Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued debate, Committee of the Whole, Bill 22.

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 22; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:02 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued).

M. de Jong: Insofar as the Committee of the Whole is meeting in this assembly, all of the members and the staff are alive to news we have all received about some health challenges that the Premier of British Columbia is facing. I know that the minister and all members of the committee are sending their best wishes to the Premier this afternoon and know that we are united in our desire for him to conquer this challenge and be back in this chamber participating in the debates and the vigorous exchanges that occur.

I’m sure the minister will want to concur with that, and I’ll provide her with an opportunity to do so.

[1:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member from Abbotsford for his well wishes to our Premier, who is experiencing some challenges right now. But he’s very much looking forward to being back in the House next week. His challenge, as always, will be keeping his voice quiet for the next couple of days, which, I know…. I’m sure his wife, Ellie, will be greatly thankful for a little bit of quiet time.

But the entire House — and I thank the member from Abbotsford for raising it — is wishing our Premier well.

M. de Jong: He would want and would expect the committee to carry on with its work, which is what we will do on this afternoon.

When we left off this morning, we were talking about the decision that the minister and government have made to proceed with the tabling of clause 1 and the subsequent clauses in this bill. Notwithstanding having been provided with advice from the Privacy Commissioner — strong advice, advising that they adopt both a different course, a different process involving the special committee that exists, and also some contrary advice relating to the substance of clauses that we will come to later.

The minister indicated to the committee what confirmed that she chose to ignore that advice from the Privacy Commissioner, in part because she believed and was concerned about renewing for a third time a ministerial order. For the purpose of people who may not understand some of these terms and what they entail, can the minister describe what a ministerial order is? How long is it?

My recollection is that it’s a single-page document, but I may be mistaken in this case. Can she describe, when she refers to renewing an existing ministerial order, what that involves?

Hon. L. Beare: The member is correct. This ministerial order we’re talking about is one page. A number of them are. Ministerial orders are temporary in nature, and they provide a government temporary authority over the subject outlined within the order.

M. de Jong: To be clear, the minister’s preference, rather than affixing her signature to that single-page document, which would have afforded the opportunity to follow through on the advice of the Privacy Commissioner….

[1:10 p.m.]

Her preference was not to do that but to proceed with the tabling of the clause 1 and the additional clauses of this bill, which she has indicated have been in the works since 2017. Have I got that correct?

Hon. L. Beare: As I previously answered to the member, this ministerial order was extended two times. There is a problem in the legislation as it is currently drafted that is not allowing us to provide the services that we need, to British Columbians, without the order. The pandemic hit, and B.C.’s legislation left us behind, which is why we introduced the ministerial order in the first place.

As I’ve said before, the legislative committee does not review draft legislation. This is the culmination of a year’s worth of consultation work, public policy, in getting to this place, and we have tabled it this fall.

M. de Jong: We’ll certainly have an opportunity to discuss, in detail, elements of the great leap forward in FOI legislation that the minister would have us believe the bill represents, but let me just focus for a moment on the topic at hand, as it relates to clause 1 and additional clauses in the bill.

The minister has chosen, I think purposely and deliberately, to ignore the advice of the Privacy Commissioner. She has offered what she would say is an explanation for that, and people will have to judge that on its merits. I’m curious to know…. Having ignored the advice from the independent legislative officer that this assembly appoints to provide guidance on these matters, did she receive advice from other sources relating to the advisability of extending the ministerial order? Specifically, did she receive advice from any officials in the Premier’s office on that question?

Hon. L. Beare: No.

M. de Jong: Is it fair to say, then, hon. Chair, that the decision was made by her exclusively?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: This piece of legislation has followed the normal process of a bill. Like every other bill, it began with consultation. We developed the policy within our office, which then proceeded to assistant deputy minister and deputy minister committees. It went to cabinet. It went to LRC, the legislative review committee, and was put on the legislative agenda for this fall.

I’m not sure what the member is specifically looking for here, because it’s a bill that has followed a normal bill process, like every other bill. There is nothing different about this bill in following its process to land here today, this fall, on our legislative agenda.

M. de Jong: Again, that’s helpful. Well, maybe I’ll break down that reply a little bit. There is actually at least one significant difference, with respect to clause 1 and the further contents of this legislation. I hope the minister would be prepared to concede this. We don’t usually deal with legislation that receives the level of criticism from a legislative officer that this one has. I mean, I hope we can proceed through this exercise at least recognizing that fact and how that does distinguish this legislation.

Hon. L. Beare: The various pieces of legislation, through this House over the decades, receive different levels of attention. This is, consistently, a piece of legislation that throughout the years will, moving forward, receive a lot of attention. There are very strong views, on all sides of the spectrum, around freedom of information and privacy protection. It is a bill that generates a lot of interest.

M. de Jong: I note again, with respect to clause 1 and the subsequent contents of the bill, that the minister purposely chooses to use words for the committee such as “interest” and “attention.” I presume wanting to ignore the fact that the legislative officer, the Privacy Commissioner, wasn’t just interested, as he is statutorily bound to be, and didn’t just give the matter his attention. He offered an unprecedented degree of criticism.

Look, I’m not going to belabour this. If the minister wants the record to show that she is singularly unconcerned by that and feels that it is not unusual and inconsequential, then I guess the record will show that.

[1:20 p.m.]

But surely she agrees that the letter that has generated much of the discussion thus far goes far beyond interest and attention. It is the legislative officer communicating serious criticisms of what is before the committee. If the minister wants to ignore that, dispute that or pretend it doesn’t exist, well, I guess the record will show that.

Hon. L. Beare: For the member and the record, I value all input. We need to balance all input from people, from businesses, from independent officers, through consultation and balance all those pieces which culminate in local governments, and that all culminates into the legislation we have now.

M. de Jong: I wasn’t going to ask a follow-up on this topic, but I will because the minister seems to equate the advice — the information that she and now the committee receive from a legislative officer — and attach the same level of import and priority as she does to any other stakeholder. I suppose she may wish to defend that as a fairly equitable approach.

I am going to suggest to her that one of the reasons we have an independent statutory legislative officer is because their advice, their review, actually should attract a level of importance that is consistent with that office. The minister seems to disagree and lumps the Privacy Commissioner in with anyone else that chooses to offer an opinion. That is informative. If she wishes to confirm that, I’m happy to hear it.

Hon. L. Beare: We have canvassed this a lot already between this morning and now. You know, we take into account the recommendations of the 2010, 2016 committees. We take into account the recommendations from the public consultations we’ve done, from the Privacy Commissioner. As I’ve outlined this morning, last night and now to the member, we are going to be able to go clause by clause through this bill through the committee process and be able to talk about each line of both the commissioner’s letter and each line of the bill here.

M. de Jong: A moment ago the minister referred to LRC, and I believe she was referring to the legislative review committee that she indicated to this Committee of the Whole this bill had been forwarded to.

Now, I am going to, as clearly as I can, state that I do not expect the minister to disclose anything concerning the nature of the conversations or discussions or debates that may have taken place at the legislative review committee. I would like her to confirm that that is the opportunity the government, members of cabinet and, I think, some of the private members on the government side, if they are members of that committee — I’m not sure if they are — have, prior to tabling the bill, an opportunity to review the bill line by line and clause by clause. Am I correct in that regard?

Hon. L. Beare: . Yes, I can confirm that LRC comprises both cabinet members and private members. Yes, the committee does review the legislation line by line.

[1:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: In general, and particularly with respect to clause 1 and the subsequent clauses of the bill, does attendance at LRC extend to representatives from the Office of the Premier?

Hon. L. Beare: In addition to the members that I spoke about, cabinet operations attend, administrators attend. I would have to look at the attendance list. I don’t know the answer to the member’s question specifically. But in general, cabinet operations, administrators, attend those meetings.

M. de Jong: This might be a timely place for me to prevail upon the minister, since we are likely to be at this for some time. It is, I recall, a fairly straightforward matter to determine who was in attendance at the legislative review committee that considered this bill. Is she able to undertake, for this committee, to ascertain and disclose, whether or not it included representatives from the Office of the Premier?

Hon. L. Beare: I’ll take that question under advisement for now, and I’ll go check. Thank you, Member.

M. de Jong: Language is important. I am, as a member of the committee, interested to know whether at the legislative review committee — which considered the clause presently before us, and obviously other clauses — there were, in attendance, representatives from the Office of the Premier.

I understand that minutes are kept of those meetings that specifically include confirmation of who was in attendance. Now, unless the duty to document has taken on a dramatically different meaning in recent years, this is a relatively straightforward thing to confirm.

I’m going to prevail upon the minister to be more specific. Will she do that for the committee so that we may have the answer by the time we reconvene on Monday?

Hon. L. Beare: As I said, I’ll take the question under advisement.

M. de Jong: I don’t know what that means. I’m not sure. Is the minister saying that she is unprepared to assure this committee that she will consult the minutes of the LRC meeting at which this clause was considered?

Hon. L. Beare: I would like to request that the member raise the question again on Monday, and I’ll be in a better position to answer. I’ll go back. I’ll take this under advisement, go back and seek some answers.

M. de Jong: Are there minutes kept of the LRC meetings?

Hon. L. Beare: Absolutely, there are minutes kept and reviewed at the beginning of every meeting. As I’ve said, in attendance are the members of government, private members as well as cabinet members. There are members of cab ops. There are administrators, our legislative drafters.

[1:30 p.m.]

I do not know who was in attendance that day, to answer the member’s question. As I asked the member, if he would like to re-pose the question on Monday, I’ll try and have an answer for the member.

M. de Jong: With respect to clause 1 and any other clauses that may have been considered by the LRC, the minister, happily, has confirmed there are minutes. Do the minutes specifically confirm who was in attendance at that time?

Hon. L. Beare: Again to the member, I don’t have a copy of the minutes before me. I’m unable to answer the member’s question, and I’m happy to answer the member’s question on Monday, once I’m able to go take a look and do that diligence.

M. de Jong: Well, I don’t like being played, and that’s the feeling I’m getting right now. The minister can, as we sit here with four officials, confirm immediately the question about whether or not the minutes contain confirmation of who was in attendance. She can do that now.

Now, if it takes a bit longer to access the specific minutes for the specific meeting, I’m prepared to concede that. But I don’t like being played. Do the minutes confirm who was in attendance at LRC meetings?

Hon. L. Beare: It’s very unfortunate that the member feels it necessary to portray this as something other than trying to source the information for the member. I have repeatedly said to the member: please re-pose the question on Monday when I have the information in front of me. I am more than happy to answer this question for the member. I think it’s unfortunate that the member feels it necessary to go down a path of claiming that somehow this is less than trying to get the information that the member requested.

M. de Jong: Well, I think the minister has probably got a sense of the degree to which her answers can sometimes convey a particular sense. If there are challenges associated with obtaining the answer to my question, then we’ve got way bigger problems around documenting decisions in this government than I thought even possible. But we’ll move on. And rest assured: we’ll revisit the issue, as invited to by the minister.

I think that the minister, with respect to clause 1 and the additional provisions of this bill, understands…. She actually, I think at one point, has taken a measure of pride in the source of the original legislation — a government that was in power between 1991 and 2001, and the original version of the act tabled by the government of then-Premier, Premier Harcourt.

The sponsoring minister, I believe, and the minister and the gentleman occasionally referred to as the father…. Maybe he won’t like me saying this, but the grandfather of freedom-of-information and privacy protection legislation in this province was Colin Gabelmann.

[1:35 p.m.]

I served in this chamber with Mr. Gabelmann. He, in those days, was the seasoned veteran. I think at that time he had been an MLA for going on 22 years when I arrived 28, 29 years ago.

I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to respond to some things that former Attorney General Gabelmann has had to say, not just about the legislation but the manner in which the minister has chosen to proceed. I will concede that I haven’t had much success securing from the minister a reaction to the criticism levied by our legislative officer, the Privacy Commissioner, but I wonder to what degree she is prepared or willing to respond to the comments that have been made by the former NDP Attorney General who tabled and secured passage of the act she seeks to amend.

Mr. Gabelmann is reported as having said the following. He had some comments about the proposal to add application fees, which I’m not going to dwell on here. We’ll talk about that a bit later. He does say: “If the information belongs to the public, then in principle it should be the public’s information at no cost.” He comments on having been proud to be at the top in Canada and says: “Now they seem to be striving to be in the middle of the pack. That’s not what the NDP can be proud of. The public is going to be effectively denied the kind of access they have every right to have.”

We’ll get to that section of the bill eventually, but with respect to the process and the course this bill has taken, he has, also, some interesting things to say:

“I’m hoping that the resolution to this might be referring it to the legislative committee, which has already been established by statute. Now, because the periodic review is due, it’s surprising that all of this didn’t go through that committee to begin with. But if the cabinet and the bureaucracy wanted this kind of change, they should have presented their views to the committee. The committee could have heard from the public and then, in the spring of the legislative session, introduced appropriately publicly discussed amendments if they still thought they should.”

The grandfather, or the father, of the statute the minister seeks to amend has laid out what, to me, appears an eminently reasonable procedure to follow. The minister clearly does not agree with that. Is Mr. Gabelmann wrong? And if so, why?

Hon. L. Beare: Again, we are on section 1, which removes the letter “s.” That is what section 1 does. The member and I have canvassed this last night, we’ve canvassed it this morning, we’ve canvassed it this afternoon that the legislative committee does not review draft legislation. I have the recommendations of two previous special committees before me, which are taken into account in this legislation that we’re reviewing right now.

M. de Jong: By the way, I don’t recall seeing in either of those previous two reports any recommendations giving rise to the amendment we see in clause 1. I don’t actually recall seeing any recommendations giving rise to a whole bunch of other proposed amendments in the bill, but insofar as the minister seems focused on that particular aspect of clause 1, I don’t recall having seen that proposal, as innocuous as it may be.

[1:40 p.m.]

No, my question, as it relates to clause 1 — and admittedly, other clauses in the bill — relates to something that the former Attorney General — former NDP Attorney General — who introduced and sponsored passage of the statute the minister is seeking to amend, is entirely critical of the approach the minister has taken.

Now, I remember…. This is a bit of a surreal moment. There used to be a day when a member of an NDP government would genuflect in the direction of Colin Gabelmann and encourage others to say a prayer of thanks for his vision and foresight in sponsoring the act the minister is now seeking to amend. She doesn’t even want to say his name now. I imagine that’s because he has made some dramatically pointed criticisms of decisions that the minister has made.

“Now, because the periodic review is due, it is surprising….” Former Attorney General Gabelmann characterizes what the minister is doing as surprising. The legisla­tive officer characterizes it as baffling:

“It is surprising that all of this didn’t go through that committee to begin with, but if the cabinet and the bureaucracy wanted this kind of change” — I don’t think he disputes some of the changes; he disputes some of them — “they should have presented their views to the committee. The committee could have heard from the public, and then, in the spring of the legislative session, introduced appropriate, publicly discussed amendments if they still thought they should.”

What is it about that proposal from Mr. Gabelmann that offends the minister?

Hon. L. Beare: Of course, it’s a point of pride for every person on our side of the House that our government had the foresight to put in freedom of information and privacy protection for British Columbians. This is a significant piece of legislation that hasn’t had a major update in over a decade, and a lot has changed. We are doing that change now.

The member and I have canvassed this again and again. I’m happy to answer again that a legislative committee does not review draft legislation. I do have the recommendations from the two previous committees before me, which are a part of the process in drafting this legislation.

The member talked about section 1 and not seeing anything about it in the recommendations. So now that we finally get to talk about section 1, let me tell you what it does. This amendment strikes out and replaces the plural term “rights” under 2.1(c) with the singular “right.” The replacement of this term will ensure consistency of terminology internal to section 2 of FOIPPA. The proposed amendment aligns with proposals made by legislative counsel and is going to strengthen the consistency of section 2. It’s effectively correcting a grammatical error.

The Chair: One second, Member, if I can.

Because the Minister of Agriculture’s chair is currently occupied by very able staff, the Minister of Agriculture is going to ask leave to sit and speak at a different chair, and at the same time, ask leave to introduce people in the gallery.

Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. L. Popham: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction from another member’s seat.

Leave granted.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: I am very lucky today to have a visit from have a visit from Claremont Secondary School, in the riding of Saanich South. I have 24 students here, visiting with their amazing teacher, Mr. Neufeld, who happens to also be a friend of mine.

Mr. Neufeld and I travelled with another class from Claremont on a train back in 2013, almost to the day, eight years from today. We had a blast talking about Canada, what it means to be Canadian and politics.

We didn’t have much time to visit out in the corridor today, but I look forward to visiting the class soon and getting to know all of you much better. Please make them welcome.

S. Furstenau: I seek leave to also make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Furstenau: Following on the Minister of Agriculture’s introduction, I too just want to acknowledge the presence of my dear friend Mark Neufeld and his class from Claremont high school.

In addition to being a friend, I think it would be about ten years ago that I first saw Mark talk about the work he does as a teacher, including what the Minister of Agriculture just talked about — taking his students across the country on a train trip to Ottawa. I was so inspired that from that point on, I always thought that Mark was the teacher that I wanted to grow up and become. That remains true to this day.

Debate Continued

The Chair: So for all of you up there — sorry, Abbotsford West — we’re on Bill 22. We are going through it clause by clause. There are 74 clauses. You probably won’t be here for the whole thing.

M. de Jong: When the Leader of the Third Party referred to the school and ten years ago, I thought she was going to talk about her attendance there as a student.

The Chair: We’re on clause 1.

M. de Jong: Coming back to the clause and the provisions. First of all, I’m certain that Colin Gabelmann is now resting with much relief to have heard the explanation about the underpinnings of clause 1. He would be less comfortable, though, I expect, with the minister’s refusal to address the substance of his concern.

Mr. Gabelmann didn’t suggest sending this bill to the committee. Mr. Gabelmann suggests that what should have happened is that the significant issues dealt with in this bill should have been referred to the committee that exists for that specific purpose, to allow for proper discussion. The minister repeatedly retreats to the argument that it’s not for the bill to be referred to the committee. No one has suggested that. Mr. Gabelmann has not suggested that.

Mr. Gabelmann has said, as someone with some familiarity with this act and its processes, that if the cabinet and the bureaucracy wanted this kind of change, they should have presented their views to the committee prior to introducing the bill. What the minister seems inextricably unwilling to do is address that point.

Why is Mr. Gabelmann wrong when he suggests that, prior to tabling this bill in the Legislature, the proper thing to have done would be to have referred the issues addressed in clause 1 and subsequent clauses to the committee for their consideration? Why is he wrong?

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve answered this question a number of times. We have two previous special committees’ recommendations before us. The committee will be able to review the new legislation. They’ll be the first committee able to review the new legislation, as I’ve said, provided the will of the House.

[1:50 p.m.]

We have the committee’s recommendations, which have not been enacted by the previous government and are part of the recommendations in our draft legislation that we have here today.

M. de Jong: The minister has made it clear to the committee that she is unconcerned with the commentary received from the Privacy Commissioner. Am I, from her answers, to take it that she is also completely unconcerned with the comments made by Mr. Gabelmann?

The Chair: Member, on clause 1.

M. de Jong: I’m actually going to give the minister, because she may not have understood or heard the question…. It’s not a complicated one. It relates to clause 1 and actually all of the clauses that follow.

The person who is credited with creating the act, the statute, that the minister seeks to amend has offered criticism — pointed criticism — about the substance and the procedure that the minister is following. Is she concerned or troubled by that?

Hon. L. Beare: I have answered this question a number of times.

The Chair: Member, can you proceed to a new line of questioning, please, on clause 1?

M. de Jong: Yes. I wouldn’t presume to speak for him, but I expect that Mr. Gabelmann is probably rather disappointed that his observations about this matter so little to the government now in power and the minister now at the helm of the information ministry.

I’m going to, if I may, ask to send a document over to the minister. The document is…. I’ll describe it for the purposes of the record. I actually, to the extent…. I should probably offer the table one as well — the table with the committee. The document is entitled “Our Bill 22 Coalition.” It is addressed to the Premier and the minister. It contains a pretty pointed description of concerns that the authors have with both the substance and the manner in which the minister and the government are proceeding.

I’ll read several passages out of the letter in the second paragraph: “Unfortunately, if passed, this bill will undermine access to information and make public bodies less transparent. It is a step backwards for openness and accountability.” Does the minister agree with that statement?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Through this act, we’re actually going to be increasing public bodies’ disclosures. We’re going to be increasing public bodies’ ability to disclose to Indigenous governments and entities. We will actually be adding public bodies to the schedule as well.

M. de Jong: I take it, then, that the minister disagrees with that portion of the letter to her.

Hon. L. Beare: I believe that this act is going to increase transparency to public bodies by adding ministerial power to add subsidiary entities such as new public bodies. It’s going to increase public bodies’ ability to disclose to Indigenous governing entities. It requires public bodies to seek consent from Indigenous governing entities in order to disclose information that’s culturally sensitive through FOI, and it adds two new public bodies, the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and the B.C. Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police, to the schedule as well. I believe that all combined, this increases transparency.

M. de Jong: One of the reasons I think people get a bit cynical about politics and governance…. I regret it because I obviously have dedicated a fairly significant portion of my life to this place and the processes that we follow here, but I think they get a bit confused when we in this chamber and, in this case, this committee seem unprepared to answer an obvious question.

The passage I read reads as follows: “Unfortunately, if passed, this bill will undermine access to information and make public bodies less transparent.” I presume the minister disagrees with that. I don’t need a long…. I presume she disagrees with that statement. If not, she can say she agrees with it, but I don’t think she does. If she disagrees with it, I’ve asked her to put on the record that she disagrees with it.

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve just very clearly answered the question and very clearly outlined how some of these pieces before us that I mentioned are going to increase transparency.

M. de Jong: With respect to clause 1, the authors of this letter, who label themselves the Bill 22 Coalition, say the following: “This legislation would extend the ability of current and future governments to keep people in the dark about vital matters of public interest. Its introduction at this time short-circuits the work of the special legislative committee responsible for reviewing FIPPA, preventing meaningful public consultation.”

Does the minister agree or disagree with that statement?

Hon. L. Beare: The member and I have heavily canvassed the committee piece. Meaningful public consultation. Our legislative process since 2017 has included very public consultation, in 2017 and again last year. We’ve consulted with a number of the stakeholders, as well, and held round tables. We’ve canvassed the committee piece a number of times. I do want to say that we have been able to consult with the public on this legislation going on four years now.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I am not going to pretend that our deliberations this afternoon are being watched by hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands or perhaps even thousands of people, but I have a pretty good idea that the authors of this letter that I have tabled and provided to the minister are watching.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. The British Columbia General Employees Union, BCGEU. The Canadian Association of Journalists. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, B.C. office. The Canadian Institute for Information and Privacy Studies. The Centre for Access to Information and Justice. The Centre for Law and Democracy. Democracy Watch. Fairley Strategies. Forest Protection Allies.

Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. Lawyers Rights Watch Canada. OpenMedia. Privacy and Access Council of Canada. Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Student Press Freedom Act Campaign. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. The West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund. The Wilderness Committee. The B.C. Construction Association. Focus magazine. Pivot Legal Society. Sierra Club B.C. Simon Fraser Student Society.

Jason Austin. John Brady. Lynn Copeland. Carla Graebner, librarian for research data services and government information at the W.A.C. Bennett Library, Simon Fraser University. Sean Holman, Wayne Crookes Professor in Environment and Climate Journalism, University of Victoria. Patrick Jardine. Victoria Lemieux, associate professor, archival science, School of Information, co-lead Blockchain@UBC research cluster, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia.

Lisa P. Nathan, associate professor, School of Information, University of British Columbia. Marcus Ooms. Dawe Pope. Ken Rubin. Dan Schubart. Chad Skelton, chair, department of journalism and communications studies, Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Stanley Tromp. Maureen Webb.

All of those and others have said the following: “If passed, this bill will undermine access to information and make public bodies less transparent. It is a step backwards for openness.”

They are watching. What does the minister say to them?

The Chair: Before the minister answers the question, just a clarification for members of the committee. The member for Abbotsford West has mentioned that the document was tabled. The document has not been tabled. It has been provided to the table.

If the member would like to table a document, he may do so after we’re out of committee and by leave. Thank you.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. L. Beare: We have heard from thousands of people. We’ve heard from businesses, from communities, from organizations. We’ve heard it through our many engagements, our many consultations throughout this process.

In 2018-19, we completed substantial engagement and identified stakeholder concerns and priority issues for the legislation. We did so again in August 2021. We have culminated that input, along with the recommendations — outstanding recommendations — of the special committee with conversations with our stakeholder groups. All of that has culminated in the legislation we have before us.

In that legislation, we have key items that increase transparency for public bodies. I have mentioned them to the member, but I’m going to mention them again as well now.

[2:05 p.m.]

We’re adding ministerial power to add subsidiary entities as new public bodies. This is important work, as the member well knows, to be able to increase the amount of public bodies and subsidiaries, the entities, that actually fall under freedom of information and privacy protection, the amount of bodies that can actually be requested to provide their information and be open and transparent.

We’re increasing our public bodies’ ability to disclose information to the Indigenous-governing entities. They shouldn’t have to follow the FOI process to get information that they need. They need that partnership and sharing of information. I’m so happy that public bodies are going to now be able to disclose to Indigenous-governing entities.

It’s now requiring public bodies to seek consent from Indigenous-governing entities in order to disclose information that’s culturally sensitive through FOI. We are ensuring that public bodies are protecting Indigenous culturally sensitive information by making sure that that consent is there for Indigenous bodies. We’re adding right now, as we speak, with this legislation, two new public bodies, making sure that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and the B.C. Association of Municipal Chiefs of Police are added to the schedule as well.

We are increasing transparency through this act, and I’m looking forward to getting to those sections to talk about it.

M. de Jong: It sounds to me like the message the minister wants to leave with the committee is that all of those agencies and individuals that I just listed — and I won’t list them again — who have characterized clause 1 and the subsequent clauses of the bill before us as a step backwards for openness and accountability are wrong. Am I correct? Is that what she believes?

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

M. de Jong: For the sake of completeness, the authors of the letter and the members of the Bill 22 Coalition make a recommendation, both to the committee and to the government and the minister, not dissimilar from the one she received from the Privacy Commissioner to “recognize the role of the all-party special committee and allow it to complete its work, including an open consultation process.” Is the minister prepared to accede to that recommendation and wish?

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

M. de Jong: I will, again, allow what I would characterize as the minister’s non-answers to speak for themselves.

As we embark through clause 1 and into the balance of the legislation, I have another document I’d like to provide to the minister for information purposes. I can provide one to the table.

We are dealing with a clause and legislation relating to freedom of information. The document that I’ve provided is a letter dated October 26, 2021, responding to a request for access to records — ironically, access to records relating to this clause and this legislation.

[2:10 p.m.]

The request was for documents regarding FOIPPA consultations related to the act, access to information and/or information rules and/or modernization of FOI services, including those with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, limit search to the minister’s office and the deputy minister’s office from December 1, 2020 to July 26, 2021. The response received on October 26 was that the Privacy Commissioner has granted an additional extension of 40 business days to our response deadline pursuant to section 10 of FOIPPA.

So a request for documentation directly relevant to the issues we are canvassing today — a response from, I guess, two days ago saying the timeline for addressing that request has been extended to December 24, 2021. Am I correct in assuming that the granting of the extension came as a result of a request for an extension?

Hon. L. Beare: The member has put before us a letter written by one of our public employees, an analyst in the freedom of information branch. This is a centrally processed FOI process, as the member knows. One of the public employees has requested an extension. It’s part of the one of thousands of FOI requests that we have in the system right now. It’s part of a standard process.

An extension has been requested as part of dealing with what is an overwhelming number of requests that we have in our system currently, with over 10,000 requests last year. B.C. has received more requests in one year alone than the next three provinces combined. So, yes. This is part of a central process.

M. de Jong: This request, to be clear, pertains directly to matters involving clause 1 and subsequent clauses of the legislation before this House. Directly relevant.

[2:15 p.m.]

The minister must be troubled, as I am, that in those circumstances — she’s nodding her head; maybe she’s not troubled, which would really trouble me — the response to a request for documents directly relevant to a clause and a piece of legislation that the minister says the government has been working on since 2017, which the minister and the government have made a decision to proceed with, against the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner…. The response to the opposition requesting the documentation is: “Well, now you’ll have to wait until December 24.”

The minister must be exceedingly troubled by that as representing the opposite of openness and transparency.

Hon. L. Beare: No, what troubles me is the member opposite seeming to think that a request from a political party should be prioritized over other requests. We have kids in care waiting to access their information as they transition into adulthood. We have requests from researchers looking for information for treaty negotiations for First Nations. We have requests in the system from people wanting to access how a decision was made around their WorkSafe or disability case. We have requests in the system pertaining to adoption.

These requests are all part of a system that is centrally managed by our thoughtful and faithful public servants. For the member opposite to somehow suggest that a political party’s or anybody’s request should be prioritized over anyone else’s, and that a decision made by a public servant to request an extension, one who has nothing to do with this process here in this chamber right now…. That’s what worries me.

M. de Jong: I thought the minister might, regrettably, reply in that manner. But happily, if we look at the document, it seems to suggest that the concern here, what was underlying the request for the extension, was a desire to ensure that all documents have been located.

What the minister, of course, could do, and has the authority to do, is proactively authorize the release of documentation that has been located and identified thus far. Is she prepared to do that?

Hon. L. Beare: No, I am not prepared to intervene in a process that is managed by our trusted public service.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s instructive. So just to be clear, we have a circumstance in which a request was made for documentation directly relevant to clause 1 and the subsequent clauses that this committee is charged with examining. We are informed, by virtue of correspondence, that there is documentation, some of which, it appears, has been identified and would undoubtedly be helpful to the committee for the purpose of its examination of clause 1 and subsequent clauses of the legislation.

[2:20 p.m.]

The minister has the authority to authorize the proactive release of that material, taking into account the fact that it was her decision to proceed against the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner. She is advising the House and the committee today that she refuses to do that. Have I got that right?

Hon. L. Beare: I have faith in our public service to manage the process. I will not politically interfere in that process, and I will not prioritize, politically, requests over people waiting for theirs.

M. de Jong: It’s an interesting phrase in light of what we’ve learned over the course of the last day and a half, where the minister says she will not politically prioritize, because, of course, all of the evidence thus far points to the fact that that’s exactly what she’s done. That is exactly what she has done.

In the face of recommendations — specific recommendations, specific concerns — from the Privacy Commissioner, she has ignored those and refused to answer or provide anything resembling a reasonable answer to why those observations, those reservations, expressed by the Privacy Commissioner shouldn’t have been taken into account.

In a circumstance where members of the House, the full House, provided an opportunity, a reasonable opportunity, a procedurally sound opportunity for her to act on those recommendations — which, by the way, would have allowed for consultation and discussion around some of the new provisions contained within this act — she, and I have to say in this case her colleagues, didn’t even extend the courtesy of a reply.

The motion to provide the committee with time to review these issues didn’t even elicit the courtesy of a reply from the minister. I can think of nothing more politically motivated than a minister who refuses to engage in a discussion or a debate on a proposal reasonably and responsibly brought before the House.

She has refused to address the concerns of countless agencies, and the list is growing. Look, for the purpose of the task that has been assigned to her…. I know what that task is. She’s been given orders. “You get this through the House. You get this legislation…. You sit there as long as it takes. You listen to guys like the member for Abbotsford West, and you let them talk as long as they want to talk, but you get this thing done, and to heck with all of the concerns” — from, by the way, agencies that, historically, the government has been pretty closely aligned with, at least some of them.

But the minister today wouldn’t even deign to answer their concerns. I said, during another part of this debate and this discussion, that I thought this represented a point of departure for government and the minister personally, and I think today we have seen further evidence of that. So it’s interesting for the minister to speak to the political imperative. We have garnered, over the course of the last few hours, ample evidence of what the political imperative is, apparently, for this government and how that trumps all other concerns legitimately expressed by people around British Columbia.

I think that others will have further questions around clause 1, Mr. Chair.

[2:25 p.m.]

B. Banman: Before I begin, I think that it is worth mentioning the news that we heard today with regards to the health of the Premier. I’m a health care provider. I’ve spent 20 years of my professional life looking after the well-being of those that chose to be underneath my care. The subject of wellness is very near and dear to my heart. Political ideologies, scrabbles, squabbles aside, public life takes a toll.

Earlier we heard this House rise to standing ovation, applause for a member of this House, a colleague from Abbotsford-Mission, who adjoins my riding. And we celebrated their return to wellness.

I look forward to when we can do the same with regards to the Premier. My thoughts and wishes are with the Premier and his family. Quite frankly, we’re all family, and families have squabbles. But in this case, there is no squabble. We wish him the very best recovery, and my thoughts are with him.

On a more happy note, if I may, I regret that I did not get a chance yesterday, hon. Chair, to compliment you on your amazing cufflinks. I notice that you have chosen today to also wear some bedazzling cufflinks as well, so I just thought I would share with you in your celebration yesterday.

By all means, show them off. Be proud of those. They’re very, very nice. I was a little downtrodden when you left and I was: “Oh, I missed the opportunity.” But you know, a day late is better than not at all.

With that, hon. Chair….

The Chair: Thank you for speaking to the section, the clause, whatever. I appreciate that.

B. Banman: Thank you for your indulgence. I would like now to…. I believe it’s a clause, not a section, as I was….

The Chair: Touché, touché, Member. Well done.

B. Banman: Thank you, sir.

So speaking to the clause, as was pointed out to me, clause 1, in fact. I have a few questions for the minister. We’ve heard in this House that engagement of this particular bill that is before us has been going on for, I believe the minister said, four years. I would like to know how many times in that four years was this bill discussed with the Privacy Commissioner? And “more than one” is not really the answer I’m looking for. I would like to know: in that four years, how many times was this particular bill, or sections of this bill, brought forward and discussed with the minister?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I can’t speak personally to prior to when I was the minister. I became the minister in November. So I’m going to talk about what I’ve done right now. Between April and September, there have been 18 meetings, various types of meetings. It’s 20 if you count the phone calls with myself and the commissioner, in which we outlined this legislation and had the input from the commissioner on his concerns.

B. Banman: During those consultations, how far along was this bill? And were there any indications of concern that the Privacy Commissioner outlaid? I would assume that there is a record of those concerns somewhere.

Hon. L. Beare: We have thoroughly canvassed this in the hours that we’ve already been doing this bill. The commissioner and I have discussed the concerns he’s had about the legislation throughout the entire process.

One of the things that I think is important…. We haven’t had a chance to discuss areas where we agree as well. We’re going to get to go line by line through this document and have a conversation about all of those concerns, which culminated in the letter that the member has referred to and will continue to refer to over the next set of hours as we speak as well. We are going to be able to have those conversations and address that.

There are a number of areas that we’ve taken the commissioner’s recommendations or areas that we agree as well — of course, giving full respect to those areas we don’t agree on.

One of the items I’ve mentioned already is mandatory breach reporting. There’s requiring mandatory breach reporting to the commissioner being implemented in this bill. We’re adding new offences for unauthorized collection and use of personal information. We’re adding new offences for wilfully evading FOI, and there’s a whole other list of sections where the commissioner’s office does agree with pieces in the bill.

I’m looking forward to continuing clause by clause through the debate, where we can have a conversation about the other pieces.

B. Banman: I would respond to the minister, as we go through debating this: “As am I.” I look forward to that.

The minister mentioned that she inherited some of this. I may not have said it quite right, but I’m paraphrasing. On what date did the drafting of this particular bill begin? And how much of it was actually put in place prior to the minister taking over the Ministry of Citizens’ Services?

Hon. L. Beare: No drafting was completed before I took over the file, and no drafting was completed before the public consultation.

B. Banman: If there was no drafting and nothing in writing — that’s what I thought I just heard — when did the actual beginning of the bill begin? When was the start date of the drafting of this particular bill before the House?

Hon. L. Beare: It was during the summer.

Excuse me, Chair. Would we be able to request a ten-minute recess?

The Chair: We will take a ten-minute recess or biology break, however you need to term it. Thank you. The committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 2:35 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: For those who are just tuning in, it is Bill 22. We are currently on clause 1.

B. Banman: Just prior to the recess, I asked a question of the minister: when did the drafting of this bill begin? The response from the minister was the summer. Now, that was not that long ago, Mr. Speaker — Speaker or Chair?

The Chair: Currently I’m Chair. But yes, my title is Deputy Speaker. Clear as mud.

B. Banman: All right. There we go. Thank you.

So, hon. Speaker and Chair, could you please…?

The Chair: Either works, Member. Either works.

B. Banman: Okay, I’ll probably say both for a while.

Could you please…? What month did this start? Was it prior to session ending? Was it during the summer? What month did we actually start drafting this bill?

The Chair: For greater clarity, Member, when I am in this chair it is appropriate to refer to me as Chair. When I am up there, I can be Speaker or I could be Chair. We can talk more about that later, outside of the chamber.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The legislative process doesn’t start with drafting. It starts with things like consultation and seeking input. So throughout the years, as I said, 2017 on…. There was further consultation in July of 2017, a public consultation process as well as round tables that I held. The legislative drafting began after that process.

B. Banman: Now I’m confused. I am sure that the minister said that the drafting of this bill started in the summer, this summer. So I again ask: what month did the drafting of this bill take place this summer?

Hon. L. Beare: July 2021, following consultation and public input.

B. Banman: If it began in July of 2021 — the drafting — when did the drafting end?

Hon. L. Beare: I’m just wondering if the member can clarify the line of questioning — what it is the member is seeking, actually, from this line of questioning — because we are on clause 1.

B. Banman: I’m happy to try and clarify that. You can’t have the rest of the bill without clause 1. So through clause 1 through…. I’m not sure whether or not clause 1 was the first one written — or adopted or drafted — or the last one.

What I’m asking is — because this will begin clause 1 through all clauses — when was the drafting of the bill finished before it was presented before here?

Hon. L. Beare: The draft bill would have been completed and provided to LRC. The drafting would have been completed right around that time. That was this month, in October.

B. Banman: Which elements of this bill, as we go forward — I don’t know; it was 1 through 74, I believe — was the government contemplating when starting the consultation in 2017?

Hon. L. Beare: So 2017 began with broad consultation on the entire bill.

B. Banman: Had government been considering new fees during that consultation process?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I think the member is trying to ask a subsequent set of questions that lead us to when the policy direction was given to impose fees. Maybe if the member just wants to nod if that’s where we’re trying to get to, because then I can save a whole bunch of questions for the member. Okay.

That policy direction was decided at cabinet earlier this year, and that is the culmination of a year’s worth of work and valuable advice by our public service. That is reflected, in this draft bill that we have before us, in the ability to apply a fee being added to the legislation earlier this year.

B. Banman: If I could just indulge the Chair, when during that consultation this year were fees actually brought up?

Hon. L. Beare: That information is available in the public consultation report, which is public. To the member, I’m sure he has it.

The Chair: Just a reminder. Of course, we are still on clause 1. I believe the section on fees comes up further down the bill. Just to keep everybody on the same page.

Member.

B. Banman: Thank you, hon. Chair.

As was discussed earlier, the freedom-of-information commissioner letter has many concerns, which we will be going through, I am sure, line item by line item, clause by clause. There were some concerns, however, that the Privacy Commissioner talked about — the shift to regulations. Does the minister agree that shifting to regulations is a positive, accountable and transparent step forward for this legislation, in clauses 1 and beyond?

Hon. L. Beare: That specific question will come up in the sections applicable.

B. Banman: In all due respect, it does talk about clause 1 and others. So I would ask again — yes or no? — does the minister agree that shifting to regulations is a positive accountability and a transparent step forward for this entire legislation? Clause 1 is the beginning of it.

[3:00 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, I believe this legislation shifting to regulations is going to be a positive thing. We are going to be able to discuss what that positivity is in each section when we finally get to those sections, so a broad statement isn’t fair without discussing the individual section we’re talking about. But yes, we have regulations in this bill which are positive, and I’m looking forward to getting to the sections to outline why it’s positive for British Columbians.

B. Banman: The minister just mentioned that there are positive regulations. Does that mean that in her opinion, there are negative regulations, or regulations that take a step backwards, as the Privacy Commissioner has said?

Hon. L. Beare: I appreciate the line of questioning. But as I’ve said, I believe the changes we’re making in this bill are positive for British Columbians, and I’m looking forward to getting to the sections so we can discuss them.

B. Banman: Earlier I think I heard the minister refer to a ministerial order that extended this not once, but twice. If it was to happen twice, if there had been controversy for long — especially when one considers that there were numerous occasions to talk with the Privacy Commissioner — could the minister not have extended this a third time? Or a fourth even?

Hon. L. Beare: That question has been canvassed in this House with the member present.

B. Banman: In all due respect, adding another ministerial extension was not discussed, to the best of my knowledge. If it was, I apologize. I misheard. But just for clarification, can the minister, on a single-page ministerial order, extend this again?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, my answer previous and my answer now is that the ministerial order has been extended twice. The regulation is out of date, not serving British Columbians. This bill before us is the result of the legislative process and consultation. The bill happens to be landing before us now, in this fall session. Yes, the ministerial order is expiring on December 31.

B. Banman: I’m not sure if the minister heard me or understood. Perhaps I spoke poorly. My question is: is it within this minister’s executive powers, shall we say, to extend the ministerial order more than twice?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: As said before, yes, I do have the authority to extend the ministerial order. And as I’ve said before, public bodies do need certainty. The legislation left us behind when COVID-19 hit. It’s out of date, and we are currently fixing it.

B. Banman: All right. It was also mentioned that there were numerous consultations done from 2017 onward. There were some broad-range mentions of public bodies, businesses and…. Can the minister please be more specific as to what public bodies were consulted? What businesses were consulted? What round tables were performed? Which Indigenous groups were involved? Could she be far more specific as to what groups were actually consulted in the writing of this bill?

Hon. L. Beare: I guess I’ll read into the record for the member the publicly available document that, I’m sure, the member has and that outlines the stakeholder consultation session details. Member, buckle up.

On May 28, 2021, we had an ADM round table. The audience was K-to-12 school districts. We had Comox Valley school district, Coquitlam school district, greater Victoria school district, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows school district, MyEd B.C. service management council and the Ministry of Education.

On June 3, we had a ministerial round table with health authorities and other representatives. We had Doctors of B.C., First Nations Health, Fraser Health, Island Health, Northern Health, Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver Coastal Health, Ministry of Health.

On June 8 of 2021, we had a ministerial round table of the B.C. tech sector. We had Charitable Impact, CoPilot AI, Flawless Inbound, Medimap, Omnae Technologies Inc., Planetary Remote Sensing, PressReader, ReadyMode, Riipen Networks Inc., SkyHive, Sophos, Streamline Athletes and representatives of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

On June 15, we had a stakeholder committee presentation and the ministry privacy officers for all government ministries. On June 15, we launched our public survey on information access and privacy. That’s to the general public. The engagement occurred from June 15 to July 15, 2021.

We had, on June 17, a stakeholder committee presentation, the information security advisory council of all government ministries. Again, I said July; I meant June. On June 17 was the information security advisory council. Again on June 17, we had ministry chief information officers of all government ministries.

On June 17 we had a ministerial round table of post-secondary institutions: the B.C. Institute of Technology, College of New Caledonia, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Research Universities Council of B.C., University of British Columbia, Thompson Rivers University, University of Victoria, Vancouver Community College, Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training.

On June 24, we had an ADM round table of local governments. We had the capital regional district, city of Coquitlam, city of Kamloops, city of Langford, city of Nanaimo, city of New West, city of Surrey, Cowichan Valley regional district, district of Fort St. James, district of Highlands, district of Sooke, district of Tofino, the Local Government Management Association, regional district of Fraser–Fort George, regional district of Central Okanagan, regional district of East Kootenay, regional district of Kootenay-Boundary, town of Qualicum, B.C.

[3:10 p.m.]

On July 8, we had a stakeholder committee presentation. That was the broader public sector chief information officers, and that was with Interior Health Authority, B.C. Pension Corp., Ministry of Health, WorkSafeBC, Ministry of Education, B.C. Ferries, ICBC, Fraser Health, VIHA, our Citizens’ Services, OCIO, Northern Health Authority, B.C. Hydro, TransLink, B.C. Lottery Corp., the PHSA, the FNHA.

On July 21, we had a survey on general public, an online survey. That was from July 21 to July 27.

B. Banman: During all of those consultations, were records of what was discussed kept? And if so, when will that be made available to the public?

Hon. L. Beare: The records are already public. They’re from the report I just read from.

B. Banman: During those discussions, so that we can get a grasp of clauses 1 and the rest, when the government put forward some of its ideas of proposed changes, do you happen to recall who was opposed and why they were opposed?

Hon. L. Beare: I think the member has the report, or I’m assuming the member has the report. I imagine he’s well prepared. The report captures all the information that we heard.

B. Banman: Of the 203 First Nations, through, again, clause 1 and following, how many of those were actually consulted in more than just an email or a letter that went out to them?

Hon. L. Beare: My ministry has had a number of meaningful discussions with the First Nations Leadership Council. The conversations included representatives from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit, B.C. Assembly of First Nations, and these discussions informed and shaped the number of proposals which specifically relate to Indigenous peoples. An invitation was provided to the leaders of First Nations across the province to complete — that’s the 203 — the online questionnaire, which sought to gain perspective of Indigenous peoples on access to information and privacy.

In response to this invitation, representatives from the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc requested a meeting with ministry staff, which was held earlier in September 2021. In addition, our deputy minister sent a formal invitation to the leaders of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit, B.C. Assembly of First Nations and Métis Nation B.C. to discuss the proposed amendments.

Within the established treaty First Nations notification framework, the ministry also engaged with representatives from the five Maa-nulth Nations, the Tsawwassen Nation and the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government. All of this was built on engagement done in 2018-19, when ministry staff also held discussions with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit about the unique aspects concerning access and privacy and their impacts on Indigenous people.

[3:15 p.m.]

There was a mailout engagement campaign then, asking for input and recommendations from the 203 First Nation communities. I’m sure the member has further questions.

B. Banman: Actually, I do. And I’m sure there will be a lot more between now and when we’re finished. Can the minister please explain why this bill comes into force without any regulations actually in place?

Hon. L. Beare: Government is unable to pass regulations unless we have the regulation-making authority. Regulations can come into place after royal assent.

B. Banman: Pardon me. I misspoke. I mean draft regulations.

Hon. L. Beare: It’s not common practice to release draft regulations in advance of royal assent.

B. Banman: Just so I can clarify, while it may not be the practice in something as important as this particular bill, were any draft regulations discussed with the Privacy Commissioner? Were those conversations and discussions documented?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, draft regulations — for example, the data residency, which I know we’re going to get to and be able to talk about in great detail when we finally get to that section — were shared with the commissioner’s office.

B. Banman: The reason I bring that up is in the Privacy Commissioner’s letter to the minister: “At the very least it is imperative that my office be consulted on the draft regulations as soon as they are available, as their content will provide the crucial legal substance on data residency protections and other important matters.”

That’s with regards to data residency. There are a number of regulations and draft regulations. How many of the draft regulations have been previously discussed with the Privacy Commissioner? While it may not be…. I understand that when it comes to legislation before the House, this may not be a normal practice of normal legislation. This legislation is one of the few that actually has someone that oversees it: the Privacy Commissioner. That input is very valuable, back towards the ministry and to the government.

[3:20 p.m.]

Could the minister please let us know: of the draft regulations, how many have you actually discussed with the Privacy Commissioner? Were there documents made of those conversations?

Hon. L. Beare: I do need to withdraw the last comment. I erred.

The content and the intent of the regulations was shared with the staff of the commissioner’s office. No draft regulations have been shared with the commissioner’s office.

B. Banman: What I think I heard was there have been discussions from the minister or on behalf of the ministry with staff of the Privacy Commissioner, yet not the Privacy Commissioner himself? Did I hear right, with regards to draft regulations? If there was with staff to staff, what documentation was taken down, recorded?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, the member is correct. We did talk about the content intentions of regulations with the commissioner’s team. The regulations are not yet finalized, as the bill is before the House right now. We will continue to talk to the commissioner’s office, and prior to releasing regulations at royal assent, his office will be fully briefed.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important to just acknowledge a couple of things before I ask a few questions here. One of those is that I think back into fairly recent history and remember our colleagues from previous parliaments when they were then on the official opposition side of this House — the B.C. NDP colleagues — getting, I think, very, very irritated by the former government’s use of enabling legislation.

There’s very good reason why our colleagues, who were then sitting on this side of the House, would be irritated by enabling legislation, because what enabling legislation does is it asks the House to approve of something that only we have the authority to approve of before the minister who is moving the legislation forward is prepared to put in front of this House what it is that we’re approving.

It actually undermines and erodes this democracy, which is what the members that were on this side of the House previously, in the previous parliaments, said we’d hear so often. For 16 years — for 16 years — we heard it all day, every day here.

But there is good reason to be irritated about enabling legislation, because only the members of this House have the authority to divest some of our power to statutory decision-makers and to other decision-makers within the bureaucracy. That’s what we’re being asked to do here.

[3:25 p.m.]

We’re being asked as elected officials, and this minister…. The public needs to know that this minister is asking the elected members of this democracy to hand power over to aspects of the bureaucracy without understanding the full implication. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised that. Our colleague from Abbotsford South just read the passage on the record. The commissioner himself has said: “Look, there could be dire consequences here to divesting the power or to passing the power on down the line.”

In this debate, I’ve heard…. In previous debates I’ve heard and seen this government undermine the very aspects of this House that we should be holding and propping up and maintaining in this chamber and in this House. Undermined it. The committee, the special committee to review this very act is a committee that is struck not by the government, but by this House. All the members of this place passed that motion unanimously to strike that committee. It’s an act of this House, not of the government. The government moves the motion. But it’s our committee to do our work on behalf of our democracy.

The government is treating it as if it’s something that they can just simply ignore. This minister, when asked these questions, has brushed it off as if it’s a meaningless committee that will do work after the bill…. The comment earlier was that the committee should essentially feel lucky that it gets to be the first committee to review the new act. Which is absolutely not the purpose of that committee. It is to inform the process that this government and this minister has decided to put ahead of the process.

The minister has said: “Well, a lot has changed.” Agreed, a lot has changed since 2021. I’m on the PIPA review. A lot has changed annually. That doesn’t mean that we give it less scrutiny by all members of this place. What’s going on here today, what went on with the amendment, what went on with the second reading debate is a result of this minister and that government putting this process ahead of the process where we could gain all-party support for an initiative. That’s exactly what that consensus-building process is in a special committee to review an act.

The turmoil that this minister is facing, the turmoil that her staff is facing with this today is a result of bad process and a government that is snubbing its nose at this democratic House. And they’re doing it with enabling legislation which further erodes it. Then the comments that I heard earlier today…. Not only has the minister undermined the authority of this House; the minister has undermined the authority of an independent officer of this House. We should be outraged.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Yeah, I might be outraged. I am outraged.

The reason why I’m outraged is because that independent officer is an officer of this place, not of the government. We put together a committee that hires an independent officer, that scrutinizes and ensures that the information and privacy of British Columbians is being properly administered and properly protected. This process undermines that. This minister is undermining that. This government doesn’t care. Snubbed its nose. No speakers. Silence.

Every time that a question has been answered, this minister has responded with a response: “I can’t wait to get to another question, a different question.” Not even honouring the question that is in front. It’s infuriating. It is entirely inconsistent with everything that has been said about enabling legislation in this House for 16 years.

[3:30 p.m.]

Yesterday I asked the minister, on clause 1, a question. The 2010 legislative committee recommended that a section be added to section 2, which is what clause 1 is amending, to require that an infringement of the right to privacy must be proportional to the public interest to be lawful. I said this bill doesn’t do that. Then I asked why. The minister responded that the act as it currently stands contemplates the protection of people’s privacy already. When has this act not contemplated people’s privacy?

Hon. L. Beare: The recommendation, of course, was considered.

We feel that the overarching principle statement that the member is looking for is embedded throughout the act and through the amendments, as well, strengthening privacy for individuals.

A. Olsen: The question was: at what point did this act not protect people’s privacy?

Hon. L. Beare: The act has always protected people’s privacy, and we’re strengthening that.

A. Olsen: That’s correct. The act has always protected people’s privacy.

In 2010, “The special committee also considered an amendment proposed by the OIPC,” the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. “Its submission pointed out that section 2 does not acknowledge that an infringement of the right to privacy must be reasonable and justifiable, whereas this concept is in the Personal Information Protection Act.”

The committee at the time stated they “support the amendment because they think it’s desirable to harmonize the language of the public sector and the private sector privacy laws, wherever practicable.” Can the minister please identify where in this act this specific recommendation, which is in clause 1, has been achieved?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: While I very much respect the member’s thoughts on this and the committee’s recommendation, which was thoughtfully considered throughout this process, they are two different acts. We feel that the act already allows for that, and we are continuing to strengthen privacy throughout our amendments.

S. Furstenau: My colleague from Saanich North and the Islands just gave quite an impassioned speech about process, and in fact, in his discussion of process, he really hits on something that’s so central to what these two reports from this government and their stakeholder consultation overviews talk about the public wanting, which is transparent and accountable government.

The reason why process matters so much for achieving these outcomes that the public consistently asks for — transparent and accountable government — is because having clear process, and adhering to that process, means that people are able to understand decision-making processes, what has informed decisions, how governments reach those decisions, what information they use to get to those decisions, what they think those decisions are going to accomplish, how they’re going to measure those decisions and where those decisions get us.

What my colleague pointed out about the rather concerning and distressing abandonment of good process that has gotten us to this place, where we are on I don’t know which hour of clause 1 of committee stage of this bill…. What’s being reflected are the members of a legislature who are quite distressed about the way that process has been abandoned.

The minister has talked a lot about these consultation processes and how the consultation reports are available publicly. And indeed, there are these two reports. There’s one from 2019 and one from 2021. What’s interesting is that in response to questions of: what did stakeholders say at meetings? What was heard? The minister says: “Well, it’s all in the consultation report.” But it’s not. These are curated reports that tell a story. In fact, that’s what governments do. That’s what political parties do. They tell stories. You have to own the narrative. You have to stay in the message box.

The role that freedom of information plays, for those who want to go beyond the curated story that is being told by any government at any time, is that freedom of information provides the capacity to get beyond what we’re provided in our curated stories and curated reports, to the questions that have been asked today. What exactly was said? Who was invited? How did this process play out? What was the decision-making process? How did we get here? Why are we here? Where are we trying to go? What are the implications for me as a citizen? What are the implications for the wider society?

This is why people are engaged, rightfully so, with government in a democracy, because we want to understand how we’re getting to one place and where we’re supposed to be going. What’s interesting about these reports is that when we look at the 2019 report on what we heard, there were lots of points about, for example, fees. There were some participants…. We don’t know how many. This is the problem with these curated reports. We’re not getting clear information. We’re getting abstract, vague information.

[3:40 p.m.]

“Some participants were concerned that fees could discourage low-income British Columbians or not-for-profit groups from making requests. Some suggested fees should either be reduced or simplified…. A few participants suggested that no fees should be charged for electronic documents.” Then there was this one line: fees could be “reduced or simplified, for example, by charging a flat-rate application fee for general requests.”

We don’t know if that’s in response to the fact that sometimes you put in a FOI request and you get a notice back from the government saying: “Well, we can fulfil this, but it’s going to cost you $475.” Or: “It’s going to cost you $8,000.” Or, in some cases, I’ve heard from journalists: “This is going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Imagine that — public information about very important public matters like the movement of hazardous waste in this province and the researcher wanting to know where that waste comes from, how it’s shipped, where it ends up and being told: “We can maybe get you that information, but it’s going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

I think in these what-we-heard processes, it wasn’t: “Oh, people are really looking for an upfront application fee.” I think what we could imply from this is people were looking for a…. If you’re going to charge a fee, make it a flat fee, and then give us all the information.

But then we get to the April to August 2021 report, which is very different from the January 2019 report. What I can see is…. The questions are here that the government asked in the surveys.

This would be an assignment that I would give to my class about how you ask questions to get specific kinds of answers and how you present information to get specific kinds of outcomes. This isn’t in-depth information about what was said in these consultation sessions. This is highly curated information being provided to the public — a story being told that is quite the opposite of freedom of information.

There’s an interesting line here: “While many general FOI requests…ensure that high-value government information is shared with the public, others are overly broad and directed at multiple public bodies.” There is a value statement in this. We get to determine what are high-value requests and what requests are overly broad. “These requests do not typically result in responsive records and, as such, do not increase transparency.” Well, now we’ve drawn a conclusion here.

I’ll start with a question. The minister has talked a lot about the overwhelming number of requests and yesterday indicated proactive public disclosure. She said: “Oh, we’ve proactively disclosed estimates binders, and we’ve proactively disclosed transition binders.”

My question is: of these overwhelmingly voluminous, as she says, requests for information, has there been any effort to analyze the requests and proactively disclose based on the requests that are coming in year over year?

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you for the question.

Yes, we have talked about the overwhelming increase in requests over the past four years. A 40 percent increase is significant.

[3:45 p.m.]

Yes, we do analyze requests that are made frequently for information, which are how we come to decisions like releasing minister’s binders, for example. When that’s a repeated request and we notice that that’s something that is continually being asked year after year, it’s easy, then, to make those decisions, on this side, that we should make that available to the public and make it available to absolutely everyone for free, because that’s important information.

That process is already starting again — that 40 percent increase in disclosures that we did last year. We’re already looking at what that next batch can be, and we’re going to continue to do that analysis.

S. Furstenau: Another example of a request would be, for example, the request of a minister’s calendar, which shouldn’t be that complicated. Can the minister tell me why ministers’ calendars wouldn’t be proactively disclosed?

Hon. L. Beare: Ministers’ calendars are proactively disclosed. Let me read all the disclosure subjects that are proactively disclosed.

We have the new subjects, being estimates, notes, corporate transition binders, minister transition binders, deputy minister travel expense summaries, purchasing cards, business transaction account expenditures. The previous ones were summaries of open and closed freedom-of-information requests, records released in response to freedom-of-information requests, gaming grants paid to community organizations, ministers’ and deputy ministers’ calendars, directly awarded contracts, ministers’ travel receipts, summaries of contracts with values over $10,000, and summaries of alternative service delivery contracts.

S. Furstenau: In a minister’s calendar, what level of information is included in that disclosure — including, for example, who the minister met with?

Hon. L. Beare: Ministers’ calendars are subject to the same exceptions as FOI.

But I just want to remind the member that nowhere in this act do we discuss proactive disclosure. I am more than happy to have a briefing with the member and would love to discuss proactive disclosure and what the member would like to see as future categories of proactive disclosure. I’d be more than happy to do that.

S. Furstenau: Just to go back to yesterday’s point, that was the number 1 recommendation from the 2016 committee that reviewed this legislation and made recommendations to this House. If there is such a volume of requests, it would indicate to me, just using my logic, that there is a feeling amongst the public and the press and the opposition parties that perhaps there is information that isn’t available that needs to be available. Given that it is public information, it belongs to the public.

I’ll go back to my question, because I don’t think I got an answer there. It’s subject to the same rules as FOIs. In the proactive disclosure of ministers’ calendars, does that include who the minister meets with?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, it does. I know the member knows the answer to this question. I also know that the member knows that this is not included in the bill before us right now.

[3:50 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’ll turn to just a bit more along the lines of the bigger question of this legislation and where we’re at.

Again, connecting to the volume of requests for information, the frustration…. It does come through in both of these fabulously curated storytelling reports that we have from government on what we heard. Of course, we can’t know if it’s everything that we heard, because we only get to know what is in the report. As I indicated, that is the nature of governments. They’re in the storytelling business.

The nature of the press and researchers and engaged citizens and opposition parties and lawyers…. The nature of them is to want to get beyond the narrative, beyond the storytelling. It is they who are absolutely raising the alarm about this legislation.

The concerns that they have indicated, as we’ve gone over several times in these questions from the opposition parties…. I’ll just put it…. It’s a higher-level question for the minister.

The combination of the volume of freedom-of-information requests and the response that this legislation has generated publicly, from the 24 groups that the member for Abbotsford West listed earlier, including the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Centre for Access to Information, the B.C. Construction Association, the West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, the independent contractors…. There’s a long list of organizations and individuals who have really sounded the alarm on this legislation.

On the heels of, as the minister has indicated, an increasing volume of requests for information, have this minister, in her role as Minister of Citizens’ Services, and this government reflected on what story that tells about this government? People don’t feel that they are getting all the information they need to understand decision-making processes, as opposed to the story this government wants to tell about itself.

Just one example. Independently, we have been recognized as one of the most data-restrictive provinces in Canada when it comes to COVID for over a year — for example, the request for disaggregated data for how COVID is impacting groups of colour, different socioeconomic groups. Relentless pressure has been on this government to provide more information in a public health emergency, culminating — I think about a week and a half ago — in a story on CTV from Penny Daflos about dozens and dozens of pages accessed through FOI and most of them blacked out.

There is a story emerging. I wonder if this minister…. Do this minister and her government reflect on the story or the sense that this government has become less transparent and more secretive, as indicated by the rising volume of FOI requests and the alarm that’s being raised by these many, many groups?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I have a very big answer that I want to give the member here.

There are a number of pieces embedded in the question, the first being the increase in the volume of requests. I think it’s very, very important that we discuss what that volume is and what that increase is. What we’re looking at is a system that is overwhelmed and clogged up right now with a number of requests that are just broad and sweeping and that are essentially fishing expeditions.

Let me give you an example. When a deputy minister’s office is requested for all emails received for a month, all of them, that’s not looking for government decision-making.

I believe governments need to be open and transparent. FOI was created so that people can have access to their information and so that people can have access into government decision-making. Asking for every single email received in a deputy minister’s office is not looking for government decision-making. That’s a fishing expedition. That’s what that is. That’s causing thousands of hours of work across the system.

You know what I want to see my deputy minister doing instead of trying to sift through 6,000 emails and figure out what is important, what is non-transitory, what is transitory, what results in government decision-making? I want my deputy minister focused on serving the people of British Columbia. I want my deputy minister ensuring that Service B.C. is operating at its top function so that people can have access to the service they need. I want my deputy minister focused on getting connectivity throughout the province.

Government information on decision-making is what FOI is there for. That is key and critical and foundational to freedom of information, and we are protecting that. When we talk about the volumes, no, I don’t believe that’s a conversation all about our government. I believe that it’s a threefold increase in things like political party requests going from over 1,500 to over 4,700. That is a threefold increase, many of which are fishing expeditions and not actually looking for government decision-making.

I know we’re going to talk about this a lot over the next hours and days. I believe that it’s critical that we get information in the hands of people who are looking for it in a timely manner and that we provide that critical and fundamental access to government decision-making.

Now, when we talk about openness and transparency…. I thank the member for raising this piece as well. Our government is fully committed to openness and transparency. We talked yesterday about my very first action as minister of increasing proactive disclosures more than 40 percent and how we’re already looking at doing more.

Our government has opened the metadata sets, which are open to the public. We now have 3,200 open data sets that are available to people, to organizations, to media. We’re proactively publishing information on integrated data projects underway in B.C.’s data innovation program.

We’re consulting with the people of this province on a level that the province has never seen before. We have doubled the amount of consultations under our watch as was previously done. We’re going to continue to be open and transparent, and we’re going to continue to find ways to serve the people of British Columbia.

A. Olsen: I think that might have been one of the most unfortunate answers that the minister could have provided to this House. As somebody who just stood and spoke to our democracy, I feel like I have no choice but to stand again and remind the minister that basically the answer that she just provided demonstrated a basic disrespect for this House, a basic disrespect for the people of British Columbia.

[4:00 p.m.]

The people of British Columbia elect political parties and representatives from political parties to come in here and do a job. People elect a government not to come in here and pass judgment on what information is acceptable to share and what information is not, which is exactly what this minister just articulated to this House.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

There is, apparently, in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, a value judgment placed on which requests are acceptable and which requests are not. The freedom of information is the freedom of information — fishing or specific.

One of the things that should be pointed out to this minister is that when you actually put something specific, you get a response that it’s not available. The way that the freedom-of-information system has evolved under this government is that if you can’t get a response from a specific request, then you ask a general question. Then you take the response from that general question, and you dig further. You ask the next question and the next question. Because freedom of information — and the minister just demonstrated it in her response — has turned into a game.

We should not be playing a game. There should not be a value judgment placed by the minister responsible for freedom of information as to what is an acceptable request and what is not. Who gave government the power to determine which information should flow freely and which information should be judged as superfluous? Nobody.

It’s the job of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services to facilitate a process that responds in as speedy a time as possible to the requests that are made, passing no judgment on the request that was made. Has that minister…? That bureaucracy has no understanding as to the reason why someone is making a request. It’s none of their business.

When the minister stands up and gives the answer that she just gave my colleague from Cowichan Valley, it turns the frustration that I expressed earlier into — well, it ramped it up. Because it’s not acceptable. This is not acceptable. This minister is showing a complete and total disregard for information in this province. I don’t know what tools are at our disposal to reconcile this, but that answer that was just given to my colleague was completely unacceptable.

No judgment should be passed. No blame should be placed on the members of this House for doing their job and then amending the way they do their job because of the results that they’re getting. I have an individual in my riding that didn’t get it in 30 days, didn’t get it in 60 days and whose FOI response was just kicked to February of next year.

It’s a game. This minister is playing a game with this system. The games were evident this week in this House, with none of the members who seem to be filling the benches now to come and not stand up and speak. Other bills — run the clock to the end of the day. Just turning this House into a….

It’s making a mockery of this democracy. Thinking that you can take this process and just turn it into a joke. Because people are busy doing things like trying to survive in this world, they’re not paying attention. So guess what? When they go to get their information that they’re requesting, there’s a judgment passed on it now or we’re waiting for the regulations to be drafted because we’ve put in front of this House enabling legislation and asked this place to shut their eyes and vote for it.

I have no question.

[4:05 p.m.]

B. Banman: I asked earlier about whether regulations have been drafted and whether those draft regulations had been discussed or viewed with the Privacy Commissioner, clause 1 through 74.

Can the minister please answer: of the 74 clauses that we have before us in this bill, clause 1 through 74, how many of them will reach royal assent as soon as this bill is voted on?

Hon. L. Beare: For the member’s reference, if he refers to section 74 in the draft legislation, it talks about commencement. This provision does bring the majority of the sections of the bill into force on the date of royal assent.

We do have the following exceptions: section 25 and section 49. These sections of the bill will be brought into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

B. Banman: Of those two sections, then, could the minister please, just for the record, describe what those two sections actually include — 25 and 49?

The Chair: Thank you, Member. If I might, just so that we can keep this in order. We normally go clause by clause, and I believe the member is now asking about clause 76 or 74, so we are on clause 1.

B. Banman: I understand that, Chair. This deals with the bill in its entirety, because it relates to my first previous question, which involves clause 1 through 74.

I do have a follow-up question, but just for the record, we’ve just heard the minister state that the majority of this bill will be enacted immediately, so it does relate to my previous question.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. I’m just trying to understand the relevance of asking about other clauses in this case. If the Member might help me, humour the Chair, so that I can understand the relevance. I’m just trying to keep this in order. Thank you.

B. Banman: Thank you, Chair. To clarify, the general basis of the question is: why is the regulation going to come after, for the majority of this bill? And why will those two sections not have royal assent? So it deals with clauses 1 through 74, if that helps the Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I guess where I’m coming from is that we’re on clause 1, so if the question is around clause 1, great. If it’s on clause 25, that should be asked around clause 25, and clause 49 should be asked at clause 49, or it could also be asked at clause 74.

B. Banman: Fair enough, Chair. I will move on.

Part of the reason I’m asking this question…. I’m going to refer back to the Privacy Commissioner’s letter.

The Privacy Commissioner, on his last page of the extraordinary seven-page letter that he sent to this House and to the minister and to myself, copied, and to the hon. Leader of the Third Party: “Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.” I’m going to quote and read from the Privacy Commissioner’s letter:

“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 work of the special committee is essential. It is able to pull information and consultation from a variety of sources, encouraging fulsome public dialogue about proposed amendments.

“I have to question how meaningful the first substantive amendments to the act in over a decade can be when there is no time for all stakeholders to provide dialogue. To move forward with these amendments in a year that the special committee is tasked to do this work is baffling.”

Now, hon. Chair, you were not in the room prior, a few minutes, when you heard some of the eloquent words to my colleagues….

The Chair: Of course we don’t comment on if a member is in the House or not, but I’m always watching, Member. Be sure of that.

B. Banman: All right. Fair enough.

Part of the question that I have with regards to the regulation is this House…. Members on this side of the House and members of the Third Party find it troubling that the majority of this act, all but two clauses, are going to be seen, enacted by royal assent, as soon as it is voted upon in this House.

I am getting to a question. I apologize. But you threw me off-kilter.

[4:15 p.m.]

The minister just spent, actually, the most I’ve heard the minister speak a few minutes ago, where she talked about fishing. I would say, respectfully, that there’s more emphasis and weight put on fishing for FOIs than there is on fishing and preserving the steelhead in the Thompson River.

However, that aside, there was a ton of words that came from the minister, where she expressed how much work staff has been going through to provide required FOIs that had been requested. So my question to the minister: in the last four years, if this has truly been a problem for something as simple as binders — which was one of many things that were mentioned — could this minister have asked the special committee to review the high-volume FOIs and come up with simple amendments to the act?

Hon. L. Beare: I do not direct the committee. The committee reviews the legislation, as acted out in the legislation. It reviews the existing legislation. There’s a committee report from 2010 and 2016, which are unacted on. Those recommendations are part of this legislative package that we have before us.

B. Banman: It has become clear that it was not the work of the Privacy Commissioner or the committee that has been assigned by this House that directed the way this bill was created — we just heard the minister, I believe, say words to that effect, did we not? — or the contents, set clauses 1 through 74, in the bill.

Did the Premier’s chief of staff or the Premier direct the minister what should be contained in this bill?

Hon. L. Beare: No, I was not directed by anyone. The bill has gone through the normal legislative process.

B. Banman: Did she seek advice from the Premier’s office or the Premier’s staff with regards to the drafting of this bill?

Hon. L. Beare: I very clearly outlined earlier for the member the process that I took with the bill, which is the regular legislative process that does involve going to cabinet, where advice and input was sought.

B. Banman: So are you telling this House that at no time, the Premier’s office offered any direction or advice whatsoever with regards to what is now before the House — of the clauses 1 through 74, that there was never any discussion from the Premier’s office?

[4:20 p.m.]

Especially considering we now have the removal of the Premier’s office, I find that hard to believe. But would the minister please answer: at no time was there any discussion whatsoever from the Premier’s office?

Hon. L. Beare: I very clearly outlined the process. It included, beginning with public consultation, going through assistant deputy minister and deputy minister committees. It went through cabinet. The bill has gone through the legislative review committee. All of those places are pieces of input.

Again, I need to clarify to the member that that’s one of the misinformations. You know, removing the Premier’s office from a lesser schedule does not exempt the Premier’s office from FOI. In fact, it ensures that they have the same coverage, which is the high-risk coverage, as all of the other minister offices.

B. Banman: I’m going to be very, very specific. At any time throughout the last four years, did the Premier or the Premier’s chief of staff have any conversations or discussions about the bill that is before this House?

Hon. L. Beare: I have already said to the member that I have received no direct input from the Premier or Premier’s office. The bill has followed the regular channel.

B. Banman: So let me ask: has there been any indirect communication or discussion from the Premier or the Premier’s chief of staff with regards to this bill that’s before the House, clauses 1 through 74?

Hon. L. Beare: No.

B. Banman: The intent, as we’ve heard earlier — one of the many intents, clauses 1 through 74 — is to help lighten the burden of the massive amount of FOI requests that are now coming through this office. I believe that’s what I have heard thus far. Many of those things are something that is quite simple.

My question to the minister would be: why was it that in all of this time, these four years that have transpired, the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was not asked to review what potential mechanisms there could be to reduce the volume of freedom-of-information act and make it more accessible to those that have actually paid for it, which is the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I’d just like to clarify, for the member, what I have said about this legislation. I’ve said that our current act is out of date and is not meeting the needs of British Columbians. I’ve said that the act has not been updated since 2011 and needs to be amended, as it’s out of date. I’ve said that we’re aligning with other jurisdictions across Canada for things like data residency and fees. I’ve said that the legislation hasn’t kept pace with what we’re experiencing today during COVID.

Again to the member, I do not direct the legislative committee. The committee has provided two previous recommendation reports, in 2010 and 2016 — I have those — as part of the consultation process, towards fee amendments, which are before us.

B. Banman: I’m not so sure I heard properly, but I don’t think that answered the question as to….

My understanding of this particular act, clauses 1 through 74, is…. It has been the tradition to involve the special committee, which actually gets paid, I believe — at least, members of that get a stipend — to do the work of this House, to do the work of the FOI committee and to also involve not only stakeholders but the Privacy Commissioner as well. Much of this has been left to regulation — 72 of the 74 clauses.

I’ll ask again: why was it that what is normal procedure was not put into place in the last four years to be able to deal with what has been a problem? It has not been updated for ten years, as we’ve heard the minister say. Once again, why did we choose to put the cart in front of the horse, instead of following what are, traditionally, the standing habits of this House?

Hon. L. Beare: Chair, we’ve canvassed this extensively last night, this morning and this afternoon.

B. Banman: We may have canvassed it, but as of yet, there has not been an answer as to why….

I think the taxpayers of British Columbia are entitled to a simple question. Why is it that clauses 1 through 74 did not follow long-standing protocol? If it’s so important that this needs to be rushed…. There was a chance, in this House, where we saw that it could have been referred to the committee. If it is so important, why is it that we are now having 72 of 74 sections, which are left to regulations, to be decided, in the future, behind closed doors?

Hon. L. Beare: So 72 sections do not go through regulation. The member is incorrect. I have answered the question — asked and answered — on a committee.

[4:30 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: First of all, I just wanted to piggyback on a little something that the member for Saanich North and the Islands said a little earlier — a little comment. It wasn’t much of a question, but it was a comment. That was on the minister’s response on FOI requests and the increased volume that they’re seeing through this office. It kind of troubled me a little bit — actually, a lot a bit — that the response back was, “Political parties, it’s threefold, the volume now,” suggesting that, perhaps, it’s gamesmanship or political games or whatever.

The fact of the matter is that I represent the riding of Kootenay East. I’m elected there as a B.C. Liberal. Those requests that come through me or through our political party go directly to the ministry’s office and should not be construed as gamesmanship or whatever she wants to critique it on. These are serious requests.

We are going through a huge opioid crisis right now. COVID. We had some of the worst wildfires in history in our province. There are some legitimate questions that come through my desk that I will ask for freedom of information on — on process, on statistics, on any wild array of data that people want to hear.

Instead of the minister treating this as a hassle and putting in fees, perhaps to create a barrier to reduce this volume, maybe the minister should be more concerned with why she’s getting this volume and circumventing it another way and having freedom of information that is proactive instead of reactive. That would be a change. That would reduce things. This bill is doing the exact opposite. So that was just that little piece there.

The minister also said, not too long ago, to buckle up. She told us to buckle up here, because she was going to give a fairly exhaustive list of the engagement that happened over the last four years. I quickly scribbled down as many as I could. I came up with nine or ten round tables, 78 groups. I tallied up two or three surveys. A fairly exhaustive list, although I would argue maybe not as exhaustive as the minister pretends it is. I talked to the chair of my regional district just a minute ago, and he said that the amount of engagement that resulted was essentially a letter that was sent.

I guess the question is — and I’m not even sure if the minister has answered this question yet or not; she can tell me if she did — what was the feedback from those consultations? What form of engagement, other than a letter, was received back to the minister? Surely there must have been some sort of concern, with what we’re seeing here today. So I guess that’s the question: what kind of feedback was presented to the minister?

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you so much to the member for the questions. I agree with the member in a number of areas, including the openness and transparency piece. This is why — I know the member wasn’t in the House, so I’m going to take a chance to let him know as well — one of the first things I did as minister, when I received the file in November, was increase the number of proactive disclosures by 40 percent.

I believe that the public should have access to as much information as possible for free, and we are doing that. We are making sure that we are releasing information that the public is seeking and putting it available to all, including ministers’ estimates binders, which are some of the most valuable pieces of information in government, including ministers’ transition binders, in addition to all the other things that we’re doing.

I also agree with the member that the scribbling down is an exhaustive list of consultation that was had in 2021. That, of course, builds on the feedback — I don’t know if the member has been listening — that we’ve been receiving since 2017. This has been a long process to get to this bill.

That all culminates in the report that I referred to. So to the member, that report is public and available, and all the synopsis of the consultation and what we heard is in there, in the feedback of the report.

[4:35 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: All right. I’ll buy that — an exhaustive list of consultation, a process that went from 2017 to current, four years of digging in deep and finding what the folks want to see, although I’ve never heard of any group that is asking for the amendments that we’re seeing here today. Maybe the minister can tell us which groups are asking for this particular piece of legislation. I have never heard of any.

But I take a little bit of offence to the fact…. I’m on the freedom of information committee. I was kind of excited, thinking: “I’ll be able to dig in deep.” I’m on the same committee as my friend and colleague from Saanich North and the Islands over there and a couple of other folks. It’s a non-partisan committee, as we all know, and I was looking forward to it.

I guess the question to the minister is: after all this extensive consultation, all this work that’s been done, all this legwork, what will this committee be able to provide that hasn’t already been vetted through debate, through committee stage, everything else that we’re seeing here — all the consultation? What possibly could this committee bring forward to this piece of legislation we’re seeing here today?

Hon. L. Beare: We have canvassed, very heavily, the committee piece. I do not direct the committee. The committee reviews existing legislation. I do have two reports of reviews of the existing legislation from the 2010 and 2016 committees.

The member was asking about some of the feedback and what we’re hearing about this legislation and — more importantly, I think — what conversations in the community I was having about this bill. I’m going to read just one quote from the report, in all the great feedback that we’ve received that I know the member has access to and will happily, I’m sure, be checking out.

Let me read a quote from Jill Tipping, the president and CEO of B.C. Tech Association: “This is a positive development from government that B.C.’s tech industry welcomes. The changes to B.C.’s data residency requirements will allow local companies to leverage cutting-edge technology to help B.C.’s public sector deliver the modern tools that citizens expect with the privacy protections they need.”

So this is a sample of the type of feedback that we heard from our consultation. I know the member, I’m sure, is going to be eagerly reading the report as we speak.

T. Shypitka: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson kind of gave an analogy of what I, and maybe, perhaps, the other members of my committee, may feel like — the old proverbial Maytag repairman who is waiting for the call and will never get it. I feel that that’s what’s going to happen with this committee.

The work has been done. The consultation has been done. We’re voting on a piece of legislation that’ll be passing soon, I presume. It seems a little bit of the cart in front of the horse to me.

Can the minister tell me what total disbursements are associated with this committee and if she feels that they’re justified at this point?

Hon. L. Beare: I can’t speak to the committee. Those questions should be directed to either LAMC or the House Leader.

B. Banman: I guess one last thing before we perhaps move on. It’s taken a long time to get to an “s,” huh.

Sorry. I shouldn’t do that while the minister has a mouth full of water. We just about had a prat spray over there.

I would like, however, an opportunity for the minister to, perhaps, correct something. That had to do with regulations. I’m going to just point out two of the many, if I may, sections — seeing as how this is 1 and I was basically corrected by the minister. But sections 33.1 and 36.1 both leave it to be left later to regulations.

[4:40 p.m.]

Now, I know that the minister…. I think that I’m pretty close, with the 72 of the 71, but many, many sections within this, clause 1 through 74, are left to regulations. The minister made it sound as if they were not. So perhaps the minister would like to clarify that statement.

Hon. L. Beare: No, the member asked about royal assent. We talked about section 74 on commencement and when the pieces of royal assent were going to be covered. I read out sections 25 and 49 as part of that commencement section of the bill, which is 74.

Yes, there are a number of areas of the bill — not 72 of 74 — that will have regulations attached. When we get to those sections, I’m going to be very excited to talk about what that looks like.

The Chair: Shall clause 1 pass?

A division has been called on clause 1.

[4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Clause 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49
Alexis	Babchuk	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chant	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Dykeman	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Glumac	Greene	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Ma	Malcolmson	Mark
Mercier	Osborne	Paddon
Popham	Ralston	Rankin
Rice	Robinson	Routledge
Routley	Russell	Sharma
Simons	Sims	R. Singh
Starchuk	Walker	Whiteside
	Yao
NAYS — 24
Ashton	Banman	Cadieux
Clovechok	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Furstenau	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Merrifield
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Olsen	Paton	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturdy
Tegart	Wat	Wilkinson

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We will report to the Speaker, and then I believe we’ll be going into a short recess before Her Honour joins the precinct.

The committee rose at 4:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have a recess for a few minutes. Thank you.

The House recessed from 4:54 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, her honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we wait for her.

[5:05 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

 

Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021

Early Childhood Educators Act

Early Learning and Child Care Act

Societies Amendment Act, 2021

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

United Church of Canada Amendment Act, 2021

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you very much.

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE. ÍY, ȻNES QENOṈE ṮÁ.

It is good to see all of you today. I have, in fact, very much been looking forward to this day so that I could see you all assembled together. It’s been far too long. It really does warm my heart to see you here.

My message today is one of adding my voice to all of yours in expressing my very best wishes to Premier Horgan for a successful surgery and treatment, for a speedy recovery, and for robust and enduring good health. I want also just to reinforce his message to all of us to care for our own health, but also to care for each other. In that vein, I want to thank you, all of you, for all that you do to care for each other through those inevitable challenges of leadership that you all assume on our behalf and also the support that you provide to each other for the personal challenges of life.

I wish you all the very best. I do look forward to an opportunity to welcome you to Government House as a group as soon as Dr. Henry gives us permission. I wish you all the best, always, and express again my sincerest, most heartfelt appreciation for your truly splendid work.

Thank you. HÍSW̱ḴE.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday, November 1.

The House adjourned at 5:15 p.m.