Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 21; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

H. Sandhu: Hon. Chair, may I seek leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Sandhu: I am excited and proud to introduce my very first guest in the gallery since my election. I have today four very special guests here in the chamber and up in the gallery. I have four introductions to make, so please bear with me.

My first guest is my dear friend, who is more like a sister to me, Sara Mattu. I first met Sara through B.C. Nurses Union work, when we both worked on human rights and equity caucus work. Our caucus was called mosaic of colour. Sara has worked at Richmond Hospital for over 25 years and has been teaching with Kwantlen College, now University, for over 18 years. She’s currently a member at the B.C. Nurses Union council representing the Richmond-Vancouver region and also working to support internationally educated nurses.

My second guest is Dr. Lesley Lutes. She is a professor and director of training for the doctoral program in clinical psychology and director of the Centre for Obesity and Wellbeing Research Excellence at the University of British Columbia, the Okanagan campus.

Dr. Lutes applauds the development of the primary care networks, and she applauds the development of primary care clinical pharmacist programs. So she wants our government to build on this progress.

Joining us with Dr. Lutes is Alexina Picard. She is executive director of the B.C. Psychological Association, who is doing the incredible work, along with Dr. Lutes, to help many people in British Columbia who are dealing with mental health issues.

My last but not least very special guest is Dr. Simon Elterman. He is a psychologist and behavioural health consultant at the Hope to Health Research and Innovation Centre, the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He’s also on the advocacy committee at the B.C. Psychological Association. Dr. Elterman has already helped over 2,000 clients in the Downtown Vancouver Eastside.

Would the House please join me to make my guests feel welcomed and thank them for their incredible contributions to improving people’s health and mental well-being.

Debate Continued

The Chair: Thank you for that. In case you didn’t know, now your LA can produce a souvenir package that you can have all that written and give to your guests.

All right, Bill 21. We passed clause 32 after the division vote yesterday. Now we’re on 33.

Clauses 33 and 34 approved.

On clause 35.

Hon. S. Robinson: Can we ask for a recess? We have to bring in a different minister.

The Chair: You may ask. We’ll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1:15 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister, would you like to introduce your staff?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair. I have Mary Shaw, assistant deputy minister of cannabis, consumer protection and corporate policy; and Byron Plant, the senior policy and legislation analyst in cannabis, consumer protection and corporate policy.

The Chair: Clearly, they haven’t been here for 30 years like yourself.

M. Morris: This could be fairly quick, to the minister. This Bill 21 before us is a bill to amend a previous bill that came before this House in 2019 to amend a bill from 2004, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. So I’m just curious. Perhaps the minister can explain the delay in bringing those amendments into force from 2019, other than I do see that one provision was brought into force dealing with a consumer advancement fund to charge industry additional fees.

If the minister could just go into some of the rationale for the delay and what kind of feedback he received from industry in the interim that might have influenced the amendments that are before the House today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. There was no feedback from industry. The reality is that these technical amendments need to be made before it could be brought into force. As the member will know, having sat on this side of the House, getting legislation through often takes a bit of time, and that’s why it’s here where it is now.

M. Morris: So the only reason for the delay, then, is just that there wasn’t time to put this together and that these amendments now just address the timelines that are critical in bringing this legislation in force? That was the only reason?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s a combination of things. One has been the development of the regulations. That has obviously taken some time. At the same time, of course, it is that this has to pass before the regulations can be proclaimed. Of course, as you know, legislation works its way up with every other ministry, but it is here now. Our intention is with the passage of this, those regulations will be in place for the spring.

Clauses 35 to 38 inclusive approved.

On clause 39.

J. Sturdy: Chair, I don’t know if there are Transportation Ministry staff that need to be here, or the minister. Or is the Solicitor General going to take questions?

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1:25 p.m. to 1:36 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister, would you like to introduce your team?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you. With me, I have Steve Haywood and Anthony Hamilton from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

I’m happy to answer questions.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the Solicitor General for stepping in. It’s Transportation and Infrastructure, not highways. I think we are showing that 30-year perspective.

But I did sit on the special committee to deal with ride-hail, and I recall this conversation with regard to this proposed amendment around delaying the review. It was an interesting discussion. It’s an important component to the future of ride-hail in the province of British Columbia and to taxis.

But I suspect…. I know, to some degree, the answer here as to why the delay. I don’t expect that this is driven by anecdote. I would expect there’s some data behind it, and I wonder if the minister could help us understand what the data is that suggests that we need a delay.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I’ll make two comments. First off, the change is based on a recommendation of the committee, which I think the member is obviously familiar with. The reason for that was because we needed to get a full set of data over a year where there is, in essence, a normal level of service and data that can be obtained.

The reality is that COVID has impacted on that significantly, so that’s not possible. That’s why that recommendation was made to extend into 2022. That’s why you see the amendment here before you today.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister give us some sense of what the impact has been on TNS and the taxi industry over the course of the last 20 months?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. It would come as no surprise, I think, to any of us that COVID has had a significant impact on the taxi and ride-hail industry, starting in May of 2019, particularly until things have started to open up more. I can tell you that the independent passenger board estimated…. They did a report, and they estimated that business dropped by about 80 percent. Obviously, that is significant.

J. Sturdy: I believe that to be correct. The minister is correct there in terms of an 80 percent drop for a period of time. What’s the current state of affairs? How long was the duration of that drop? Where are we at right now, both with taxi as well as TNS?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member that it has improved. There is not a baseline, and what we’re hearing from the experts is that ride-hailing has probably picked up more than taxi service has. I think all of us recognize that in terms of the taxi industry, they are heavily reliant, traditionally, on international travel. So as that dropped off, obviously that impacted significantly.

Now the borders are starting to open up, and we’re starting to see a return. Obviously, we would hope to start to see an improvement. But that’s what I can tell the member at this point.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister let us know whether that recovery…? I think we’re at about, overall aggregate…. About 8 percent down is the number I recall hearing. Is that recovery equal across the province? Or are the impacts greater in certain parts of the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, the member is correct that different parts of the province have experienced a variation in reductions. Obviously, in terms of the Lower Mainland, which is where ride-hailing, TNS, is located, that’s where that impact was felt — and again, significant impact in the Lower Mainland in terms of the taxi service.

Outside of the Lower Mainland, that decline, the impact on taxi services, varied — we estimate between 15 and 35 percent — depending on different parts of the province. Some of it is obviously related to COVID and the impact of COVID. That’s what I can share with the member at this point.

J. Sturdy: The proposed amendment is for an 18-month extension until the assessment needs to be completed — or, I guess, begun.

[1:45 p.m.]

Why 18 months? Do we have enough of a normalization to obtain the information? I recognize that this is forecasting, but are we confident that this is the right period of time? Why 18 months?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yep. We are confident that this is an appropriate amount of time, particularly when you see where we are in terms of recovery within B.C. Like anything, it obviously is, as you said, a forecast. But given what we’re seeing right now in the province and then over the next 18 months, we think that this is an appropriate amount of time to be able to get the data that I think we all want to see.

J. Sturdy: Associated with this, there has been a delay in the processing of TNS and taxi applications. I believe there are quite a number of them before the PTB, and the PTB has chosen not to advance any of them at this point. The timeline for processing these applications is unknown.

Could the minister comment on that, perhaps? Recognizing, of course, that the PTB is an independent or quasi-independent body, could we give the proponents some confidence that their applications will be processed in the not-too-distant future, as they have been in abeyance for quite some time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There has been a report commissioned by Dr. Hara, who is a noted expert in the taxi, ride-hail and transportation sector. It’s prepared for the board, in terms of looking at the impact of COVID.

The member is correct that the Passenger Transportation Board is an independent body. I don’t have a specific, in terms of what they will be doing in terms of timeline, but obviously this report is identifying the impact that COVID has had. That clearly, I expect, would be one of the issues that would be raised. The report will, obviously, assist the board in making its decisions in having to deal with backlogs and ensuring that applications are processed in a timely fashion.

J. Sturdy: Could the minister put on the record how many applications for TNS since…? I guess it was — what? — 2019 when the legislation came into play. How many TNS applications have been submitted? How many processed? How many successful, and how many rejected?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We don’t have that information, but I’ll be happy to get that information for the member.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. I think it’s important information, especially in terms of the unsuccessful applications. The three-part test is something that is fairly subjective, and it would be….

[1:50 p.m.]

I think it’s important to understand the impacts that test has on applications and on communities that are looking for alternative transportation solutions. The combination of the delays and the potential for rejection are important, so I think it would be useful to have that information.

Has the government considered that three-part test, and does it remain an appropriate test currently and going forward?

The Chair: Just to remind members of the fines in caucus for phones to go off. It’s much less if you self-confess than if you are ratted out by your colleagues. [Laughter.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, that is an important question. It is one that the special committee will be dealing with, and we look forward to the recommendations they bring back on that particular issue.

J. Sturdy: Sorry. Just so I’m clear, the special committee has been re-formed, so there will be a further discussion of transportation network services and the taxi industry? I wasn’t aware of that. I probably should be.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the original legislation, the requirement for that special committee to be established is set. Once this legislation goes through, then the committee will be struck and will deal with the issues that the member has just raised.

J. Sturdy: Just one last question I forgot to mention in terms of information. Can we understand what the length of time of processing applications could be — if that could be another piece of information? In other words, when an application is submitted, how long is it taking to go through the process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. Now, it’s a combination of two things — one, the board being independent. So they will, obviously, make their recent decisions, and it would have to be contacting them to get that information. That being said, we would have the historical data from past years that we would be able to share with the member.

J. Sturdy: Thank you for the answer. I think it is relevant in that the government does appoint the board, and board resourcing can play a part in the length of time processes take. Does the minister know if the board lists the reasons for rejection of an application?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they do. The decisions are listed, and they’re publicly available.

Clauses 39 and 40 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee report the bill complete without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

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

Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Second Reading of Bills

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

(continued)

T. Wat: It is my honour to again stand in this House and continue my comments on Bill 22. As I said on Tuesday before we adjourned the debate, we are seeing a bill that not only fails to address many of the inherent faults with this government and the release of public information; it seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

That is why, since the bill was introduced on Monday by the Minister of Citizens’ Services, this NDP government has been under fire by the media, by organizations and by professionals who are concerned about the lack of transparency and accountability from government — as well as the average British Columbian.

Let me quote a sample of comments to enlighten and, hopefully, wake up the Premier, the minister and all members of this government. I have found that the article posted by Rob Shaw really sums up the behaviour of this government so well that I will take time to read out parts of the article.

Rob Shaw said, on October 19, “For many years, if you wanted to find a champion of open government in B.C. who would rail against the shadowy politicians in Victoria that used every trick in the book to keep the paper trail of their decisions secret, you end up talking to one guy: the B.C. NDP leader,” the current Premier. The then NDP leader “would hold court in the hallways of the Legislature, promising anyone who would listen that if he were ever in charge, he would never do the ‘outrageous’ things the B.C. Liberals did to hide government information from the public through ‘pathetic’ barriers, fees, delays, mass record deletion and obfuscation.”

This is a quote from the Premier in 2015: “People need to understand that it is not just about politics. We’re supposed to have freedom of information so the public understands why their government was making decisions on their behalf.” But that was back then, when the current Premier was opposition leader.

This week the Premier sat quietly in the Legislature while his Citizens’ Services Minister tabled a bill that would add steep new fees to access government information, a move far more harmful to transparency than the things that used to tick him off in opposition. One of the reasons for the new fees is to combat what the NDP government considers abuses of the system.

[2:00 p.m.]

Another journalist, Les Leyne of the Times Colonist, said on October 20: “Here’s a tip. Don’t bother. A bill this week makes it clear the government does not care what the committee does or says. Any further meetings would be a waste of time.”

Jon Woodward, a CTV Toronto reporter, on Twitter, in his tweet on October 18, said: “I can’t count the number of times we interviewed outraged then-opposition B.C. NDP MLAs over some scandal about the governing Liberals that we had discovered via freedom of information. Now in government they are putting a tremendous bottleneck in the system that keeps them accountable.”

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Now I would like to really touch on why we see Bill 22 as a step in the wrong direction. Firstly, this bill does not include provisions to prevent documents from being destroyed prior to FOI requests. This means that if somebody destroys records because they think they might be of interest and so wants to eliminate them before any request can be made, there’s no offence for that in this legislation.

Government is claiming that this legislation is to align our province with other jurisdictions. But this offence is listed in Alberta’s legislation but is conveniently missing in this one.

On the topic of aligning our province with other jurisdictions, let’s talk about the FOI application fee. The minister is trying to sell this as a nominal fee to recoup the costs associated with filling this request, but it is all too clear that this is nothing of the sort. Not only does she misunderstand the process of FOIs, but it also is incredibly disingenuous to try to say that this fee will not be a barrier to people seeking to acquire the information they have a right to access.

Five dollars per request adds up when you have to ask for the same piece of information across ministries, health authorities or school districts. Yet the general consensus is that this government is looking to charge $25, 400 percent more than the fees in Ontario or federally. This $25 application fee would most certainly not align with other provinces but will make accessing public records in B.C. one of the most expensive endeavours in the country. Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island each charge only $5, while the five other provinces charge nothing at all.

Let me quote Jon Woodward, the CTV Toronto repor­ter, again on Twitter on October 18. He said: “I’ve been singing the praises of B.C.’s FOI system here in Ontario because a lack of fees makes it truly open, which breeds a strong culture of openness.”

This fee is a targeted effort to discourage people from being able to hold government accountable. Not just the media and the opposition but private citizens as well. I would remind the House that this Premier started the school year by hiding details on outbreaks in schools from parents. He said he didn’t want to stress them out. He forced parents to crowdsource work and put in their own time, in case they were not busy enough already, to find out if there were cases in their child’s school.

Who will be impacted by this fee? Parents requesting COVID data information for their children in schools, sons and daughters trying to find data on long-term-care homes for their elderly parents, small and independent journalism publications trying to acquire and convey government information to their hometowns.

That’s part of the issue. It is 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 and too much of a political risk to allow them that access.

[2:05 p.m.]

The change in this bill would make it easier for government to hide information from citizens, something that should be worrying for every single one of us in this House. I’m just talking about the issue of government information. We are talking about the safety of personal information as well. Government has also stated that they would be using this bill to update data residency provisions to allow modern tools. Data storage will now take place in jurisdictions outside of B.C. and even Canada. We will, in essence, be entrusting British Columbians’ data with foreign authorities in foreign jurisdictions.

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 data protection and privacy in other jurisdictions are maintained when government won’t even provide us with further details like what jurisdiction this government intends to allow the storage of B.C. data? What security measures will be in place to ensure the privacy and protection of our personal data?

We are talking about British Columbians’ personal 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 passed. They are once again iterating the all-too-common phrase of “You just have to trust us,” when this very legislation displays government’s extreme distrust of the public.

Even many ministers and MLAs of the NDP government made public comments, when they were actually in opposition, against putting obstacles against this FOI. Let me try to quote a few of them. My colleagues previously have quoted the Premier a number of times, but I think it doesn’t hurt that I repeat it once again so that we all know what the Premier said when he was in opposition.

On October 30, 2015, the Premier said: “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.” There are quite a number of quotes from the Premier, but I tried to give a sample of it.

Now let me quote the current Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation when he was an MP in Ottawa. He said, on June 30, 2019:

“Access to information sounds like a good idea when one is in opposition and can use it as a tool. But when in government, it is expensive and is a pain. The public servants do not like it, and one certainly does not like seeing embarrassing information, to which the public has a right, nevertheless on the front pages of the Globe and Mail or Le Devoir. That is a reality facing every government, from left to right to centre. I understand that. But when our courts say it is a quasi-constitutional right to know and the government takes half measures, at least some measures that are considered regressive, then it is a question we have to ask.”

That’s why we are asking.

[2:10 p.m.]

The current Health Minister. His quote was found in an article by Rob Shaw in the Daily Hive. “Premier’s Transformation from Hero to Villain on Open Government.” The Health Minister said: “Exorbitant fees are obstructionist tactics intended to dissuade FOI requests.” When I’m reading all these comments, I wonder what our minister and members from this government are thinking when they were talking one thing and now behaving another way.

Another one that I would like to quote is Ujjal Dosanjh. He was the 33rd Premier of B.C. when he was the NDP Premier. He had a Twitter just recently on October 20. “The proposed fee disappointing. Fond memories of working with Michael McEvoy, Gabelmann and Barry Jones on the law before it went to the cabinet.”

There’s another minister, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. This is from Hansard. Thank God we can get Hansard without paying, if this bill is passed, well, any fee. Otherwise, whenever we tried to quote anything from Hansard, we’d have to pay $25 for every single word we dug up from Hansard. So we’ll try to take as much as we can now that it’s free.

On October 18, 2011, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development said:

“Fees have always been an issue for many who have submitted freedom-of-information requests. The fee schedule will not be adjusted with this bill. It does nothing to ensure equity of access to information. If you have access to the required funds, you can get information, but if you don’t, you’re out of luck, unless you get a sheet that’s totally blacked out. Again, people can appeal the fees. But we have heard many examples of delays and even where the appeals have been denied and have increased….

“No wonder we hear the cry from the 99 percent in this province — that they want to be heard. It’s the 1 percent who have the means to pay for the information, but rarely do they need it. It’s the 99 percent who need it and can’t afford it. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund appealed a fee estimate of $24,000. In response, the ministry increased its fee estimate to $173,000.”

The public consensus is very clear, even though, from the comments that I read out from many of the current ministers who used to be in opposition, even though they’re the minister…. It’s also quite clear that Bill 22 tramples on a citizen’s right to access information about their government. It puts up new barriers to transparency when we should be tearing them down. It is a challenge to the democratic system that keeps our government accountable to the people they’ve sworn to serve.

Before I finish, let me see where I can dig up the information, because there is so much information lying around. This is the last part I’d really like to focus on — that government is also making some very concerning decisions about certain institutions it is choosing to keep out of the scope of FIPPA. For example, they have added the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police but not InBC. InBC is a half-a-billion-dollar investment fund of taxpayer money. Yet government has once again conveniently kept it far out of the field of public scrutiny.

[2:15 p.m.]

What’s more, the Premier’s office has also now been removed from the scope of the act. The Premier’s office is now being removed as a public body under schedule 2. According to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, government believes that it is not necessary to be included in schedule 2. However, he notes: “This is not, with respect, clear in law or constitutional convention, and this change would introduce, at the very least, uncertainty in the application of the law.” The commissioner is calling for the provision to be deleted from the bill to ensure that transparency and accountability provisions apply to the Premier’s office without any confusion.

This government gave a $3.3 million funding increase for the Premier’s own office. As the head of government, the Premier should be subject to the same openness, transparency and accountability that is expected of our government and public institutions. To now exempt the Premier’s office from scrutiny and accountability is an insult to all British Columbians, to every single one of us in this House and to our democracy.

Since I still have a few minutes left, I’d like to also bring up another area of concern when it comes to considering information requests, to deal with a project of extreme importance to motorists in the city of Richmond, which I represent, as well as south of the Fraser. That’s the replacement of the aging Massey Tunnel. This government quashed a plan for a ten-lane bridge to replace the tunnel. Instead, an eight-lane tunnel is coming. So we requested information to justify this decision, which will mean that taxpayers will pay more and get less.

Well, the full Massey Tunnel report isn’t being released. British Columbians are getting dribs and drabs of information instead of the whole story. Again, people want to know why a tunnel, rather than a bridge, which should have been in place next year, solving all the traffic congestion if this government had not cancelled the already-in-place implementing of the bridge project. Where’s the risk analysis? Where’s the value-for-money analysis? How much extra is it 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?

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might draw your attention, we’re on Bill 22.

T. Wat: Yes, I’m using this to justify why we are objecting to Bill 22, because that might be putting obstacles for us, as the opposition, and also for the media and for the general public to get to the bottom of government decisions. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your reminder. I’m not trying to stray away. I’m just citing an example. Thank you.

The information is blacked out, unavailable, not for public consumption. It leads one to believe that the Premier might be ashamed of his decision and is playing politics, withholding information so that he won’t have to face the heat. In the meantime, as the Premier continues to play politics, drivers continue to be the biggest losers in this situation. They 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 goods to where they need to be — impacting the people’s lives and our economy for years and years to come.

I really hope that the government will listen to British Columbians and take this bill back to the drawing board, so that we can ensure that the legislative changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will actually serve as a step forward for transparency and accountability in our province, not a step back.

[2:20 p.m.]

I can’t find it, but I remember what Vaughn Palmer said is that there are so many shredders in the Premier’s office that hopefully this bill can be put into the shredder and started all over again, listening to the commissioner’s advice.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Penticton.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. I think the opportunity to be given, to be able to be in this chamber…. I’m incredibly fortunate, like each and every one of us are in here, to be elected from our home communities and areas that we represent to represent the people of those areas to the best of our ability.

I really want to thank those people for giving me the opportunity. Those that showed up to vote, those that voted for me, those that didn’t vote for me were there, as we all know. Our offices are there for each and every one of the individuals, the citizens of the communities that we represent. I’m so fortunate to represent the areas of Peachland, Summerland, Penticton, Naramata and the regional areas in between.

I, like each and every one of us in here, have a great amount of respect for those citizens that we represent, and we listen to them. We are in constant communication, have our ear to the ground and bring their concerns — bring their ideas, bring their chastisement of the way that we maybe handle ourselves in here sometimes — to this Legislature, the House of the people of British Columbia.

It is always an honour, not only to be in here but to be able to stand and discuss something that’s incredibly important to democracy, in my opinion. Mr. Speaker, my comments today will be to you, but also through you, not only to those members that are in here from the government but to those members that are absent — specifically to the executive committee, to the Premier and those around the Premier — because I really, really think they need to listen to what is being said about this bill.

Freedom of information. Isn’t that interesting — freedom? It’s not just about the money; it’s about accessibility. It’s about the opportunity for the people that we represent to address their concerns, to obtain their concerns and to be able to present their concerns, which they do in government, and how government handles those. Government, in my opinion, has a responsibility. It has to be open. It has to be transparent.

We’ve all heard the Premier talk about transparency. We’ve heard him talk about cooperation and collaboration. Again, addressing this bill is a perfect opportunity for the noise that he is hearing about it, not only from members of the opposition, not only from members of the press but, my gosh, social media. And I know this is only the tip of the iceberg.

When I get home tomorrow…. I would think that when many of us get home, we are going to hear about some of the concerns that are being addressed in our communities about the operation of government. I, like many in here, came out of municipal and regional government. I’ve always tried to do my best to ensure that that information…. And I fully realize that there are things that have to be discussed in committees, in council chambers, around a board table, at the regional district or have to be discussed in the area that we’re calling home at this point in time, the Legislature and our caucuses, that are confidential in nature, up to a point.

[2:25 p.m.]

But when decisions are made, the realization of why those decisions have to be made should be able to come forward. That’s what freedom of information gives the populace of British Columbia, gives the citizens of British Columbia. It gives them the opportunity to see why, as people that represent all of the citizens of British Columbia within this Legislature, we made those.

Again, it’s not only government, the opposition and the Third Party. We stand in unison more often than not about decisions that the government has brought forward for approval of this House. Sometimes we don’t, and sometimes there are specific reasons why we have gone against recommendations from the government. But that infor­mation needs to be available.

For me, access to information and freedom of access…. It may seem that it’s a fundamental right. But there are many people who think, rightly or wrongly, it is for their own good that it’s hidden. There was a gentleman by the name of Alberto Gonzales. Freedom of information is just not an important part of democracy; it is democracy.

Any time citizens’ funds are used and spent in any way, the citizens must be able to not only track those funds but must be able to hold those who utilize them accountable. There’s no exceptions — absolutely no exceptions — to that rule that should be utilized, in any way, to keep information away from the citizens, again, that we represent.

In my opinion, if you think that you live in a democracy and you don’t have the freedom of information, it’s not a democracy. I really think the government — the New Democratic Party of British Columbia — should seriously consider not only what it’s hearing from the speakers in here today and the previous day and what will probably be transpiring over the next few days, not only what they’re hearing from those in the media, but they have to listen to what the citizens of British Columbia are saying, what I’m hearing.

Again, on the new formats of information that we all have accessibility today to — the information highway of the Internet through Facebook and through Twitter — it’s sure giving an indication that people are not happy with the direction that is appearing to be taking place under Bill 22 for the freedom of information.

So it’s not just a forethought. I really, really think that it’s an opportunity for the government to put their feet down, to say: “Hold on a second. We’re hearing loud and clear from the people of British Columbia that there are issues with our proposal.” Maybe it was brought forward in the best intentions, but unfortunately, when one not only reads between the lines but one actually reads the bill, there are some thoughts that should go back to the government of some serious concerns that the government’s bill appears to have in it.

Just an introduction for myself and for others, or for myself to say, is that this bill is being tabled at a really concerning time in our province’s history. Never in most of our livelihoods have we ever faced a pandemic like what is transpiring in the province today. We have an economy that…. It’s been a bloodbath, especially in the smaller towns of British Columbia, especially for people, like my past, that have been in small business. I have watched the decimation of Main Street. It’s not just restaurants. It’s stores that have always been there to purvey goods and to purvey services to the citizens of the community. They’ve been devastated.

I really think that issues that government is bringing forward and trying to do their best on have to have the opportunity at a specific time to be purviewed by the citizens. FOIPPA, I say, is there to ensure that government is accountable to the people of British Columbia. As we all know, that is incredibly important. Us, as legislators…. The minute that we’re not accountable, the minute that we’re not respectable, and the minute that we cannot show the citizens from where we are elected…. The minute that transpires, well, I’ll make you a bet. We ain’t coming back here, and it will probably happen a lot quicker than what we think.

[2:30 p.m.]

This bill is also here to ensure that British Columbians’ personal information and privacy is protected when it’s used within and externally from government. I will try and address this a little bit later, about some of the concerns that I have about the storage of information that could possibly be taken outside of this province.

I will never, ever forget, under the former Minister of Health and the former government, where there was a concern about information being held outside of the province. The howls of protest — and I say this respectfully — that came from the opposition at that the time were justified.

That information — our information — belongs to the people of British Columbia, and it should stay in British Columbia. It should not be kept, transferred, utilized outside of the province of British Columbia for other means other than what the government has dedicated that information to be kept for.

That’s incredibly important — I know that we can’t use props — especially today. When we have information so handy today for each and every one of us, whether it’s through our cellphones or whether it’s through our iPads or our computers, oh my gosh, information is flying around the world at a rate that is unprecedented. Unfortunately, there are some that would love to have their hands on some of that information. I am adamant that any information of the citizens of British Columbia must be kept in British Columbia.

I do question the government’s motives sometimes about transparency and accountability. Again, I hold the Premier — all Premiers — I hold each and every one of us in this Legislature to the highest extent of how and why we do our jobs. I know that 100 percent of us in here do our best on a continual basis. It has been said on numerous occasions about cooperation and transparency, protectionism and that. I know we try our best on it, but sometimes the flag goes up, and the flag, to me, right now is Bill 22. I cannot help but wonder if there’s a bit of skullduggery going on. I really do. I hope there isn’t skullduggery.

I sit at a person’s desk, again, that I had a lot of respect for. He’s a former member. His name is in here. I know we’re not supposed to use names, but I am going to use a saying he had, and it was “jiggery-pokery.” I would hesitate to say that under that former member’s comments there’s a little bit of jiggery-pokery going on with this particular bill. That’s my opinion.

British Columbians — again, the media and members of the opposition — have waited months, sometimes years, and years is a big…. It doesn’t just extend to the current government. I really think that all governments are going to have to get better. Information these days is like this, and that information to get back out to the people that need that information, needs to be as quick. It needs to be put back out through freedom of information, through requests of government, and we have to work on that.

When we start talking about costs, we have heard from some about the costs of putting freedom-of-information requests together. I think, in my opinion if we were more open, if we were more transparent, if we were more collaborative, if we were more cooperative in this House, the people that work for government…. If we were all of those things, we could get that information out a lot quicker, without the costs that governments, plural, have had to bear for freedom-of-information requests.

I think if the public just realized the in-depth work that has to take place when a freedom-of-information request comes in, and how it’s disseminated to various ministries and how it has to be looked up and every word and everything has to be checked on it…. There is a lot of work that is involved in it. But again, through those four things that I talked about — cooperation, collaboration, being transparent and being more accountable, we can make a difference in that.

[2:35 p.m.]

In my opinion, I think governments know very well what they’re doing, and I really think that government should listen to the task force. Governments should listen that fees are a barrier. Governments should listen — and I’m saying it plural — listen to the all-party Legislature committee that was struck in June. It was just trying to get underway. Our peer from the Third Party had brought an issue and a concern forward. We really, really need to listen to that committee.

There is an opportunity, over this period of time, maybe to park the bill just to get that information and to get that opportunity for the citizens to put their ideas and their concerns forward to the committee. Again, that could come forward and also be worked through with Bill 22 for the government so that they can actually hear from the people that we represent what their ideas and their concerns might be on this.

We have a gentleman that we hired, an incredible independent officer like all of our independent officers. He wrote a letter, eight pages, of concern. Michael McEvoy has a lot of respect in his line of work and also with everybody in the Legislature. When an individual like that, who has no partisanship whatsoever…. He is here to ensure that the people of British Columbia’s rights are looked after through the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

When he comes forward with an eight-page letter, which was publicly put out yesterday…. I commend him for that. Not only did we get to see, but it was put out so that everybody in this province could have a quick look at it.

He gives the government some accolades. He says that he welcomes the new requirements relating to privacy impact assessments, the new privacy breach notification rules and the duty for public bodies to manage privacy programs. The inclusion of snooping offences is also a positive step in the right direction. Some of the extensive amendments, through 2011, that this bill has are starting to keep pace…. I mean, B.C. has always been a leader, but it’s starting to keep pace with other jurisdictions across Canada.

He has some major concerns. An overriding concern with Bill 22 is the unknown impact of the key amendments because their substance will only be filled through regulation. That’s something I want to say. There’s nothing there…. We know nothing about that. The government is putting a bill forward, and regulations are going to be dealt with after. We haven’t seen those regulations, and the people of B.C. haven’t seen those regulations.

His greatest concern is in relation to the approvals for appeal of data residency requirements, what I talked about and I’ve been adamant about. I’m sure everybody — I would think; I would hope — in here is adamant that our personal information that we have, that follows us around for the rest of our lives and will follow us around even after we’re dead and gone a long time, our families…. We want to make sure that that information is kept safe. It has to be kept safe.

I would encourage all governments to ensure that when we do take information from the citizens of British Columbia, we store that documentation and that information within our province for the utilization of the people within this province. I don’t care if it’s medical or if it’s other health issues or if it’s political issues we’ve had or statements we’ve all had in the papers. Let’s just keep it at home and make sure that it is safe and sound the way it should be.

The privacy officer says that it’s routine for governments to disclose draft regulations for consultation and legislative scrutiny. Really, he says that there is no legal or constitutional impediment to doing so here. He urges the government to publish any draft regulations or the detail of regulations for public comment. That should happen before this bill is passed in this House. As a matter of fact, it must happen before this bill is passed in the House.

[2:40 p.m.]

He also urges…. He’s a man incredibly well connected across not only this wonderful country of Canada but around the world. He says, at least, it is imperative that his office be consulted on those regulations. Those regulations are going to make a difference. It’s not just a bill that we’re going to pass in this House. The government can pass it because of the majority, but the regulations that are going to be put into effect are the ones that are going to concern individuals like him and should concern the people of British Columbia.

No, they call it data residency. I apologize that I couldn’t remember that before. But it has to align with the rules and the regulations that this government is bringing forward. I really think that I would concur with what he has said. He said: “Without real assurances that meaningful protections will be put in place, this proposal represents a step backwards by British Columbia at a time when other jurisdictions are modernizing their data residency requirements.”

Please, please, Mr. Speaker, through yourself to the government, let’s listen to the Privacy Commissioner. Let’s listen to his staff. Let’s listen to his peers across this wonderful world, and let’s ensure that our information is protected.

He has brought some other concerns about criminal investigations, and he has stated in here, there are important protections for British Columbians. He says he notes, however, the proposed 36.3(3) would not enable a public body to hold off notifying affected individuals or disclosure of a breach could compromise a criminal investigation. He really feels that that exception should be added.

Also, he feels that other entities as public bodies…. Again: “There are no criteria governing when this should be done. The recent concern about InBC Investment Corp. not being made subject to FIPPA — as it clearly ought to be — is an example of why this change does not go far enough.”

We heard one of my peers talk about this investment and the money that the government is putting forward to try and make a difference in British Columbia. But for goodness’ sake, let’s just make sure that everybody in B.C., including all members of this Legislature — the Third Party, the official opposition — have an opportunity to scrutinize the investments of those public dollars that are being invested by the provincial government for British Columbians. Let’s just make sure that the availability is there to be a check and a balance in that situation.

One of the big, big concerns of the privacy information officer is:

“I am very concerned that Bill 22 would remove the Office of the Premier as a public body under schedule 2 of FIPPA. My understanding is that the government believes this designation is not necessary, on the basis that the Premier, a first minister, is a minister and therefore his office is a ministry and is therefore covered by schedule 1 in the definition of ‘public body.’

“This is not, with respect, clear in law or constitutional convention, and this change would introduce, at the very least, uncertainty in the application of law. Moreover, I am not aware of any harm flowing from the retaining of this designation, which obviously begs the question as to why the change is being made when the outcome is, again, not as clear as I am told government believes it is.

“The Office of the Premier lies at the heart of provincial governance.”

The Premier, the person that we all actually look up to as the leader of the government of British Columbia.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner: “I call on this government to delete this proposal from Bill 22, for greater certainty that FIPPA’s transparency and accountability provisions will continue to apply, as they have for decades, to the Office of the Premier.”

Boy, is that ever important.

There’s a lot in this bill. We have reams and reams of paper that we have concerns about, that we will be addressing. My peers will be addressing this on a continual basis. But, through yourself and then to the Premier and to the executive committee of the NDP government, I don’t think this is going away. I really do not think this is going away.

[2:45 p.m.]

To be frank, in my opinion, the fee, the $25 fee, is a red herring. I’ll never forget. I had a lawyer friend that would always hook a red herring on a line and throw it out. If you took a bite of that line, that red herring, he would play you all day. That was his forte.

Right now the fees have the opportunity to be waived. Do I think that there’s been abuse under freedom-of-information requests? I’ll say yes, there has. I think all governments in the past, all current governments, have possibly abused it. I think there are citizens out there that fire these things in because they’re free on a continual basis. There is a way that the minister, the ministry and the freedom-of-information commissioner can address that.

So let’s just get rid of the fees. Let’s take a look, an in-depth look, at what this bill is going to actually be doing to the people of British Columbia and their accessibility to see what governments are doing, what they’ve done and possibly may do in the future.

I’ve almost used my time up. I would like to close. I really want to thank each and everybody in here. You are individuals, again, that I know have a great cause and concern that you’ve been able to bring forward to the constituents that have elected you. You’ve been successful. We’re here.

I wholeheartedly believe that as the people’s House, we actually work pretty good together, but I think we could work better together. I would like to echo the words of the Premier, and I hope he means the words that he said, where we need to be more transparent. We need to be more accountable. We need to have more cooperation. We need to ensure that what we do is the best thing possible, at the best time, for the people of British Columbia.

I really hope that those words mean a lot to each and every one of us. They do to me. They do to me because I know deep in our hearts that we’d each like to do that, again, for the people that we represent.

In closing, I would like to quote a man, Patrick Leahy. I think he sums this up. This is to the people of this House, not the citizens outside. It says that press releases tell us when government agencies do something right; freedom of information let’s us know when they do not.

I will leave those words with you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank you. I hope that you have a great weekend, and I look forward to seeing you next week.

T. Halford: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill, Bill 22, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

Like the previous speakers on the opposition side, I do believe that what we are seeing is an overreach. It’s an overstep. As some in this House and others outside of this House have said, we are about to take a massive step backwards with this piece of legislation.

Now, I understand the roles of opposition and the roles of government. I do understand that when we come in here and we speak, whether it’s for five minutes, 20 minutes, 25 minutes or half an hour, we do often rely on a set of speaking notes. That’s fair.

I think, though, when we’re talking about an issue as important as this one…. I think, maybe, when the government put this forward, they didn’t realize the reaction that it would have endured — I would be a little bit shocked by that — but what we’re seeing is there’s a backlash, a public backlash. I think that’s appropriate.

When we have MLAs coming into this House and saying things like the member for Langley said — that “British Columbians can take heart…they have a government right now that cares about transparency, that cares about freedom of information. That’s seen in this act” — I don’t agree with that. I think my colleagues on this side of the House wouldn’t agree with that. Furthermore, I would believe, in my heart of hearts, in this place of democracy, that there are government MLAs that don’t agree with that.

[2:50 p.m.]

But to come into this House and make a statement like that when we are looking at implementing things like fees on basic freedom-of-information requests…. I think it’s quite disheartening.

We had the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour saying that this is long overdue in being implemented and that we are bringing this in line with other jurisdictions. We’re not. This is in line with one other province. But to say other jurisdictions…. You can say “jurisdiction.” That could be correct. But when you say “jurisdictions,” I don’t think that’s accurate.

Furthermore, the member for Langley East said: “This is a small fee to help offset some of the costs. That’s something that the taxpayers, individuals that want to request their information, have access to. Taxpayers also know that there’s a rising cost of government, and sometimes you have to offset some of those.”

So what the member for Langley East is saying is that taxpayers also know that there are rising costs of government, and sometimes you have to offset some of those costs. Well, that’s a little bit troubling. So we are going to offset the government costs with people trying to access basic information that they have had a right to for years? That’s how government is going to offset costs?

We’ve got another one here. Furthermore, this is the member from Langley East:

“…today we’ve had some of these changes cast in such a way that, like as I mentioned earlier, they’re obstructionist, they’re going to put up a massive wall….

“The point is that you have to look at the larger picture and look at the fact that organizations are dealing with so many changes, from needing changes in the legislation to allow people to benefit from technological advances but also dealing with the fact that there is a real cost to some of the applications. That’s what this legislation looks at. It looks at the necessary balance that needs…to be effective in the role as government.”

I guess I wonder if that’s in somebody’s speaking notes or if that’s just done on the fly. Because if we’re saying that we are going to try and offset government costs with British Columbians trying to access information that they’re entitled to, I just think it’s undemocratic.

We even saw the Premier today in question period. He spoke about transparency. He spoke about the fact that — I think it was an off-the-cuff joke — we could come and take…. Who wants to see what’s on the Premier’s computer? Well, if it’s a government device, a government computer, I think British Columbians should have the right to know what their government is doing, what their Premier is doing. I am sorry, but I will not apologize if that is an inconvenience.

We have things in this House. We have Hansard, and I think it’s great that we can all look back and see what has been said in the past. Some things I think we say in the past — I wonder if it keeps us up at night, because we have to confront those words later on in the future. I would say when we look at the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and comments that he made on December 5, 2017, in parliament…. He says: “Canadians also need to know that government has not abolished the $5 fee, which is a tollgate on citizens’ right to access.”

Now, I understand that the legislation before us was probably discussed and canvassed at a cabinet meeting. Maybe the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation took a coffee break or missed it. I don’t know. But his quote is: “Canadians also need to know that the government has not abolished the $5 fee, which is a tollgate on citizens’ right to access.”

[2:55 p.m.]

Now, I just had a conversation with my son on his report card, specifically on math. I am not one to lecture on math, but he’s talking about a $5 fee. We’re talking about a 500 percent increase on the fee that he was discussing on December 5, 2017.

Then I think almost a month earlier than that the Minister of Indigenous Relations said in parliament: “This is really a simple one. Section 11 of the act requires people to pay a fee, a tollgate fee on the public’s right to know, of $5. It’s a tollgate fee which costs the government, by testimony, if it’s a cheque, $55 to process. While it seems bizarre in terms of the economics, it should also be seen as an obstacle that doesn’t exist in most provincial freedom of information laws.”

Well, I don’t know. It seems like a bit of a…. I guess we’re in second reading. I’ll check to see if the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has come to speak to this bill, because it would be good to clarify the remarks that he has made in the past.

I’ve got another one here. I want to make sure that I get the right date. This is June 13, 2019, and this is the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation:

“Access to information sounds like a good idea when one is in opposition and can use it as a tool, but when in government, it is expensive and is a pain. The public servants do not like it and one certainly does not like seeing embarrassing information, to which the public has a right, nevertheless on the front pages of the Globe and Mail…. That is a reality facing every government from left to right to centre, and I understand that, but when our courts say it is a quasi-constitutional right to know and the government takes half measures, at least some measures that are considered regressive, then it is a question we have to ask.”

I guess we could do a GoFundMe or a crowdfund or whatever they call it and try and figure out if the minister asked any of these questions. I don’t take a lot of comfort in the answers that we’d get back, but I would hope that he would. Maybe we will have the opportunity to have him come and speak to this bill and clarify his passionate and, at times, accurate remarks regarding fees that we’re currently discussing today.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

I think the public has an expectation that they have a right to understand the inner workings of government. We, as an opposition, have an obligation to hold governments accountable, as inconvenient as that may seem at times. It’s a lot of work. It’s things through FOI and other means…. The government of the day used this in the past, and the Premier spoke quite passionately and glowing about it — and I’ll get to that in a second — about his support for FOI.

Now we are seeing an attack on that, and I think it’s our obligation to stand up and say that this is wrong. It’s through FOI that we get items like this. I think it’s the Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations. It’s through items like FOI that we get to know the fact that, as of July 20, 2020, the minister of state received just over $87,000 for work on behalf of the province at a rate of $250 an hour — currently billed 351.22 hours, $2,593.57 in expenses. Yeah, I said at a rate of $250 an hour, maximum of $2,000 per day. That’s what we get through FOI.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s important that the public realizes the work that the minister of state is doing prior to seeking an election in October of 2020 and then before that, months before, departing the federal government — or actually, he was in opposition, so he would understand how FOIs work.

It’s through that that we understand that on January 24, 2020, the minister enjoyed sushi for four people for $73. Now, I’m not asking if he had sashimi or nigiri or anything like that, or a California roll, but on January 31, the minister of state had two pints of Last Cast. I don’t know what that is. It sounds…. One pint of ISA and two fried chicken servings — $25 worth of alcohol. The meal totalled $81.83. Doesn’t say how many people were there.

I’m not asking if the fried chicken was extra-crispy or original. I just think that people need to know that when people are working on behalf of this government, we have a right — the public has a right, the opposition has a right, the media has a right — to understand what is going on.

Let’s just see what else we’ve got here. Just want to make sure that I’m fair here. February 2, one pint of Blacksmith, one pint of Last Cast — must be popular. Four guests. Total of $152. February 4, two pints of Smithers Brown, a six ounce of Cab Sauv. Yeah, $141 dinner from the taxpayers on February 4 and February 2.

Here’s another one. On contract No. 2, the minister of state got…. Somebody has got to tell me how we can get a gig like this. This is February 8 to March 3. This is all through FOI, and this is what we’ve received through FOI. Total contract of $41,000 for…. This must be February 8 to March…. Is that a leap year? So we’ve got 22 — my math — 25 days?

Interjection.

T. Halford: I should call my kid.

Total contract value of 41,000 bucks. Hmm, okay. Professional administrative and management support services. I got to check. I did not see this on the minister of state’s LinkedIn file, but I can’t FOI that.

Okay, this could be embarrassing. I get it. But it’s things like this that we need to know through FOI, because if we don’t FOI it, this isn’t posted on the government website. This isn’t on a Facebook page. This is acquired through FOI.

Is the Minister of Labour going to speak to the bill too? Is he going to come up after me?

I have 14 minutes, if….

Interjection.

T. Halford: Because this is through…. I want to hear you speak after me — through the Speaker. Apparently the Minister of Labour is offering to speak on this bill after me. I won’t be on House duty, but I will stay to hear his remarks.

I understand that this is sensitive stuff that we’re talking about. FOI — you get sensitive material. I am not judging the minister of state for a sushi dinner, for a fried chicken dinner, for his taste in lagers. I am just saying that that information comes through FOI, and the public, if they are paying the bill, deserves to see that information. You know who agrees with me? Or he did agree with me at the time? The Premier.

His comments. This is the Premier on April 30, 2015: “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 the ineffectiveness of our political leadership.” Now, if the minister of state ever decides to run for leader, I guess I can critique him on his choices of lager. But we’re not doing that today.

[3:05 p.m.]

Another quote is from November 19, 2020. This is from the Premier: “We are not hiding anything. We have been as transparent as any jurisdiction in North America on a daily basis, for months giving appropriate information to the public.” Well, that information will now come at a price, right?

Here’s another one. This is December 2, 2020. “It is my view that those requests” — from political parties — “are not designed to improve understanding of the delivery of programs.” It’s not designed to ensure that privacy infor­mation is protected. “They’re designed for political benefit, and we’ll continue to work with that. I was a beneficiary of that as an opposition member, so I understand it.”

Well, then, what changed? This is less than a year. Obviously, the Premier has had a massive change in heart when it comes to transparency.

It’s times like this when I wonder if…. The Minister of Labour spoke passionately a couple of seconds ago, and maybe he’ll speak again and defend this. I get that it’s awkward.

Interjection.

T. Halford: If the minister wants the quotes, I can give him the quotes, and he can read them back. That’s all good. But I will say this.

The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation spoke so passionately in our nation’s capital about the protection of FOI. He sits at the cabinet table, yet this happens. So what’s changed? What’s changed with the Premier, where he spoke so passionately about FOI when he was the Leader of the Opposition, when he was House Leader in the opposition, when he was Premier of the province? Something has changed.

Even the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour has said that the Privacy Commissioner was consulted. Well, my kids consult me when they want to go spend $200 on video games, and I tell them it’s a bad idea. My expectation is that they may listen to my counsel.

You can consult all you want, but at the end of the day, if you are not listening to the experts, that’s what we call a red flag. It’s a red flag.

I think that when we’re looking at this legislation and we’re talking about limiting British Columbians’ access to information through fees, or trying to access information through the Premier’s office, which apparently looks like it could be exempt…. That seems unique and odd and a little bit troubling. Kind of makes you wonder what’s hiding. I don’t know. We’ll find out through FOI.

I wonder, too, when we’re talking about the importance of…. Especially in this day and age. I think everybody in this House has probably, at some time, had their information compromised. I get a phone call from the CRA about once a day, telling me that there is going to be a raid on my house. Then I hit 1, and the call magically gets disconnected. But every minute, at every day, somebody’s information is compromised.

It’s the Crown’s responsibility to do everything in their power to try and protect some of that information. Does this bill do that? I don’t think it does. Does it weaken that? I think it does.

[3:10 p.m.]

I will make the offer if somebody at the…. We’re new MLAs. The minister of state — maybe there’s an opportunity, while we’re in Victoria, that we can go and…. I like sushi too. I’m not a huge fan of fried chicken, but I’ll do the sushi thing. I don’t drink, but I’ll buy him a beer. It would probably be cheaper than me putting in an FOI to try and figure out how a government that prided itself on transparency, on openness could come to a decision like this. It’s troubling. It’s egregious.

I think that we need to take a look back in self-reflection and figure out what it is this government wants to accomplish with this legislation.

Now, if you ask the member for Langley East, it may be to offset government costs. In fairness to the member, she didn’t define what those costs were. There are a lot of government costs right now. They continue to rise. So I don’t know if it’s to offset those costs. I don’t know if it’s to offset costs, whether they’re costs for an $87,000 government contract for a few months or a $41,000 contract for 25 days.

If it stops at those costs, then okay, maybe. But I think we really need to reflect on what damage this legislation will do to the democracy of this institution — the importance that British Columbians have in terms of finding how this government is operating.

There have been some blunders with this government, and it’s not a new government. But there have been some missteps. I understand that those missteps are embarrassing. But there has also been some arrogance, and I find this piece of legislation to be somewhat arrogant.

The fact is that this legislation would put the burden of these costs on the people seeking that information, whether they be an opposition party, whether they be the media, whether it be non-profits. To put the burden of those costs on those organizations, I think, is wrong. I think it’s undemocratic. I think that there may be a few members of the government that agree.

Now, we all are stewards of these seats. We’re not going to hold them forever. I would think that when we go back and we look at items where governments have overreached and overstepped, this will be at the top of the list if this legislation passes. But it doesn’t have to.

I think it’s important to note that when you have a Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that spoke so passionately about a tollgate of fares on the highway of information…. It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. Somewhat embarrassing, sure. But you know what? That’s better than getting this wrong.

Newsrooms don’t have the budget. We all know that. We all see our local papers shrinking. We all see radio rooms shrinking. Budgets are tight. We rely on the media, whether it’s good or bad. We rely on the media, whether we agree or disagree. It’s important that those stories be told. Some of those stories occurred through FOI. A lot of those stories occurred through FOI.

[3:15 p.m.]

For the Minister of Labour…. I’m going to wrap up here in two minutes, so if he does want to speak to it, I will cede my time. But I do want to assure the House…. The fact is I think this is short-sighted legislation. I think it’s got arrogant components. I think that we have not properly taken the counsel of the experts, particularly the Privacy Commissioner, who, in a fairly lengthy letter, critiqued this legislation in a very, very harsh way.

I think that we still have the opportunity to do the right thing, and I hope members on that side of the House — some of them sit on this side of the House — will agree with me and have a sober second thought.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and welcome to the chair.

May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: Tomorrow marks a very important day in my life. It marks the 33rd anniversary of the day on which I took my bride Georgina’s hand in marriage. So I just wanted to wish Georgina a very happy 33rd anniversary. I’m not going to be with her tomorrow, unfortunately. I’ll be down here doing committee work.

Georgina and I have been blessed with an amazing family. We’ve got four beautiful daughters and nine grandchildren, with No. 10 on the way.

Georgina, I just want to tell you how much I love you, and thank you very much for the amazing family that you’ve provided for me. Happy anniversary.

Debate Continued

G. Kyllo: Now for the exciting and the fun part of the day.

Bill 22. Wow. Why are we here? Who’s asking for this? Who was asking for this piece of legislation, with all of the very important pieces of legislation that British Columbians are looking for? Why is it that we are taking time to talk about Bill 22 today?

We have a commissioner that has the sole responsibility for upholding the laws of British Columbia when it comes to freedom of information and protection, yet that very individual was not adequately consulted with respect to this legislation. So I can’t help but ask myself: who was asking for this? Why are we actually debating a bill on very harsh and damaging changes to our existing freedom of information and protection legislation?

I certainly have not heard any news articles, any stories. There’s certainly been nobody coming to my constituency office expressing any concerns. I kind of wonder: why this is so important on government’s agenda that they’re taking time out of this legislative calendar to bring forward amendments that have had such scathing criticism by mainstream media and the very commissioner who was appointed to uphold the laws in this province?

You know, I really do hope that there’s nothing nefarious going on, but I can’t help but wonder: what is the motivation of government to move this piece of legislation forward this week?

We know that there have been many bills tabled that British Columbians have been looking for. I heard, in question period earlier today, a question asked of the Premier: what are the reasons why the Premier announced the snap election last fall, which caused considerable hardship to British Columbians, postponed the delivery of funds that were needed by businesses across the province with the circuit breaker grants?

The Premier pointed to a piece of legislation, the safe care protection act, and the fact that he did not have unanimous support in this House — that that was the reason that his relationship with the Greens was apparently falling apart, and that was the reason by which he called a snap election.

[3:20 p.m.]

Yet here we are, 12 months later, and we still haven’t seen this legislation. The broader consultation was promised over a year ago. We still haven’t seen it.

Governments have choice. I understand. I get that. But when you have the Premier of this province and the current government trying to hang their hat on the reason for the snap election last fall being the fact that the safe care act did not have the support that was necessary to bring it forward in this House…. Yet a year later, 12 months later, we’re still standing here, waiting to see that important legislation that could actually save the lives of British Columbians.

Again, who is asking for these changes? The whole tenet of democracy is based on trust and transparency. It’s not a dictatorship. British Columbians deserve to have the ability to understand why government is making the decisions that they undertake. None of these are easy, but government has a duty to actually share with British Columbians why they are acting in the manner that they are. What information are they relying on around making their decisions? That is very necessary for upholding and determining what the truth is and providing the clarity to British Columbians to have a true and full understanding of why government acts the way that they do and what is driving their decisions.

As I stand here in the Legislature and look towards the members opposite, there is likely a very solid reason why the government members are not speaking to this bill. How do you defend the indefensible? How does government stand up and take time to share with British Columbians that this piece of legislation before us today…?

It erodes democracy, takes away transparency, impedes the ability of British Columbians for accessing information. How is it this piece of legislation is more important than all of the other many pieces of legislation that different organizations and British Columbians are looking for? It’s the absence of speakers on the government side which I think really tells the tale.

This is a very sad day for British Columbians. You would certainly think and appreciate that government, of all entities, would be taking heed of the processes that are currently in place, to allow for that transparency, to pro­vide that opportunity for broader public consultation. The special committee was struck in June of this past year with the sole purpose and the ability to actually undertake that very necessary work. Yet the committee has sat for an entirety of two minutes. Two minutes to appoint the Chair and the Deputy Chair, and that is it. That is all the work that that committee has undertaken.

The work of that committee…. The positions of Chair and Deputy Chair come with a significant stipend. Maybe that was the reason that the committee was struck, so that those individuals on that committee were entitled to an increase in pay. But why has the work not started? Why would government establish the committee and then, over the course of the months of July, August, September and now into October, the committee has not met, has not consulted, has not met with the existing Privacy Commissioner?

The reason that these committees are available is to help to undertake that work in a bipartisan way, with members both of government members and opposition members, but that has not happened. The very individual that has been appointed unanimously by this chamber, by this government, by all members of the Legislature, to uphold the legislation protecting the rights of individuals when it comes to protection of information, the very individual who has been put in charge and placed to uphold those laws, again, was not consulted.

[3:25 p.m.]

Even worse than that, even worse than the fact that the consultation was not undertaken, he was blindsided by this piece of legislation, was not even provided the advanced opportunity to review the legislation and pro­vide input back to government before this legislation hit the floor, the individual that’s charged with actually undertaking to enforce and ensure that the legislation is followed. All of these substantive changes that are set out in Bill 22 were not shared with our Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Why would government not do that, even afford him the most simplest courtesy? If it’s not our Information and Privacy Commissioner that is giving the direction to government, who in government has actually had their hand on this piece of legislation?

If the government is aware and can share with this House a list of all of the wondrous individuals that have qualifications that surpass our existing commissioner, and they’re the ones that were consulted in order to help develop and draft this legislation, please share it with us. I would love to hear. I think British Columbians would like to hear who was actually directing government on these very substantive and damaging changes to the current piece of legislation.

As we look to process, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner tabled a letter yesterday addressed to Minister Beare, the Minister of Citizens’ Services, setting out succinctly, over the course of six pages, all of the concerns associated with this bill. The commissioner indicates: “As just suggested, FIPPA provides for periodic review of the statute by an all-party special committee of the Legislative Assembly. Several of these have been concluded, and many, many useful and important recommendations have been made by these special committees, the latest of which has been appointed. It is not at all clear why government has chosen to move forward with amendments ahead of the special committee’s legislated work to review the act.”

The commissioner goes on to say: “The work of the special committee is essential, as the committee is able to pull information and consultations from a variety of sources, encouraging fulsome public dialogue about proposed amendments.” He goes on to say: “I have to question how meaningful the first substantive amendments to the act in over a decade can be when there is no time for all stakeholders to provide dialogue. To move forward with these amendments in a year that the special committee is tasked to do this work is baffling.”

In any relationship, what’s the most important tenet? Trust. Government has a duty to ensure to the citizens of British Columbia that that trust is not broken or breached. Trust starts with full disclosure and government having the ability and the willingness to actually share with British Columbians why they are choosing to make decisions as they are.

I certainly appreciate that there are many discussions that are subject to cabinet confidentiality. But the bulk of the work that drives legislative change, changes that are supposed to be in the best interests of all British Columbians, that direction also needs to be shared with British Columbians. Just the fact that we’re here today with a government, for reasons that are yet unknown…. We certainly haven’t seen any firm direction being given by our Infor­mation and Privacy Commissioner to effect these changes.

[3:30 p.m.]

The special committee that this government, the Premier himself, actually, established back in June hasn’t met, yet they run in, in the middle of fall session, to debate a piece of legislation that makes very significant and damaging changes to the manner in which the public have access to the information on how government is making decisions.

Taxpayers in British Columbia already contribute approximately $70 billion a year — seventy thousand million dollars — to provide all of the wondrous services that we rely on in this province. Taxpayers are already paying for all of the staff in these ministries. It’s not government’s money. Taxpayer dollars are what is paying for all of the staff and all of these offices. The minister’s offices, the Premier’s office — taxpayers are already paying. If there is a request for information that goes forward to a minister’s office, those staff are already being paid by tax dollars.

If it’s going to be bit of an inconvenience for them to maybe pull up past documents to provide the opportunity for British Columbians to better understand how they arrived at a set decision, so be it. That is the way democracy works.

But for the member of Langley East to make the comment that this is about cost recovery…. Please. That’s laughable. Estimated fees, from my understanding, are around $150,000 a year. Now, the Premier gave himself and his own office a $3 million lift this year — a $3 million lift. Why? The justification? Who knows. We have yet to see it. Over 100 staff working in the Premier’s office, largely to project all the wondrous values of the government and what they’re providing for British Columbia.

We have a separate ministry called government communications and provincial engagement that I believe has about a $30 million budget, with approximately another 500 staff. Just in those two offices, that’s 600 employees whose job is to communicate to British Columbians all the wondrous new projects and proposals that government is doing on their behalf.

Now, do you think those 600 individuals might have the time and opportunity to maybe provide a bit of detail and backup to British Columbians? I certainly think they do. So cost recovery is a laughable comment. It does impede access.

The role of an opposition is to hold government to account. How do we have that ability to hold government to account? It’s through inquiry. If, in making those inquiries, government chooses not to disclose information, or should they choose to be selective in the sharing of information, or should they choose to be, I guess, selective by blacking out — we heard recently of one document; of 73 pages, 55 pages were blanked out — how is opposition, on behalf of British Columbians, able to actually scrutinize and hold government to account?

The very purpose of an opposition is to uphold the democracy and to question government’s actions. I’m sure it’s uncomfortable for government in many instances. But many of the government members, including the Premier, sat in opposition and made very bold and strong comments about the need to ensure full access to information. But boy, things turn. Not a year into this current parliament with a majority, we have a significant overreach of government.

[3:35 p.m.]

Some of the words and terms that I’ve heard that shed some light on this piece of legislation: “selfish,” “truth suppression,” “a deterrent,” “an obstacle to democracy,” “putting up roadblocks to reduce access to information,” “undermining democracy.”

I’ll go back to the relationship that government has with the citizens of this province. It’s an important relationship. I certainly appreciate that not all British Columbians are always going to be supportive of every initiative that a government undertakes, but at the very least, government has a duty and obligation to share with British Columbians the reasons why they’re moving forward in a certain direction. Our job, the job of an official opposition, is to do just that — to make those important inquiries through question periods, through requests for information, so that we can better understand why government is moving forward in the manner that they are.

Now, that letter that I referenced earlier — an approximately six-page letter submitted by Mr. Michael McEvoy, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia — sets out, very succinctly, many of the concerns with respect to the legislation that is before us. Again, I just want to remind the viewers at home that might be listening that this legislation was not vetted through the Privacy Commissioner’s office. To my knowledge, he was not provided an advance copy or an opportunity to have input into the drafting of the legislation, to ensure that concerns that might be coming forward from his office were actually addressed in this piece of legislation.

He set out, very succinctly, different headings on many of the areas of concern. The first one: absence of information about key regulations. The letter indicates: “An overriding concern with Bill 22 is the unknown impact of key amendments because their substance will only be filled in through regulations, about which we know nothing.” Well, the whole purpose of this chamber and this Legislative Assembly is so that if there are going to be substantive changes, they can be debated here in this House. It’s a sad day when government chooses to allow themselves to make broad, sweeping changes through regulation without the scrutiny of this Legislative Assembly.

Now, it’s not new for this government. We saw that last spring with Bill 13, the paid-sick-leave legislation brought forward by the Minister of Labour. There’s going to be a paid-sick-leave policy that’s going to be placed and determined and set out for British Columbians on January 1 of this coming year. We know nothing about it, because government has given themselves the blank cheque, the ability to make their own determinations, sitting around a cabinet table. Well, that’s not transparent.

They’re talking of between three, five and ten days. I tell you, for those listening at home, for ten days of paid sick leave, the cost to the businesses, the employers in British Columbia, is upwards of $4 billion. Government is giving themselves the ability, through a piece of legislation…. They hammered it through — with lots of opposition, too, but they had the numbers — last spring. On January 1, this government has decided, the scrutiny of this House doesn’t matter: “We’re going to cast that to the wind. See, this chamber, this whole assembly, is a nuisance.”

[3:40 p.m.]

The Premier and his cabinet are going to sit around a table, and they’ll make their own determination on what kinds of additional costs are going to be placed on the backs of B.C. businesses. As valid and necessary as this legislation may be, they’ve chosen to take away the opportunity of British Columbians for having that scrutiny and that public dialogue. They’ve taken that away. They’ll make a decision around a cabinet table. They’ll plead cabinet confidentiality, and businesses in B.C. will just see the outcome of that decision.

We will not have the ability to even understand what it was that was driving government’s decision. That’s an erosion of trust. I’m sad to say the relationship with this government and with British Columbians is quickly eroding and evaporating. It’s a disgusting abuse of power. Don’t just take my word for it.

Data linking. It’s another change set out in this piece of legislation. The Privacy Commissioner sets out and states in this letter: “I support the proposed improvements to the provisions dealing with data-linking initiatives, which had previously failed to capture many types of data linking. The new definition of data linking and related concepts would, in my view, capture the types of programs anticipated in 2011, when the data-linking provisions were first enacted.” In ten years — but nobody asked the Privacy Commissioner for his input.

The commissioner goes on to say: “However, Bill 22 leaves the details of how data-linking activities will be conducted to regulations, about which we have no details.” Again, government is choosing to give themselves the sole opportunity to make wide-sweeping changes and regulations without the scrutiny of this House. Absolutely shameful that the government is acting in this high-handed manner.

The letter goes on, speaking about data residency, proposed privacy breach notification rules. In each of these points, although there are some merits to some of the legislation and some of the language, there are also many pitfalls, missed opportunities and, again, concerns around the lack of transparency on what is driving these decisions, what further decisions will be made through regulation and what those broader impacts will be about the ability of British Columbians to fully understand what government has undertaken and why.

I spoke earlier about how the Premier’s office has had a $3 million budget lift in this last fiscal — $3 million. No scrutiny, no real justification on why it needed to have such a significant lift. I think the $3 million was approximately about a 35 percent lift in one year. This is a time when businesses are struggling. Individuals across the province are struggling under COVID and all of those challenges. Inflation is pegged around 3 or 4 percent, but the Premier decides to give his own office a 35 percent funding lift.

But listen to this. The Office of the Premier lies at the heart of provincial governance. Yet, the legislation under Bill 22 that’s before this House removes the Office of the Premier as a public body.

[3:45 p.m.]

The commissioner states: “I am very concerned that Bill 22 would remove the Office of the Premier as a public body under schedule 2 of FIPPA. My understanding is that the government believes this designation is not necessary, on the basis that the Premier, a first minister, is a minister and therefore his office is a ministry and is, therefore, covered under the schedule 1 definition of ‘public body.’”

Now, the commissioner goes to say: “This is not, with respect, clear in law or constitutional convention, and this change would introduce, at the very least, uncertainty in the application of the law.” It doesn’t provide greater clarity. It provides more uncertainty. So if the intention of this bill is to provide more clarity and certainty, this piece does exactly the opposite. So who is this to serve?

The commissioner goes on to say: “Moreover, I am not aware of any harm flowing from retaining this designation.” No harm done. What problem are we trying to solve? Doesn’t appear to be one. The commissioner goes on to say: “Which, obviously, begs the question as to why the change is being made when the outcome is, again, not as clear as I am told the government believes it is.”

The commissioner goes on to say: “I call on the government to delete this proposal from Bill 22 for greater certainty that FIPPA’s transparency and accountability provisions will continue to apply, as they have for decades, at the Office of the Premier.”

The Premier talks the talk about openness and transparency. I’m certainly not seeing it. British Columbians aren’t seeing it. The hesitancy and resistance and reluctance of government to share very important data around COVID numbers, around deaths and fatalities in our long-term-care facilities, and now this — government’s direct efforts to put their boot heels on the throat of democracy.

I will not be voting in support of this bill. If government were wise, they would throw this one in the shredder, as Vaughn Palmer has so eloquently stated.

T. Stone: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 22, the Freedom of Information and Protection Privacy Amendment Act.

I want to start by referencing the government’s news release, which went out with this piece of legislation the other day. The title of this news release is: “Amendments strengthen access to information and protect people’s privacy.” It sounds great. That sounds really good. How could anyone argue with that?

Much to, I think, our dismay, much to the shock of British Columbians, when you actually dive into the legislation, you realize this legislation is actually the complete opposite of strengthening access to information and it’s the opposite of protecting people’s privacy.

I’m going to walk through a number of areas in this legislation that I think are extremely problematic and that, really, at the end of the day, require the government to take this piece of legislation, go back to the drawing board, properly consult with the all-party legislative committee, the statutory committee of this Legislature, and do the heavy lifting on this in conjunction with, in consultation with, the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner and others to fix some of the gaping challenges which currently exist in this legislation.

Our FOI system in this province today is broken. There’s no other way to describe it. We all say the right things, I think. I think most British Columbians would agree with the suggestion, with the comment, with the assertion that access to information in a timely manner — free of barriers, including financial barriers — is a fundamental tenet of any democracy. It’s a fundamental tenet of any democracy for the independent media to be able to access public records, government information.

It’s a fundamental tenet of democracy for political opposition, including opposition parties, to be able to access government records and information.

[3:50 p.m.]

Of course, most importantly, it’s critical and fundamental to a functioning, thriving democracy for the public, to be able to access information in a timely fashion without barriers.

What we’ve seen under this government over the past four years is a continuation of an erosion of the freedom-of-information framework in this province — increasing delays to access information, increasing redactions to information, blacking out of documents. Now the consideration of fees for access. It’s not right. It shouldn’t be happening here in British Columbia. Bill 22 makes all of this worse. It makes the access to that information worse.

The all-party legislative committee should have done this work, and they should have brought forward recommendations. The recommendations should have been properly considered by cabinet, and they simply weren’t.

I think we’ve lost the plot here on FOI changes, in the sense that people are no longer seen to be at the centre of the FOI process, the intention of FOI, the purpose for it to exist in the first place. I want to just run through, quickly, an example. It relates to the recent wildfires that have taken place up in the Interior this past summer.

The member for Fraser-Nicola, who is sitting right here beside me; the member for Cariboo North; the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin; the member for Kelowna West…. And there are others. We all, along with our constituents, experienced a very difficult summer with these wildfires. In some of our communities, entire neighbourhoods were lost. In Lytton, the entire town practically burned to the ground. In my riding of Kamloops–South Thompson, in Monte Lake and the Paxton Valley, there are 32 families today that do not have a home. They do not have a roof over their head.

In addition to the separate discussion and the separate debate that we will have and continue to have in the coming days and weeks about the supports that were promised, the supports that aren’t there, the very real human needs that these people have, they also have very valid questions about decisions that were taken in the fighting of these fires when they were much smaller, before they ripped through their valleys and wiped out their communities.

The problem is that this information is not readily available. It’s not easy to access. It’s not, obviously, included in the duty-to-assist intent within the legislation. People have to submit freedom-of-information requests. So you know what? I did it on behalf of my constituents.

The fire that ripped through my riding, which burned down 32 homes in Monte Lake and Paxton Valley, happened on August 5. We in the official opposition submitted a freedom-of-information request on August 16, so shortly after the fire. The intention of this request on behalf of our constituents was to access records, documents, critical information that would provide answers to the questions that people have about what resources were made available and when to fight those fires.

What were the decisions and the timing of those decisions and the allocation of ground assets and air assets in actually doing everything possible to fight that fire and prevent structure damage, which ended up happening?

We submitted the FOI request on August 16. We got a letter back from the ministry on August 27 that basically said: “Yeah, we’ve got these records. We can provide these records. But you’re going to have to pay a $300 fee.” We pushed back on the fee and said: “Look, we would humbly request that the fee be waived in the context of an exclusion that exists in the act today.” That will no longer exist if this legislation passes, but the exclusion that’s there today is that a fee can be waived if it’s in the public interest.

I will say, to the ministry’s credit, that they did waive the fee. They came back to us, and they said: “We will waive the fee.” They came back to us in early September.

[3:55 p.m.]

Then, throughout September, we kept getting letters back and forth with the ministry, requesting extensions — extensions to, actually, the timelines that are mandated in the legislative framework for a response. Fair enough, until our shock on October 1. We got a letter from the ministry that says: “Although a search was conducted, no records were located. Your file is closed.”

Now, how can that be? Everyone who looks at this objectively, not the least of which are the residents in question that have lost their homes…. Anyone that looks at this objectively would say there is no possible way that there are no records that reflect the allocation of resources during this fire. Yet we got back a response from the ministry saying that that actually is the case. There are no records that fit the request.

Now, fair enough. We go back and forth again with the ministry. We’re like: “Well, can you help us here with the naming of documents or how we have to write the request or the wording in the different fields of the request and the time frames and this and that?”

The point is that it’s been over three months since these fires ripped through. People want answers to their questions, and we’re sitting here trying to figure out: did we get the grammar right? Did we word the request properly? Did we include the right date frame? Did we do this, do that? The intent of the request is pretty bloody obvious. People want to know what resources were allocated to this fire.

Now, the context matters. Residents showed up on the day that the White Rock Lake fire started. They showed up on the day it started, and they were beginning to try to put it out. These are ranchers and forest contractors that live in the area. They allege that they were told to stand down by B.C. Wildfire Service staff.

Now, all we’re looking for here are answers. We’ve had the Solicitor General very emphatically state that the B.C. Wildfire Service was there within 30 minutes and was on this fire, and we threw all kinds of resources at it. In fact, so many resources that they left all kinds of contractors on the sidelines throughout the balance of the fire. The locals don’t believe it. I don’t believe it. But prove us wrong. Provide people that information. It shouldn’t be this difficult.

We’re not going to give up. We’re going to continue to do whatever we have to within the confines of the legislation. I will say that if this bill passes, those confines become much, much more strict, much, much more constrained and costs involved, abilities for government to say: “No, we’re not going to respond to that. It may not be vexatious, but it’s too repetitious of a request. It’s too systematic of a request.”

This is not good enough. We should be improving the system. Documents like flight logs and incident command reports and resource allocation updates are documents that, frankly, should be proactively disclosed. The government should be looking for ways to take this kind of information, in the public interest, and push the information out, unless there’s a reason for why government doesn’t want to do that.

I prefer to look for the good in people and the good in situations and be positive. So I reserve ultimate, final judgment on this. I will say it’s very concerning that it’s taken this long to basically get nowhere and to be told, as of weeks ago, that “no records were located in response to your request” on a fire that destroyed 32 homes of families in Monte Lake and Paxton Valley. That’s not acceptable.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Let’s turn to InBC Investment. We canvassed this earlier today in question period. We canvassed it back in May. The government sets up a $500 million high-risk venture capital scheme using taxpayer dollars, of course.

[4:00 p.m.]

On May 19, the commissioner sends a very strongly worded letter to this government, calling out their plans to, as he called it, shroud this investment plan in secrecy. In fact, the commissioner went so far as to say: “There are many other examples of Crown corporations or agencies that manage public funds or assets for the benefit of the province while being subject to FIPPA.”

There is no reason for InBC not to. But this continues a pattern. The government is not subjecting InBC’s business plan to FOI. They’re not making available impact scorecards for investments. They’re not subjecting InBC to FOI legislation. It’s not included. It’s not in part 2. It’s not there in the list.

Of course, one of the most egregious aspects of this bill, speaking of things that aren’t going to be included in the purview of the legislation…. Well, let’s talk about the Premier’s office. How is it possible that the Premier’s office is being exempted from this freedom-of-information legislation? But that’s what is happening. It’s in this bill. They’re striking out inclusion at the Premier’s office and executive council operations from part 2 of the act. They say: “Oh no, don’t worry. We’re still going to be subject to the requirements of freedom of information.”

That’s not what the FOI commissioner has to say about it. He said this in his letter, this seven-page letter that he provided to the government only days ago expressing his absolute concern with a lot of what the government has included in this bill. The commissioner said:

“I am very concerned that Bill 22 would remove the Office of the Premier as a public body under schedule 2 of FIPPA. My understanding is that the government believes this designation is not necessary on the basis that the Premier, a first minister, is a minister, and therefore, his office is a ministry and is therefore covered by the schedule 1 definition of ‘public body.’ This is not, with respect, clear in law or constitutional convention, and this change would introduce, at the very least, uncertainty in the application of the law.

“Moreover, I am not aware of any harm flowing from retaining this designation, which obviously begs the question as to why the change is being made when the outcome is, again, not as clear as I am told government believes it is.”

Yeah, why is this change being made? I’m going to go with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on this one, not the government. The commissioner feels that this is an egregious move on the part of government and that the Premier’s office should not be exempted. I agree with him.

The government has said that part of the challenge is this high volume of requests that come from the official opposition — lots of FOI requests. But I think that it bears noting that the volume of FOI requests from the opposition actually reflects a number of factors. Very often gathering information on a single topic requires multiple FOI requests, as responsive records can exist in more than one ministry or school district or health authority or local government. It’s left up to the individual or the media person or the opposition party to actually try and stitch all of this together. You want to get some answers on some things? You might have to put in multiple requests to multiple agencies in order to get your answers.

Requests that government considers broad are assessed significant fees. So those requests have to be narrowed as much as possible. That also increases the total number of requests. Submitting monthly recurring requests are also critical to understanding government decisions. The opposition submits that: “Yeah. We do. We submit hundreds of requests annually for documents such as calendars and lists of briefing notes, and so forth.” Recurring requests for calendars of senior staff or lists of briefing notes give the public, first and foremost — and, yes, the media and, yes, the opposition, all of which play a role in the accountability that is a feature of a democracy…. It’s all of those entities that apply that accountability.

But the question is: why are these kinds of documents not proactively disclosed? Why are they not just made available voluntarily, upfront, as the Premier was talking about earlier today? The Privacy Commissioner had this to say: “Oppositions gathering information about how government systems are running is part of a free-flowing, properly functioning democracy.”

[4:05 p.m.]

Let’s bring it down to a retail level here. Let’s talk about some examples of where the FOI legislation as promised was really, really integral. It was important. It was a critical tool that was used to unearth something about something government was doing that the public had a right to know about. How about the discovery that the NDP were politicizing constituency offices in January of 2009? That was a $127,300 cost to outfit a bunch of constituency offices to place political EAs into a bunch of constituency offices. The government didn’t want to proactively disclose that. The public only found out through FOI.

How about B.C. Housing’s affordable housing investment plan, which, back in early February of 2020, got a pretty interesting reaction from government when, through FOI, after multiple requests, the opposition was able to access B.C. Housing’s quarterly reports on the updates as to the progress that they’re making towards the government’s objective of 114,000 new units of housing? Much to our shock, did we discover that government, at the three-year point in their mandate, was at 2 percent delivery. Government wasn’t proactively disclosing that. That wasn’t easily accessible anywhere.

We also discovered in the Q1 report — again, only because we got this document through FOI — the NDP’s crafty use of the term “initiated.” Do you remember that, Members? Do you remember the use of the word “initiated”? This was an attempt by the government to inflate the progress being made on their housing program.

We learned that “initiated” was defined in the Q1 report as “homes that have been announced, but no commitment has been made towards them.” How critically important is that for the public to know? It’s one thing to make announcements. It’s another thing to cut ribbons. It’s quite something different to actually fund your projects. We only found this out through FOI.

Government took that in the Q2 report. Again, we got that report. The government changed the definition. The word “initiated” just disappeared from the report. In its place, it said that the definition was…. Instead of saying “initiated,” it was “these are projects that don’t yet have their final B.C. Housing approval” — an obvious attempt to disconnect financial commitment from approvals. This was further massaged in subsequent reports, but my point is that this document would not have come to light. The public would not have had access to this document and the information in it if it hadn’t been for freedom of information.

Let’s talk about a few more examples here. Child care spaces in November of 2019. It was only because of FOI that the public learned that despite promising 22,000 new child care spaces over three years, the NDP had only created 5,717 in their first two years in office. Or how about the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority expense scandal — $100,000 in living expenses paid to ousted executives? The public only found out about that because of FOI.

The B.C. government concealing hospital outbreaks. The Little Mountain care home deaths. The Wilderness Committee uncovering that the NDP were misleading British Columbians about how many hectares it had protected from old-growth logging. Or the fact that CBAs, a community benefit agreement, a union-only agreement, was going to add millions of dollars of additional costs to the Cowichan Hospital. The only way that the public found out about that and any of these other things that I have mentioned was because of FOI.

Let’s talk about fees. There are three changes in fees in this bill. One is a potential fee for certain documents, like manuals. The second is a new allowance for a public body to charge applicants for simply providing a copy of the record. Thirdly, the application of an application fee. We don’t know exactly what it’s going to be, but it’s strongly suggested by the minister that it might be somewhere in the $25 range.

[4:10 p.m.]

Let’s be really clear about this. This application fee, and let’s assume that it’s 25 bucks per application, is a tollgate on accessing that information. That’s what it is. It strikes right at the heart of accountability and transparency. The minister claims that this will not be a barrier to access, but again, the Information and Privacy Commissioner differs in his view. He said: “This would be a significant step in the wrong direction. Application fees pose a real barrier for many who seek information that should be readily available to the public.”

Let’s just take a quick scan of the country. As of today, the information that I have suggests that British Columbia, at a $25 fee, would have the highest fees in the country, tied with Alberta. So I guess Alberta was the model that this government was seeking to emulate. Ontario and Nova Scotia, PEI and the federal government have $5 application fees. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland all have no fees. I sure hope the government reverses course in terms of the fee issue.

I want to talk a little bit about the scope of changes that take place in this legislation. The scope of the act will be further limited, as confirmed by the commissioner. He said again, in this letter from a couple of days ago: “The right of access under FIPPA would no longer apply to certain electronic records, a change that would, in turn, limit public bodies’ duty to create records from electronic records.”

That’s not moving a freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislative framework forward. It’s not moving it forward in the interest of the public.

Section 27 expands provisions under which the head of the public body may ask the commissioner to authorize the public body to disregard a request if it is excessively broad or is repetitious or systematic. That’s a significant departure from “vexatious,” which is the core definition there now.

A few of my colleagues have touched on data linking. This is a very significant concern of mine and, I think, for many of us in the opposition — that the definition for data linking is rewritten to have two implications within this legislation. One is health research, and the other is social media and engagements with government.

Let’s be very clear about this. The definition for data linking now includes data that is disclosed by the public on social media. I’ll say that again. The definition for data linking now includes data that is disclosed on social media by the individual or information obtained and compiled by a public body for engagement purposes.

The government appears to be opening up the door here through this data-linking provision to enable itself to go in and scrape data off of social media channels and use that data for purposes that are not clear in this legislation.

What does the government intend to do with the data that I post or that my wife posts or that my mom posts on Facebook in relation to, let’s say, an announcement about child care funding, or a visit to a provincial park, or a negative comment about the state of highway maintenance on a particular stretch of highway?

Is the government really suggesting…? Is the NDP really saying that, through this legislation, the intent is to go and to extract as much data on British Columbians as they can, link that to the profiles of British Columbians and other pieces of information? Because they’re broadly expanding the application of data linking in this legislation, but it’s not well-fleshed-out in the legislation. As is very typical of this government, the details will be in the regulations.

[4:15 p.m.]

The commissioner makes quite a comment on that, and he’s very clear: “I want to see the regulations before they’re implemented. I want to see the draft regulations.” Because there’s a very, very critical privacy concern here that needs to be addressed and should have been addressed prior to this legislation being brought forward.

Even more concerning than the scraping of this data, the extracting of this personal data from British Columbians’ social media channels is the fact that the government is removing oversight of the commissioner’s office on exactly that practice. Why would the government do that? The commissioner expresses that concern in his letter as well.

Last but not least — there’s so much more we could talk about on data linking — the data residency changes that are contemplated in this piece of legislation…. The government is, frankly, removing the current data residency requirements altogether and, essentially, by doing so, removing all protections that British Columbians’ data…. All the health data of people and how, presumably, all of the data that’s contained in social media channels of British Columbians…. This data might possibly be stored outside of Canada. But where, you ask? I have no idea. This is very, very disconcerting. This is very worrying. I think this, in and of itself, is a significant reason why this legislation shouldn’t be here today.

This legislation, these concepts, should be in front of the all-party legislative committee, where some due diligence on this could be done. There are a number of us that have experience in the tech sector: myself, and there’s the member from Vancouver–False Creek, who I see. I’m not sure if she has spoken to this piece of legislation, but, surely to goodness, I know she knows what I’m talking about — data linking and data residency requirements, and so forth.

To leave all of this to regulation without the details being disclosed to British Columbians is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. Frankly, the bill being here today, as the Speaker earlier today mentioned, is discourteous at best. The all-party committee should have been allowed to do its work. Access to information is made more challenging with this legislation, including financial barriers that are contemplated. The Premier’s office being extracted from the purview of the legislation is wrong.

These provisions around data linking, data residency are very, very concerning. The reduction of oversight of the commissioner’s office that is peppered throughout this legislation is wrong. Leaving most of these details and these changes to regulation should not be happening. For those reasons, I cannot support this legislation.

M. Bernier: So open and transparent government, right? Open and transparent government. “We will be the most open and transparent government.” How many times have we heard this slogan from this government? Too many times. I could actually use my whole 30 minutes that I’m allotted to read out how many times this Premier and this government has used that slogan.

What’s one of the first pieces of legislation they bring forward? Something that goes completely against every­thing they say about being open and transparent. I think it sums up very, very succinctly and quickly, from Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun, when he says: “The NDP should run the FOI bill through the nearest shredder.” I think that just sums up exactly what this bill means to not only the media, but the people of British Columbia and how important this probably is.

I could read out, as some of my colleagues have, quote after quote that we’ve seen this week from just the media alone, who are starting to highlight the challenges, the problems, the angst and the concern that they have with Bill 22. Maybe, for some of the new members in government, I’ll start with some politics 101: don’t tick off the media. They’re actually here to do a job, just like we are as an opposition.

[4:20 p.m.]

The local media, the provincial media, especially the ones in this building — their job is to report what’s going on here, as best as possible, with the information on decisions that government is making. This bill in front of us is going to make that harder.

I’ll get to a few things in a moment on that, but I just want to maybe go back, go to what we do in government — what government’s job is. We have a majority government. I shouldn’t say I’m okay with that, but that’s what we have. We have an NDP majority government. Their job is to listen to the people, to do consultation, to get information, as best as they can, to make decisions to help the people of British Columbia.

What concerns me through this process is that they now want to hide behind any decision they make. Now, we do know…. My politically crass comment would be that we’ve seen very little come from this government so far, in their four years, of any proper decision-making, to follow through with any promises. But on the rare occasion when they actually have done something, it’s important to be clear on why they made that decision.

They should be proud of those decisions. They shouldn’t be hiding behind those decisions. If you put legislation forward or make a change that you say is supposed to help the people of British Columbia, why do you then, in turn, as a government, not want to disclose how you came to the decisions that you say are supposed to be helping the people of British Columbia?

I don’t know how many times I or some of my colleagues have asked very succinct, specific questions — whether it’s in question period or possibly even during debates — to members of the executive council, to say, “How did you make that decision?” and they’ve refused to tell us. In fact, many times we’ve heard: “Don’t worry; you can FOI that.”

I can save everybody a lot of time on this bill. You don’t need the bill if you actually just disclosed the information to begin with, when the media is asking for it, when the public is asking for it and when the opposition — yes, the opposition — is asking for information as well. This is about determining the process of why government made a decision, plain and simple.

Yes, sometimes the information through an FOI is important information for not only the opposition, who are doing their work — as a reminder, because I know that many members on the government side used to be in opposition and say the same thing. You’re doing the work in opposition on behalf of the people of British Columbia. We’re asking for information so that the people of British Columbia can have that information.

As we’ve heard from other colleagues that have spoken before me, when you get blank pieces of paper, when you say, “No records found,” especially in the Premier’s of­fice…. A decision is made in the Premier’s office, who is supposedly the head of the province, the head of cabinet, even though we’ve heard him multiple times say: “I’m only one person at the cabinet table.” But he’s the Premier of the province. When you ask a question about how he came to a conclusion for a direction to advise cabinet or to decide on a policy, to find out that there were no records found should be very, very concerning to the people in the province of British Columbia.

When information is needed, I think it’s important that the information gets out there. Again, I understand that we have a majority government that’s making those decisions. Nobody is challenging that the government has the authority to make decisions. But the question, again, is: how do you come to those decisions? Whether it’s the opposition or whether it’s the media, we have a democratic process around transparency and accountability. That is the FOI system.

[4:25 p.m.]

I took a few moments, hon. Chair, before I got up, because I was waiting to see…. Typically, we alternate — government, opposition, government, opposition — on a bill for speakers, and I waited to see who was going to stand up. Technically, I thought it was not my turn. It would have been somebody from government’s turn to stand up.

As we’ve seen throughout the course of discussion today, for some reason, members on the government side and backbenchers had no problem standing up and talking at length, in some cases, to the misc stats bill, which, supposedly, was so important. But we’re talking about a piece of legislation that’s fundamental to the transparency of government, that government has put forward, and they’re not willing to stand up and defend it? That in itself should be very, very concerning.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in an NDP caucus meeting right now.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I won’t repeat that last comment into the record for Hansard.

But I would love to be the fly on the wall, because I think it’s really important. When very few — none today — members of government are willing to stand up and defend why they want to take away transparency, why they want this bill forward, why this is so important when none of them are willing to stand up…. I sure hope that they’ve been speaking their mind at the caucus table, saying this is wrong.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, probably not likely. I agree. But that should be their job. How can they go back to their ridings?

How can anybody in this House that would vote in favour of this bill go back to their ridings, talk to their constituents and say: “Guess what. We called a fall session. It was an important fall session. We know that people are dying in a pandemic. We know we’re in the middle of the opioid crisis, the worst we’ve ever seen. We know that businesses are closing, people are suffering. Affordability is at the all-time worst that this province has ever seen. We know how challenging it is in British Columbia right now, but don’t worry. We called a fall session so we could put Bill 22 forward to take away accountability and transparency and openness from government because we felt that was the most important thing to bring forward right now.”

That’s a scary thought. That’s a disappointing thought, actually. With some of the things I just mentioned, for a government who tries to pride themselves on: “We are doing all of this to help the people of British Columbia….”

I just read out just a few things that are traumatizing the citizens of British Columbia right now. Do we see anything coming forward so far in this fall session that’s going to solve any of those issues? I don’t even actually say “solve” or even “discuss” any of these issues. That’s what the people of British Columbia are expecting us to do in this House. The fact is, opposition — we have to now stand up and spend our time trying to defend the democratic process rather than working with government to try to solve some of the critical issues that are facing people in British Columbia.

I’ll be frank. That’s a sad day for me in my political career so far, if this is a priority for this government. They had to call a snap election. They had to say: “We need a majority government so we can move forward important legislation to help people.” And, again, one of the first things that comes forward is legislation to take away responsibility for them to be accountable.

We’ve heard from colleagues earlier about some of the different aspects of this bill that are challenging. But to me…. We get to the crux of this.

[4:30 p.m.]

We have an independent statutory officer. We have the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We have a commissioner whose job, whose title — whose being, if you want to call it, as this office is — is around freedom of information and protection for the citizens of British Columbia. In fact, it’s established to ensure that we as government are not hiding behind rules, that we’re accountable, and that we are disclosing information to help the people of British Columbia.

To hear the few members that spoke yesterday say: “Don’t worry. We consulted with the commissioner….” Within a few hours of those comments, the commissioner sends out, basically, a six-, seven-page scathing letter to government saying: “You are not listening. This is wrong.” It’s basically calling for the minister to rewrite major portions of this legislation, to challenge sections of it, saying: “This will not work.” Continuing to chastise the process of having a commissioner’s office, which I argue — I think, in this House, that we all will — is a much-needed office….

But wow. What a slap in the face to say, “Don’t worry. We consulted with you” — the few members in this House that spoke — but then to go ahead and follow through with a piece of legislation that completely goes against anything that the commissioner would have, if given the time, supported.

Who is asking for this? What was the rush? I’d love to hear somebody from the government side stand up and say: “Don’t worry. Here’s the long list of people that wanted us to hide information. Here’s the whole list of all the groups that are concerned.”

Now, we’ve heard from, I believe, the minister, in a press avail, saying: “Well, we’ve heard from some of the health authorities that it’s concerning.” Well, I’m sorry. We’re in the middle of a global pandemic. We’re in the middle of a pandemic here in the province, and one of the biggest things we’re hearing right now is about how health authorities, and government specifically, are hiding data and information, not releasing it in a timely manner — and accurate information — to the people of British Columbia, who are asking for it.

Now to hide behind this, to say: “It’s too much work. We don’t want to give out the information. We don’t trust people with that information….” No wonder people have questions or concerns about what this government is doing.

Now let me talk about the modest — I’m not sure if I have to say “modest” five or six times; I can’t remember what it was — modest fee that the minister keeps on talking about, a modest fee to bring us in line with the rest of the country. This modest fee that keeps floating around — $25 as a consideration for this modest fee — does not bring us in line with the rest of the country. In fact, it will bring us tied for the worst in the country.

It sounds like the same direction this government wants to go on tax increases and all the fees and everything else. It’s how we go from the best to the worst, and now this seems to be lining right up with that as well. Five provinces are free. Four provinces are only $5. One province is $25. We heard from the member from Langley that this is a little bit around…. I can’t remember the exact quote. I think it was cost recovery or to offset some of the costs.

I just want to remind the member from Langley — and actually remind everybody in this House, obviously — that we’re all paid by taxpayers already, every single one of us. We’re not paid by our parties; we’re paid by taxpayers. This building is funded by taxpayers. The staff that work here and in all the ministries are funded by the taxpayers. So to turn around and to say that we now have to charge the taxpayers money to get information that they should be entitled to anyway as a cost recovery…. Well, they’re already paying for it.

[4:35 p.m.]

They have, in essence, paid all of you — all of us — to be in here and to make decisions and, on this side of the House, to question, on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, the decisions that are made on how you got there, as an official opposition. So to turn around and say that we have to charge the public now to offset the costs that are already being funded by taxpayers is another very surprising notion from this government.

The minister might say: “Well, don’t worry. It’s only a modest fee of $25.” Well, as we saw very quickly from a lot of the media outlets reporting on this, that’s more than an hour’s wage for most people that work in the media. Add that up to sometimes dozens of FOIs that will be required to get one piece of information, because you have to go across ministries, across agencies to try to get a piece of information. It could be hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

So you could be talking about…. For a small media outlet, basically the whole two weeks’ salary for that reporter could be used up just in FOIs, because government won’t come straightforward and just give out the answers and the information to begin with.

I know, through experience, as well as many on this side of the House, that governing is hard. Governing is hard. Making decisions and the right decisions is hard. But the last thing we need from this government is, when the going gets tough, to just hide what’s going on. As I started with, at the beginning of my comments, what’s the shame from this government in being proud of the decisions they’ve made and how they came to those decisions?

Now, I understand that sometimes, through an FOI process, information might come out. Well, yeah, frankly, it could be embarrassing. So be it. That’s how the system works. That’s how the system should work.

I remember, when I was on that side of the House, when I was at the executive council table, the amount of times that the now government, in opposition, would file FOIs into my ministry and the work that had to be done and the information that they were able to gather on decisions I made. Fair. That’s the process. That’s how this establishment works. That’s how I was held accountable. That’s how we, when we were in government, were held accountable.

You know, with that…. I know it’s been read out before. But I think, at that time…. It also sheds light on one area where I’ll agree with the now Premier, when he said: “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.”

Bravo. I actually agree 100 percent with what the Premier said there. What’s interesting is that was said when he was here on this side of the House in opposition.

So what changed, aside from the title, aside from the paycheque, aside from the bigger office and 100 staff and the ability to add $3 million to his budget, being in a position to now be in authoritative position to make decisions? What changed for not only the Premier but for so many members, who are now on the government side, who used to sit over here and say: “FOI is important. We want to hold you accountable. It’s a tool. It’s an important tool for us, the media and the public. How dare you consider, in a moment, even hiding a piece of information from us”?

[4:40 p.m.]

Can the members opposite go home and look in the mirror and actually believe the words they said before are still true, or have they just become so politically crass that it’s about hiding information because they don’t want people to know how they’ve come to decisions and, I dare say, because it could jeopardize their chances for re-election?

That’s not why we do this. We do this to make the best decisions possible and to be proud of those decisions. Again, I agree with that comment that the Premier made when he sat on this side of the House in opposition. So I again ask: what changed? Why does government not feel the same way?

Why do they feel that transparency is not important anymore? Why do they feel that when they were on this side of the House in opposition, they wanted to champion open and transparent government but not actually fulfil it? Well, they could have just stayed on this side of the House, I guess. They seemed to believe what they said when they were over here, but now they don’t want to act on it when they actually have the authoritative power to act on it now that they’re in government.

We’ve also heard — and I don’t want to beat this one up too much, because the individual hasn’t had a chance to speak yet, and I’d love to hear him speak — from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the now Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, who has referred to things like this as a tollgate, who has numerous quotes when he was in opposition on the federal government side of why you should never do what we’re doing here today — why you should not take away transparency and opportunity for people to have data and information that will hold government accountable.

Another news flash to government: just make good decisions. Get the information; make good decisions. There’s nothing to hide. But even for that member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, now at the cabinet table…. I have a lot of respect for that member, so it’s nothing personal, but the question does arise to him as well, and others: what’s changed? Aside from the title, what has changed in your philosophy?

What has changed here on how you think governments should run? I’d like to hear from those members, because I think it’s important that some people correct, for the record, why they’ve changed their minds — why it was fine on one side of the House but not on the other.

Maybe I’ll explain a little bit around some of the concerns, too, around why FOIs are important and some of the challenges that the media…. I keep referring to the media because it’s an important tool for them as well — an important tool for them, on behalf of the public, and for opposition. The FOI is an important tool, as I say, but the struggle, again, takes months sometimes — sometimes even years — for documents to be disclosed. They’re not that hard to find.

If somebody FOI’d me and said they wanted to see the last two weeks of my emails on a certain subject, well, guess what — somebody has access to my emails. They can go in, and they can print them off, and probably should be able to get them pretty quickly. Why, under this government, does it take months or even years to follow through with a simplistic request for information? Unless they’re worried about what that information holds.

We’re at an interesting time in our society. I don’t want to say just provincially — I think society in general. Maybe because of social media and other platforms, people are looking for information. People are looking for accurate information and rely on government to release that and to share that. Over the last 18 months, we’ve seen people questioning government over the COVID pandemic.

[4:45 p.m.]

I don’t want to say it’s just that. I think, just in general, that people are starting to ask more questions of government. They want to know: why a tunnel, not a bridge? They want to know: why did these people get the job and not those ones? Why is there a union benefit agreement here but not over there? What are the impacts? How many people were hired? What are the benefits? These are decisions that government’s making, but then they hide from the information and don’t want to share it.

One of the other concerns that I have….

I’ve noticed I’m getting really close. Time flies when you’re having fun.

Part of this bill — actually, the commissioner, I think, even highlighted this — does not include provisions to prevent documents from being destroyed prior to the FOI request. Let me repeat that. Government can destroy documents before the FOI request. Provisions weren’t put in here to stop that.

Is that why, when we FOI the Premier’s office or some minister’s office, we can get reports back that say: “No information found”? Are they actually expecting us, the media and, more importantly, the public, to actually believe that any decision made by cabinet, by government or by a ministry office was done with no information — that nobody sent an email, nobody shared documents at all or had meetings?

If I was on that side, that would actually scare the heck out of me. If I was a backbencher in the NDP right now, knowing that my cabinet colleagues are making decisions on my behalf with no information…. Now, obviously, we know that’s not true. But is it because government’s ashamed of the decisions they’re making, so they’re hiding the information and destroying it? I don’t know. But those are the questions that need to be asked.

Actually, I’ll end with a quote on that from Michael McEvoy, the Information and Privacy Commissioner: “If somebody destroys records because they think they might be of interest but wants to destroy them before any request is made, there’s no offence…. That cannot be right. That needs to change. It’s an offence in Alberta” — so it’s an offence in the place that we want to highlight as the right place we want to emulate as far as fees go — “and it could easily have been put in place here in this bill.”

Didn’t listen to the commissioner. Sounds like they didn’t listen to anyone. I’ll end with this question back to government: why? Why now? Who has asked for it, and what are they trying to hide?

J. Tegart: It is an honour to stand in this House and lend my voice to the debate on Bill 22, intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021. This act is about ensuring that government is accountable to the people of British Columbia.

I want to start my remarks by sharing my views about the importance of sharing information, assisting the public to understand how government makes decisions, listening and ensuring that government has taken into account all avenues of expertise available to them and then outlining how these decisions are made.

Now, you might ask yourself, why is this important to British Columbians? Well, let me tell you why I think it’s important. In preparing my remarks, I thought about how to make this debate…. It really isn’t a debate when there’s no response, but I’m trying to make this debate relatable to the people I serve.

[4:50 p.m.]

Why would it be important for a parent to be able to access information about, perhaps, COVID numbers? Why would it be important for a senior to access infor­mation from government around what’s happening in their old folks home? Why would it be important to a local government official who is looking for information to help them make decisions? Why would it be important to a person affected by a government action or decision?

Sometimes the decisions made by government change people’s lives, and they very definitely believe that they have a right to the information that government considered when making the decision. Why is the media looking for background on a government decision? If government is open and transparent, a telephone call or a letter should be enough to get the information you’re looking for.

I can tell you that when I talk to people in my riding — those people who work good honest jobs, who, day to day, have very little interaction with government but occasionally find themselves in a place where government’s made a decision — and they’re looking for some information, their expectation is that government will provide it. When they get a response that says, “Oh, you can FOI that,” first off, they don’t know what FOI is. Second off, for new MLAs in particular, I would challenge you to make an FOI request. It is a learning experience.

But this bill is important to everyone in British Columbia. With a government that purports to be open and transparent with information, ultimately you would never, as a citizen, have to read or use this bill. If you had a question of government, you would make an inquiry about whatever information you needed. A transparent government would simply send you the answers in a timely way. It sounds easy — pretty straightforward. But I can tell you, unfortunately, that that’s not how it happens.

I want to share a story, in particular with the new MLAs who are in the room today. This was my first experience with FOI, as a fairly new MLA who had experienced the 2017 wildfire season. The community of Pressy Lake, just off of 70 Mile, was evacuated. Before the evacuation order was put in place, B.C. Wildfire Service came into the community and discussed how to protect the homes and cabins in the area. Pumps were located close to the lake, and hoses and sprinkler lines were run throughout the community. Assistance and consultation were given, and sprinklers were put on roofs and in yards to protect the buildings.

When the actual evacuation notice was delivered, the community was assured that their homes and community were well protected from the fire that was bearing down on them. Although they left with a heavy heart, they felt everything that could be done was being done to protect their community. Just days later, imagine their dismay to find out that most of their community had burned to the ground.

[4:55 p.m.]

How could that have happened? We had protection. We were assured that they had our backs — sprinklers, hoses, pumps, fire crews. What could possibly have gone wrong? No one was talking. Wildfire crews had transitioned out. Visits to the community showed no pumps, no hoses, no sprinklers. Whatever was going on?

The first question asked was: “How do we get information?” Calls were made. Questions went unanswered. Information was not forthcoming. The only avenue to actually get information was through freedom of information and protection of privacy. How can that be, in an open and transparent government? These people were traumatized. They had lost everything. They had trusted that government had their backs. They left their community in the hands of people that they believed were there for them. They went back to nothing.

So in comes freedom of information. How do we do that? How long will it take? People had lost their homes or their cabins and were traumatized, but they were also angry. What the heck had gone on, and why wasn’t government forthcoming with information?

To me, an open and transparent government tries to help rather than hinder. Months of asking, months of frustration and anxiety, months of no information certainly did not instil confidence in anything that might be shared by government.

A natural place to go when you hit one barrier after another in the freedom of information process is to ask: “What are they hiding? Why are they not answering straightforward questions? We’re hurting, and our government does not care. They put up barriers.”

Now, this was in 2017. I would suggest, as you review the clauses of this bill, that they would certainly feel that there were many more barriers being erected at this time. It took embarrassing the government in the Legislature to finally get some answers for residents. This nightmare is exactly why it is important for citizens to have clear, enforceable processes to provide access to information when government is less than forthcoming.

To put the icing on the cake in this scenario, the citizens found out that someone had made a decision to remove the protective equipment. The only way to get the infor­mation they were looking for was through the FOIPOP act.

That is why I’m very concerned when the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner writes to the minister that the vast majority of the amendments proposed in this bill do not increase accountability, do not increase transparency and certainly do not increase protections of privacy for the people of B.C. When a commissioner writes to the minister and government — a commissioner that is accountable to this House — I would assume they would take the comments very seriously.

In my many years in this House, I don’t recall being in this situation previously. This is the independent office that oversees the legislation.

[5:00 p.m.]

Taking a look at the commissioner’s letter that I’m assuming everyone in this House would have read, I want to talk about a few of the concerns outlined in his seven-page letter. The commissioner notes that a common concern is “the unknown impact of key amendments, because their substance will only be filled in through regulations, about which we know nothing.”

We don’t debate regulation in this House, and he is very concerned about the fact that most of the actions will be put into regulation. He suggests that it is crucial for government to disclose now what it intends to do to protect the personal privacy of British Columbians whose personal information may be exported out of Canada.

Now, I do recall a debate in this House when we were talking about health records. I do recall people on the opposite side of the House, while in opposition, lighting their hair on fire over the fact that records may be kept outside of Canada.

The commissioner also says…. Noting the scale of these changes, the commissioner has further urged the minister “to publish any draft regulations, or details of regulations, for public comment.”

Are you listening over there? The commissioner has made requests that affect this legislation. Is the minister listening to the commissioner? It is the obligation of people in government to ensure that decisions are made based on the best expertise available. I would suggest that the commissioner, who is accountable to this Legislature, is one of those experts you should be listening to.

Access to information is a fundamental right to citizens. It allows the public to hold government to account. There should be few barriers to anyone looking for information, but that’s not the case in this legislation.

Let’s talk about the fees being introduced in this bill, a new application fee. Oh, it might be around $25, but not sure. Potential fees for certain documents, like manuals. A new allowance for the public body to charge applicants for simply providing a copy of the record. So much for the free in freedom.

The introduction of an application fee under section 40 is nothing less than a tollgate for access to information. It is a strike against accountability and transparency. The commissioner states: “This would be a significant step in the wrong direction. Application fees pose a real barrier for many who seek information that should be readily available to the public.”

Under section 50, the Premier’s office is removed as a public body under section 2. Makes a person wonder exactly what the agenda is here. We have a Premier who professes to lead the most transparent government in the province, in the country, in the world. Oh, I got it — in the Star Wars universe, in his own mind perhaps.

[5:05 p.m.]

I can tell you that the citizens in my riding and likely citizens across this province…. When they’re asking for information from government, their expectation is that the first thing you would want to do is share that information. It is public information. It is their information. I would suggest to you that government has an obligation to share that information. When I look at the text of this legislation, I wonder about the mindset. I see barrier after barrier for Joe Public citizen looking for information from government. Why does government have the mindset that it’s more important to hide things than it is to share things?

As my colleague who spoke previously said, we recognize that governing is hard. You have to make tough decisions. But you also have to be accountable for those decisions. Your decisions affect people across this beautiful province. You need to stand up and be accountable to them. If the Premier wants to be known as the most transparent government, then we need to see actions rather than hollow words.

A seven-page letter of concerns from the commissioner. A blatant bypassing of a government committee that is mandated to look at this process. A bill that takes “free” out of freedom. I think I would challenge those across the aisle to rethink what is being accomplished here. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is exactly where this government wants to be: less access, less accountability, more barriers and more bureaucracy. Is that really the role of government? Particularly at a time when we are seeing crisis after crisis.

We see the COVID crisis, and we see the concerns about data-sharing. We see the COVID crisis in schools, and we have a volunteer group of parents who deliver better information and data in a more timely way than the government. It is absolutely unacceptable that this government does not step up to the plate. We see an opioid crisis that…. Unless we get the appropriate and real data, it’s pretty hard to look at whether plans and processes will work if we’re starting without solid information.

We have a lot of things happening in our province right now. I would suggest to government that we have a lot of opportunities to serve those people who depend on us. But you don’t serve by hiding. You don’t serve by not sharing. You don’t serve by not being transparent. You don’t serve by not stepping up when things might not have gone the way you’d hoped. That is the expectation of the people whom I serve. That is the expectation of all of us on this side of the House. I would certainly hope that as you review this bill on that side of the House….

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

J. Tegart: Mr. Chair, I would certainly hope, as you review the bill on that side of the House, that you will reconsider so many of the areas of concern that have been brought forward by the commissioner.

With that, I will conclude my remarks, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the bill today.

[5:10 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kootenay East.

T. Shypitka: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker.

Come on.

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: We can do better than that. I’m the last speaker of the week. We haven’t seen the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction over there. Come on. Give me some love over here.

I just want to make my comments, for sure, on Bill 22. First, I just want to quickly squeeze in, before we take a break for the week — to announce a couple of constituency assistants I have in Cranbrook, some new ones. Jonah Gowans was a legislative assistant here in the Legislature for a couple years. He was, I believe, with the member for Kelowna West, the member for Peace River South and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country — a well-experienced lad from Powell River. He’s in my….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yes, the minister from….

Now I’ve got his attention, Mr. Speaker. He comes to us from Powell River — a great place in the province — and he is happy to work in Cranbrook now. He says that is his new home. I won’t put too many words in his mouth, but he likes it a lot.

Kris Dickeson is another assistant to Jonah. She’s from Cranbrook, and she’s a great gal. She’s got a lot of infor­mation, and she’s got her boots on the ground in the Cranbrook and Kootenay East region. I just wanted to welcome them to my constituency office.

On to Bill 22, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021. I just wanted to start off with kind of an underlying theme of what this bill, to me, really represents. That’s the three foundational elements that I see and that all of us in this House adhere to or were elected for. That is trust, transparency and accountability. Those three elements, in my view, really hinge on one another. They are symbiotic. You can’t have one without the other. Trust, transparency and accountability are what I think this bill represents.

When I look at this bill, there are some red flags here, obviously, that jeopardize these three elements. The other day, I was listening to the arguments on both sides of the House, as we all do here. I listened to those that support the bill, and I listened to those that oppose it. What was clear to me was that those that supported this bill spoke to only what this bill was perceived to be. That it was updating, modernizing. I think those were the words I heard. That’s what this bill was perceived to represent, and that’s all good.

However, those that opposed it were concerned with what the details of the bill were all about. I think those are two very different things — perception and content. We know that the devil is always in the details. I think that’s what this bill represents.

Modernizing and updating. This is what we heard from those people that supported the bill. The people that are opposed to the bill are: “What are the details of the bill?” That is the content. What does it actually mean? What does it do? A lot of it — we don’t really know what it’s going to do until we get to regulation. That’s kind of one of the major red flags I have. There’s a lot of trust involved in this bill. As I went back to the three elements of trust, accountability and transparency, you can’t have the trust if you don’t have the transparency and the accountability. That’s what this bill is lacking. There’s none of that in here.

The other thing that really had my head scratching — we’ve heard it here many times already — is: why is this happening now? There’s a lot of wheels in place right now and a lot of motion going on, and I’ll get to that in a second. But why is the urgency right now? We have some of the biggest challenges that this province has ever seen right in front of us right now. We have a huge…. Well, obviously, the COVID pandemic has got to be first and foremost when we think of the challenges that we have. The opioid crisis. This is taking six people every day from our province — good fathers, mothers, sons, granddaughters, you name it.

[5:15 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There’s no exception to the rule when the opioid crisis comes crashing down. That’s a big challenge that we have. Our school districts right now, with COVID, are making incredible decisions. All 60 of them are making incredible decisions based on the challenges that we have, whether it’s opioids or whether it’s the pandemic that we have. We heard the member for Fraser-Nicola just talk about parents, volunteers, that are relying on data, relying on information so that they can make well-informed decisions that come to the health and welfare of their children.

There are a lot of people scared, quite honestly. I hear it all the time. I don’t blame them. This all comes down to the assurance and the trust of government and the accountability and the transparency that they provide. Without that, without the transparency and accountability, the system crashes. People become fearful. I can tell you absolutely. There are a lot of members in this House, on both sides of the floor, that can tell you that without proper data, without proper information given to the public, the trust is eroded. I’m afraid that this bill does just that.

We have businesses right now that are in financial crisis and financial ruin. We’ve got families and individuals making sacrifices of all sorts, everything from bankruptcies…. I have seen bankruptcies in this province. People’s livelihoods are at stake.

Even the smallest things, like children not going to birthday parties. It might seem trivial to some of us old people like me. I’ve had 59 of them already. But for young children, that’s a pretty big deal. They want to know. They want to be assured that the government is going to be looking after them. That comes from data and information. It’s very foundational to how we run our business from day to day.

Because of that, it’s only expected, and the public expects, that government rolls up its sleeves where they can. What can we do in the Legislature to help this to move along? How can we help protect the public and the public trust? How can we ensure that people aren’t scared, that they are confident that the government is doing what they can? That is to open up the doors of transparency and information.

If we’re open, if we’re transparent, and if we’re real, then people’s minds will be at ease. They don’t come up with conspiracy theories. They don’t think that someone is doing something — out to get them. These are real feelings. We see it everywhere. However, this bill is doing the opposite.

The member for, I believe, North Vancouver–Seymour, the other day, from the government side, said in her debate that the COVID pandemic has changed how we do things. I totally agree with that. It definitely changes things.

Although updating or modernizing this piece of legislation, which has been about ten years in the making and probably needs a new coat of paint on it, for sure, and needs to be updated and modernized…. That’s important, but the details need to be worked out, not just a coat of paint on it. The need for barrier-free access to data and information is essential during these times, when everything that we do relies on data and information. The public and the media need to see it upon request quickly and without financial or timely barriers.

Also, the timing of this bill, as I said, is very suspect. The Privacy Commissioner has made his points very clear. He has not done a comprehensive review or analysis on this bill. He would like to weigh in. He has stated that numerous times.

As well, a special committee that was struck in June…. That was a review…. The freedom-of-information and privacy act committee was struck in June. That committee is going on for a year. The job of that committee is to review this piece of legislation. Why is it that this bill is coming in, in the middle of this committee that’s being struck to do the exact same thing that this committee is supposed to be providing?

The member for Saanich North and the Islands, the other day, raised a question of privilege. It was vetted through this House, and the Speaker weighed in on it. It was in regard to section 80 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He charged that there was a breach of privilege.

[5:20 p.m.]

Now, it was thought about, and a judgment was ruled that there was no breach of privilege, and that may be so. However, the ruling does not include the fact that this bill that’s before us today shows an enormous amount of contempt, I believe, that this government has for its own non-partisan committees.

How does that work? How does it work that we can have a bill in front of us that could impact the work of the committee in the next year? I find that a little alarming. Why the rush right now? Why not wait until 2022, until the committee can come up with its decisions, its recommendations? It can be vetted through the House for comment or through the cabinet for commentary. They can come up with an educated decision, based on the committee’s review.

Also, it would be great to hear from the Privacy Commissioner. I’m sure he would like to weigh in on it a little bit. Wouldn’t that be something? I’m thinking about the what-ifs here. What would happen now if our committee, in June of 2022, determines that the bill that is in front of us needs amending? How does that work? I’m not quite sure. I guess it comes back. Are we putting the cart in front of the horse? Wouldn’t that be embarrassing for government?

Maybe, perhaps, but maybe it’s the other way around. How does this bill now influence those on the committee to have a difference of opinion on how the best interests of British Columbians are protected? That’s an important question. How does this bill in front of us today impact the decisions of the committee?

Those are some of my thoughts, but don’t take my word. There are 27 of us, not including myself — 27 members and myself — on this side that are opposed. We don’t have to listen to this side of the House. We can listen to the Privacy Commissioner, Michael McEvoy, who put out a statement on Monday in regard to the bill we are debating here today, regarding proposed amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

It’s not a long statement. He kind of starts out good and says: “The amendments go some ways to strengthen privacy protections by mandating new requirements for privacy management programs, mandatory breach notifications, so-called ‘snooping offences’ and privacy impact assessments. These are welcome advances that put public bodies in a better position to safeguard our privacy.”

That’s a positive statement, but in the next paragraph and several paragraphs after…. The next paragraph identifies data. This is a quote from the Privacy Commissioner.

“What is exceedingly troubling, however, is that government now proposes to allow public bodies to send British Columbians’ personal information outside Canada without explaining how they will properly protect it. Without concrete, alternative protections for people’s data, the government is effectively asking the Legislative Assembly for a blank cheque to eliminate the current restrictions on public bodies accessing and storing people’s personal information outside of Canada.”

That’s a bit of a scary statement for a lot of people. We’ve known that. We’ve seen some lessons from the past on this. We’re now talking about the digitization of data and cloud storage — which, we know from history, is not impervious to data breaches. We don’t have to go too far back. In the last eight years, there have been numerous data breaches around the world.

In 2019, we saw Facebook with a major breach. There were 533 million people affected. LinkedIn just this year — I believe it was not too long ago, a couple months ago — had a data breach, and 700 million users were compromised. Alibaba, which is China’s leading provider of public cloud service and probably the world’s largest e-commerce company…. In 2019, they had one billion users jeopardized. Of course, the big one was in 2013. Yahoo had over three billion people’s information compromised as well.

You take these examples, and then you mix them with what we’ve seen: what they do with data information stored in the U.S., which is a concern — after passing the PATRIOT Act, which allows them to extract any and all information which the United States government has access to. What this bill says is that we will not know where our data and information will be going or who it will be stored with and how this data will be protected.

Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to reserve my place and adjourn the debate.

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, October 25.

The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.