Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, private member’s bill Pr401, United Church of Canada Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL PR401 — UNITED CHURCH OF
CANADA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

K. Paddon: I move that Bill Pr401 intituled United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, now be read a second time.

The United Church of Canada was formed officially on June 10, 1925, pursuant to the United Church of Canada Act. This federal act incorporated three religious bodies: the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches of Canada. Today the United Church of Canada is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, with over two million people, including members across our beautiful province.

In addition to the federal legislation, provincial legislation was adopted in all of the then provinces in Canada. In 2015, the UCC’s 42nd general council adopted a motion to initiate a consultation process with the congregations across Canada, discussing restructuring. The question at issue was restructuring the national church from a four-court structure to a three-council structure.

The four-court configuration is made up of pastoral charges, presbyteries, conferences and the general council, and contains checks and balances that were important to the union in 1924. The three-council structure being proposed in this amendment places more decision-making with the local ministry and provides support and oversight through a regional body that is larger than the current-model presbytery. The result is a three-council model that is more agile and transparent in providing clear, accountable decision-making processes.

The resulting restructuring was confirmed by the UCC’s 43rd general council on July 22, 2018. This restructuring requires the legislation itself to be amended, with the consent of the Legislative Assembly. The amendment was sought and obtained to the federal act in 2019. Amendments to the provincial acts have also been being sought, including Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, where amending legislation has been passed to reflect the restructuring.

The names and territorial areas of overseeing bodies have changed, but the process and the inherent underlying rights have not. Specifically, this United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, amends the definition section to reflect the new names of the UCC’s courts pursuant to the restructuring and to alphabetize the definitions section, and amendments to the trust and model deed to reflect the change in overseeing body. The original acts are nearly a century old, and to preserve the integrity of those acts, the proposed amendments modify only the bare minimum required to effect the change in the governance structure of the UCC.

In 2018, Rev. Brian Cornelius of the First United Church, United Church of Canada, spoke to the Senate of Canada on the amendments to the federal United Church of Canada Act. In his remarks, he stated: “It is important to note that the United Church is a democratic church. The church embodies democratic principles in its governance, including mechanisms to change the church.”

The amendments put forth in this bill, Pr401, United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, reflect the democratic spirit and process that has been present since the union that formed this church. I hope this House will join me in supporting it. It has been a privilege to sponsor this bill and a pleasure to work with representatives of the United Church of Canada in bringing this forward. I look forward to next steps.

A. Wilkinson: The United Church of Canada has been developing over a period of centuries. The first efforts to bring together congregations began in 1749, nine years before the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, so we can see that this has been a long-term process.

[11:00 a.m.]

The most recent gathering of congregations of note was in 1925, when the Methodist Church of Canada, the Congregational Union of Canada and the majority of the Presbyterian Church of Canada formed the United Church of Canada, but the evolution has continued.

There were further mergers in 1930, when the synod of the Wesleyan Methodist Church joined, and in 1968, there was a further merger. This is part of an ongoing process as the development of this institution continues, and now we’re at a turning point where the governance structure is being reformed, and all legislatures in Canada are involved so that this institution can continue to develop and perhaps continue with further mergers as time goes by.

We welcome this development, as the opposition. We support this bill. We’re glad to see that the United Church of Canada will continue to evolve and develop, and we’re happy to participate in that process.

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

Motion approved.

K. Paddon: By leave, I move that the bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL PR401 — UNITED CHURCH OF
CANADA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill Pr401; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

K. Paddon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:04 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[11:05 a.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL PR401 — UNITED CHURCH OF
CANADA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill Pr401, United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading of Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Do either of you want to do it?

Member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: I do appreciate the fact that we found humour in the situation of me getting up. But unfortunately, one of the situations, when we’re talking about Bill 21, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act…. I was going to let the minister know that I was going designate myself as designated speaker, because we have lots to continue to say. But as I said last night, a lot of that important information can be brought up at committee stage.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I felt it was important, though, that we just spoke at second reading, after our colleague from Abbotsford West, who did a good job highlighting some of the areas where we would have questions in committee stage.

I think it was important to highlight — especially after some members on the government side stood up and tried to say the reason why we weren’t speaking was because we were hiding from important issues that were in this document — that this, unfortunately for their comments, is completely inaccurate, which is why I took the opportunity to stand up to correct the record. There are some areas in here that warrant some thorough discussion, that warrant some questions and thorough comments from the minister when we get to that point in committee stage.

I’m looking forward to this bill getting to committee stage, as we know there are a couple of different sections, different ministries, different critics that will probably be getting the opportunity to get up under the lead of our member for Abbotsford West, who, as always, does a superb job making sure that these issues are canvassed appropriately on behalf of the people in British Columbia and on behalf of the opposition.

So with that, I look forward to committee stage.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all the members who spoke to the bill. I’ll just spend a few moments in reflection on some of what I heard before calling second reading.

In particular, I’m troubled…. There were multiple speeches and public statements by the opposition that the content of this bill is not important and that we wasted time having members speak to it. Now I heard the member for Peace River South raise this issue again in his speech, saying that no, that was — what were his words? — “completely inaccurate,” and that this is, in fact, an important bill.

I’d like to go briefly through some of the concern that I have about the content of the debate related to the bill and the importance of the bill. Now, the Minister of Jobs commented on his concern, in his second reading speech. I have to agree with him entirely when he said that to criticize people for speaking to the bill because the opposition doesn’t think it’s important…. “Well, perhaps the opposition needs to connect with people whose lived lives are affected by this stuff every single day. Then they’ll realize how important this is.”

Now, I thought it was pretty clear. I have to admit I’m a bit surprised by the member for Peace River South’s comments. I thought it was pretty clear that the B.C. Liberal opposition was taking the position that the bill wasn’t important and that we were wasting time having people speak to the bill — that they were saying the bill was not of any substance, that it was part of a larger issue of no legislative agenda, that it was equivalent to having no bill to debate, that it was a gross waste of time.

[11:10 a.m.]

But then the member from the Peace stood up and said: “No, no, no. That’s not true. You’re characterizing us inaccurately.” He said: “But to be characterized by some on that side that the reason why we weren’t speaking is because there was nothing important in here is absolutely not factual…. At no time…were we saying that these things were not serious.”

I think I should set the record straight about what they actually said. The member for Surrey South said in her speech that in her opinion, this bill was not worth debating. “We are here, trying to find something to say about a miscellaneous statutes bill that nobody has any issue on, because government has not bothered to introduce legislation of any substance for us to debate. That says something.” She said this legislation was not of any substance, that members, as a result, shouldn’t be wasting their time speaking to it.

She wasn’t alone. The member for Surrey–White Rock wrote on social media about the bill. “Another day with the Premier and his government in Victoria trying to fill the day with virtually no legislative agenda.” The member for Shuswap wrote on social media, calling second reading debate on this bill “a gross waste of time that otherwise could have been put to a useful purpose.”

Even the member for Peace himself, about this bill and the debate, wrote on social media that the bill…. The very same bill that he said in his speech was serious and important, he said on social media was a sham. “We fly all the way to Victoria to, hopefully, debate the serious issues facing people in B.C., but instead, the NDP have no bills to debate…. A bit of a sham when government is not prepared or taking the issues seriously.” Now, I’ll leave it to that member to try to explain why he says one thing in this House and one thing on social media. That’s for him to explain.

Let’s get some perspective here on the so-called gross waste of time that this bill is. We started second reading of this bill at 4:10 p.m. We wrapped it at 6:30. We went over it for a couple more minutes from the member from Peace today. Two hours and 20 minutes we spent on this bill, 140 minutes of total second reading debate. It was a “gross waste of time.”

One piece of this bill, regulating amusement devices…. This comes out of tragedy in our province. A man jumped headfirst into a trampoline pit with his two kids, and he died. He broke his neck and was unable to breathe, and he died in front of his children.

A Victoria woman, Sylvie Gilbert…. Her eight-year-old daughter, Chelsea, was injured in a foam pit at a B.C. trampoline park last April. She had a broken back. As she learned more about these parks and that they weren’t regulated, she said: “You don’t need to have professional experience working at these places or even to own a place like this. I just hope that this is going to push…government to start to regulate these places, because they are very dangerous.”

Families destroyed. This bill will regulate those places. To the members on the other side, a gross waste of time, not worth two hours and 20 minutes of debate. Unacceptable.

Let me tell you about Jason Greenwood, 46 years old. He died after doing a front flip into a foam pit at an extreme air park in Richmond. You heard the member from Richmond talk about his constituents affected by this. He had asked his family to take a video of the somersault, the report said, but didn’t resurface after the jump. He was a stepfather to three children. The coroner’s inquest found he landed headfirst after bouncing off a trampoline into the foam pit. It took firefighters 20 minutes to get him out.

Another piece of this bill. This assembly put together a committee to study the Representative for Children and Youth Act. They heard from two former Representatives for Children and Youth and the current Representative for Children and Youth, worked together over more than a year to assemble recommendations for parliament to consider to implement. They heard 16 submissions from public organizations interested in the situation faced by children in care and how we can improve their situation through a representative that’s effective to advocate for them when government doesn’t work as we intend it to.

[11:15 a.m.]

The work of that committee over a year, the witness submissions, the efforts made by both sides of this House, all sides of this House, on that…. “A gross waste of time” and “a bit of a sham,” to spend two hours and 20 minutes debating it.

Now, I do want to make an exception. There was a member of the opposition who took this bill seriously and whose second reading debate not only contributed to understanding of the specific bill but the broader context of what a miscellaneous statute is and how it works. That’s the member for Abbotsford West. This is the one thing in the speech — the member for the Peace — that he and I agree on.

The member for Abbotsford West said: “It’s called a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill, which doesn’t mean the matters being dealt with in its provisions aren’t significant and aren’t important. It does refer to the fact that rather than being an entire bill focusing on one area of public policy, in this case, there are six parts dealing with a range of public policy areas.”

That is part of our job in this place. It’s to educate the public about what we do here. You can agree or disagree with the substance. “I think that government’s engaging in red tape by regulating trampoline parks.” “People should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they go in.” That is debate that should be had in this House, potentially.

But the suggestion that this is meaningless, that this is a sham, that it’s a waste of time, degrades this place, degrades every member in this place, degrades the public servants who put this work together, degrades the committee that went out and did the work and heard from witnesses and made recommendations to us. It does us all a disservice. It is part of an erosion of democracy that is unacceptable, and I regret very much that the opposition is participating in that.

I think it’s worthwhile that we spent two hours and 20 minutes on this. I think we could have easily spent more, and perhaps we will in committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be moved to committee at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading, Bill 22.

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. L. Beare: I move that Bill 22 be read a second time now.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021, strengthens privacy protection and modernizes how B.C. manages information to better serve people and organizations. The demand for safe, convenient online services has only increased over the pandemic, and these proposed amendments will help us meet our province’s evolving needs. We are proposing updates to keep pace with advancements in technology and to provide the level of service that people expect in the digital era. These amendments will update access to information rules to ensure greater accountability and transparency.

Along with other things, these proposed amendments will make changes to provide the level of service that people expect, to keep pace with new technology, to enhance privacy protection and strengthen government accountability and transparency. For example, amendments will update FOIPPA’s data residency provisions so public bodies can use modern tools while continuing to protect the personal information that people trust us with. These changes will bring B.C. in line with the rest of Canada, who have been managing information safely without similar restrictions.

When talking to public bodies earlier this year, we heard many examples where this restriction was impacting their ability to provide high-quality services to their clients. For example, the B.C. post-secondary sector are looking for greater access to cloud-based services to improve their ability to attract students by allowing them to use many of the education tools their competitors can offer outside of British Columbia.

We also have proposed a number of amendments that demonstrate the province’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, reconciliation and equity. We’ve heard from our Indigenous partners that there are opportunities to strengthen protections for information that’s important to Indigenous people. Consistent with DRIPA, we will enhance the current protections on information related to Indigenous cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, and the manifestations of Indigenous sciences, technologies and cultures.

[11:20 a.m.]

We need to make these changes to balance the service we want to deliver with our leadership role in safeguarding information. This legislation has not been updated since 2011, and the time is now to make changes that will better support the people of B.C.

I am pleased to provide this bill for the Legislative Assembly’s consideration, and I look forward to explaining the specifics of the bill during committee stage debate.

B. Banman: Allow me to respond to this particular bill. I’d like to thank the minister for bringing it up for debate. It is an honour, as the critic for Citizens’ Services, to discuss this bill in this House today.

This bill is being tabled at a concerning time in our province’s history. We are dealing with a government that has already taken great strides to strip away transparency and accountability rather than improve it.

British Columbians, the media and members of the opposition are currently waiting months, sometimes even years, for documents requested through freedom of information. Let’s not forget when the government wrote themselves a blank cheque in their supply bill from last spring, with no accountability on how the money was to be spent. And over the last 20 months, we have seen government keep vital COVID data from the public throughout the pandemic, much to their concern and dismay.

At a time when British Columbians are looking for greater access to information, and they are looking for more transparency, this government has chosen to table a bill that strips away that even more.

There are so many issues to discuss with this bill, but we would also have talk about the misuse of the House’s time. We just heard, a moment ago, some rather interesting words from the government. This is an egregious use of the parliament. This government knows full well what it’s doing. This government has completely ignored the advice of the last all-party task force, which said fees should not be a barrier. The current all-party legislation committee was constituted in June to make recommendations, but it, as of yet, has not even begun its work.

During the drafting of this bill, the Privacy Commissioner opposed the new fees and other elements of this bill, but this government has flatly ignored his concerns. He calls this bill “a step in the wrong direction.” Now this government is trying to ram this bill through, devoid of any informed public debate.

This bill does not include provisions to prevent documents from being destroyed prior to FOI requests. That’s worth repeating. This bill does not include provisions to prevent documents from being destroyed prior to FOI requests. This was a request outlined by the OIPC office that has not been addressed in this legislation, leaving a significant gap in the protection of documents that the public has a right to have access to.

[11:25 a.m.]

“If someone destroys records because they think they might be of interest but wants to destroy them before any request is made, there’s no offence for that. That cannot be right, and it needs to change. It is an offence in Alberta, and it could have easily been put in place here.” That’s from Michael McEvoy, the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Data provisions and transparency. We are talking about British Columbians’ personal, private information but also their access to vital government information that they have an inherent right to, yet this bill leaves far too many provisions to be sorted out after the legislation has been pushed through this House. When discussing people’s personal data, the debates and organization over data provisions should take place here in this House, right here amongst us all, not behind closed doors. When you do it behind closed doors, it does not give British Columbians the openness and transparency that they deserve and were promised by this government.

Data storage in other jurisdictions. The government has also stated that they will be using this bill to update data resiliency provisions to allow modern tools. Well, what exactly is that? Data storage will now take place in other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia and even Canada. We are now talking about the digitization of data and cloud storage — which, we know from history, is not impervious to data breaches.

How can we ensure that data protection and privacy in other jurisdictions are going to be maintained? Furthermore, in what jurisdictions does this government allow the storage of B.C. data? Where will this data be stored? There may be a significant security difference if it is stored in the United States, versus outside of North America. British Columbians deserve to know exactly how their personal data and vital government information will be stored abroad, in foreign nations.

One of the most concerning parts about this bill is this government’s plan to add an application fee to every single FOI — a toll. This will mean that anyone filing a freedom-of-information request for non-personal reasons will be subject to a charge for each request they make. We have already heard from the press, loud and clear, on their thoughts on that, within a very short period of time. The minister is trying to sell this as a nominal fee to recoup costs associated with filing these requests. It is all too clear, however, that this is really nothing of the sort.

Not only does she misunderstand the process of FOIs, but it is incredibly disingenuous to say this fee will not be a barrier to people seeking to acquire the information they have the right to access — $5 on the low end and as high as $50 on the high end. That’s yet to be determined, but let’s go with $5. When you have to add up and ask for the same piece of information across ministries, across health authorities or school districts, yet the general consensus is that this government is looking to charge $25…. That adds up.

[11:30 a.m.]

That’s 400 percent more than the fees in Ontario, charged federally. It adds up. It becomes a barrier to accessing freedom of information. Sometimes the press has that ability to take a look at what government is doing and bring to light things that only they can express, in a manner that they are sometimes that third voice that needs to be heard. By adding these unnecessary fees, the press will now have increased difficulty to be able to do so.

And it’s not just the press. I have heard talk about frivolous requests for freedom of information. Frivolous according to whom? Is it frivolous for the press? Is it frivolous to various groups, such as environmental groups, such as…? Is it frivolous to unions? Is it frivolous to Indigenous groups? Is it frivolous to concerned citizens who feel they have a duty to watch what government is doing? Frivolous is in the eye of the beholder.

Now, unless it’s personal, this potentially could add up to thousands of dollars for proper freedom of information requests. This is not just an annoyance or a measure designed to limit what the government sees as frivolous requests. It’s downright prohibitive — blocking people from vital information about their own government, about information, through taxes they’ve already paid for and have a right to access.

This fee is a targeted effort to discourage people from being able to hold government accountable, be it private citizens, the media and yes, us, the opposition. It’s what one member of this House would describe as a tollgate on its citizens’ right to access. That comes from Murray Rankin, from the parliament, December 15, 2017.

Deputy Speaker: No names, Member. Thank you.

B. Banman: I apologize.

And that’s part of the issue. It’s a citizen’s right to access this information, yet this government thinks it’s okay to limit that simply because they find it too much work or too much of a political risk to allow members of the public to access that information.

This is contrary to the nature, to the hallmarks and the goal of a democratic society. It stands in direct opposition to this government’s attempt to paint themselves as transparent, which — as we’ve seen far too many times throughout the course of the pandemic — certainly is not the case. We heard that today — about information that had been blocked, about dual records with regards to COVID, about information that parents wanted with regards for their children and whether it was safe for them to go to school.

The changes in this bill will make it easier for government to hide information from citizens. That’s shameful. Something that should be worrying to everyone in this House. It certainly was for the members opposite when they were in opposition.

[11:35 a.m.]

To quote the Premier himself: “I think all British Columbians should be concerned when their government hides things from them. The whole point of having access to information is so we can all make reasonable judgments about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of our political leadership.” That was in the Times Colonist, April 30, 2015, from our own Premier. But I guess this government lacks confidence in their own performance to such a degree that they are afraid and frightened to give citizens the ability to make reasonable judgments about their own leadership.

This bill, as it stands, is a mistake. It tramples on and squashes a citizen’s right to access information about their own government. It puts up new, unreasonable barriers to transparency when, in fact, we should be tearing them down. It is the clearest manifestation of hypocrisy that I have seen in a long time.

Even before we began the debate of this bill, we have seen an immense public backlash over its provisions. In 2016, an all-party committee on reviewing B.C.’s FOIPPA legislation recommended: “Review the schedule of fees with a view to ensuring that fees are not a barrier to individuals’ right of access.” Reviewing the schedule of fees with a view to ensuring that fees are not a barrier to individual access. To quote a few, our own Information and Privacy Commissioner stated: “I am concerned about that because any time a fee structure is put in place, it acts as a barrier and a deterrent to people making access requests.”

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has called this “a sad day for transparency and accountability in British Columbia.”

The Premier keeps dismissing questions from the opposition and other groups about his government withholding critical data related to the management of COVID-19. We now know that there have been two sets of data: one for them and one for the rest of us.

I’ll give you an example. Last month, the government finally admitted that it has been keeping two sets of numbers on how many COVID patients are in hospital. Again, there’s one for the public, and then there’s the real number that is 46 percent higher. That’s not just a small difference. That’s a massive difference — 46 percent inaccurate between the two numbers.

So it boggles the mind as to why this Premier and government refuse to provide the true hospitalization and ICU numbers despite promising to do so a month ago. We can’t continue to have a government that plays around with important numbers like these. We just can’t. And then just promise, “Oh, we’ll do better,” when they’re exposed.

But what we’re seeing isn’t any better. Attempts to learn about COVID-19 outbreaks in hospitals through freedom of information have also been stonewalled, and we know that Fraser Health blacked out 55 of 79 pages of documentation that were finally provided after months of delay.

We’re not the only ones concerned about this. The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has been quoted as saying: “Trying to hide behind redacted documents and not getting the information out there as quickly as possible can erode trust in public institutions.”

We are at a time when public distrust of its government, of its public institutions, is at an all-time high. This bill only adds to that suspicion and frustration by denying access to their freedom-of-information requests.

[11:40 a.m.]

I will also add that it shouldn’t take a freedom-of-information request for British Columbians to find out important, vital, potentially life-saving decisions and information about COVID-19. When we talk about this government hiding the truth from British Columbians, you can add schools to the top of that list, where information has been far from readily available. I can think of nothing more precious than the safety of our children. I have heard government members talk about the safety of their children many, many times. Yet when it comes to this bill, it’s do as we say, not as we do.

I’ll remind the House that this Premier started the school year by hiding details on outbreaks in schools from parents. He said that he didn’t want to stress them out. He didn’t want to stress them out? How about saving lives? How about protecting the most valuable thing that we have, which is our children? That comes far, far ahead of whether you’re stressing someone out.

So what did it do? It forced parents to crowdsource work and put in their own time, in case they weren’t busy enough already, to find out if there were cases in their child’s school, to find out whether or not their children were going to become infected with COVID and bring it home to their grandparents, who may be frail and elderly. It got in the way of families being able to protect their loved ones.

Well, I’ll tell you. We continue to hear from worried parents across British Columbia, and that cry is growing louder. When you hide information from them, they become more suspicious, and they start to distrust even more. It’s a breakdown. They’re still wondering whether or not their child’s school has a safe ventilation system, yet they continue to be held in the dark. It should be already out there. There should be no secrecy when it comes to things like this. There is no reason for it that is valid or reasonable at all.

Here on the opposition side, we’re also in the dark. For months, we’ve been asking this Premier and his government to tell us which ventilation projects are complete and which ones are scheduled. We’ve asked whether parents can be provided this information in one central, easy, accessible application. It should be simply there at parents’ fingertips.

We want to know when the government will be able to ensure that children have fresh air in the classroom, but we’re getting absolutely nowhere with our many requests. Parents are left to continue to stress and worry about their children’s and family’s health.

Another area of concern we have, and we heard about it today, is when it comes to concealing the information that has to do with a project of extreme importance to motorists south of the Fraser. That is the replacement of the aging Massey Tunnel. This government has squashed a plan for a ten-lane bridge, which would have been built by next year, to replace it with — wait for it — an eight-lane tunnel. It may not be tolled, but it’s definitely paying more for less.

Interjection.

B. Banman: If that’s what you want to stake your pride on, you go ahead with that. I would be ashamed that motorists are going to have to sit in lineups, but that’s all right.

[11:45 a.m.]

So where’s the information to justify this decision that means taxpayers will pay more and get less? Where’s the information for the press to look at? Where’s the information for the opposition to look at? Where’s the information so that motorists can read it when they’re blocked, going nowhere?

Interjection.

B. Banman: Well, the full Massey Tunnel report isn’t being released. British Columbians are getting dribs and drabs of information, instead of the whole story, once again. The people want to know why not a bridge, and why a tunnel? Where’s the risk analysis? Where’s the full value-for-money analysis? How much extra is it actually going to cost to hire the Premier’s political friends to build it? Will this project stand any chance of getting through a federal environmental assessment process?

These are valid questions that, so far, have not been answered through freedom-of-information requests. When they do get it, it’s blacked out, unavailable, not for public consumption. It leads one to believe that the Premier might be ashamed of his decision, and he’s playing politics and withholding information just so he won’t have to face the heat. Meanwhile, as he continues to play politics, drivers sit, drivers wait. Drivers are frustrated whether they’ll actually get to work that day.

The public are the biggest losers in this situation. The public will continue to be stuck in traffic for up to another decade, missing medical appointments, missing the ferry, getting their kids to soccer practice late, not getting the goods to where they need to be and impacting people’s lives and our economy for years and years to come.

We see evidence that the Premier has a total disregard for the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Earlier this year we saw him ignore the commissioner when it came to making a half-billion-dollar InBC investment fund, which should have been transparent under the FOI legislation, but it is not. We now have learned that when it comes to something as basic and fundamental as protecting a freedom-of-information system, the Premier has blatantly ignored the commissioner and his office as well.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner says the Premier is going “in the wrong direction.” It’s particularly interesting because he’s talking about a premier who would often go on, at length, about the importance of freedom of information. The Premier has been quoted as saying things like: “I think all British Columbians should be concerned when their government hides things from them. The whole point of having access to information is so we can all make judgments about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of our political leadership.”

I said it before, but it’s worth repeating. It’s important. These are the very words out of our Premier’s mouth. While he seems to have changed his tune of late, it remains to be seen whether the Premier will start listening to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner or continue down this dark path of obstruction and confusion with his own government.

Burying long-term care reports, concealing data on hospitals, not being completely open and honest with parents and redacting reports…. The examples of information being hidden and not openly shared are growing. In fact, a reporter in my own neck of the woods, after months, has received nothing when it comes to something as simple as COVID cases from this government. It has said that there are no reports to give. I find that hard to believe — that there are no reports about COVID that have gone between the Premier, the Health Minister or the provincial health officer and staff.

In February, that was done. The editor of the Fraser Valley Current submitted that FOI request for emails and has received nothing. The Premier not only took well past the legislated deadline, but they found nada, nothing.

[11:50 a.m.]

It’s just not believable. It erodes that trust. This is why freedom of information is so important. It’s about public trust; it’s about transparency. These are not words that we just talk about. They’re the ideals of democracy that need to be understood and fulfilled.

This bill shows the Premier’s out-and-out contempt for the FOI process. We can do better than this. We need to debate this better, we need to talk to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and we need to take time to properly go through this, not ramrod it through just because we have the time.

Yes, I’m watching the clock, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I will leave this to some of my other colleagues.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–False Creek, we’ve got a little bit of time.

B. Bailey: I rise to speak to Bill 22, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021. There are four areas of focus in this bill. The first is updating data residency provisions so that public bodies can use modern tools while continuing to protect the personal information that people entrust to us. I specifically want to speak to that piece and talk a little bit about why it’s important. Why is that so, I would argue, integral?

Well, this change brings British Columbia in line with other jurisdictions. In fact, we’ve been lagging behind. Businesses, universities, health authorities have repeatedly told us that our data residency rules were outdated and stopped them from being competitive and responsive to the needs of people.

We’ve listened. B.C. fell behind, and this legislation is bringing us in line with the rest of Canada and ensures that we’re managing people’s information safely while delivering the tools and service they need. That is where the rub lies, because we have the dual obligation of keeping people’s information safe and also ensuring that people can do what they need to do, that our economy can function well, that our tech sector can do the work that it needs to do. This legislation provides that protection.

I’ll share very quickly just an anecdotal story of my own experience when previously I worked in the tech sector. We were doing some really fantastic training with elementary school students, teaching coding, inviting them to create their own video games, engaging them so that a future in the tech sector could be something they could think about. The challenge we had was that even to use these simple, very, very high-quality educational tools in school, we had to find a way to have data residency in British Columbia.

Now, that might sound like a small thing; it’s not. Most of our data…. Most people, I would argue, most organizations, store data with the large players — people like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, others. To need to find a small, local provider changes the expense that you need to commit to working with students, and it can deter people from choosing that option. It’s so important. We have to expose kids to the opportunities and technology, to learn how to code. It’s like learning a language now. It’s so imperative.

The additional cost is a deterrent, but also, let’s ask the question: does it provide what we hope it provides? Does choosing to work with a small provider in British Columbia to store your data provide the level of safety that we’re looking for and that has driven us to ask that? I don’t think that’s the case. When you consider the tremendous wealth and capacity that these large data organizations have to work on the protection of data, it’s so much more significant than the small data storage organizations can possibly spend on protecting themselves from cyberattacks. In fact, I would argue that large data storage might be significantly safer.

[11:55 a.m.]

Thinking beyond also just the question of working with schools and working with kids on the example I gave, we have tremendous opportunities to digitize our economy, our health care sector, education and beyond. When you think about the importance that we’ve seen of telehealth during the pandemic and the opportunities that exist for us to provide really innovative solutions for people at home, for them to get the support that they need and to connect with a doctor and to be able to access records and to….

Well, I’ll give you an example. There’s a wonderful organization in Denmark that when a woman leaves the hospital, having just given birth, she’s sent home with kind of a small suitcase. What’s contained in it is a screen that flips up, and it provides a connection for her to a perinatal nurse. Sweden is not dissimilar to Canada in that they have quite a distributed network of towns that aren’t close to big cities, and they have extremely high-quality care provided to that woman at home, even though she doesn’t see the nurse in her home through this amazing telehealth solution.

There are many examples from the health care sector and many examples in education. When you think about it, our restrictions were so strict that we couldn’t have allowed teachers to use Zoom, for example. Now, that’s very restrictive. So the exception that was made in order for us to do what we needed to do during the pandemic has actually, in fact, shown us that these solutions work very well, and to make those changes permanent is something that I most welcome.

But let’s not just take my word for it. What does the tech sector think? I’ve got a couple of quotes I’ll share. “This is a positive development from government that B.C.’s tech industry welcomes,” says Jill Tipping, who’s the president and CEO of the B.C. Tech Association. “The changes to B.C.’s data residency requirements will allow local companies to leverage cutting-edge technology to help B.C.’s public sector deliver the modern tools that citizens expect with the privacy protections they need.”

UBC welcomes these proposed amendments. They will substantially increase the privacy and security of personal data with more robust and resilient services by allowing us to select the most secure and effective solutions.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is a bill that is important to the tech sector, important to British Columbians, and I’m very happy to speak in favour of it. I now move that we adjourn debate.

B. Bailey moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.