British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, November 25, 2021 p.m. — Number 140 (HTML) (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session) (20211125pm-House-Blues)
20211125pm-House-Blues
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Second Session, 42nd Parliament
(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, November 25, 2021
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 140
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Orders of the Day
Committee of the Whole House
Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)
J. Rustad
Hon. K. Conroy
Report and Third Reading of Bills
Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021
Reporting of Bills
Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021
Royal Assent to Bills
Bill 17 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 18 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 20 — Access to Services (COVID-19) Act
Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 24 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 25 — Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 26 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021
Bill 27 — Election Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 29 —
Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021
Bill 30 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
Committee of the Whole House
Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)
B. Banman
Hon. L. Beare
T. Stone
L. Doerkson
C. Oakes
J. Tegart
B. Stewart
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2021
The House met at 1:02 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. L. Beare: In this main chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 28,
Forest Amendment Act.
In
Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole,
Bill 22, FOIPPA amendment act.
[1:05 p.m.]
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 28 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT,
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 28;
N. Letnick in the chair.
The committee met at 1:06 p.m.
On clause 18 (continued) .
The Chair: Just a note for all the members in the chamber: don’t leave.
We have quorum — just.
Member for Nechako Lakes, on clause 18.
J. Rustad: On 18 — that’s what I was hoping you’d say.
I think I remember last time we were talking about this special
purpose area. There’s a lot more to be said about the special purpose
area, I think, when we get to
section 62 or something like that. So I
think, for now, I don’t have any other questions on this,
except….
Well, I shall wait till we get to 19 to ask.
Clause 18 approved.
On clause 19.
J. Rustad: In 19, it delegates powers through the chief forester in writing.
And I’m just wondering: these special purpose areas — are they going to
be designated by the minister or by the chief forester or by the chief
forester’s office and designated to somebody else?
Hon. K. Conroy: They’re designated by order-in-council.
J. Rustad: Perhaps the minister could describe the process in which an area
would be determined as to whether it should be designated as a special
purpose area.
Hon. K. Conroy: Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure I introduce my staff that’s
with me, first. I’ve got Melissa Sanderson, the assistant deputy
minister of forest policy and Indigenous relations; then Peter Jacobsen,
the executive director of compensation and business analysis; Tim
Bogle, the director of compensation and business analysis; Lesley
Scowcroft, our director of legislation; and Ryan Munroe, the senior
legislative analyst.
[1:10 p.m.]
The member knows the special purpose area — all of the questions
that the member is referring to are contained in clause 62. This clause,
clause 19 — all it is, is adding a new
section that allows the chief
forester to delegate powers and duties under the act to ministry
employees.
J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, you mentioned quorum. I don’t think we actually have
quorum at the moment.
The Chair: Thank you. We have quorum now.
J. Rustad: The reason for asking the previous question is that obviously, as
areas get designated, as we get into that…. Maybe there’s a better
section to be asking this question. Maybe we should wait until we get to
62 with regards to it. But I’m just curious in terms of that, when I saw
the authority of the chief forester’s office…. Maybe I should just ask:
what role does the chief forester’s office play in this
designation?
Hon. K. Conroy: The roles and responsibilities of the chief forester around the
special purpose areas are all contained in clause 62, so I’m not sure if
the member caught that last time.
As a result of these amendments, the chief forester…. It will give
her an expanded range of authority respecting special purpose areas and
forest inventory requirements — and can delegate this authority to
ministry employees to ensure efficiency.
J. Rustad: With respect to the special purpose areas and the authorities
given to the chief forester’s office, is the chief forester’s office
being required to undertake supply reviews or any other sorts of
components associated with that? I’m just trying to understand. Maybe
that should be in 62 as well, but because the chief forester’s office is
mentioned here, I thought I would ask these questions.
Hon. K. Conroy: The roles and responsibilities that the chief forester has for
special purpose areas are all covered under clause 62.
Clauses 19 to 23 inclusive approved.
The Chair: Does the member for Nechako Lakes have a specific clause he’s
looking for?
J. Rustad: Keep going.
The Chair: Keep going.
Clauses 24 to 34 inclusive approved.
On clause 35.
The Chair: On 35, Nechako Lakes.
J. Rustad: We were on such a good roll here.
[1:15 p.m.]
The Chair: May I humbly request that if you do have a whole series, next
time, just let us know what they are, and we can skip them. Thank
you.
J. Rustad: I very much enjoy seeing the role of the Chair extended to its
fullest extent. You’re doing such a great job, hon. Chair. I really do
appreciate it.
In any case, sorry to the audience in the gallery here. We do have
some questions that we do need to ask on this bill as we move forward on
it. But I do appreciate the humour associated with it.
On clause 35, it says: “In this
section and in sections 63 to
63.05.” Can the minister provide exactly what these
definitions are
about in terms of combining annual allowable cut and base-level annual
cut?
The Chair: Just to note that introductions today were the longest in our
history, at 52 minutes. Just a little trivia for a future Trivial
Pursuit game.
Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you for the trivia. Very important.
This clause ensures that the meaning of words and expressions
necessary for the efficient functioning of the amended forest licence
reduction model are clear, thereby making these provisions more
accessible and transparent.
J. Rustad: Sorry I wasn’t clear with my question the first time around. What
I’m asking about or what I’m curious about is: has the minister
determined what a base-level annual allowable cut will be on the
landscape? As well, if the minister could explain the necessity for
doing a combined annual allowable cut, as opposed to how that would work
with individual annual allowable cuts that have been allocated by the
minister.
Hon. K. Conroy: For base-level AAC, it’s an amount below which no licence will be
reduced. The new definition enables different base levels for different
timber supply areas. The current definition only permits a single
prescribed base-level AAC, which is set at 10,001 cubic metres. This
change will allow greater customization and reductions for licences.
Setting different base levels will enable government to support its
goals for a diverse and competitive forest sector by protecting those
licence holders with smaller volumes.
[1:20 p.m.]
The combined AAC and combined AAC reduction are the total AAC and
the total AAC reduction for a group of licences, which support the new
rules for how to distribute reductions to a group of licences as if the
group were a single licence.
J. Rustad: Perhaps the minister could explain…. I understand the base level.
It was talking about 10,000 cubic metres. And the point of asking the
question was for the potential variability that you might have from one
supply area to another and how that treats all companies in the province
fairly and equally.
Hon. K. Conroy: Different TSAs have different operating environments, and it may
make sense to have different base levels based on the circumstances
around those environments.
J. Rustad: I understand the rationale the minister has given. I’m just
wondering if there are any potential ramifications of not treating all
companies that operate in the province equally.
Hon. K. Conroy: Circumstances are different across the province, and this clause
reflects that.
J. Rustad: In terms of the combined annual allowable cut, there is a wide
variety of variation out on the landscape with companies that may have
amalgamated cut, companies that may have partial control or other
companies that have cuts. How will it be determined that the annual
allowable cut for various entities should be combined?
[1:25 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: By enabling the grouping of licences and their associated volumes
held by the same or related persons, it ensures that the AAC reduction
model is proportionate. So those with more volume in the same timber
supply areas will carry a greater proportion of the reduction than those
with less.
The Chair: Member on 35.
J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair. I know we’re wandering into
section 37 in
terms of those questions. Maybe I should wait till 37. If it’s
appropriate for me to wait for 37 for this question, I will do that, but
I’ll ask it here, associated with this. And I can re-ask it two sections
down the road here, if you’d like.
What I’m wondering about is when you have a licence that may be a
portion. For example, you might have three companies that share a third
interest in a particular licence. I’m just wondering how that gets
amalgamated with…. Each of those three companies may also have licences
within a particular area. So I’m just wondering at what level it’s
determined that it needs to be amalgamated with a particular
company.
Like I say, if that’s better asked under 37, let me know, and I
can re-ask the question under 37.
Hon. K. Conroy: All this
section does is set out the
definitions, so that would be
a better question under a different clause.
Clause 35 approved.
On clause 36.
J. Rustad: Under
section 36, it says: “If the allowable annual cut determined
for a timber supply area is reduced under
section 8 for any reason,
other than a reduction in the area of land in the timber supply area,
the minister may reduce the allowable annual cuts of the licences in the
timber supply area.” I’m curious as to why that excludes a land
disposition within a supply area.
[1:30 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: This is 100 percent consistent with the existing clause in the
Forest Act, so this doesn’t need to change.
J. Rustad: It is put in as text in here, as opposed to just being referenced
to the original Forest Act. I’m curious, because, obviously, a volume is
reduced in an area.
There are only two ways volume can be reduced within a supply
area: either there’s a determination by the chief forester and a timber
supply review that there is less volume in an area because of reduction
from pests or fire or other types of things that happen, in terms of
volume available; or the area of a supply area is reduced, which has an
impact, obviously, on the timber supply within an area. I’m wondering
why this excludes an area reduction.
The other reason, of course, for asking that is that special
purpose areas are defined as an area that will be extracted out of a
timber supply area, which obviously will have an impact on the available
timber that needs to be attributed to the various licensees.
I’m wondering why this excludes area. It doesn’t seem to make
sense to me. Please help me understand what is trying to be done here or
why that is included in here.
[1:35 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: There’s no intention to make significant changes to
section
8. The amendments were drafted to align with the current framework. A
reduction in the area of land is not a
section 8 decision, and it is not
part of the AAC determination process. So for industry, this is business
as usual.
J. Rustad: I think I understand what the minister is saying. A reduction of
land would lead to a reduction of volume, but it’s not until we
determine the reduction of volume that it gets calculated through to
reduction of costs.
[1:40 p.m.]
That’s fine. It’s not the land itself that triggers it; it’s once
the volume is determined in terms of the reduction, I suppose, that
triggers these measures.
I’m good with 36 at this point.
Clause 36 approved.
On clause 37.
J. Rustad: Sorry, I’ve been just dealing with…. There was an active shooter
in one of my communities. Fortunately, they have apprehended the person.
Just one of those little things that’s going on outside of the
Legislature.
In clause 37, it goes through…. Once again, this is the issue of
combining the licences. So I’ll re-ask the question around licences that
are held by more than one individual. How are they attributed — to a
combining? Or are they left separate?
Hon. K. Conroy: Enabling the grouping of licences — and their associated volumes,
held by the same or related persons — ensures that the AAC reduction
model is proportionate. Those with more volume in the same timber supply
area would carry a greater proportion of the reduction than those with
less volume. As staff are fond of saying, everybody doesn’t get the same
haircut. If you’ve got more, you get a greater haircut; if you’ve got
less, you get less. It works well.
J. Rustad: The forest sector, unfortunately, doesn’t have a lot of hair left
to cut. Regardless of that, my question is around…. You do have cases
where you have licences that are held by different companies that are at
arm’s length and that share an interest within a particular supply cell.
If they’re treated separately, as a separate entity, that’s fine. But at
what threshold are those considered to be part of a larger
entity?
I’ll give you an example. If the minister had one licence and, as
opposition critic, I had another licence and, as the Third Party, they
had a licence that all three of us had an equal interest in, how would
those end up being accounted for? Would that be a separate licence?
Would the one-third portion be combined with the minister’s? How would
that look?
That’s what I’m trying to determine: in this situation, what would
happen on a landscape? It’s easy if Canfor has got three licences.
They’re obviously combined as one licence and thought of that way. But
when there are interactions between other companies and how those
interactions work on the landscape, it can kind of confuse the
situation, which is why I’m trying to determine how that would be
handled.
[1:45 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: It’s based on who actually holds the licence. In reference to the
member’s example, if three separate people held a licence, that licence
would be…. There would be a joint partnership agreement. So the joint
partnership agreement would hold the licence.
J. Rustad: The joint partnership agreement would hold the licence, but
obviously, that’s not arm’s length if it’s individual A and individual B
and an individual C that are part of that license. This is why I’m
asking about it, because the combining of licences is when it’s…. If the
minister held a licence, and the minister’s husband or child or nephew
or relation held a licence, that’s not necessarily at arm’s length. They
would end up being combined.
That’s my understanding of what it says in this act. If that’s not
the case, that’s fine. That’s why I’m wondering.
You could be in a situation where companies decide they want to
form third parties to hold licences — to share those licences, to share
the ownership of those licences — to be able to have wood that is not
necessarily combined together with their original licence. You might end
up in those situations on a landscape, which is why I’m asking how those
situations would be handled.
If I understand the minister correctly, I think what the minister
has said is that it would be a separate entity, even though the
individual owners that are associated with that third party would or
could potentially also have other licences. It would still be considered
a third party or not combined.
That’s the question that I’m trying to get to, because we could
end up seeing companies on the landscape saying: “Oh, I know how we can
get around some rules. Let’s just do a whole bunch of deals and shuffle
things around so that you end up with 30 licences on an area through
transactions as opposed to two licences on an area.”
[1:50 p.m. - 1:55 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: The minister has the authority to consider these issues and make
groupings. The framework also requires that notice be served on group
licence holders, and it provides also for reconsiderations. If a licence
holder feels the grouping is inaccurate, they can appeal that and
provide information as to why they feel it’s inaccurate. Then it
requires the minister to provide written reasons for why the
determination was confirmed or reversed.
J. Rustad: One of the questions that comes to mind with this…. The minister
has said a number of times that the higher the volume, the larger the
haircut. But when we go through and we look at the formula…. I’ve got a
question as to why the multiple formulas, but we’ll get to that in a
minute.
Maybe the minister can help me understand. If we’ve got somebody
that’s got one million cubic metres and somebody that’s got 100,000
cubic metres and there is a 20 percent reduction and the base level is
10,000 cubic metres, there would still be a 20 percent reduction,
whether you had one million or whether you had 100,000, because both
would still be above the 10,000 cubic metre limit.
I’m just wondering how the minister describes that as being an
equal haircut. When it’s a 20 percent reduction, it’s a 20 percent
reduction to the volume. It’s an equal reduction to both in terms of the
percentage of loss.
Hon. K. Conroy: The rule for groupings is about the base level AAC and making sure
people are not subdividing licences to evade this fair
approach.
J. Rustad: Sorry, but that wasn’t the question I asked. The minister
described that those that have more get a larger haircut than those that
have less. Excluding the base level, a 20 percent reduction is still a
20 percent reduction. If it isn’t that, I’d like to know. If it is that,
I’m fine. I just want to make sure that I understand that if somebody’s
got one million cubic metres and somebody’s got 600,000 cubic metres and
somebody’s got 100,000 cubic metres, they’re all going to be reduced by
20 percent, assuming the base level stays at 10,000 cubic
metres.
[2:00 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, that’s accurate.
J. Rustad: I just needed to make sure that was clear, because my perspective
of a larger haircut is somebody getting 25 percent and somebody only
getting 15 percent. I wanted to make sure that was what the minister was
saying.
In the rest of
section 37, there are four sets of formulas which
are identical in terms of formulas. Could the minister explain how the
interaction between each of these formulas is to be applied?
[2:05 p.m.]
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Hon. K. Conroy: The same formula is applied through multiple steps to ensure the
reduction is distributed fairly. So for equation 1, it’s in relation to
the grouped licences. Equation 2 is there because there could be some
remainder of AAC because of the base levels. So that equation…. We’ll
deal with that under equation 2. Equation 3 — we now have to assign AAC
to each licence within that group. Then equation 4 distributes anything
that’s left, any of the remainder that needs to be
distributed.
J. Rustad: As I think about that, I think that makes sense to me. I’m a
little confused about the remainder and how, exactly, a remainder ends
up being determined, because if there’s a percentage reduction, I’m not
sure how you get a remainder. But I’m certainly not going to be stumped
on that. I don’t think it’s that big an issue to spend time
on.
I do wonder, in terms of the allocation, or as it gets
distributed, historically there has been an amount of volume that has
not been distributed within timber supply areas. It’s kept in reserve
within the Ministry of Forests.
I’m just wondering, when there are reductions in areas, whether or
not any of that reserve within the Ministry of Forests would be first
call for those reductions, or whether or not that would be distributed,
any reductions, including what might be left in reserve that is
unallocated within the ministry.
[2:10 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: The forest service reserve would be reduced proportionately if
there is an AAC reduction.
J. Rustad: I think I understand that.
I request a short recess.
The Chair: This committee will be in recess. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 2:12 p.m. to 2:21 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Clauses 37 to 45 inclusive approved.
On clause 46.
J. Rustad: We got on another good roll there.
On clause 46, we’re talking about the forest inventories. I see
there’s a definition of “recreation resource” and “visual resource” as
part of the inventories that need to be collected.
Historically I’ve been involved in overseeing visual quality
objectives and setting this out and laying this on the landscape and
also recreational areas on the landscape in terms of laying them out
where they are. I’m kind of wondering why those need to be identified as
part of an inventory as opposed to a feature that’s within an
inventory.
[2:25 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: These
definitions support the new requirements regarding forest
inventories that are being introduced by this bill. With the recreation
resources, they provide information about the other ways humans use the
landscape, and it informs decision-making regarding retention, or
buffers, and mitigation of impact to other users.
The visual resources — this provides information about scenic
areas and viewscapes that are valued by the public and informs
decision-making regarding retention and timber supply.
J. Rustad: In terms of recreation, there are official recreation areas such
as trails and hiking paths, these type of things. Of course, there are
many unofficial recreation utilizations of areas. Some people go into
areas for back-country skiing. They go into areas using their
snowmobile, or whatever the case may be.
At what level are we talking about, in terms of recreational
opportunities within an inventory that need to be identified and, as the
minister said, potentially buffered to prevent the degradation of those
recreation areas? Obviously, if there are people’s walking paths or
whatever else that may go through an area, if they get a lot of those
sort of things out there, it could end up taking over an entire area
that’s required to be inventoried, if you’re talking about a woodlot
licence or a community forest, these types of things.
I’m wondering what level of the inventory or what level of
recreation is considered that needs to be part of an
inventory.
[2:30 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Inventories must include sufficient information about a forest
resource — for example, a recreation resource — to allow a professional
forester to assess impacts that the following would have on forest
resources: timber harvesting; road construction; use, maintenance and
deactivation of roads; wildfire; disease; and insect
infestation.
J. Rustad: I understand that in terms of the values and components that need
to be looked at in terms of the interim. What I’m wondering about is
when it comes to recreation, there are a lot of different levels of
recreation, whether it’s official trails for, you know, a snowmobile
club or, for example, the community forest in Burns Lake that’s got
mountain bike trails, etc. It’s all part of how it does its business and
is identified.
Then there are lots of unofficial utilizations of trails, and I’m
just wondering if there is a definition that the minister can provide as
to what constitutes a recreational area.
Hon. K. Conroy: The recreation resource, actually, has the same meaning as it does
in the FRPA bill. It includes “a recreation feature, a scenic or
wilderness feature or setting that has recreational significance or
value, or a recreation facility.” Also, a recreation feature means “a
biological, physical, cultural or historic feature that has
recreational significance or value.”
J. Rustad: We, through closure, forced through Bill 23, which, of course, has
the
definitions of forest landscape areas. In in those
definitions are
community values and First Nations values. Are inventories required to
line up and match with those values that will be identified as part of a
forest landscape plan?
[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: The inventory will be to the standard of a forestry professional
and will support decisions about the management of resources and values
under FRPA and the forest landscape plans. This information will allow
us to make more informed decisions. It’s actually something…. We don’t
have the ability, right now, to get that information to make those
informed decisions. This clause will help us to be able to do
that.
J. Rustad: I think what the minister is trying to say is that the inventory
will drive the FLA, not FLA drive the inventory — FLA being the forest
landscape areas. Or forest landscape plans, I should say, FLPs. Okay. If
that’s the relationship, that’s fine.
It says here: “In this section, ‘pre-existing licence’ means a
licence that is in effect on January 1, 2022.” Then the holder of a
licence, on January 1, 2022, “must prepare an inventory of each forest
resource by no later than 2 years after the date the area-based licence
is entered into.”
I guess the question I’ve got around there is the pre-existing
inventories. If an inventory was done 20 years ago or four years ago or
ten years ago, whatever the number may be, is there still a requirement
to do a new inventory? Or is this just saying that an inventory has to
be in place from an existing time frame?
[2:45 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: This provides that the holder of an area-based licence entered
into after January 1, 2022, must prepare a forest inventory that is up
to the new standards no later than two years after the date the licence
is entered into. There’s a two-year grace period.
It also provides that pre-existing community forest agreements —
so First Nations woodland licences and woodlot licences — have to
prepare an inventory of forest resources no later than January 1, 2026.
That’s a four-year grace period, and they have to prepare that inventory
up to the current standards.
J. Rustad: I just to make sure I heard the minister correctly. Did the
minister say for new licences that is what’s required, or for
pre-existing licences that is what’s required?
For example, the minister talks about a woodlot licence — for a
pre-existing woodlot licence, must prepare an inventory no later
than January 1, 2026. But if an inventory has already been done — let’s
say it was done in 2018 — does it have to be redone? At what point can
historic inventories be utilized to meet this requirement?
Hon. K. Conroy: The first clause that I read out was for new holders, and the
second one was for pre-existing. Regardless, they all have to make sure
that they do their inventory up to the current standards. So for the
pre-existing, that’s a four-year grace period. I think that’s
sufficient.
[2:50 p.m.]
J. Rustad: If I heard that right, the hundreds of woodlot licence owners
around the province are going to be required to do a new inventory,
regardless of whether they have done a previous inventory, at a cost of
— whatever it is — probably $35,000 to do a new inventory, not to
mention the challenge of finding professionals that are available to be
able to do that kind of inventory work when there’s lots of other
inventory work that is going to need to be done around the province. If
I can ask the minister to confirm that is the case.
[2:55 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: To the member’s question, you can use existing inventory, but this
may need to be updated to the new standards. Updates are often done
after significant events such as wildfires.
To the member’s question, this is about transparency. This is
about ensuring that government has the information it needs about what
the forest inventory is on Crown land. This is, I think, what people are
asking government — to have that information. We don’t have the ability
to do that now. This gives us the ability to do that, and it is forest
practice standards.
J. Rustad: I’m a little frustrated with the minister’s answer. I understand
the need to report this out to the ministry, to collect the data to get
it in there. We’ll get into that.
What I’m asking is a really simple question. Do existing woodlot
licence owners, community forest owners and other area-based tenures…?
Are they required to do a new inventory because of this act, or is there
existing inventory enough that can be turned over to the chief
forester’s office as required by this act?
Hon. K. Conroy: I don’t know why the answer I gave isn’t explanatory. You can use
existing inventories, but you may need to update. It depends on the
circumstances. Some people might need to update. Some people might not.
Some people might have already provided that information, but this will
make it a requirement.
So they may need to. They can use existing inventories, but they
may need to update so that they update to the new standards.
J. Rustad: To paraphrase what the minister said, this act does not put in a
new requirement to do inventory. The inventory is based on other
information, whether it needs to be updated or not. Which is fine.
That’s all I’m trying to understand with this, in terms of the dates and
in terms of that requirement.
Moving on. “The chief forester may specify information that must
be included in an inventory of a resource area.” Other than the obvious
things that go in, I’m wondering what other information the chief
forester may require.
[3:00 p.m.]
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Hon. K. Conroy: The examples…. The chief forester may ask for information about
things like stand height, stand age, site index. This gives the chief
forester flexibility so that she can acquire the information that she
needs.
[3:05 p.m.]
J. Rustad: With the requirement…. If inventories need to be updated around
this and then, let’s say, a licence holder does a new inventory and then
their land base or a portion of their land base is taken away under a
special purpose area, will they be compensated for that requirement, for
collecting and gathering this information as part of compensation
associated with a loss of their tenure or a portion of their
tenure?
I’ll ask that question. If the minister wants…. One other question
under that
section that I would like to ask is also in terms of the data
that’s required to be submitted. It says that the information and
records “under this
section must be submitted in the form and manner
specified by the chief forester.”
There are, obviously, different types of data sets and different
types of formats for creating the data and utilizing the data. I’m just
wondering if the chief forester is going to set some sort of
standardized format for the data to be retrieved in. And if the format….
If it’s a paper copy, that’s fine, because then, obviously, it gets
inputted into a new system. But if it’s digital, that could get pretty
complex. That’s why I’m asking about that as well.
[3:10 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Stumpage reflects the inventory cost and will be considered as
part of the compensation framework.
In answer to the second question, the chief forester may request
records in a standardized format, such as the existing provincial
standards, and any professional forester would understand those
standards. This is just part of doing business.
Clauses 46 to 61 inclusive approved.
On clause 62.
J. Rustad: With regards to the special purpose areas and the process here:
for the record, I’d like to have the minister describe the reason for
wanting to designate special purpose areas.
[3:15 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: They established this new tool called the special purpose area,
which will enable areas to be designated for specific purposes. This is
not a carte blanche authority. These are enabling tools, and we intend
to work with Indigenous nations, stakeholders and communities when using
these tools.
The legislation does not require the government to use these
tools. They’re intended to provide flexibility to address different
situations on the land base.
This tool builds on what is currently in the Forest Act. In the
current framework, areas can be deleted or removed from a licence for an
access purpose — for example, a right-of-way for a highway, or a
non-timber production purpose, like a park or a conservancy. This is
similar to what could be done under the current framework, but clarity
is provided about the process to do these things.
The new legislation will also allow for tenure to be redistributed
to support reconciliation with First Nations, support the market pricing
system and support communities.
J. Rustad: I’m curious. To start off, there are many questions that I have
under this, in terms of the special purpose area. Perhaps I’ll start
with this one. For volume or area that is designated as special purpose
area for the purposes of transferring to B.C. Timber Sales, is the
intent, then, to shore up B.C. Timber Sales in areas where they’re less
than 20 percent of the current AAC within a particular supply
area?
[3:20 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, it could be.
J. Rustad: In the areas where we have below 20 percent…. Maybe I should just
do one clarification. Is it possible that special purpose areas could
also be designated and transferred to B.C. Timber Sales in areas where
B.C. Timber Sales already has 20 percent or more of the cut within a
supply area?
Hon. K. Conroy: This is a tool, and we will use it where it would be
needed.
J. Rustad: What I’m trying to understand is where it will be needed. Perhaps
the minister could provide some definition of where it will be
needed.
[3:25 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: BCTS requires 20 percent of the AAC in the Interior and the coast
to support the market pricing system. This will be a consideration of
cabinet before using this tool.
J. Rustad: My understanding, in the briefing of this tool, is that the
special purpose area could be used to target specific volumes, specific
types of stands, whether that be a type of wood or value of wood that
could be targeted as a special purpose area.
The concern I have is that if an area is added to B.C. Timber
Sales, in terms of their volume, that area will not necessarily be
representative of the cut or the profile within a supply area, which
then could skew the results of B.C. Timber Sales. So this is why I’m
asking the questions about the area that goes in or the area that could
be designated under a special purpose area.
The question to the minister is: when special purpose areas are
designed or laid out or considered, will they be reflective of the
profile of a supply area when they are going into something like B.C.
Timber Sales? Or will there be other factors that determine what the
boundary of a special purpose area may be?
[3:30 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: An analysis could be undertaken to determine what types and
characteristics are needed to support BCTS and the market pricing
system. A special purpose area may be used to fill a gap to ensure B.C.
Timber Sales can sell across the profile.
J. Rustad: My concern is that you’ll end up in a situation where desirable
wood, high-value wood, will be targeted under a special purpose area,
and if that high-value wood is then transferred into B.C. Timber Sales,
it would skew the purpose of B.C. Timber Sales in terms of meeting
market pricing — the market pricing system. I’m looking for an assurance
from the minister that that scenario will not occur under the use of a
special purpose area.
[3:35 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: BCTS will focus on representativeness, as per their
mandate.
J. Rustad: We could save a lot of time if the minister would actually answer
a question. I asked whether or not that scenario is possible to be moved
in and whether the minister would assure the House that a special
purpose area will not be used to take high-value volume and move it into
a B.C. Timber Sales without that consideration of the
balance.
Hon. K. Conroy: BCTS’s job is to sell representative timber, which is a mixture of
high and low quality, to set a fair market price, a fair market
standard, in B.C. This amendment does not change the mandate of B.C.
Timber Sales.
[3:40 p.m.]
J. Rustad: I don’t know why the minister can’t just simply say, “No, it
won’t,” as opposed to going through that, but that’s fine. The minister
can go through this, I suppose, in any way she wants to answer the
questions. That’s her prerogative.
In terms of defining a special purpose area for the rationale of
treaty-related measures or other interim measures or economic measures
for a First Nation, is the area that would be considered for a special
purpose area…? Is that brought forward by a First Nation? Or is it
determined by a First Nation of an interest they have and then brought
forward by the ministry as to what might be available? I’m asking that
specifically because I am interested in knowing the process by which a
First Nation would be engaged in an area that might be identified as a
special purpose area.
Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify, is the member asking about 182(2)(
a) on page 25?
I’m just trying to figure out where in the bill the
member’s….
J. Rustad: Under 182 on page 25, it does say: “treaty-related measures,
interim measures or economic measures.” “An area of Crown land may be
designated as a special purpose area for any of the following first
nation purposes.”
I’m trying to determine what process would be done to identify a
particular area, whether that’s written by First Nations, whether it’s
written by government, or how that’s done.
[3:45 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Treaty land disposal is set out in the treaty process, and the
special purpose area would be used to set out a clear process for
deleting the harvesting rights associated with the treaty land. And
licensees would be compensated.
J. Rustad: I’m actually not talking about treaty land. The
section talks
about disposal of fee simple interest in Crown land to a First Nation
for the purposes of treaty-related measures, interim measures or
economic measures. I’m asking how that area would be identified, whether
it is the First Nation that comes forward or whether it is the Crown
that comes forward. What process would be undertaken?
[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: We have government-to-government discussions with Indigenous
nations, rights and title holders, right across the province. If an area
is identified, this provides a tool to halt harvesting while discussions
are underway. It’s a transition tool, and it’s a time for information to
be gathered — information that’s required to inform a cabinet
decision.
J. Rustad: These special purpose areas have the potential to impact on
area-based tenures such as a community forest, a tree farm licence or a
woodlot. Where there is a significant impact, such as a woodlot or a
community forest, is there any intention or any consideration given to
finding a different area for the woodlot or community forest, to keep
them whole. or are they just going to be basically dissolved, gone or
reduced to whatever size is remaining?
Hon. K. Conroy: As part of using this tool, that could be a consideration — what
the member was referring to. It’s really not one-size-fits-all. That’s
what’s really good about introducing this special-purposes act, all
these amendments. It respects that there are differences right across
the province. It acknowledges that it’s not one-size-fits-all. So it
would give an opportunity to do as the member is suggesting. It
could.
J. Rustad: My understanding is that this bill creates the opportunity for a
special purpose area to be created, but it doesn’t define the ability
for the minister to take additional area to be able to be added to a
woodlot licence or to a community forest, other than utilizing the area
that is defined from the special purpose area.
If I understand what the minister has just said, it is possible
that a special purpose area could be used to take away area from a
woodlot licence or community area only to also be used to add area back
into a community forest or woodlot area. I believe that’s what the
minister has just said with that. I guess that’s the way it is. If
that’s not accurate, the minister can correct me as I go on to another
question.
[4:00 p.m.]
There are many areas across this province that have significant
archaeological values, archaeological concerns, for varying purposes. Is
there a requirement for archaeological review assessments to be
done prior to an area being designated as a special purpose
area?
The Chair: Thank you, Member, for the question. While the minister is
considering her answer, I am leaving now, to be replaced by the
Deputy Speaker.
This is my opportunity to say thank you, Members, for a great
committee stage and for a great 2021 in the chair with you and all
the other members of the Legislative Assembly. It’s been a
privilege.
I wish you all a very good Christmas and a happy new year, and
safe travels after today.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
The Chair: I will take this opportunity to wish the same to the Assistant
Deputy Speaker.
[4:05 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: What the SPA does is it deletes a licensed area for a new purpose,
and an archaeological assessment could be required for that new
purpose.
J. Rustad: The purpose for asking that, of course, was with regards to stuff
going in. But it’s okay. We won’t worry about going any further than
that. We’re running out of time, and at the rate the minister is
answering, I might be lucky to get maybe two or three more questions in,
even though they are relatively simple questions.
As we go through this section, which, of course, is about 30 pages
long or thereabouts, there are a wide range of issues and questions and
clarification that are needed associated with special permit areas. So
what I maybe want to try to do on this — I might jump around a little
bit — is to get to asking a couple questions on compensation relating to
special purpose areas.
In particular, when it says here — the meaning on page 46 — on
whether it’s a forest licence or a tree farm licence, a woodlot licence,
etc., there is a period of time, 15 years or 25 years, from the time the
licence is signed. Of course, those licences are renewed every so often,
so I just need to confirm that the date at which compensation would be
considered with the amount of time left in the licence is from the date
of the previous renewal and not the date of the original issuing of the
licence.
Hon. K. Conroy: Could we just get a clarification on the section,
please?
J. Rustad: As I mentioned, we’re on
section 62 still and on the bottom of
page 46 of the bill, under 227, where it talks about the two
licences.
[4:10 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: This is actually an existing provision in the act. In relation to
a licence, the deletion period is a specified period of time, during
which a deletion or reduction that results in excess of 5 percent of the
AAC at the beginning of the deletion period must be compensated.
Essentially, the 5 percent acts as a threshold, above which compensation
is owed. There is a separate 5 percent amount in relation to an access
purpose and a separate 5 percent amount in relation to
non-timber-harvesting purposes.
For forest licences, the deletion period is 15 years. For
specified area-based tenures, tree farm licences, community
forest agreements, First Nations woodland licences, the deletion period
is 25 years. The deletions periods are calculated from the date of the
original issuance of the licence and are not refreshed when the licence
is replaced.
J. Rustad: In terms of the costs associated when we look at the meaning of
net income…. This is referring to page 47. Where net income equals
revenues minus costs, if the minister could just confirm that the costs
are associated with wood that would be coming to market and not
necessarily the historic costs associated with a particular — whether
it’s a tree farm licence or whether it is a forest volume-based licence
or a woodlot licence.
[The bells were rung.]
Sorry. I got disrupted by the bells.
What I’m trying to ask is…. The formula that’s laid out here is
net income equals revenues minus costs. Is the cost component for what
it would cost to take the wood through to sales, or does it also include
historic costs such as inventory work or other types of things that
would have been associated with maintaining the licence and making sure
that you could be putting operational plans, etc., in place?
[4:15 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: I was just trying to find the section, 228. It sets out a list of
costs associated with the harvest and sale of the timber that will be
taken into account for determining net income. So that’s stumpage,
overhead, constructing and deactivating roads, felling, yarding,
loading, transporting, sorting and scaling timber, silviculture
obligations, export and brokerage fees.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for reading what was in the bill. The
question that I had for the minister is whether or not any historic
costs — for example, associated with getting wood to be able to be
harvested….
Are there significant costs, whether it’s doing archaeological
overview assessments; whether it’s putting operational plans in place,
or whatever the predecessor of that was called; doing inventories and
all of that kind of work that is required; whether it’s a volume-based
tenure or an area-based tenure, potentially; or otherwise?
I’m trying to get an understanding if we’re talking about standing
wood, going forward, that is compensated for and the costs associated
with that, or whether it is including of all the costs that have led up
to that point as well as the costs, going forward.
Hon. K. Conroy: Historic costs such as inventory and other forest management costs
are recognized in the stumpage system.
J. Rustad: They’re recognized where?
Hon. K. Conroy: In the stumpage system.
J. Rustad: Could the minister explain why the change to how licensees would
be compensated? There was a previous way; this is obviously a new way.
Can the minister explain why there was the shift?
[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Net income is the potential revenue that could be earned by
selling harvested timber in the market minus the cost required to
harvest and sell the timber and operate the tenure. It is a court-tested
and widely accepted valuation method used by government in the majority
of compensation entitlements.
In short, this is the potential revenue loss that a licence holder
will forgo for the remaining term of their licence because of a
reduction in harvesting rights or a modification to or cancellation of a
cutting permit. The net income approach has been used since 1993. It’s
been the approved valuation framework by the majority of decisions in
B.C. This has been done by policy. The amendments put these rules in
legislation to ensure clarity, consistency and transparency.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. I do have a question about
the role of cabinet, if any, in those decisions. But we’re at a place
here on Bill 28…. We have very little time left, even to ask one
question. I may not even get an answer because of the time remaining. If
I’m correct, we’re going to be cut off here in about three or four
minutes, in terms of debate on this bill, because of the closure motion
or the time allocation motion that has been put in place. That creates a
big challenge, as we are a few pages into 50 pages or thereabouts just
to one
section of Bill 28. There are still, obviously, a lot of other
sections in this bill to go for discussion.
Quite frankly, it’s a shame that we’re in this situation that such
impactful legislation such as Bill 23 and Bill 28 have been rammed
through this House without giving it the appropriate time to be able to
debate this. I mean, Bill 28 was brought in just a week and a half ago
and introduced into this Legislature — hardly given time to even read it
before it came up to second reading for debate on this bill and
discussion on this bill.
This is combined with so many of the other bills — Bill 23 as well
as previous bills — the deferrals, all of this that the ministry has
done on forestry and on the changes in forestry, making us the
highest-cost producer in this province, and there has been no analysis.
There has been no analysis in terms of Bill 28, in terms of this
section
that we’re debating.
I am asking a question with regard to this. I suppose the minister
can interfere if she’d like.
The Chair: I’m sorry, hon. Member. One second.
Hon. K. Conroy: I ask, point of order, if there was a question.
The Chair: Members have up to 15 minutes to deliver a question in this
process.
J. Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I recognize I still have 12 minutes to get a
question to the minister, and I will get a question to the minister if
time is permitting me to get a question.
We’re in a situation here where we’re seeing these changes come
in, this bill come in, Bill 23 come in, the deferrals come in. All of
this sort of stuff has thrown a tremendous amount of upheaval, with no
analysis, no work that’s been done in terms of what will happen to the
sector.
I just got an email here from the Independent Wood Producers
Association, which combines the doubling of the tariffs, combined with
the deferrals and Bill 28 and other things, to say: “It’s killed any
opportunity for investment in value-added.” These are not my words.
These are the words of the people who actually produce these value-added
products.
I know this government has had a priority that they wanted to see
more value-added, and it’s a shame to see this. We’re in a situation
here where we have an opportunity to debate Bill 28, and we had an
opportunity to debate Bill 23, to be able to try to bring some clarity
and some understanding in terms of what these bills are trying to do,
other than the political line that comes out.
The unfortunate reality is when industry looks at this, they make
decisions about where they’re going to invest. We heard today that
Interfor looked at all these things that are happening and said: “We’re
not investing in British Columbia. We have no interest in investing
here. We’re going to invest in other jurisdictions.”
Interjections.
[4:30 p.m.]
J. Rustad: The minister can heckle and be disrespectful in this Legislature
if she wants to during committee stage. That is not the practice of this
thing, but the minister can go ahead and do that if she’d like. But the
reality is that we’ve got tremendous challenges.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. Member.
J. Rustad: I have a lot more to be saying about this. Unfortunately, I’m
being cut off by it because of closure.
The Chair: It being 4:30 p.m., pursuant to the time allocation motion
adopted by the House on Tuesday, November 23, the committee will now
proceed to final clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 28. In
accordance with the time allocation motion, I will now put the
question on the remaining clauses of the bill.
Members, a division on the remaining clauses and the title
cannot be called, but in accordance with practice recommendation No.
1, members may indicate passage on division. With that, we shall
proceed.
Clauses 62 and 63 approved on division.
Clauses 64 to 75 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report completion of the bill
without amendments.
Motion approved on division.
The committee rose at 4:32 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[4:35 p.m. - 4:40 p.m.]
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 28 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2021
Bill 28, Forest Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without
amendment, read a third time and passed on the following
division:
YEAS — 50
Alexis
Anderson
Bailey
Bains
Beare
Begg
Brar
Chandra Herbert
Chant
Chow
Conroy
Coulter
Cullen
Dean
D’Eith
Dix
Dykeman
Eby
Elmore
Farnworth
Fleming
Furstenau
Glumac
Greene
Heyman
Kahlon
Kang
Leonard
Lore
Malcolmson
Mark
Mercier
Osborne
Paddon
Popham
Rankin
Routledge
Routley
Russell
Sandhu
Sharma
Simons
Sims
A. Singh
R. Singh
Starchuk
Walker
Whiteside
Yao
NAYS — 23
Ashton
Banman
Bond
Cadieux
Clovechok
Davies
Doerkson
Halford
Kirkpatrick
Kyllo
Letnick
Merrifield
Milobar
Morris
Oakes
Rustad
Shypitka
Stewart
Stone
Sturdy
Tegart
Wat
Wilkinson
Reporting of Bills
BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021
Bill 22, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment
Act, 2021, reported complete with amendments.
Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Now.
[4:45 p.m.]
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021
Bill 22, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2021, read a third time and passed on the following
division:
YEAS — 49
Alexis
Anderson
Bailey
Bains
Beare
Begg
Brar
Chandra Herbert
Chant
Chow
Conroy
Coulter
Cullen
Dean
D’Eith
Dix
Dykeman
Eby
Elmore
Farnworth
Fleming
Glumac
Greene
Heyman
Kahlon
Kang
Leonard
Lore
Malcolmson
Mark
Mercier
Osborne
Paddon
Popham
Rankin
Routledge
Routley
Russell
Sandhu
Sharma
Simons
Sims
A. Singh
R. Singh
Starchuk
Walker
Whiteside
Yao
NAYS — 24
Ashton
Banman
Bond
Cadieux
Clovechok
Davies
Doerkson
Furstenau
Halford
Kirkpatrick
Kyllo
Letnick
Merrifield
Milobar
Morris
Oakes
Rustad
Shypitka
Stewart
Stone
Sturdy
Tegart
Wat
Wilkinson
Mr. Speaker: Members, just to let you know, Mr. Administrator is not in the
precinct. He’s on his way, so we’ll be having a short recess, and as
soon as he arrives, we will bring the members back.
The House recessed from 4:50 p.m. to 5:03 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
His Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was
admitted to the chamber and took his place in the chair.
[5:05 p.m.]
Royal Assent to Bills
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:
Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2021
Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2021
Access to Services (COVID-19) Act
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act,
Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021
Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021
Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2021
Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021
Election Amendment Act, 2021
Forest Amendment Act, 2021
Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021
Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021
In her Majesty’s name, his Honour the Administrator doth assent to
these acts.
Hon. R. Bauman (Administrator): If I may say a few words of welcome from my office of Chief Justice of
British Columbia and Administrator for the province. It’s good, if I may
say, to be back. It is good to see all of you back.
I can see that you’ve been very, very busy — congratulations — and
that’s just as it should be. We face significant challenges these days, and
it’s good for all British Columbians to know that our Legislative Assembly
is busy at work advancing the interests of British Columbians in these
challenging times.
Thank you so much on behalf of the citizens of this province for the
work that you do.
Some of these bills — I’ve read them in advance — are very important
and meaningful in our work and journey towards reconciliation. In
particular, in respect of that, I say thank you.
His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.
[5:10 p.m.]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it
appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the
government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or
until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to
prorogue the second session of the 42nd parliament of the province of
British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to all members that he is so
satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the
time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its
business as if it had been duly adjourned to that date and time.
That, by agreement of the Speaker and the House Leaders of each
recognized caucus, the location of sittings and means of conducting sittings
of this House may be altered if required due to an emergency situation or
public health measures and that such agreement constitute the authorization
of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to. The Speaker shall give
notice to all members of the agreement and shall table it for it to be
printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next
sitting.
That in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness
or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of
this order. In the event that the Deputy Speaker being unable to act owing
to illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole
shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. And in the event of
the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act owing to
illness or other cause, another member designated collectively by the House
Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in her stead for the purpose of
this order.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I do the final motion, just to remind all members to clean out
your desks so that our hard-working staff do not have to do that. As our
mothers said, clean up your room.
With that, hon. Speaker, I wish everybody a happy, healthy journey
home. We will see you all in February. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas.
Happy Hanukkah. Happy Diwali. Have a safe time.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: I would also like to say to all members: thank you so much for your
support and your cooperation.
I wish you all the best during the holiday season. Have a wonderful,
safe journey back home. Have fun with your families. I’m looking forward to
seeing you back in February. All the best.
This House stands adjourned now, until further notice.
The House adjourned at 5:13 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
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 (Section
A) on Bill 22;
R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 1:08 p.m.
On clause 21 as amended (continued) .
B. Banman: We have no further questions on this clause.
The Chair: Shall clause 21 as amended pass?
Division has been called.
[1:10 p.m. - 1:15 p.m.]
Clause 21 as amended approved on the following
division:
YEAS — 7
Beare
Begg
Cullen
Eby
Greene
Paddon
Sims
NAYS — 4
Banman
Olsen
Stone
Wilkinson
Clauses 22 to 24 inclusive approved on division.
On clause 25.
B. Banman: Could the minister please explain what a privacy management
program is.
Hon. L. Beare: A privacy management program ensures that public bodies have the
necessary framework in place to meet their privacy obligations under the
act.
B. Banman: What is the threshold for the commissioner to get involved when
there is a privacy breach?
[1:20 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: Public bodies are required to notify the commissioner if a breach
could reasonably be expected to result in significant harm, referred to
in paragraph 36.3(2)(a): “notify an affected individual if the privacy
breach could reasonably be expected to result in significant harm
to the individual, including identity theft” or significant harm. Then
it outlines bodily harm, humiliation, damage to reputation or
relationships, loss of employment, business or professional
opportunities, financial loss, negative impact on a credit score, or
damage to, or loss of property.
These are the legal requirements that we laid out here. Public
bodies are able to notify the commissioner of a breach at any point, and
this has been the process that has been happening to date, which is now
being formalized in legislation with mandatory reporting.
B. Banman: I’m sure the Minister will agree that this is probably one of the
most important sections when it comes to preserving someone’s privacy,
and also their identity, when you start talking about harm to their
credit scores and their identity being stolen. This is highly, highly
sensitive, and highly important to, I think, all of us.
Will the minister confirm that before regulations come into place,
there will be meaningful consultations done with the Privacy
Commissioner prior to the regulations being brought forward, especially
when it pertains to this clause — and to other clauses, as well, in
fact?
[1:25 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: I agree it is an important piece of this legislation. It is
important that we are protecting people’s privacy, as we’ve been saying,
all throughout this legislation. There are many important pieces in the
legislation.
Currently there is no legislated requirement for public bodies to
notify affected individuals or the commissioner in the event of a
privacy breach. I outlined to the member that the current practice is to
notify affected individuals and report privacy breaches to the
commissioner when significant harm is expected to occur, but it hasn’t
been put into legislation before.
So we’re doing that because we want to make sure that the current
policy and practice that is out there is legislated and that the public
will have increased and enhanced accountability and transparency of
ministries and the public sector through this. As I have outlined in
various areas of debate on this bill, any subsequent regulations are
developed as part of a separate process and aren’t part of the
legislative amendments that we have before us today.
B. Banman: Respectfully, while it gave an answer, it didn’t answer the direct
question I asked, which was: will the commissioner actually be involved
in part of that?
In the spirit of time, I’m going to go on to another concern that
the Privacy Commissioner had. He states that 36.3(3) would not enable a
public body to hold off on notifying affected individuals where
disclosure of the breach would compromise a criminal
investigation.
Through you to the minister, will she commit here and now, that
oversight or this particular point, which I think is valid by the
commissioner…. You know, there’s no sense giving a criminal a heads-up
if the act overlooks this one fact.
I think the Privacy Commissioner has brought up a good point,
which is why, respectfully, I asked the question: will this minister
please commit to consulting the Privacy Commissioner? Because, in his
letter, he wanted to see draft regulations. I don’t understand the
hesitancy — why we would not have an expert involved in that.
Be that as it may, will this minister please give a guarantee that
this vital point that the commissioner has pointed out — where
sometimes, if they were to disclose the breach, it would compromise the
criminal investigation — will somehow be written in or put in through
regulation?
[1:35 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: Thank you to the member for raising the concern. I want to let the
member and the entire House know that we take into consideration all
feedback — from the member, from the commissioner, from everyone — when
we’re drafting regulations, which are part of a separate process and not
part of the legislative amendments that we have before us
today.
Clause 25 approved on division.
On clause 26.
B. Banman: Could the minister please walk the House through the
decision-making process to come to the decision to remove the
commissioner’s general oversight power over data linking?
[1:40 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: The commissioner still has the power to comment on data-linking
programs, which is outlined in 42(1)(f). The direct reference was
removed because of amendments made to clause 38, and this is one of the
items in the package that does respond directly to recommendations made
by the commissioner.
B. Banman: Even though it’s going to come up, this is one of those ones where
there are multiple links to clauses. Clearly, the government must have
had some concerns with regards to the commissioner’s oversight and the
power that the commissioner has with regards to that
oversight.
I think we’ll all agree that the Privacy Commissioner is an
important safety valve. But what were the concerns of government with
regards to the commissioner’s power and oversight?
[1:45 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: As we’ve outlined in previous sections, the current definition of
the data linking was too narrow and difficult to apply. So we broadened
that definition, as we’ve talked about before in previous sections, and
added protections to the data-linking program. This amendment allows the
commissioner to choose the programs that the commissioner would like to
comment on, moving forward.
B. Banman: Now, part of me had wanted to ask whether or not this minister’s
decision to remove the commissioner’s oversight on data linking had
anything to do with the investigation into Cambridge Analytica, but I’ve
got a hunch what the answer to that’s going to be.
In the spirit of moving forward, in August 2019, the Auditor
General of B.C. released a report, The B.C. Government’s Internal
Directory Account Management . The Auditor General said: “We
also found that some of the government organizations that we audited are
not consistently following the OCIO’s key controls for restricting
unauthorized access.”
Could the minister please explain why removing oversight of the
commissioner, when the Auditor General has a significant concern about
key controls for restricting unauthorized access now that all records of
the government can be linked…? It seems nonsensical to me. If I could
get some kind of clarification as to why, it would be
helpful.
[1:50 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: This bill, as we’ve outlined before, does not enable anything new
in data linking specifically. The
section we have before us now gives
the commissioner the ability to comment on programs they choose. The
member is referencing a report that is not about data linking. It’s
access. We’ve been through Public Accounts on that report and have
already committed to implementing all the recommendations by December
B. Banman: In January 2021 the Auditor General of B.C. released another
report called IT Asset Management in British Columbia
Government . To quote the Auditor General: “The following
ministries did not manage IT assets in accordance with good
cybersecurity practices, as they did not manage risk as expected:
Ministry of Citizens’ Services, with the exception of the OCIO; Ministry
of Finance and related agencies (the B.C. Public Service Agency and
government communications and public engagement); the Ministry of
Health; and the natural resource ministries.”
Can the minister explain to the public why it should trust the
government that removing oversight of data linking by the commissioner
has the public’s privacy foremost in their mind, since the Auditor
General went on to say: “The weaknesses in their practices could hinder
their ability to protect their IT assets from cybersecurity
threats”?
[1:55 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: The member is referencing, again, an Auditor General report that
doesn’t have anything to do with this
section or data linking. These are
entirely separate issues. This was about IT asset management and
cybersecurity. The report and Public Accounts Committee did reference
that it was every office except the OCIO. CIRMO is part of the OCIO, so
there were no issues.
But again, it’s not part of data linking and not part of this
section. What the commissioner has here is the ability to comment on
programs of their choosing in
section 26.
B. Banman: I would respectfully say that the connection to this
section would
be that the data that is included in all of these IT assets is
interrelated. And it could be that there is cross-information that could
be, then, posed as a security…. I would say, in due respect to the
minister, there is.
In the interest of time, I have no further questions on this
section.
Clause 26 approved on division.
On clause 27.
B. Banman: I would ask, on this section: how does this change affect the
legislation?
Hon. L. Beare: This amendment expands the grounds under which the commissioner
may authorize a public body to disregard a request under
section 5 or 29
of FOIPPA. The amendment permits the commissioner to authorize the head
of a public body to disregard a request. This includes, but is not
limited to, circumstances in which a request is frivolous or vexatious,
for a record that has been disclosed to the applicant or that is
accessible by the applicant from another source, is excessively broad or
repetitious or systematic.
So the commissioner remains the authorizing entity in this
independent oversight and will continue to ensure that this provision is
not misused.
B. Banman: Thank you. Under what criteria can the commissioner authorize the
public body to disregard a request?
Hon. L. Beare: It’s very clearly outlined in the act. The amendment expands the
grounds under which the commissioner may authorize a public body to
disregard a request under
section 5 or 29 of FOIPPA.
We have here in front of us 43, the power to authorize a public
body to disregard a request.
[2:00 p.m.]
“If the head of a public body asks, the commissioner may authorize
the public body to disregard a request under
section 5 or 29, including
because (
a) the request is frivolous or vexatious, (
b) the request is
for a record that has been disclosed to the applicant or that is
accessible by the applicant from another source, or (
c) responding to
the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the
public body because the request (
i) is excessively broad, or (ii) is
repetitious or systematic.”
B. Banman: Is the commissioner made aware of all requests made to the public
bodies, as described in
section 43?
Hon. L. Beare: These requests have to be made directly to the
commissioner.
B. Banman: At the risk of tiptoeing into the areas above and beyond again,
can the minister please give this House an example of what “frivolous or
vexatious” requests could be?
[2:05 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: In
section 27, we do have the definition as “frivolous or
vexatious” and also “repetitious or systematic.” An example would be a
decision that the commissioner made this year authorizing a school board
to disregard a request that was deemed to interfere unreasonably
with operations and limiting the requester to one request at a time. In
that situation, it was a question of volume and interference of
operations.
B. Banman: Thank you very much to the minister for the answer.
The next question I have is: could the minister please explain
what the term “excessively broad” would be?
[2:10 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: This definition is obviously for the commissioner to determine, as
he’s adjudicating each individual case. An example we were thinking over
on this side for the member would be a request, for example, that says:
“All emails to government.” That’s a very broad, sweeping
request.
B. Banman: The minister’s spider senses must have been going off, because my
next question was going to be: who gets to decide whether it’s
excessively broad? My same question would be for “frivolous” or
“vexatious.” Would the minister please confirm for me if the
commissioner gets to make that call. I’m seeing some nods, so I’ll take
that as a yes.
The other question that I had is: because it could be deemed as
excessively broad, and if a request is denied under
section 43(b), will
the public body inform the applicant where else they may find that
information, versus stonewalling? In other words, will the government
actually be helpful to people trying to get the information, or do they
plan on just standing behind regulations to deny, deny, deny?
[2:15 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: Under this legislation in
section 6, there is a duty to assist. As
part of our current practice, we often refer applicants to where the
records are, for example — a specific ministry, for example. We can
refer them to open data, which is potentially where the information is.
We do have staff that are available to assist applicants to narrow their
requests. So we do provide that service.
B. Banman: Thank you to the minister. You know, this is the public’s
information, after all. They have a right to it, and they have a
reasonable, I think, understanding to be helped through the system,
especially when they don’t understand it. Well, even some of us don’t
understand it.
Based on the minister’s answer, this will be my last question for
this section. As an example, would monthly requests for lists of
briefing notes be considered repetitive or systematic? Would monthly
requests for expense claims fall under these categories as
well?
Hon. L. Beare: As part of our government’s commitment to openness and
transparency, we do release, already, expense reports and calendars, as
the member said, proactively. They’re listed in the 13 proactive
disclosures we have, which I actually have read into this record, I
believe, a couple of times over our debate.
Monthly briefing notes. Our current practice is to do that now as
well — to release. I’m always looking for opportunities to expand this
proactive disclosure list, because we are committed to making sure that
our government is open and transparent.
Clauses 27 to 31 inclusive approved on division.
On clause 32.
[2:20 p.m.]
B. Banman: You knew it was too good to be true, right?
On clause 32, this does not provide the commissioner with the
ability to review an application fee. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Beare: Yes, this amendment clarifies that an applicant may not request a
commissioner review of an application fee charged for access to
information requests.
B. Banman: I would say, then, that the commissioner has noted: “…troubled
that there would be no ability…to waive an application fee if it is in
the public interest.” When one combines that with the letter that we
received the other day from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs
saying that it will disproportionately affect them, especially when one
considers that in order for them to establish land claims, etc., it will
make it very difficult, did the minister consult with the commissioner
on this section, and if so, what were the recommendations of the
commissioner?
[2:25 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: The member and I have discussed, a number of times throughout this
bill, how we have had consultation with the commissioner, and we were
aware of the concerns in the commissioner’s letter. I think it’s
important to restate that this amendment and this bill are only about
enabling public bodies to charge the application fee. The policies and
practices around the fee come through regulation, which is developed
outside of this legislative process and not part of this legislative
amendment package we have before us now.
But I do recognize and hear the member’s concern, and we’ve heard
from the commissioner. We value the input from the UBCIC, as well, and
those are all taken into consideration when developing
regulation.
B. Banman: That’s refreshing to hear from the minister, and I appreciate that
feedback. So I guess my next question that I have, then, with regards to
this is that clearly, the commissioner is not in agreement with the
government on this section, as stated out in his letter. He believes
that there should be an oversight for fees if it is in the overall
public interest.
When one considers, also, from the Union of British Columbia
Indian Chiefs, that they have clearly demonstrated that this will put a
financial hardship and actually put them at a disadvantage for proving
what is right in what they believe is what rightfully establishes land
claims, etc., will the minister confirm here today that, in the
regulations, there will be the ability to waive the fee if it is in the
public interest and/or a financial hardship?
Hon. L. Beare: Thank you to the member. As we’ve discussed a number of times, the
regulation process is separate from the legislative process that we have
before us now. I have confirmed and committed to the member that I do
take all of this input into account when creating the regulations
surrounding it.
I have also confirmed to the member, at various points throughout
this bill, that information-sharing, in general, is a crucial element to
being open and transparent for government and to have effective working
relationships with partners — in particular, Indigenous partners and
governments — which is why we have increased information-sharing as part
of this bill, as well.
With that, Chair, I request a ten-minute recess.
The Chair: We will now recess for ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 2:29 p.m. to 2:38 p.m.
[D. Coulter in the chair.]
Clauses 32 to 35 inclusive approved on division.
Clause 36 negatived.
Clauses 37 to 40 inclusive approved on division.
On clause 41.
[2:40 p.m.]
T. Stone: Clause 41 adds a provision for severing information from records
and some related requirements for consistency. It’s the provision for
severing information from records that we want to focus on for a few
minutes here. The context that we want to focus on, from an
access-to-information perspective, is the challenges that there have
been in previous years and the challenges that are being encountered to
this day in the public accessing information pertaining to wildfires
and, in particular, the suppression of wildfires.
I have mentioned on numerous occasions in this building that it is
not good enough for British Columbians in areas of the province that are
ravaged by wildfires and, in many cases, who lose everything, against
the backdrop of having really valid questions about the management of
the suppression on the wildfire that impacted their community — and, as
I said, in many cases their homes, their livelihood, their future — to
not be able to get answers in a timely fashion or not be able to get
answers at all, in many cases.
Far too often, what happens is that the wildfire season comes
about, there are major wildfires in different parts of the province —
they’re getting more frequent and more severe, causing more damage — and
there’s an effort to put those fires out. We certainly, 100 percent,
respect and appreciate the efforts of the men and women in the B.C.
Wildfire Service that actually do the firefighting, but there are and
there continue to be ever-increasing concerns from residents impacted
that they can’t get answers from government as to what actually happened
in terms of the suppression of fire in their backyards.
Now I will speak to a very specific situation in my riding this
past summer. I am getting to the relevance from an FOI perspective, in
terms of this act, this Bill 22.
In my community, my constituency of Kamloops–South Thompson, as I
think everyone here knows, we had the Whiterock Lake wildfire, which was
one of the monster fires this past fire season that ravaged Monte Lake
and Paxton Valley in my constituency. In fact, there are 32 families to
this day that do not have homes.
There are very different accounts, depending on who you talk to —
whether it’s the B.C. Wildfire Service management, the B.C. government
or the locals — as to what actually transpired, what actually happened
in terms of the start of this Whiterock Lake fire, the spread of the
fire and, very importantly, the suppression efforts that were applied to
try to put that fire out.
In the context of very different stories and a whole bunch of
people in Monte Lake and Paxton Valley — again, in my riding — that are
very, very upset and, obviously, devastated at their losses, to then try
to get answers as to why this happened, what efforts were actually put
on the fire to try and put it out…. The details are not
forthcoming.
Now, I and my opposition colleagues have filed a number of FOI
requests, wildfire-related, from this past season.
[2:45 p.m.]
You’ll recall that the wildfires ravaged our communities. Lytton
was many months ago, as were Monte Lake and Paxton Valley, as were the
fires up in the Caribou, as were the fires in other parts of the
province. It’s many months later, and we have gone through this typical
merry-go-round of trying to access information pertinent to the
wildfires and the management of the wildfire effort, the suppression of
these fires. I will read into the record my situation, the situation in
my riding.
On August 16, we submitted several FOI requests for documents
containing allocation by day of all resources on the White Rock Lake
Fire. August 27, we got a fee-estimate letter back indicating that we
needed to pay a $330 fee for information — frankly, information that
should be public.
After requesting a public interest waiver, the fee is withdrawn.
Throughout September, we get communication back from government saying
multiple extensions in responding to our request are required. Then
we’re advised on October 1 that: “Although a search was conducted, no
records were located. Your file is now closed.”
We have since had even further back and forth with government.
“You should ask for this type of document,” or “you should maybe go over
to this agency,” or “you should collect information from these ten
different agencies and then stitch it all together in your own time and
your own resources.” Well, the public doesn’t have time and resources to
do this. This information should be available to the public.
The context of the concern that I’m expressing — and you’re going
to hear the same concern expressed from a number of other opposition
MLAs here today — is that, in relation to this section…. Again, it
provides a provision for severing information from records. I am going
to move an amendment to this
section that provides for an amendment to
this
section that would basically say that “in no case, shall
information relating to wildfire suppression be severed.”
The consequence of what we’re proposing here is…. We believe the
public has a right to access information relating to the wildfires that
ravage their communities and, God forbid, their homes. When British
Columbians, whether it’s the public, whether it’s the media, whether
it’s other third-party stakeholders or whether it’s the official
opposition — whoever it is — request the information pertinent to these
wildfires, this information should not come back severed.
This would be a tremendous gesture of good faith on the part of
the government, a gesture of good faith to people in communities that,
again, have been hit so hard with the impacts of wildfires. It would be
a step towards these communities that would say: “We’re going to ensure
that an effort is made to make it easier to access the information that
will give you some of the answers that you’re looking for.”
The White Rock Lake fire. As I said, there are many different
accounts of what actually happened. I tend to put a lot of faith in the
locals. And it’s not one or two locals. I’m talking hundreds of locals
that are all saying the same thing: the fire was allowed to burn for
days on end before there were significant fire suppression efforts
made.
I’ve cautioned those residents and said: “Before you get too far
ahead of yourselves, before we get too strident in our communications on
that, let’s ask for answers.” The problem is that we’ve asked for
answers, and we can’t get answers back, which builds distrust. It adds
to people’s anxiety and stress, and it’s wrong. It’s absolutely
wrong.
With that, I’m not pleased to have to do this, but I feel, in the
context of this bill that’s in front of us here today…. It is deeply,
deeply flawed, and we’ve canvassed it for quite some time now. We still
have quite a ways to go.
There’s one good thing that we could do. There’s one positive
outcome that we could work towards, and that would be to accept this
amendment to clause 41 that would say no, you don’t get to sever
information and FOI responses as it relates to wildfire
suppression.
[ CLAUSE 41, Sub B 1.3
[by adding the underlined text as shown:]
Section 71 is amended
(
a) in subsection (1.1) (
a) by striking out
section 33.1 or 33.2 ” and
substituting “
section 33 ”,
and
(
b) by adding the following subsections:
(1.3) The head of a public body may sever from a record
made available under this
section any information the head of the public
body would be entitled under
Part 2 of this Act to refuse to disclose to
an applicant but in no case shall information relating to wildfire
suppression be severed .]
The Chair: Okay, Members. We’ll take a short recess while the motion is
circulated, so that folks have a chance to look at it. Let’s say
five minutes, and we’ll come back at 2:55 then.
The committee recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.
[D. Coulter in the chair.]
On the amendment.
L. Doerkson: I just want to take a couple of minutes to speak in favour of the
motion to clause 41. I think it goes without saying that the damage that
was created from wildfire in the Cariboo-Chilcotin over this past year….
Also in 2017, of course, but specifically with respect to the damage
that was done this year. We also filed a freedom-of-information request
and were denied information. I can tell you that the letter that we
received back simply said that there were no records on file.
Now, I can appreciate the suggestion that perhaps we didn’t ask in
the right way or we didn’t use the right words or we didn’t use the
right terms. But I can assure you that the people that lost homes, lost
animals, the forest that was burnt — they have many questions. They do
not take it lightly that either information is denied to them or that
it’s only provided in partial form.
I think it is important for a number of reasons that this
information is shared. The biggest reason is that we have to do a better
job, specifically, of fighting fire. We’ve had an awful tragedy in the
Lower Mainland, and I can assure you that there will be questions about
that as well. I think that we should be encouraging the sharing of this
information. We should be encouraging the sharing of all of the
information so that we can do better.
I honestly believe that when questions are not answered, and to
the member’s point from Kamloops, people fill in that information for
themselves. Oftentimes, when they fill that in, it’s wrong. But to the
contrary of that, it’s information that also may be right that the
government should be hearing as well.
With respect to this motion, I am definitely in favour of it. The
people of Flat Lake had many questions. The people of 100 Mile House had
many questions about evacuations, when the city was not under an order
of evacuation, for our long-term-care residents that were evacuated
anyway — not once, but twice. The residents of 100 Mile in the South
Cariboo want to know why so many controlled backburns were allegedly
successful, according to B.C. Wildfire. But that the fire raged for
weeks and weeks and weeks. They want to know why fires like Sucker Lake
were not addressed and why they were left to burn.
These are valid questions. The taxpayers of this province
absolutely are owed the answers, and I would encourage you to consider
this motion that’s before you today and vote in favour of it.
C. Oakes: I want to encourage all members of this House to consider voting
in favour of this very important amendment.
Look, none of us could prepare ourselves for the devastation of
our communities being impacted by, in my case, the 2017-2018 wildfires.
Nobody could have strategically prepared you for the type of damage and
the steps it takes to really help those communities and those
individuals rebuild.
I come to this people’s House because I have a genuine interest in
trying to make things better. I am still working with constituents who
were impacted by the Plateau fire, the largest fire in British
Columbia’s history. These people are still trying to rebuild their
lives. They have lost their home. They have lost their livelihoods, and
they are still in a process of trying to rebuild.
[3:00 p.m.]
Individual constituents in my community want to understand what
happened in August of 2017. They want to understand when the incident
command teams, when there was a changeover, and there was a
switch….
We had days where there was some confusion. We had some back burns
that went extraordinarily badly. We had fires where…. Individuals in
Nazko had individual sprinklers on their homes, their own sprinklers
that they put on their homes. Why those sprinklers were removed and
why…. Because of removing those sprinklers, they lost
everything.
I think it’s critically important for us…. As we try to make
things better in the province of British Columbia, as we start looking
at increases in climate change and the impacts it has on people and
their communities, information is critical. It’s information for
working with other ministries.
I can share with you that without the appropriate information,
which is released through freedom of information, insurance claims
become incredibly troublesome for individuals trying to fight with
insurance companies to get the necessary response they need to
rebuild.
I can share with you that it’s difficult for people trying to look
at getting permits, whether it’s a trapper, whether it’s a
guide-outfitter. When your territory has been completely burnt out but
you now have to have information to prove why you should be
grandfathered for permits…. Working with other ministries, it’s
critically important to have that information.
Finally, information is incredibly critical to get access
because…. Here’s the thing. This information is about the impacts that
happened at that moment. It’s also critically important to have that
information into the future. It’s critically important to be releasing
those freedom-of-information documents.
I can share with you that we have tried to get access to hydrology
reports that were produced following the 2017 Plateau fire because it’s
had a significant impact now on collapsing roads. It’s critically
important for us now to understand what happened during the 2017-2018
wildfire season because the consequences are still happening on the
ground today in our communities.
That information is critically important. We take that
information. We go to Ottawa. In many instances, that’s what we use to
fight for disaster financial assistance and other layers. We have to
thread the needle on explaining why we are putting applications in for
insurance claims, for disaster financial assistance through the federal
government, through so many other layers. If we do not have the
information, it makes it critically hard for constituents and for
communities to get the necessary resources they need to
rebuild.
Look, I think it’s a win-win for the government. We should all be
on the same page on helping people rebuild their lives. I think this is
one tool. By releasing the entire information…. Don’t be scared of it. I
think that information is powerful on how we can do a better job,
be better prepared in the future and help constituents in our
communities, like Cariboo North, to rebuild their lives.
I want my constituents in Cariboo North….
I know that there are many of you that are still struggling from
the 2017 wildfires. I want you to know that we’re not going to forget
about the challenges that you’re facing, and I want you to know that
we’re not going to stop fighting to make sure that you get the resources
that you need to help rebuild your life.
J. Tegart: I’m pleased to speak to the amendment today. I just want to share
some stories of real people and how difficult it is to get information
from government.
In 2017, the people of Pressy Lake were assured by B.C. Wildfire
that their properties would be protected by pumps and sprinklers during
the evacuation of the area. In fact, B.C. Wildfire had come in and
knocked on their doors and asked where appropriate placement of pumps
and sprinklers would work for the community.
It was that assurance that people needed to pack up what they
could and to leave, as asked, through an evacuation order. They trusted
what was said, what was going to be done, how their properties would be
protected when there were no eyes on the ground.
[3:05 p.m.]
Imagine their surprise when they returned home to find their
community burned to the ground and not a hose or a sprinkler to be
found. When they began to make inquiries to government about what could
have possibly happened, they were met with a bureaucratic nightmare:
non-answers for weeks. Then they were told that in order to get
information, they would have to file a freedom-of-information
request.
These are people who had put their trust in B.C. Wildfire,
obediently left their property, as they were asked, and left it in the
hands of firefighters. It burned to the ground, and now they have to
file an FOI. “What the heck is an FOI?” they asked. “How do you start?
How do you do it?”
When government asks citizens to vacate, evacuate, and have no
eyes on the ground, their expectation is that government will share with
them what happened and why decisions were made while they were away. I
don’t think that’s too much to ask.
These are people that put their trust in a government agency and
are now asking questions about what could have possibly happened when
they were away. Well, they sure knew what happened, because everything
was burned to the ground. But what a shame that we as government, we as
the people of the people’s House, would not give full disclosure to
people in times of emergency. I would suggest that it’s pretty hard for
us to debrief after such a significant event if government doesn’t share
information with the public so the public can make presentations to
government about how to improve the system.
In 2021, my riding was pretty well on fire everywhere. We started
south of Lytton. We went over to Lillooet. We were up Deadman Creek. We
were at Logan Lake. We were outside of Ashcroft. People were evacuated.
People were on evacuation notice. We heard a lot from government about
people who didn’t follow evacuation notices.
People in our area share information, and they share their
experiences. People in Pressy Lake shared their experience with a lot of
people in the area. If they couldn’t get answers, how could people who
are asked to be evacuated due to safety put their trust in a system that
had not been reviewed appropriately and which seemed to not be open to
share information?
My second story is of a young family on Highway 8, which no longer
is even a highway after the last floods. They were a young family on
Highway 8. The husband and father-in-law had stayed behind to protect
the house, and that was a choice they made because they saw no support
coming to help them. But after a week of protecting their home, B.C.
Wildfire showed up and said that they were going to do a back burn. This
young man begged them not to. He knew the valley. He knew the wind
patterns. The back burn went horribly wrong.
[3:10 p.m.]
Imagine standing on the road as you watch a back burn lit by the
very people who were to save your house. You spent a week there doing
everything you could, and someone burned it down. Now they’ve got
questions, lots of questions, about who made the decision, based on
what. Of course, my constituent was told to file an FOI — no house, no
livelihood, devastated, simply asking for some kind of common sense
around what could have possibly happened and feeling absolutely blocked
from information. I’m saying to you today that that has to
change.
If we want people to actually listen and be safe and to have faith
in what government is doing during emergencies, we need to share
information in a way that is not bureaucratic, in a way that recognizes
people’s trauma, in a way that says: “We are willing to take a look, and
we are willing to make the changes based on reviews that have been done
with full disclosure.” I can tell you, at this time, that is not
possible. I am begging you to give serious consideration to this
amendment.
B. Stewart: I, along with my colleagues, do have concerns — concerns about the
fact that proactive open publishing of certain information, or making
information that the public absolutely needs…. I think that the members
from government certainly know the White Rock Lake fire, which not only
impacted the previous speaker’s riding, the two in Kamloops, the one in
Shuswap, my riding. I have a number of properties that there’s a lot of
questions, a lot of speculation about what was going on.
I don’t think that it’s about finding fault so much. It’s about
knowing what could have been done differently. I know that one of the
things that many of these people, like Neal Morgan, who lost his
business, two homes and his property…. He lives on Beau Park Road, which
is just in the very north area of my riding, along with a whole
section
of people that are on the lower, down by the lake, where there was a
back burn, which was intentional.
They want to know: what were the contingency lines? What was the
plan? They want to know that it wasn’t done on a whim, because the fire,
the way it was intended, didn’t burn in the right direction. It burnt
down, and we lost 85 structures, or a portion of the 85 that were lost
in that vicinity.
Things about special data — things like that. They’re not the
experts, but there are experts that should be looking at this. I think
that they want to know what the fire analysts…. They want to know about
the fire number, the radio logs — what was just going on. The story that
I just heard from the member for Fraser-Nicola is unbelievable, to have
somebody have to watch their house burn. Some of these people stayed
behind. They fought. They had their own equipment. These people are not
any different than the people that were forced to stay behind and try to
protect their property.
By the way, stay and defend actually exists in Australia. I know
it’s different types of firefighting, but I think that the information….
The people — the thousands, tens of thousands — that have been impacted
by these wildfires deserve to have some access, without this process
that is going to not only cost more, but it sounds to me that the
problem is that it’s been growing.
What we’re trying to do is find a way so that the people within
the Ministry of Citizens’ Services dealing with freedom of information
can get that out the door in a timely manner and not make it so that
it’s burdensome. I would implore everybody here to consider the
amendment.
[3:15 p.m. - 3:25 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank all the members this afternoon for sharing how
difficult this 2021 fire season has been for you, for your communities
and for all the members of your communities who are impacted and who did
lose homes and their livelihoods. I cannot imagine being asked to leave
your home or seeing the smoke and the flames approaching your house. I
know that the members are coming with the concerns of their communities
and how incredibly difficult it has been for them — with heart — when
bringing this amendment forward.
We’ve talked a number of times, in the broader House, about how
2021 has been another historic wildfire season. I want to thank the
member for Kamloops–South Thompson and join him in his sincere thanks
with my own, to the thousands of men and women who put themselves in
harm’s way — not only this year but last year, the year before, 2017 —
to protect property, to protect people, to protect
communities.
At our peak, we did have 3,600 personnel and 200 aircraft tackling
the hundreds of wildfires that we had simultaneously going on in this
province. I want to commend the members and their communities for
demonstrating such tremendous resilience in the face of such adversity
and the tremendous amount of support I’m seeing across the way from
members to their communities, to each other, with government, and
continuing to help. The province is still working hard to help people
and help communities that were impacted by the wildfires. We’re going to
continue to keep working with all members in this House and with your
communities.
I have said it before — I had the chance to say it to the member
for Abbotsford South last week: my door is always open. Members, please
come talk to me. My government’s doors are open. Please talk to us and
the ministers responsible, because we want to collaborate and work
together and come to solutions.
As far as the amendment goes, I very much appreciate the intent
and the spirit with which the member from Kamloops is bringing forward
the proposal. I know the member knows that when I say this, I’m saying
this with great sincerity. We have not yet had a chance, obviously, to
assess the impacts of what this proposed amendment would be. There are
impacts that would have to be assessed on individuals’ privacies,
impacts on how it would affect local governments, how it would affect
Indigenous governments.
[3:30 p.m.]
On first glance, it would appear to be a duplication, potentially,
of the intent of
section 25, which is a
section declaring that
information must be disclosed if in the public interest. That’s a
perfect example of the way we need to take the proper time to assess an
amendment such as this and give it its due consideration, which can’t
happen this afternoon, obviously. That’s a whole process that it has to
go through.
But I agree with the members. I believe, and I’ve said it a number
of times in this debate, that rather than this specific amendment, there
needs to be a culture of information-sharing. I’ve committed to finding
more ways to proactively disclose information and to share information
across governments. I think we need to have that nature of openness when
we have these discussions.
I thank the member for the proposed amendment. We won’t be able to
support it today, but I truly value the spirit and the intent with which
the amendment was brought. I will continue to find ways to openly share
information across government. I truly thank the member for the intent
of the amendment.
The Chair: Division has been called. We will ring the bells and take
division.
[3:35 p.m.]
Amendment to clause 41 negatived on the following
division:
YEAS — 4
Banman
Oakes
Olsen
Stone
NAYS — 7
Beare
Begg
Chow
Lore
Routley
Sandhu
Yao
Clauses 41 to 43 inclusive approved on division.
On clause 44.
[3:40 p.m.]
B. Banman: The minister called it a modest fee during the press conference:
“It’s a modest fee. Other jurisdictions have a fee between $5 and $50.
I’m recommending a number right in the middle of that.”
We just saw right now an amendment that was turned down about
people that have lost everything. They lost everything in a fire, and
they naturally want to have questions answered about what happened. I
believe they have a right to have those questions answered. It’s public
record.
I want you to now imagine the kick in the teeth that says not only
did the government people come in and you begged for them not to light
the fire because it was going to end badly, but you watched them light
the fire, and you watched the fire consume everything you own. Now
you’re being asked to pay a fee to try and find out the information as
to why it was that the government came to the decision and why the
government had no backup plan. It’s insulting. As if losing everything
wasn’t bad enough, now you have to pay to figure out how that
happened.
We’ve heard from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.
We’ve heard from the commissioner that this effectively is a toll on the
freedom-of-information highway. This coming from a government that’s
totally opposed to tolls. Yet in this case, this highway, it seems to be
okay. It’s sad.
We’ve heard members from within the other side, when they were in
different positions in different governments, basically say the same
thing — that by implementing a fee, it’s paramount to being a form of
blocking access to information that has already been paid for by the
public. This information belongs to us all.
Based on the minister’s own quote: “It’s a modest fee. Other
jurisdictions have a fee between $5 and $50. I’m recommending a number
right in the middle of that.” Can the minister please explain what she
means by modest? Can she further explain how a fee of $25, which is
right in the middle — actually, $27.50 lands right in the middle…. Can
she explain what she means by that, and where did the minister get the
$50 number that she’s been repeating throughout the process?
[3:45 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: For the member, Alberta, if there is a reoccurring request, such
as if there’s a monthly request for, I don’t know, expense accounts…. I
don’t know what they have for proactive disclosure, but if there’s a
reoccurring request in Alberta, those are $50. That’s the $50 number we
were talking to.
The fees were heavily, heavily canvassed in
section 1, the very
first clause of this bill. We did spend a great deal of time under that
section talking about fees. I discussed how the fee is aligning us with
half the other jurisdictions in Canada and how we very clearly talked
about how a potential fee — at the will of this legislation, of course,
which has the ability to create the fee — itself is decided through
regulation and is not part of this legislative amendment process that we
have before us here.
So I thank the member for the question.
B. Banman: It’s pretty much what I expected from the minister. You know, the
minister was happy to stand in front of the press gallery and repeat….
As a matter of fact, I saw a rather amusing little…. Modest fee, modest
fee, modest fee — I’m sure to the minister’s chagrin. I wouldn’t want to
be in that situation either, but those are the minister’s words, not
mine. I didn’t make the words up — modest fee. Those are her direct
words.
However, I’ll move on. The minister has also said health
authorities and universities asked the government to set this new tax on
the truth. But professor Mark Mac Lean, who is an elected member of
UBC’s board of governors…. This is UBC. I can’t imagine not consulting
UBC. It’s one of the most prestigious universities in the
province.
His quote is: “Had this come to UBC’s board of governors, I would
have argued strongly against it. We have enough transparency issues as a
public university. We don’t need to add barriers to access to this
information.”
If UBC’s board of governors were not consulted, within health
authorities and universities, precisely who did make these
recommendations, and were there recommendations on this specific
application fee made prior to a cabinet decision on the application fee
amendment or after?
[3:50 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: We have also heavily canvassed the consultation that we have had
on this bill. So I know the member doesn’t want me to talk about that
again and read that into the record, because it has been well
canvassed.
I have committed to the member to proactively release those
consultations. We’ve discussed that earlier this week, I believe, and
absolutely, I’ve committed to the member to releasing those
consultations. I’ve also committed to the member that we are listening
to all the feedback that we’ve been receiving around a potential fee.
It’s very important that organizations, like the member has been listing
over the entire process of this bill, share that information with me and
share their thoughts regarding a fee.
As I’ve said, the legislation permits the creation of the fee. A
fee would be generated through the regulation process, which is a
separate process outside of this legislative amendment which we have
before us today.
B. Banman: I appreciate her words. We’ve received an awful lot of feedback on
this. Members of her own party have stated it other times prior to this
— a hesitancy to do this. Actually, more than just a hesitancy — they
were out-and-out against this.
I would encourage the minister to listen. I would encourage the
minister to have a waiver for financial hardships that are in the
public’s good interests and to pay attention to the Privacy Commissioner
and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.
Can the minister explain what is meant by “providing a copy”?
Precisely, how does this differ from preparing or producing a
record?
[3:55 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: Nothing has changed in
section 75(1). For the member’s question,
producing a record could be, for example, pulling a record out of a
database, and providing a copy literally is providing a copy of a record
— so making a copy and making that available.
B. Banman: The minister said in an earlier section, however, that lists of
minister’s briefing notes are proactively released. I think the minister
spoke in error. That does not appear to be the case.
Each month the opposition files a request to each ministry and the
Premier’s office for a list of ministerial briefing notes, issue notes
and decision notes. That accounts for 25 requests. Access to the
briefing notes on those lists — another 25 follow-up requests must be
filed. Annually to get those simple things — which the minister, I
think, said were proactively released — it adds up to 600 requests per
year.
Under this new regime, to pay all of those application fees, it is
now going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $15,000 a year just
to allow members of the opposition to fill our fundamental role in
holding government to account at the most basic level.
Does the minister believe that that aligns with the intent of the
act — to block the opposition from filling its most fundamental
role?
[4:00 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: My team behind me and I would like to apologize. I believe I did
misspeak in my answer, without intent. We did say it was practice to
release, not proactive. That’s a very clear list of 13 proactive
disclosures. I believe I did say that there was a practice to release
the notes, and I believe we were wrong in that.
What I did intend to say, which I had gotten to in the second half
in my statement, is that I’m considering new categories all the time on
proactive release. And what I had intended to say in my answer was that
this is an area that I would consider for future proactive release, so
my apologies for misspeaking.
[M. Dykeman in the chair.]
B. Banman: Thank you for that clarification, Minister. I do appreciate it. We
do appreciate it.
I want to go back to something for a minute. We had talked about
copies and how that was done. Will there be any fees associated with the
use of the secure file transfer service?
Hon. L. Beare: There is no charge for that now, and there are no plans to charge
for that in the future.
B. Banman: Thank you to the minister for the answer.
In a situation where an applicant submits a request but the
wording is not correct…. Oh, I don’t know. Let’s take wildfires, for
instance, and fire logbooks, versus whatever the word may be, as an
example. Or they ask for the wrong program area, or the wrong document
type is requested. It ultimately must be withdrawn or results in a “no
records” response before being resubmitted.
Will the fee be refunded or applied to the new request, or will
they have to pay it twice? If requests are merged, will the application
fees for the second, third and other subsequent merged requests be
refunded?
Hon. L. Beare: Under this legislation in
section 6, there is the duty to assist
that we just recently went over with the member. So it’s part of our
current practice that we have now that applicants can work with the
freedom-of-information office — to help be referred to where the records
are, to refer requesters to open data sets which may potentially contain
the information and to assist applicants to narrow the request to avoid
a situation where, for any reason, multiple requests could be necessary.
Ideally, we want to make sure that applicants are getting what they need
in that first request.
[4:05 p.m.]
As I’ve said before, and as I know the member knows I’m going to
answer, the legislation before us today gives the ability to create the
fee. The details of the regulation are through the regulation process,
which is separate from the legislation. But the member raises good
points, and as I’ve said to the member all throughout this legislation,
we are listening, and I thank the member for raising the
concern.
B. Banman: Every now and again, the little guy gets one, so thank you for
that. I think it’s important that those fees, when it’s multiple and
broad like that, can actually be reassessed and that government has a
duty to assist, as you’ve said.
In a situation, let’s say, where the government fails to meet
legislated due dates for requests…. If we don’t hold up our end of the
deal, are we going to refund the fees? Will those fees that have been
paid be refunded, if we can’t follow and get our job done in the
legislative due time?
Hon. L. Beare: As I just said with the previous answer, that is part of the
regulation process, which is separate from the legislation which we have
before us today. As I said in my previous answer to the member, I am
listening, and I will consider these concerns and the concerns the
member raised before. They will be considered as part of this
process.
B. Banman: When I asked the question a couple of moments ago, I only got half
an answer. The part that was not answered was…. I will repeat it for the
minister. The minister had said in an earlier
section that lists of the
minister’s briefing notes are proactively released. She was gracious
enough to say that she misspoke. We all do it. Part of the question
was…. She answered the first part of that question. The second part,
however, I did not hear an answer for, so I’m going to say it
again.
To pay all of the fees, as opposition, if we file those requests….
That was the original statement. To pay all the application fees, it
will now cost the taxpayers $15,000. It’s not the opposition’s money.
It’s going to come directly out of the taxpayers. The taxpayers are
going to have to pay $15,000 just to allow members of the opposition to
fulfil our fundamental role in holding government to account, which is
our job and our duty on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia.
It’s going to cost $15,000 to hold the government to account at the most
basic level.
Those are the lists that the minister was talking about that were
already proactively released. Does the minister believe that that aligns
with the intent of the act to block the opposition from filling its most
fundamental role?
[4:10 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: Yes, I believe I did answer the question for the member. The
member is raising a very specific concern around the briefing notes, as
a good example. I appreciate the member’s concern. I don’t agree with
the rest of the statements in his question there, but I appreciate the
concern and have committed to the member that I would take a look at
things like the briefing notes for a proactive disclosure moving
forward.
The Chair: Shall clause 44 pass?
Division has been called.
[4:15 p.m.]
Clause 44 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 7
Bains
Beare
Begg
D’Eith
Glumac
Sharma
Starchuk
NAYS — 4
Banman
Furstenau
Kirkpatrick
Stone
Clause 45 approved on division.
On clause 46.
T. Stone: This
section 46 expands the basis on which entities may be added
to the all-important
schedule 2 of the act. I guess I have a couple of
questions here.
First off, I just was wondering if the minister can provide an
example…. Well, actually, let me back up. Part of what is happening in
this
section here is that
section 76.1 of the act is amended. Part of
that amendment is adding the following paragraph, which is: “(iv) if the
minister responsible for this Act determines that it would be in the
public interest to add the agency, board, commission, corporation,
office or other body to
Schedule 2.”
[4:20 p.m.]
With that in mind, I’m wondering if the minister could provide an
example of the public interest that would kick in the minister’s
decision or a subsequent minister’s decision to add an agency, a board,
a commission, a corporation, an officer or other body to
schedule
[4:25 p.m.]
Hon. L. Beare: My team came up with a great example, actually, I think. A perfect
example would be Swans Pub here in downtown Victoria. It’s owned by
UVic,. so it could be added because it’s named under the act, but that
may not be under the public interest.
T. Stone: Okay. I’m not really sure what that’s got to do with the question.
I was looking for an example of what would be deemed to be in the public
interest related to this provision that would thus enable the government
to add an additional entity to
schedule 2. I’m not really clear on how
Swans Pub, owned by UVic, I think…. Is that what the minister said? But
fair enough. I’ll move on, though.
Earlier this year the government brought forward legislation which
was passed by the Legislative Assembly to create InBC, investment in
British Columbia. This is, as the minister knows well, a $500 million
entity that will now be responsible for $500 million of taxpayers’
money. I refer to it as a high-risk venture capital sche