar as the committee had been struck and was

available to do the work to review those issues, it should have done

so.

The minister has an opportunity now, today, in this committee, to

explain why, in her view and the government’s view, that was

unnecessary. And a decision that the commissioner describes as baffling

— his word, not mine — this is her opportunity to explain that decision.

Thus far she hasn’t done so, and I hope she will.

Hon. L. Beare: There were two committees’ worth of recommendations that the

previous government took no action on. So we have a committee in 2010

and 2016 that met, provided input about this legislation, and we have

factored that into our draft legislation that we have before the House

now. I have answered the member’s question. And again,

section 1, we’ve

removed the letter “s” from “rights” to “right.” That is what we are on

right now.

Deputy Speaker: Member on clause 1.

M. de Jong: With respect to clause 1 and, of course, subsequent sections, what

we’ve established thus far is, according to the minister, the Privacy

Commissioner made clear to her, prior to tabling this bill, that to not

refer the matters contained within this bill to the special committee

was a mistake. He described it as a baffling decision.

[11:20 a.m.]

The minister has decided to proceed, in any event. She hasn’t

offered a reason for why she ignored and believes, apparently, that the

advice and the position of the Privacy Commissioner is wrong. She hasn’t

offered anything approaching an explanation for why that is. I think the

committee is entitled to know, given the source of the

criticism.

The Chair: Okay. Are there further questions, Member?

M. de Jong: Has the minister received this letter that we have much commented

on? Has the minister replied to the Privacy Commissioner?

Hon. L. Beare: I answered this question last night, as the member well knows. He

was in the chamber. My last contact with the commissioner was on

Friday.

M. de Jong: I’m sorry; that’s not an answer, with great respect. The minister

indicates that she had a conversation prior to tabling the legislation.

We then have the letter from the Privacy Commissioner. My question to

the minister is: has she responded formally to the letter written by the

Privacy Commissioner?

Hon. L. Beare: In our call on Friday, the commissioner and I had a conversation

that…. And I answered this last night. The commissioner outlined what

his letter would contain. There’s nothing new in the letter, as I have

said. The commissioner and I and our teams have spoken about the content

in the letter to date. So my last conversation and my last response to

the commissioner was on Friday.

M. de Jong: I just want to be clear about this. The member and the

commissioner had a conversation. She then proceeded to table

legislation. She then received an unprecedented letter that, of course,

went not just to the minister but to the public. My question is: has she

provided, on behalf of the ministry and the government, a formal reply

to the letter she received from an officer of the Legislative Assembly?

It really is a yes-or-no answer.

Hon. L. Beare: No, there is not a written reply. The commissioner and I had a

conversation on Friday about the contents of the letter.

M. de Jong: Well, to be fair, first of all, that is astounding. I mean, that

is really astounding. The minister shakes her head. She’s the minister

of the Crown. She has received a six- or seven-page letter commenting on

legislation that she has just introduced in the House. The letter isn’t

an email from a constituent; it’s from an independent officer of this

Legislative Assembly. And she’s saying that she hasn’t replied? She

hasn’t replied to that letter? She hasn’t responded to the criticisms,

the significant criticisms, contained in that letter? Do I understand

that correctly?

Hon. L. Beare: With all due respect to the member, the legislation is before the

House, before us, right now. We are debating line by line, clause by

clause, every piece of this legislation, including addressing the

concerns of the commissioner within this.

We talked on Friday. We had a conversation outlining when his

letter would come, what would be in the letter. The commissioner and I

will continue to be in close contact, following this legislation, and

continue to work together.

[11:25 a.m.]

For the members, we will continue to keep that open dialogue. My

line is open, as is the commissioner’s, and we are currently dealing

with the legislation that’s before the House, which is the appropriate

thing to do.

M. de Jong: Well, all the more important to ascertain whether or not and to

what extent and what the minister’s formal reply to the Privacy

Commissioner is.

I’ll ask her this question. Does she believe that independent

officers of the Legislative Assembly are entitled to a reply when they

write a letter like this?

Hon. L. Beare: Of course we reply to letters from independent commissioners. As

I’ve said, the legislation is before us in the House at the moment. You

know what? I think now is a really good time to actually take a pause

and take a look at all the things the commissioner does agree with in

this legislation, including mandatory breach reporting, including

requiring the mandatory breach reporting going to the commissioner.

There’s a lot to digest in these 75 sections. We are on clause 1. We

will be able to address each concern line by line as we go through the

bill.

M. de Jong: I don’t really understand why the minister feels this is a

mischievous or troublesome line of questioning, which she clearly

does.

Let me ask this. Does she intend to write to the Privacy

Commissioner at some point, answering the concerns in his letter of

October 20?

The Chair: If I might, Member, we are on clause 1, and I would try to ask

that the member ensure relevance to this topic of clause 1 at this

stage of the debate.

M. de Jong: Having regard to how the Privacy Commissioner’s concerns may

relate to clause 1 and subsequent clauses, may I ask the minister

whether she, at any point, intends to respond to the Privacy

Commissioner’s letter of October 20?

Hon. L. Beare: Again, clause 1. Remove the letter “s.” That’s the big

conversation right now.

But in terms of the commissioner, the commissioner was the first

call I made when I became minister. I’m very happy to continue doing

that following this legislation. The letter was received. There will be

a response after we have the debate in the House.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Beare: No, Member. It’s the appropriate place to be having the

line-by-line debate about this legislation. The commissioner has been

very clear to me in our conversations. He has outlined his concerns, and

we are now at the point where we are debating the legislation line by

line, and we will continue to meet with the commissioner following this

legislation, and looking forward to that.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s both informative and troubling at the same time. I

think what I just heard the minister say is this. If I am incorrect,

most assuredly the minister will take advantage of the opportunity to

set the record straight. I think I just heard her say this. Yes, she

intends to respond to the letter of October 20, which contains,

correctly, as she points out, some positive comments about the

legislation but also some significant criticisms of the very issues we

are dealing with today.

But I think she just finished saying to the committee: “But I’m

not going to do that until all of these proceedings are complete. I’m

not going to provide any kind of a written record of my response to the

Privacy Commissioner’s concerns until after this committee and this

assembly have dealt with this legislation.” Have I got that

right?

[11:30 a.m.]

The Chair: If I might, Member, we are starting to get repetitive on this

question. I would ask that again, we draw the questions to clause 1.

If the member can show the relevance of his questions to clause 1,

that would be appreciated.

M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Well, with respect to clause 1, the drafting contained therein and

drafting for subsequent clauses, my question is this. The minister seems

to be advising the committee that yes, having received observations and

comments from the Privacy Commissioner, who has a central role to play

with respect to the

interpretation of clause 1 and every subsequent

clause in this bill, she does intend to respond in writing, but she

doesn’t intend to do that until these proceedings are complete. Have I

got that correct?

Hon. L. Beare: I have very clearly answered this question to the member. The bill

that we received from the commissioner, our conversations that the

commissioner and I have had, along with our teams, throughout this

process…. There’s nothing new in the letter from the commissioner. I am

aware of the commissioner’s concerns.

We had a conversation on Friday. We have the draft legislation

before us, which is what we are discussing right now, and yes, the

commissioner’s letter will be responded to at the appropriate time,

along with him being the first call I will make following the will of

the House on this legislation.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s actually a bit helpful.

When is the appropriate time, in the minister’s view?

Hon. L. Beare: The member is being deliberately obtuse on this. I very clearly

said that this legislation is before us. We are going to go through it

line by line, and I’m looking forward to doing it. The commissioner and

I have had conversations about all his concerns, and yes, he will be my

first phone call following this draft legislation.

Interjection.

The Chair: If the member would let me speak, then I will answer the

question. Please don’t push my buttons. I’m trying to do my job

here, Member.

Interjection.

The Chair: If the member wants to be disrespectful to the Chair, that is

a choice. I would ask the member for Peace River South to

withdraw.

M. Bernier: I’ve got nothing to withdraw. I didn’t say anything.

The Chair: You’re speaking to me from your chair. Member, the Chair is

asking you. I’ve heard what you said. You’re disrespecting the

independence of the Chair. You’re disrespecting my job of being

non-partisan here and ensuring that the rules of this House are

followed.

If the member has a problem with that, I would ask him to

state it now through a motion. Otherwise, the member is being asked

to withdraw his disrespectful comments towards this House and the

job that I am doing on behalf of this House.

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member? The member well knows what he said. The

member is questioning my ability to chair this committee in a

non-partisan fashion. The member will either withdraw, or he will

leave the House.

M. Bernier: Well, I will withdraw whatever the Chair believes he heard. I’m

unsure what that was, but I withdraw.

The Chair: I was preparing to say that we can focus on the policies, or

we can focus on the personalities. I would caution the minister and

all members of this House to focus on the work we are doing and not

attacking each other. Thank you.

The member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: I think the minister had something to….

The Chair: Minister.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I apologize if my comment “deliberately obtuse” was in any way

impugning the member. That was not the intent. I apologize.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

M. de Jong: Okay, back to the business at hand, then.

Drawing on the helpful information that the minister has

provided…. She has advised the committee that has been convened to

assess these matters, matters that have drawn the attention of the

commissioner…. She has helpfully advised the committee that she does

intend to provide a formal response and that she intends to do that at

the appropriate time.

Forgive me, because if the fault is mine for not having understood

or heard her answer, I’ll ask it again so she could repeat her answer. I

asked her when, for members of the committee, she believed the

appropriate time is for her to provide that formal response to the

letter of October 20.

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve answered the question, Chair.

M. de Jong: Undoubtedly, the minister has. Forgive me that I didn’t hear it

because of other activities in the House. If she could merely repeat the

answer, then I would know it.

Hon. L. Beare: I have said that we have the legislation before us. We are

appropriately debating it line by line.

The commissioner and I had a conversation on Friday. I have

received his letter. It contained all the information that the

commissioner told me would be in it on Friday. The commissioner will be

my first call following this legislation.

M. de Jong: I think I understand the minister’s response a little bit

better.

Is it fair for me to conclude then, and for other members of the

committee to conclude, that the minister has no intention of providing a

formal written response to the letter from the commissioner of October

20 until after these parliamentary proceedings have

concluded?

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve answered the question.

M. de Jong: Does she believe that is a helpful way for the committee to

proceed?

The Chair: Is there another question, Member?

M. de Jong: Undoubtedly.

The minister and the government have chosen to proceed in what I

will characterize as an unreasonable way, that the independent officer

of the Legislature has described as a baffling way. I will say that is a

synonym for unreasonable, but those are my words, not his.

I’m curious to know why. The minister has been a member of this

assembly. She is publicly elected. She is not unaware of the significant

amount of criticism that she and the government have attracted. She has

not used the word today in these proceedings, but it strikes me, and I

think more than a few members of the committee, that she attaches some

urgency to proceeding now.

I’ll simply ask that question. Is there, in the minister’s mind,

urgency with proceeding with clause 1 and the subsequent clauses now,

and if there is, would she describe for the committee what that urgency

is?

Hon. L. Beare: No, I would not say that that categorization is entirely

correct.

[11:40 a.m.]

I’d say that this process has been going on since 2017, beginning

with consultation and continuing throughout the years — along with that,

in developing consultation on policy and discussions with public bodies.

There is a level of urgency on one piece of the legislation which we’re

going to get to, which is the data residency piece. I know the member is

going to have a lot of questions for me later on that. I’m so looking

forward to that conversation, because we do have a ministerial order

expiring on December 31.

I believe this is a piece of legislation that’s been developed

with the need to balance the needs of people and of businesses, balance

the concerns and the recommendations shared with us, and balance the

consultation.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, the minister has referred to something that I think

she is reported to have said yesterday, as it relates to clause 1 and

the subsequent clauses in the bill — which is what prompted me to use

the word “urgency.” In those publicly reported comments, she is reported

to have said: “One of the important reasons for tabling the legislation

this fall is that our ministerial order, which has been extended twice,

expires at the end of December.” She has said that again.

Is that why, in the minister’s mind, it is fundamentally important

for this bill to proceed and for this clause to proceed now — as opposed

to, for example, in a subsequent spring session?

Hon. L. Beare: The world has significantly changed over the past 20 months with

respect to the ministerial order, and I know the member did recognize

that. I talked about that one piece of it as having urgency in the bill.

We’ve seen the need for the services that are provided now to British

Columbians through that order, and our public bodies need that certainty

to be able to continue operating in the manner that they’ve been

operating over the past 20 months.

So yes, that one piece does have a piece of urgency in it, but

this is a comprehensive bill that has been developed over four years.

That, combined with the outstanding recommendations of two special

committees with public consultation, makes this a great time to table

this bill.

M. de Jong: As it relates to the importance of clause 1 and subsequent

clauses, what I think I’ve heard the minister say — again, she can

correct me — is that the option of renewing for a third time the

ministerial order that is presently in place was considered but

rejected. Is that a fair synopsis?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The act hasn’t been updated in over ten years. We have a

ministerial order, which has been extended twice already. Public bodies

do need certainty on that. That, combined with public consultation, with

outstanding committees, without action previously being taken on this

file, is landing us, in this fall, tabling this legislation.

M. de Jong: Again, I don’t think I would be pursuing or the committee would be

as interested in these matters were it not for the advice the minister

has received — and all members of the committee and the House have now

received — from the Privacy Commissioner. It is, I suppose, communicated

in the form of advice and opinion with respect to clause 1 and the

subsequent clauses.

The minister received that advice — apparently, she received it

prior to the tabling of clause 1 and the bill in its entirety — and

chose to, in many key instances, ignore that advice. Did she do so on

her own, or did she receive contrary advice from other sources on these

matters?

Hon. L. Beare: If the member could please clarify the question for me. What is it

he’s seeking?

M. de Jong: In a variety of areas, including the involvement of the special

committee that exists, the minister confirms having received advice from

the Privacy Commissioner. That advice is summarized in a letter that we

now have before us.

In a number of key areas, she has chosen to proceed in a manner

that is inconsistent with the advice she received from the Privacy

Commissioner. I think she would agree with that as well. She has said as

much. My question is: did she receive advice from other sources that she

is relying upon in taking those steps?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, the commissioner is one piece of input that we receive. We

have public consultations, of which the reports are public and available

to the member. I know the member knows that and has probably combed

through them and has some great questions for me off of them. But yes,

we’ve gone through public consultation, we’ve had round tables with

sectors, we’ve had advice from the commissioner, we’ve heard from

businesses, we’ve heard from people, and all of that has culminated in

the draft legislation that we have before us today.

M. de Jong: With respect to that portion of the Privacy Commissioner’s letter

that we have been focusing on for the past few moments, and that is the

clear recommendation to engage the review of the special committee and a

number of the issues that clause 1 and the subsequent clauses of the

legislation purport to deal with, did the minister, as part of those

public consultations, receive advice to the contrary — that is, not to

involve the special committee? And if she did, could she point

specifically to where that advice came from not to involve the

committee?

Hon. L. Beare: The special committees of the Legislature have two series of

recommendations already before me — two sets of them, which are 2010 and

2016 — which haven’t been acted on.

[11:50 a.m.]

M. de Jong: Well, that’s partially helpful and partially an answer.

The criticism contained in the letter from the Privacy

Commissioner relates to affording the present special committee with an

opportunity to review some of the matters not previously considered

which present themselves in this legislation. Now, the minister has

already agreed and made clear to the committee that she disagreed with

that advice, and she has cited other advice and

consultations.

My question to her is: with respect to that specific issue and

that specific criticism in the letter from the Privacy Commissioner, did

she receive advice from other sources, as part of the public

consultation exercise or otherwise, not to involve the committee that

exists today?

Hon. L. Beare: For the member, as I’ve said, I have two special committee

recommendations already before me. That’s 2010 and 2016. The special

committee does not review draft legislation. I’ve got the

recommendations of the review of the legislation that I am now amending

with this current draft legislation before us.

In terms of public consultation and if there were any comments

regarding the legislative committee, not to my knowledge. I don’t

remember or recall hearing any specific comments on the legislative

committee.

M. de Jong: It doesn’t sound like the minister got any advice, through the

public consultation process, suggesting that she should preclude the

involvement of the present special committee. That’s, I think, what she

just said.

Hon. L. Beare: Just to clarify for the member, the committee is involved. There

are recommendations from 2010 and 2016. The committee doesn’t review the

draft legislation that we have before us.

Again, clause 1. We’ve canvassed this a number of times. We’re on

clause 1, which removes the letter “s.” I’m looking forward to debating

the substance of the bill.

M. de Jong: With respect to clause 1 and subsequent provisions of the bill,

and coming back to the pointed criticism offered by the statutory

legislative officer, the Privacy Commissioner and the….

Maybe it’s time I re-read a portion of his comments. “It is not at

all clear why government has chosen to move forward with amendments

ahead of the special committee’s legislated work to review the act.”

That is the special committee in place now. “To move forward with these

amendments in a year that the special committee is tasked to do this

work is baffling.” But the minister has chosen, and the government has

chosen, to do that, contrary to the advice and observations of the

Privacy Commissioner.

Did the minister receive any advice on that matter from the

Premier’s office?

Hon. L. Beare: As I’ve said to the member, we have two recommendation reports

from the special committee from 2010 and 2016, which are informing the

package that we have before us. The committee doesn’t review draft

legislation. I’m looking forward to debating the substance of the

legislation with the member after lunch.

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

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

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

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.