Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Monday, November 1, 2021
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 121
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021
The House met at 1:34 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
D. Routley: Before I make my actual introduction, I’d like to welcome back my seatmate here, who’s just back to the House, and introduce her.
Now I’d like the members to help me welcome one of my oldest friends, a friend from high school days — that’s centuries ago — Steve Voller. Steve and I were friends through high school, as I say, and misadventures. He’s gone on to become a fisheries biologist, and he works at Carnation Creek. I’ll be speaking about Carnation Creek in a few minutes, but this is Steve’s first visit to the House, and he gets to see us all in action. Not me, he’s right up there, but please help me make him welcome.
B. D’Eith: I am very honoured and pleased today to have one of my five children in the gallery — the first one who’s actually come over here in four years, I might say.
Thank you so much for that.
I know with teenagers and 20-somethings, they’re often not that interested in what the old man is doing. So I really appreciate Cameron coming over.
Cameron is a professional musician and producer and engineer. As parliamentary secretary, I’ve been working with people like Cam for the last few years. It’s very wonderful to see, during COVID, him and his older brother, Sheldon — who is also in a band called Raincity with his girlfriend, Clare Twiddy, who is also in the music industry…. They used that opportunity to really hone their crafts, and it’s amazing to see the growth that a lot of musicians have made during this really difficult time. They were not able to play live, so they went off and did some amazing things producing and creating.
If you would please give my son Cameron — and all my children but, particularly, Cameron today because he’s here — a big round of applause.
Tributes
LILLIAN HOWARD
Hon. M. Mark: On Saturday, the community lost a matriarch and a leader, Lillian Howard.
Many of us know her from her work with the Vancouver city police department. She was the recipient of the Civic Volunteer Award for the city of Vancouver. She was a member of the Butterflies in Spirit community. She co-chaired the Urban Indigenous Peoples Advisory Committee.
I could go on and on about all of her contributions to the community, but I just want to say that she was a hero to me. The last time I heard her speak was at the National Truth and Reconciliation Day at the art gallery. She spoke with conviction. She spoke about what the impacts of residential school meant to her.
If the House could please acknowledge the loss to the community, and condolences to the family.
Introductions by Members
Hon. J. Osborne: Today I’m very pleased to have my constituency assistants join us in the House, Andrea McDonald and Britt Chalmers. Many of you will remember, perhaps, Andrea McDonald, who also worked for Scott Fraser, my predecessor. For Britt, this is her first time in the House.
None of us can do the work that we do here without the support, the skills and the knowledge of our constituency assistants. I am eternally grateful to mine, as I know all members of the House are to theirs, and I would ask that the House join me in making them feel very welcome today.
Hon. K. Chen: Today I’m really happy to welcome a group of professionals — all women, actually — from our child care government communications and public engagement team. They are Nicole Hall, Nicole Beneteau, Gayle Mavor, Theresa Chaboyer and Krystal Northey.
I really want to take this opportunity to thank their incredible work, working behind the scenes, helping me with my speech and my speaking points and making sure that I communicate clearly and effectively, especially as someone…. English is not my first language.
I really want to take this opportunity to thank them for their tremendous support and help. Thank you, and I hope the House will make them feel very welcome.
Hon. S. Robinson: There’s a birthday boy in the chamber today. The Minister for Social Development and Poverty Reduction is having a birthday today, and he’s significantly younger than the House Leader and the Premier.
G. Kyllo: Well, it is very good to see the member for Abbotsford-Mission join us today. The last time that I had an opportunity to see her in person was under very different circumstances.
I’m very happy to have you back and in good health.
Would all members give the member for Abbotsford-Mission a very warm welcome.
Hon. B. Ma: Now, I really wanted to make this introduction this time last year, but we all know the circumstances that we were operating under at that time, so I will make it this year.
I’ll preface my introduction by saying that Canada is made up of people from all over the world who come together in search of a better life and who become integral members of our society. I think everybody in this House will agree with me when I say that Canada would not be the same without the contributions of its many immigrants, many of whom are serving in this House right now.
Today I’d like to honour a specific one of those members, the Minister of State for Child Care, because October 31 was actually her 21st anniversary of being here in Canada. Would the House please join me in congratulating her on this and thanking her for making — for choosing — British Columbia as her home.
M. Starchuk: On Friday, my son Ryan and his partner, Andrea, had the birth of their first child. If it had happened on Thursday, I couldn’t stand here and give you the name of the child. The child was born two months premature. The mother is in B.C. Women’s, and he is in Children’s Hospital right now. But he’s in great care. He’s a whopping 3½ pounds in size, and he will be there for a little bit of time. Would the House please welcome Lennon Ole Starchuk to the world.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
LILLIAN HOWARD
N. Sharma: It’s with great sadness that I rise here today to acknowledge the loss of Lillian Howard. Lillian was a Matriarch, a highly respected Elder who lived every day in service for her community. Lillian was a proud Indigenous woman of Nuu-chah-nulth, Kwakwa̱ka̱ʼwakw and Tlingit ancestry.
She was the embodiment of a mighty heart, and it was one of the great privileges of my life to witness her in action. She carried with her a strong sense of justice, compassion and kindness, and she did so much. Lillian was a co-chair of the Urban Indigenous Peoples Advisory Committee. She sat on the Indigenous advisory committee for the Vancouver police board.
She was a member of the Butterflies in Spirit dance group, which raised awareness for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and men and boys. She was also a founding member of the uplifting Indigenous families fund, which raised funds to assist families during and after the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
She worked part-time at Provincial Health Services Authority with the Indigenous health team. In addition, Lillian volunteered with the Douglas College Aboriginal Advisory Committee, West Coast LEAF Aboriginal Advisory Committee and the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra Indigenous Council. She travelled all over the world helping people.
Lillian was a pillar of the community and will be missed immensely. Lillian was a mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, daughter, aunt, sister, cousin and was loved by so many. I ask that this House hold some space for her today, her friends and family, who I know are in great pain from her loss.
Lillian, you’ve touched so many people, and your legacy will echo through time. We will miss you dearly. Rest in peace, my friend.
MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN
G. Kyllo: Many of our colleagues in this House today have shown up clean shaven for the last time this month, as we once again begin our annual pilgrimage to moustache glory. That’s right. Today marks the beginning of Movember, the great movement where men across the province and around the world take a partial break from shaving and grow magnificent moustaches, raising funds and awareness for men’s health.
I’m encouraging all members to participate in this year’s Movember campaign, which, I might add, is inclusive of all types, shapes, colours and sizes — of moustaches, of course. Whether you choose to grow the after eight, the connoisseur, the business man, the trucker, the box car, the rock star or, for the illusionist, the abracadabra, the Movember campaign does not discriminate.
But in all seriousness, Movember provides an opportunity to shine the light on men’s health issues. We all know a brother, a father, a son or a loved one who has faced their own health challenges, including our very own Premier. And we all wish him the speediest of recoveries.
Although Movember originated as a movement to raise awareness to fight testicular cancer, it has since expanded to be a larger conversation about men’s mental health. Suicide continues to be one of the leading causes of death in young men. Sadly, three out of every four suicides are men, in part due to the stigma associated with generational and societal stereotypes in which boys don’t cry or boys are discouraged from sharing their feelings or talking openly about their struggles.
Please start the conversation. Commit to raising awareness. Show those around us that we are there to talk and that resources are available for those who feel that they have nowhere to turn.
We can all be a hero this Movember, even if you can’t grow facial hair, by donating to a Movember campaign and doing our part to spread the message of Movember so that together, we can change men’s health for the better.
FISHERIES AND FORESTRY STUDY
OF CARNATION
CREEK
D. Routley: I introduced my friend Steve Voller. Steve was born in Fareham, England, some 60 years ago. Half of those years he spent in fisheries as a biologist — some 30 years now. He worked for the forest industry. He’s a habitat biologist for DFO and a fisheries consultant for developers, private individuals and forest companies.
He has been at Carnation Creek for 13 years, managing it for ten. Carnation Creek, for the members who don’t know, is at the beginning of Alberni canal on the way to Bamfield. It’s the longest-running fisheries and forestry study in the world. It was an unlogged watershed of 11 square kilometres located at the head of Barkley Sound. It started in 1970 with six years of multidisciplinary study, pre-logging, of fish populations, gravel composition, aquatic insect diversity, etc.
Three logging treatments have been applied in the district over a six-year period. The first one fell all the trees to the stream bank and cross-stream yarded — in other words, drag the logs across the stream. The next one was careful logging with no buffer, but all of the trees were felled away from the creek and dragged away from the creek. Then the lowest section, most recent, left an old-growth buffer.
Studies continue to the present day: gathering information on weather, precipitation, minimum and maximum temperatures; stream morphology, detailed physical surveys of eight reaches, conducted yearly monitoring of channel migration, pool depth, large woody debris location and movement. A very in-depth study, incomparable and of vital interest to all of us in terms of understanding climate change and the effect on our habitat.
I’d like the members to thank Steve and to cherish Carnation Creek.
YOUTH COUNCIL FOR SURREY SOUTH MLA
S. Cadieux: I’ve added something new to my constituency work this year. With the collaboration of two students from Southridge School, Nora Zhu and Eric Gao, I have established a youth council. The other members now include Winnie Ma, Sachin Dhatt, Mya Gallant, Joon Sohn and India Povey.
It’s a student-led, non-partisan group that aims to engage youth in politics and provide them with an opportunity to share their views and concerns about issues that are affecting British Columbians through monthly discussions.
The first discussion focused on Indigenous experience, rights and reconciliation, and we hosted two guest speakers: Keenan McCarthy, who’s the co-chair of the Surrey Urban Indigenous Leadership Committee; and the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands.
The second discussion focused on LGBTQ issues. For that conversation, the council engaged Dr. Jennifer Marchbank, professor of gender, sexuality and women’s studies at Simon Fraser University, a former constituent of mine; and Hannah Hudson, who had previously worked here in this Legislature with the B.C. Liberal caucus, is now working in Ottawa and most recently was a candidate in the 2021 federal election.
An in-person discussion was also held during the summer, complete with frozen yogurt, where the youth council shared their views on vaccine passports and a return to school.
The youth council is hoping to continue hosting discussions on topics that affect young people — the next, of course, being mental health. Through the year, they also hope to do some projects in service of the community, and I look forward to helping them with those.
I believe that a good political system should be representative of all members of society, engaging the next generation of leaders to introduce them to the political process and the complexity of creating policy solutions to address societal issues.
I’m thoroughly impressed with this group of bright young leaders, and I appreciate the time they’re spending sharing their thoughts with me as their representative.
REMEMBRANCE DAY AND
ARMED FORCES MEMBERS AND
VETERANS
S. Chant: I appreciate the opportunity to, once again, address the House today, acknowledging the Songhees and Esquimalt Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people on whose land we speak and debate, as well as the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations on whose land I live and work.
Today and for the next 11 days, I will wear a poppy. I and most people living in British Columbia today are fortunate in that we’ve never been actively involved in a theatre of war. However, the poppy reminds us of those who have served on our behalf and on the behalf of all Canadians.
Navy, army and air force, regular and reserve, servicemen and servicewomen have represented Canada throughout the world in combat, peace initiatives, multination efforts, such as drug interdiction and anti-piracy efforts, as well as relief missions for a variety of natural events, such as earthquakes and tsunamis.
Our veterans have served honourably over the past century and more. We have some who remember World War II, others who were in Korea and Vietnam, and many who went to Afghanistan. A lot of those veterans, families of serving members, serving members and reservists live in my community of North Vancouver–Seymour.
On November 11, we will pause at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, which marked the end of World War I, the Great War, and listen to the words of the poet, Robert Laurence Binyon:
They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow
old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the
going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember
them.
BROADCAST JOURNALISM
CONTRIBUTIONS OF DOUG
COLLINS
T. Stone: A strong and independent news media is essential for the protection of our democracy and its institutions. Over the years, Kamloops has been blessed by having some of the best in news journalism.
As time marches on, more and more of those who tell the important stories of our days, weeks and years are looking fondly towards retirement. “I had a pretty good run because of a great team.” These are the selfless words of Doug Collins, who recently made the decision to step away from the career he loved.
Doug leaves broadcasting after a 55-year run, with 51 of those unforgettable and rewarding years with the same company that is now known as Pattison Media. Over five-plus decades, Doug did it all, from reporting and anchoring to senior management.
In the last half-century, Doug has had a front-row seat to historic news events in Kamloops and area, like the devastating flood of 1972 — coincidentally, the year I was born — to the equally devastating forest fires and, of course, a few political controversies over the years.
However, never one to never put himself first, Doug will tell you that his greatest pride in over 50 years in broadcasting were the people who came through CFJC as they worked toward advancing their own careers in radio and television.
CFJC’s James Peters summed it up well when he said this. “Like dozens, maybe hundreds of great journalists and broadcasters over the past half-century, I literally owe my career to Doug Collins. I could not have asked for a better mentor and boss.”
Active in the community in several roles, including coaching baseball and football, Doug’s contributions were recognized by the city of Kamloops in 2019 when he received the Freedom of the City. He was also named Broadcaster of the Year by the B.C. Association of Broadcasters in 2009, and he holds a well-earned Lifetime Achievement Award from the radio and television news directors association.
Despite telling it like it was in 40 years of radio editorials, which often sparked hot debate, Doug always maintained his reputation for compassion, integrity and standing by his principles. I can assure this House that this is far from just one man’s opinion.
Oral Questions
SERVICE MODEL CHANGE
FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS
AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES
S. Bond: Last week the Minister of Children and Family Development announced that the NDP will eliminate direct funding for families of children with autism. To say that families were shocked would be an understatement.
Deborah Pugh, with Autism Community Training, says her non-profit has already received over 500 calls from families who are scared. They are angry about this callous decision.
I am confident that MLAs on all sides of this House are hearing from parents who don’t understand what in the world this government is doing. Jessica Scott says: “We have worked hard to build a team that is supportive for my daughter. She is thriving, and now we receive this news. I’m feeling scared and disheartened. We need to be able to choose who she works with. Her success and well-being depend on it.”
Will the minister relieve the anxiety and concern that parents are feeling across British Columbia today, will she reverse her decision, and will she commit to families across this province that they will continue to receive the individualized funding they rely on?
Hon. M. Dean: I thank the member for the question.
I, too, have heard from families, and I understand the concerns that families have right across British Columbia. That’s why we’re taking our time to make this change so that we get it right. We’re working with families and continuing to listen to families, providing that support over the next three years to make that transition successful.
I’ve also been hearing from families who say that that fragmented approach doesn’t work for them. They were not able to get services because there weren’t any services. The services were too delayed because they had to wait for a diagnosis. We’ve been told by so many other families and advocates that we need to move to a needs-led system, a public system that creates a safety net for children and families.
We’ve seen that that really had a spotlight shone on it during the pandemic, so we’re going to create that system for all children and families across British Columbia who need those services and supports.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
S. Bond: Obviously, the answer to the question was no, the minister won’t reconsider. The minister won’t take back the decision that she made that is causing anxiety and distress across this province.
What’s even worse is that the minister is ignoring the experience of families who have to deal with this directly every single day. Not one autism organization, not one, was involved in the decision to cut direct funding to families and replace it with a model that has caused issues in other jurisdictions. Not AutismBC, not the B.C. Association of Behaviour Analysis and not the Autism Support Network. Not one.
Heather Harrison says: “This change is ludicrous and disrespectful. So callously announced with no consultation with autistic people or parents of autistic children.”
Will the minister stand up again, show some respect, do some actual consultation with families who are being impacted by this decision and reverse the decision?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member. It is important to listen to families and listen to advocates.
In 2019, the ministry consulted with over 1,500 individuals and families including, for example, AutismBC. And then COVID hit, so we pivoted to make sure that we implemented emergency measures to make sure that we supported families who were already struggling, who were then hit by the pandemic and made sure we could support them.
Once we established the minister’s advisory council…. I want to say a really big thank you to everybody who’s sharing their lived experiences, their expertise…. They’re so generous with sharing their perspectives in the council. We have lived expertise and we have experience among our members on the council of autism.
We will continue, as we go through our implementation phases, to listen to families across the province — not only families with children who have a diagnosis of autism but families with children with Down syndrome, families with children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, the whole range of families who are impacted by needing services for their children and youth, wanting to do the best for their children and youth. We’re going to be delivering those services to help those children and youth thrive.
K. Kirkpatrick: In the consultation of 1,500 people across British Columbia, none of that information was discussed in terms of this dramatic shift in funding. Those conversations from that consultation are not at all reflected in what was announced last week by the minister. None of those advocacy groups and people with direct experience were even included on the advisory council.
The minister has created chaos and confusion for services providers, who were not consulted. Diane Pearce is worried about what this means for her 12-year-old daughter. She called the government, trying to get clarity, but says that they are not listening. “I told the lady on the phone ‘stop.’ I said: ‘Stop with your spiel. It’s not for the good of all children. We’re losing everything….’”
Will the minister admit she was wrong, reverse her decision to cut direct funding and actually consult with the autism community?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you for the question. It is important to listen to families, and I’ve been hearing from a lot of families about the struggles that they’ve been facing. Many families in British Columbia do not have access to services. Many families in British Columbia have had to wait for a diagnosis before they can even get access to services.
We’ve been listening to families and individuals. We began our consultation in 2019. We continued our work with the advisory council from 2020. Government in British Columbia has actually had multiple reports from the Representative for Children and Youth suggesting, directing and recommending that we move to a needs-based system.
Within that system, all children and youth with support needs, whether they have a diagnosis of autism or not, will be able to walk into a family connections hub, be connected with a professional and have services wrapped around them, putting them at the centre.
Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.
K. Kirkpatrick: We’re not sure that they’re going to be able to walk into a hub centre, because we have none of that information, and none of these families have that information.
Jen Biddlecombe from Port Moody is the mother of an autistic son. On the weekend, she started a petition that calls on the minister to leave individual funding in place and actually consult with parents, service providers and AutismBC.
Thousands of British Columbians have already signed the petition, including Debra Antifaev, who says: “We fought this battle, against the NDP, over 20 years ago. We can’t afford their unaccountable bureaucracies when it comes to the well-being of our kids.”
Will the minister listen to Jen, Debra and thousands of others and thousands who have signed the petition, who are hurt by her callous decision to cut funding?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. I understand the concerns that some families have. I’ve also heard from other families how grateful they are that we’re starting to make this change.
For many families in British Columbia, this change cannot come fast enough. We have a good period of implementation so that we can get this right. We can continue to listen to families and to youth and to agencies and advocates so that we can make sure that this implementation is successful.
At the end of the day, what’s really important is connecting the services that are needed to the children and youth and their families who need them. Joshua Myers, executive director of the B.C. Centre for Ability, said: “After many years of a system that has been fragmented and challenging for families to access, we are happy to see the significant changes proposed in this new approach.”
The member opposite, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, actually herself has said: “I am happy to hear that the new CYSN framework will actually take some of those barriers away for the challenges that parents have on trying to self-manage those funds.”
S. Furstenau: Indeed, as the Leader of the Official Opposition points out, we are hearing from parents of neurodiverse children, and they are very concerned.
Cynthia Lockrey is a parent of an autistic child in Duncan. She, like so many others, is incredibly concerned about these changes. She acknowledges that there does need to be change, but what she has is a message for the government. This is a quote from Cynthia: “These parents already are under enormous stress, raising and advocating for their kids. Every parent has mentioned the stress, anxiety and trauma caused by this announcement, and many, many tears have been shed. The government isn’t looking at the human element of the decisions.”
The minister, in response to one question, said that they will be taking time to make this change, but the outcome seems to be predetermined. This is the issue that parents have. A consultation process should feel that the people being consulted are included in the outcome that comes, as opposed to the outcome being told to them and then the consultation happens.
My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How is she planning to address this situation and ensure that changes to the supports being offered to neurodiverse children and families are informed by the families of these children?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question.
The consultation with community, with families, with agencies began in 2019, with over 1,500 contributions. The framework was created on the basis of that.
We’re now working with families and with communities and agency providers on the implementation. We want to make sure the implementation is successful.
It’s really important for families who have children and youth with support needs that, rather than having to wait and wait and fight for a diagnosis and then have to go out and create their own package and case-manage a package of services for their young person…. Actually, when they first identify a developmental delay or an issue with functionality, they’re able to take their child into a fully staffed service hub, get connected with a professional straightaway and have a care plan created around that child or youth in partnership with that family.
It takes away the burden, which we have heard other parents tell us about, of having to be case managers for their children. It provides a supportive environment. Most importantly, the lesson that we learned from the pandemic was that when the pandemic hit, the services that families relied on dropped away, and families felt even less supported in the pandemic than they had done before.
By creating a public system, we create that safety net, which is what we all want to see. Our children and youth thrive.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: In no way do I suggest that this isn’t an incredibly complex and difficult system to navigate. However, the minister’s suggestion that had this been in place in the pandemic…. Although she might not have been suggesting that. But let’s be clear: had there been public hubs in place in the pandemic, those services would have disappeared too.
What I think is essential in this is that diverse needs need diverse options, and that’s what parents are really indicating to us right now. They’re asking about in-school supports, diagnoses needed for in-school supports. How will these changes affect them? Will children who have seen the same speech therapist or occupational therapist for years and developed trusting relationships be required to abandon their care providers?
Parents of children with disabilities are already working in a scarcity model. They have worked tirelessly to find the right service providers for their kids, and now they fear that these hubs risk taking that support away from them. Children with diverse needs cannot be served by one hub without mention of more funding or a plan to meet everybody’s needs. The announcement leaves a lot of questions for parents who are already stressed and need certainty and clarity.
My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How much additional funding will accompany this new model?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. There’s nothing more important to us than making sure that we get the services that are needed to children and youth across the province where and when they need them. Our government has been committed to that.
We increased respite funding by $6 million, for example. The current budget, in Budget 2021, was increased by $13 million. Of that, $2 million was an increase for deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Those programs hadn’t received an increase in ten years. We also made the announcement of an additional $10 million for the at-home medical benefits program. That’s for the really important functional equipment that children with complex needs need to have just for daily functioning, like wheelchairs, like lifts. There had not been an increase in that funding in over 20 years.
We’re also making changes to the system. We are making permanent the emergency measure of respite funding being flexible, as well. We are committed to making sure that the implementation of the children and youth with support needs framework is successful, because that approach provides that public system — that safety net of services that are there where and when children and youth need them.
T. Stone: The member of the Third Party asked a pretty specific question about: will additional funding be wrapped around the new framework that the minister has announced. The answer seems to be no. The minister would save us all a lot of time if she just said: “No, there won’t be more funding, moving forward.”
The sad reality is that British Columbia has been the acknowledged leader in the country when it comes to autism supports, and the NDP, through these changes, are taking us backwards. They’re taking families backwards. That’s a sad reality for families across British Columbia. FOI documents show why parents were blindsided by the NDP with this decision to cut autism funding. The NDP used non-disclosure agreements to prevent the minister’s advisory council from communicating with the outside world on the NDP’s plans.
Now, it’s one thing to require confidentiality about pending legislation. That’s one thing. It’s quite another to tell people that you’re going to cut their funding and then gag them so they can’t talk to anybody about it. Cutting parents out of this conversation is the exact opposite of what this minister should have done.
My question is this. Why did the minister keep her plans to cut individualized autism funding a secret from parents?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It is really important that we listen to parents. It’s going to be really important, as we move forward, that we continue talking to parents and advocates and community partners and service agencies so that we can make this transition in the best way and the most successful way for children and youth, as we recognize it’s children and youth who are already needing services and who are already vulnerable. We need to make sure that transition is successful.
The consultation started in 2019, and as I said, when COVID hit, we had to focus on emergency measures. We continued, on the recommendation of the Representative for Children and Youth, to work with an advisory council, and I really appreciate all of the work and expertise that they were able to share with each other and share with the ministry as we were finalizing our implementation plans to be able to deliver the framework in a way that best meets the needs of children and youth with neurodiverse needs.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, the reality is this. The consultation that the minister refers to from 2019, which had about 1,500 participants — none of that feedback made its way into the minister’s framework, what she has announced. None of it. Surely the minister is receiving the hundreds of emails that all of us in the opposition and, I would venture to guess, everyone in this chamber are receiving from frustrated, anxious, stressed, angry parents who have no idea which end is up in terms of what’s been announced.
This is what AutismBC says about the minister’s consultation: “When the minister’s advisory council was formed, it cut off all community engagement, consultation and information sharing.” FOI requests for minutes of meetings consist of page after page of redacted documents, so we still don’t know what the NDP’s plans really are.
It’s more than a little baffling how you could overhaul autism funding but not talk to the parents and the families impacted. It’s kind of like not talking to the commissioner when you’re making changes to the FOI legislation in this province.
Will the minister admit her mistake, will she immediately consult with people who have the direct experience with this, and will she reverse her decision to cut individualized autism funding?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. There’s nothing more important than making sure that we build the supports that are needed for children, especially vulnerable children and youth across our province. We started consultation on what would be the best model in 2019, and then COVID hit in 2020.
Now, I understand, and I hear from lots of families, how difficult it is just to get by on a day-to-day basis when you have children and youth with support needs — maybe more than one in your family and maybe more than one child. Then the pandemic hit, and you can imagine how much stress and strain that placed on those families. So we implemented emergency measures, listening to families, hearing from them about what was important during a pandemic.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Dean: One of those things was to make respite funding more flexible so that people were able to manage their home. Maybe one family was buying a freezer so that they didn’t have to go to the grocery store so often, for example. Another family was purchasing housework support so that they could just spend more quality time with their family. So we have been listening to families.
We also have the reports from the Representative for Children and Youth. She also consulted with a lot of families.
Now we’re in a position where we have a three-year implementation process. We’ve shared all of the information and were able to have consultations with community partners, with agencies in the community, with professionals who are delivering services and can transition those into the hubs. Most importantly, we’ll be talking with families — with children and youth and with their parents — to build a system that puts children and youth at the centre, wraps them around with services in partnership with their families.
S. Cadieux: This government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide even the smallest amount of additional support to families during the pandemic. This is a situation where we have a government that is so arrogant that they believe that you can cut somebody’s funding to give it to more people, and somehow that’s okay. It’s not okay.
On September 27, AutismBC wrote to the minister to share their “grave concern and uncertainty.” Last month the minister told them that no decisions would come for six to 12 months, and then she blindsides the community with these sweeping changes.
Instead of expanding services, which definitely is required, and allowing for a combination of individualized and shared care, the minister is pitting parents against each other in a competition for resources.
When will the minister reverse her decision to cut the individualized funding?
Hon. M. Dean: Well, I have met with AutismBC, and I have met with many organizations and heard from families as well. It’s really important to listen to the lived experience and the expertise that families, that advocates and that service agencies are able to share with us as well. And we have had multiple reports from the Representatives for Children and Youth advising us and recommending to us that we move to a needs-based system.
Indeed, the Legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth also wrote a report related to neurodiverse children in the province of British Columbia and was also making the same recommendations.
Our government is committed to making sure that we don’t have children locked behind a diagnosis, waiting years before they’re able to access services. What will help children and youth will be having services at the earliest age and the earliest stage of intervention when issues are recognized, not waiting for a diagnosis.
We will provide that barrier-free access for children and youth to be able to get the services that they need, because that will make a difference on their long-term pathway as we support them and launch them to fulfil their potential.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.
S. Cadieux: Nobody’s arguing that there are kids that need support. The problem is that the minister is cutting the support for one group to give some to the other group. It’s not good enough.
This minister, without consultation, has adopted the Ontario government’s approach to autism funding. As Charlotte Paturel says: “If you want to understand the need, talk to the people directly affected. This is not an area to make cuts, and Ontario is not a place to copy. Parents are in despair there. As a parent, this whole idea scares me for both my sons, as I sit here and wait to see what the new funding will look like.”
Will the minister listen to Charlotte and consult with the people directly affected by her cuts?
Hon. M. Dean: Our approach to delivering services for children and youth with support needs is to put them right at the centre. We are focusing on the needs of children and youth and wrapping services around them in partnership with parents as well.
They will be such an active part of creating the care plan and working out the services that are going to be needed. Children who have a diagnosis of autism will also be able to access these services, and families will be supported in making that transition so that it’s successful, so that their needs will be recognized and the services that they will receive will be organized in partnership with their family to meet their needs as well.
There are many, many families in British Columbia who have been left out for a long, long time, and we need to move to a needs-based system so that those other children and youth will also receive services. We’ll be able to provide services for children and youth with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, Down syndrome and other developmental issues, where they currently don’t receive services.
FUNDING FOR INDEPENDENT
DISTRIBUTED LEARNING
SCHOOLS
J. Tegart: This is not the only place where the NDP is making an ideological decision to limit choices for parents of children with autism. There are over 2,000 autistic children in independent distance learning schools, and families are shocked and angry with the multiple NDP cuts to the supports they need.
Last year the NDP chose to slash vital funding to these schools, and now they intend to restrict them to only operate within their district. AutismBC has provided the Minister of Education with comments from parents: “You are ripping an autistic child away from an education format that he thrives in.”
Will the Education Minister listen to parents and drop her attack on distance learning schools?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question.
I would just note, of course…. Following from a briefing that my staff in the Ministry of Education provided to the member and other members from across the aisle last week, as you well know, this is a discussion and a set of recommendations that has flowed from the funding review that was conducted in 2018.
It is the intention of the ministry to ensure that all children who rely on online educational services in this province have equal access to a standard of quality that is equal across the entire province. That is the objective of the work we are undertaking.
We are consulting…. We are working with the families of children who are enrolled in these programs. We’re working with the providers through both the public schools and the independent schools. We have heard from parents, and we have worked with them on an extended consultation and implementation timeline to ensure that we hear the stories that we need to hear in order to move forward to make this very important development in ensuring quality access to quality programs for online students across the province.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Fraser-Nicola, supplemental.
J. Tegart: Well, the NDP unilaterally slashed $12 million out of the budget of independent distributed learning schools, and base funding was cut by 20 percent. Parents were already reeling from the DL school changes, and then the Minister of Children and Family Development announced the elimination of individualized funding. NDP ministers clearly have no understanding of the impacts of these decisions and aren’t even talking to each other.
AutismBC surveyed parents who are deeply concerned about the NDP government’s coming changes to independent distributed learning. One parent had this to say: “I’ve written a letter to my MLA, who also happens to be the Minister of Education. I’ve not heard a word back. These changes are extremely stressful and worrisome to parents of autistic children.”
Will the minister listen to her constituent and stop her attack on DL schools?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I have to say that I appreciate the concern from the member opposite with respect to ensuring that children in this province have access to quality online learning. That is the objective of the consultation and the process that we are undertaking.
We have been consulting with parents. We have been consulting with AutismBC. In fact, I met with them very recently about these very changes. I’ve met with BCEdAccess. We are meeting with the providers of all of these programs. We are engaged right now, as we speak, in an extensive consultation with families who are engaged in these programs. We look forward to and value their input.
All of that input will inform how we move forward on this process over the coming months and in the next couple of years — as, I will say, the member well knows, because that’s the information that we did provide in the briefing that was provided very recently to the member.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage, 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; R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 2:32 p.m.
On clause 2.
Hon. L. Beare: I want to take the opportunity to reintroduce the staff I have supporting me today. We have associate deputy minister and chief information officer for the government, CJ Ritchie; executive director Matt Reed; and assistant deputy minister Kerry Pridmore.
B. Banman: Can the minister provide an example, a specific example, of a record that does not relate to the business of the public body?
Hon. L. Beare: I think the most recent and the most pertinent example we could give at the moment would be the recent request for the Premier’s Scrabble score on his government-issued smartphone. During a press conference, the Premier held up his phone and outlined all of the apps he has on it, including Scrabble, and there was a subsequent media request for the Premier’s Scrabble score, which obviously does not relate to any government business.
B. Banman: Is that the only example the minister can give of a record that does not relate to the business of a public body?
Hon. L. Beare: Another good example I could give the member would be the multiple requests for lists of minister office staff who have taken a leave of absence during a specific time frame. That would be personal information. That’s not pertaining to a government body.
B. Banman: Thank you for the answer. What’s the rationale by government to remove this scope of the act?
Hon. L. Beare: When this legislation was introduced initially, it did not — nor could it ever have — contemplate the use of technology that we have today. It couldn’t possibly have contemplated the use of smartphones and applications that are not connected to government business or government decisions. Freedom of information is being used as a tool for broader investigation, rather than for government decisions. Perfect examples, as I just gave the member previously, are the Scrabble FOI score and personal leaves that staff may have been requesting for.
B. Banman: That’s helpful. However, what oversight, if any, will exist? Who gets to decide what is considered a record that does not relate to the business of the public body?
Hon. L. Beare: “Government information” is a defined term under the Information Management Act. Our trusted public service, who have faithfully been managing our FOI system since its inception, would make the decision based on the definition outlined in that Information Management Act.
B. Banman: So in the case that a private individual or group questions whether or not it is actually a record that does not relate to the business of the public body, may they go to the Privacy Commissioner to have that decision of staff overruled in this particular case?
Hon. L. Beare: Yes, of course. That’s a standard process that’s very important to the system.
B. Banman: Just so I can understand this a little bit better, in a case where there is a disagreement between staff — as to what applies — and the Privacy Commissioner, will government have to follow the decision of the Privacy Commissioner, if the Privacy Commissioner deems it is to the business of a public body?
Hon. L. Beare: Yes. That will be maintaining and keeping the standards that we have today.
B. Banman: Can the minister please explain or, rather, provide an example of what metadata will no longer be the scope of this particular act?
Hon. L. Beare: The member was asking for some examples of metadata. Some of those examples are browser history requests for staff or message tracking logs, also from staff. Those are some of the examples.
B. Banman: What was the rationale of government to remove this from the scope of the act?
Hon. L. Beare: The spirit and the intent of the act is to make government accountable — to provide that insight into government decisions and ensuring that there’s transparency. It was never intended to be an opportunity to monitor the personal browsing history of staff, for example. One mass data request has hundreds of pages related to it, and that’s versus requesting information about a specific decision that government is making.
B. Banman: If I understand it correctly, then…. Or perhaps you can clarify for me, please. Will this exclude message logs as well as files and folder lists? The latter of which was, I would add, recently subject of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring them to be released. This will exclude this now?
Hon. L. Beare: Could I just get the member to re-pose the question? I want to make sure I’m answering the member’s question exactly.
B. Banman: Of course. Will this exclude message logs as well as files and folder lists?
Hon. L. Beare: Yes, that would be excluded. Every file and every folder would not be…. Let me start this again.
Yes, that would be excluded. We wouldn’t be providing a list of every file and every folder that’s on a staff computer, for example. But we would be providing, of course, the specific files requested relating to a decision or a topic. What is in the files, what is in the folders, of course remains subject to FOI. The substance and the content remains the same, but that overarching piece would not.
B. Banman: Could the minister please explain what information is contained within message logs?
Hon. L. Beare: While my team is taking the time to pull that information out for me, I wanted to respond to the member for Abbotsford West in a question that he’d had in our previous session on Thursday.
Happy to get back to you, Member, regarding the legislative review council attendees for the day that this legislation was presented. The members present, who are also listed publicly on the website for the legislative review committee, were the Minister of PSSG, the Minister of Citizens’ Services, the Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation, MLA for Nelson-Creston, MLA for Langley and MLA for Chilliwack-Kent.
We did have one member from government absent. No staff from the Premier’s office were in attendance at the LRC, and I was supported by the three staff members that are with me here today. The members present at the committee — it’s their job to ensure that drafting is consistent with the policy approved earlier. The only people who do speak at legislative review committee are the member presenting the questions from the government members, and staff from both my ministry and legislative counsel helping to support us.
To the member’s question on message logs, message logs contain email, sent time, date, the subject, who it was sent to, when it was taken. When you put all of this together as a whole, it gives a snapshot or, rather, paints a picture of the comings and goings of a public servant versus government decisions and government information surrounding a government decision being made.
B. Banman: That’s helpful. I want to ask the minister if she would agree that if staff were conducting background resources on a specific topic, per either the chat requests or message logs or emails or any other form — paper, book, however the information was asked to have been done — their browser history would be relevant to see what resources they were considering?
Hon. L. Beare: For the member, so if the employee’s browser history was relevant to a government decision, that would be documented. That would show up in the policy and the background regarding the decision of the topic for government.
B. Banman: I am not quite sure that the minister answered the question, but I will let that go for the time being.
I’m going to refer to the Privacy Commissioner’s letter with regard to this particular section. That requires to the new sections “a record that does not relate to the business of the public body; (c) a record of metadata that (i) is generated by an electronic system, and (ii) describes an individual’s interaction with the electronic system; (d) an electronic record that has….” Well, I’ll leave the “lawfully deleted.” We’ll get to that in a minute. But the Privacy Commissioner is deeply concerned in his letter:
“I am also deeply concerned that excluding a record of metadata will hinder the interests of transparency and accountability. Metadata associated with a record can, for example, enable useful analysis of how particular records have evolved over time. This can significantly enhance public understanding of who is responsible for a record and for its evolution. The proposed exclusion of such information from the right of access is worrisome.”
He said previously that “no persuasive case can be made for this exclusion for the public’s rights of access, which would be out of step with Canadian access to information laws.”
It sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. Is the Privacy Commissioner totally wrong in this? Does she totally disagree with him?
Hon. L. Beare: Government does have a well-established structure and a hierarchy and an understanding of who is responsible for a record, and we did make that clear under a previous question, along with the Information Management Act.
The metadata in this context includes machine-generated records not created or received by humans while conducting government business or supporting government operations. So an example of this would be a public servant’s browser history.
As we mentioned before, part of the documenting of a decision would be made by recording that type of Internet history and browser history. But what does not need to be made public and what should not be part of a metadata release and process is where that staff member may do their banking, where that staff member is looking up menus for lunch.
This is all information that is not part and parcel of government decision-making and not part of government information. When you have computer-generated metadata, that human element is not being considered within that. The commissioner does say that the understanding of who is responsible for a record and evolution of it is important through this metadata.
The member is right. I do disagree with that statement, because I believe that the estimates binders, which are now proactively released, are a perfect example and a far more in-depth look at how a decision and who is responsible for a decision is made within government. Those are now proactively released to all members to be able to view for free.
B. Banman: Wouldn’t the examples that you just gave of a menu, personal banking…? Wouldn’t they be — I’m struggling for the proper word — severed anyways, currently?
Hon. L. Beare: To the member, yes, it would be severed. However, that record has to be generated. It has to be produced by an analyst. It has to be reviewed by a team lead. It then goes to a manager, all while working with the pertinent ministry staff for the ministry in question. It is then signed off by ministry senior officials, meaning my deputy minister is now signing off on removing that White Spot menu from that list of information available.
The result is hundreds of pages of data being produced and an exorbitant amount of time and effort spent by public servants to be analyzing a White Spot menu that has nothing to do with government decision-making.
B. Banman: Food-related seems like a bit of a red herring to me, but I’ll move on for a minute.
Can the minister provide an example of what an electronic record that has been lawfully deleted by an employee would actually be?
Hon. L. Beare: The Information Management Act dictates exactly what can be deleted and when, so if records are being deleted, it’s in accordance with the Information Management Act. An example of that could be an email sent across staff to change the meeting room, a boardroom. Or it could be a decision from 20 years ago, which is now past the scheduled lifespan outlined in the act for keeping records.
The bottom line is that if it doesn’t allow for it to be deleted within the Information Management Act, a record will not be deleted and is available for request.
B. Banman: Can the minister please tell this committee what consultation was done in regards to the scope of this particular act, in this clause?
Hon. L. Beare: To the member’s specific question, this section was not part of that broader public consultation. This addition is in line with what current practice is, so we’re adding it into the act for clarity.
B. Banman: That’s interesting, because what I’m reading is that it’s not necessarily the standards of practice in other areas, but I’ll let that go for a minute.
How does the minister plan to determine what records are lawfully deleted versus unlawfully? I guess that would be illegal. That would be another term for unlawfully. I’ll go with unlawfully deleted.
Hon. L. Beare: Nothing in this section is changing what the current practices are today on deleting records under the Information Management Act in regards to what the member was asking. This is being added for clarity.
I think it’s important for the member and for everyone to know that there are clear standards of practice already being used today that are being maintained and will be carried forward. There’s info-management governance at that executive level. We have record managers in every ministry. There’s a community of practice. There’s active education and awareness to ensure that records are being kept in accordance to the act.
B. Banman: Once something has been deleted, lawfully, how does the minister prove that it was lawfully deleted, if it is deleted?
Hon. L. Beare: Again, nothing is changing from the practice that we have going today moving forward. I think it’s important to note that we are the only jurisdiction that has a clear direction for documenting government decision-making in legislation. So we have that enshrined to ensure that government decision-making is recorded, and we have a trusted public service that has been managing the process today and will continue to manage the process moving forward.
B. Banman: With all due respect, that didn’t really answer my question, so I’ll repeat it again. Once something is deleted, whether inadvertently, willfully, lawfully, once it’s gone, how do we determine whether it was lawfully deleted?
Hon. L. Beare: We do have a trusted public service that does manage our government records in accordance with the legislation. In the case of possible suspicions of unlawfully deleting records, it is possible for the office of the chief information officer to conduct an investigation and, if required, recover deleted files.
B. Banman: Let me just review a couple of things so I get it straight in my head.
We’ve reduced the oversight powers of the Privacy Commissioner. When it came to this particular clause, even though the Privacy Commissioner wrote specific remarks with regards to some serious, deeply concerning issues that the Privacy Commissioner had, there was no consultation on this particular clause. The minister chose to ignore the Privacy Commissioner with regards to the Privacy Commissioner’s concern. I’m sure everyone will sleep very well at night, knowing that.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Does the minister, based on all the above, honestly expect everyone to think that this is more transparent and provides more transparency and oversight, in particular, to this particular clause of legislation?
Hon. L. Beare: I’m not sure where the member got, somehow, that we’re reducing the powers of the commissioner on this section. That was not something I had said at all in any of my previous answers.
What we are doing is adding this section for clarity, because it’s in line with what the current practice is. Nothing is changing from the current practice on deleting records, which we have under the Information Management Act.
A. Olsen: I hope you’ll excuse me using my mobile device. I have looked up some information on metadata, because there were some challenges that I had with the minister’s example of why we should just gloss over metadata as being something not significant and not providing information that perhaps would be relevant to government decision-making.
The notion that some menu or some webpage that a minister or staffer had ordered their lunch from was used as an excuse for us to just not think about it anymore. But I do want to think about it some more, because I think the Canadian Information Commissioner has provided some really good content on actually what metadata is, what information it could provide and why it actually is particularly relevant to the conversation that we’re having about the freedom of information and access to information.
Metadata, as the Information Commissioner of Canada says, provides information about other data. It is the information that is generated as you use technology, and lets you see who, what, where, when and how of a variety of activities. “These can range from creating a document, making a telephone call to conducting an online chat. In the communications context, metadata provides certain details about the creation, transmission and distribution of a message.”
To me, this is all about the decision-making process. This provides some clarity. Perhaps, in the past, that clarity wasn’t there, if it was just a transfer of paper. All of that background metadata which existed…. When we didn’t have digital communications, all that metadata existed, but it just didn’t exist in the form that you were able to then capture it and trace it.
This is incredibly important and should not be glossed over as well. We shouldn’t allow metadata simply because we don’t want anybody to know that we’re ordering from White Spot or whatever the example was that the minister used.
As the Information Commissioner’s piece develops here, we find out that actually, the experts say that much of the information that, perhaps, someone who is looking and asking and making an FOI request is looking for, is actually…. The context of it in the metadata is far more applicable than actually the content itself of what it’s looking for. Anybody who is in this field of data and information management would know that the metadata is incredibly important.
When we’re excluding it here, that is very problematic. Metadata generated in a phone call, for an example, is the number of the caller, the numbers that were called, the time of the call, the duration of the call, the location of the participant and telephone calling card numbers.
When you send an email, the sender’s name, the IP address, the recipient’s name and email address, the server information, the date, time and time zone, the content type and encoding…. There is a whole pile of background information that’s totally relevant, especially if someone is looking for the whole picture.
Can the minister agree that her characterization of metadata as a website outlining where people bought lunch is a very, very simplistic view of, actually, the power of metadata in freedom of information and privacy?
Hon. L. Beare: Yes, for the member, all the examples that the member gave, reading off his phone there, of metadata — it can encapsulate the when, the where, the how. But it also encapsulates broad-based information that has nothing to do with government decision-making. It can encapsulate nothing to do with the operations of government staff and government.
We do know that requests for these types of records do produce a large volume of responsive records, which unreasonably interferes with the operations of public bodies. It reduces their capacity to provide services.
We talked about, earlier in our answer, the hundreds of pages and the many, many hours it takes to be reviewing that metadata to remove all that information that has nothing to do with government decision-making or that the member might be seeking.
If the member wants to know…. He gave a really good example of the telephone call and the who, what, when, where on that. If the member wants to know when there was a phone call, with whom it was, how long it was, all that information is available in ministers’ calendars, for example, which are proactively released on a monthly basis.
A. Olsen: Quoting here:
“The line between metadata and the actual content of communications can appear illusory. The size, shape or colour of an envelope can sometimes be quite revealing as to what message it contains. For example, the colour and style of an envelope may reveal if the contents are of a business or personal nature. The return address or the logo on the envelope may indicate who it is from. The stamp and postage mark can reveal the date it was posted and from where. Handwriting, as distinguished from computer-generated address, may suggest that the correspondence is from an individual as opposed to a sophisticated business.”
These are all, I think, the physical examples of data that we would be using to determine the information that we’ve got in front of us and being able to work our way through it.
Of course, the example that I gave…. The metaphor that’s used in this is the same for the metadata. This is all the information that surrounds….
I don’t doubt that the world of information and privacy and the information of data has become much bigger than it was in the 1990s when the government of the day brought in the information and privacy act. However, that’s not the problem. That is a problem, but we shouldn’t be limiting types of data that provide information about government and government decision-making simply because it’s too large. We have to solve that problem by providing and creating other systems.
The argument that’s been used by the minister to say we shouldn’t collect metadata is because the files are too big. That’s not a sufficient answer to the question of why it is that we shouldn’t be giving access to the metadata, which is, as the experts have pointed out, in many cases, as important and tells as much of a story as the content that you’re asking for.
Can the minister recognize how metadata can be used and can be useful, depending on the person…? I mean, we don’t need to have the ministry getting into determining why a person is asking for this information. They are asking for this information because they have a right to ask for it.
At this point of the debate, we’re being asked to limit metadata from requests that can be made. The arguments for the reason why it should be limited…. To me, it is not sufficient. We put up a red-herring argument that we don’t want to know what the menus are on the browser history and think that’s going to be acceptable when, in fact, metadata tells a very important story about the entire interaction.
Can the minister recognize the importance of metadata in the basket of information that we have and that we collect today and why it would be important for metadata to be available for people to be able to request through the FOIPPA?
The Chair: Saanich North and the Islands, just while we’re waiting, are we finished with the use of our electronic device? I’ve just been checking Standing Order 17A, and it’s pretty clear about the use of them when you have the floor. Okay, thank you. I don’t want to be setting precedent for the other speakers.
Hon. L. Beare: I agree with the member that metadata does say a lot, and we need to make sure that we’re protecting individuals’ privacy, as well as providing that access. It is impossible to protect individuals’ privacy without an extraordinary amount of manual effort when it comes to metadata.
It’s those pieces we outlined earlier, all the steps that have to be taken, the amount of pages that have to be gone through and the amount of hours of work. Balancing that, where privacy experts have very strong feelings about this on both sides of the argument…. I can’t use my phone, as our lovely Chair has so said. Provide those arguments, potentially, on why it’s so important to balance that personal privacy, as well, around the risk that metadata poses to individuals.
We’re trying to balance that privacy piece, as well as the access piece, which we’re also talking about. We want to make sure we’re giving individuals as much access as possible and protecting individuals as well.
The member and I are going to have to disagree on this, because I don’t believe that metadata is the best way to ensure that government decision-making is being monitored and is that window.
I believe that the best way to ensure government decision-making is captured is the duty to document, which we put into legislation to ensure that everything surrounding a government decision is recorded according to the legislation.
A. Olsen: That’s an interesting answer, because actually, metadata is recording all of that documentation. The metadata is actually the technology, and the devices are storing all of that information. There is an important amount…. There’s a lot of documentation that’s going on in the metadata. As experts and the Privacy Commissioner, on the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s website, have pointed out: sometimes the most important data in the interactions is being captured in the metadata. This minister is moving to strike that opportunity for collecting it, because the basket is too big.
I’m not suggesting that that’s a small problem. What I am suggesting is that we have an Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We provide the information to British Columbians that they have a right to access. This act also protects the privacy of British Columbians in other sections of the act that would basically go to the concerns that the minister raised in her answer — that we don’t want to expose the privacy of British Columbians. That wouldn’t necessarily happen, because we have other sections of the act that cover the privacy of British Columbians and ensuring that people are not unduly exposed by the information that is being put out.
I want to go back. It would be half an hour or so now that the minister provided the member from Abbotsford West a list of people who are on the legislative drafting committee. One of the members who’s on the legislative drafting committee is the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. With respect to this clause and the other clauses in this act, I feel like I have to ask these questions, because the minister formerly was a Member of Parliament in Ottawa and had a lot to say about freedom of information.
I just need to ask the minister: in the opening paragraph of the Minister of Indigenous Relations’ defence of or comments to Bill C-58 at the time — it was the Access to Information Act — the member at the time talked about freedom of information being one of his passions, the fact that he did graduate work on the topic and that he was a part of the drafting of the law here in British Columbia and in the Yukon.
At that table, when this minister brought this legislation forward, were there any comments that were made, in a similar vein to the questions that were being asked by the member for Abbotsford West, about input from the Premier’s office? Was there any input from the person who’s actually the expert of this House? He probably has more experience in these matters than any other member in this House. Any comments with respect to the drawing back of this law that’s happening in the context of what we’ve heard from the Information and Privacy Commissioner and from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation?
Hon. L. Beare: The member is asking about conversations that happened within the legislative review committee. I know the member knows that those are protected by confidence.
A. Olsen: Thank you for that response. I think that one of the real challenges that we face here is that we didn’t get a chance to hear.
You know, I think that it’s important, if the minister is not going to answer the question, to then just acknowledge the fact that there are some very important principles that were put on the record in Ottawa by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, on this. The first was to have “a clear statement that information is a right,” and exceptions to the rule of openness are narrow and “have to demonstrate some harm from the disclosure.”
Some of these things that have been said here in the debate on the Access to Information Act federally, I think, should have been said here as we were having this debate. I’m quite shocked that the member didn’t stand. Something that the courts have recognized as essential to open and modern democracy…. Again, I think anybody who is looking for an expert view on access to information should go to the experts. One who was sitting here in the room has yet to speak to this act.
I think it was important to put on that…. At the moment the question was raised on Thursday, I wish the answer had been there, forthcoming, on Thursday. These questions could have come at that time. Apparently, at the time that this legislation was brought to the Leg. drafting committee, we had an expert at the table — yet, with seven pages from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, there was still nothing.
The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, in passing, in meetings with the minister or in conversations with the minister, never raised any of the concerns that have been raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in passing, about this particular legislation that is being brought before us today.
Hon. L. Beare: To the member: yes, thank you for acknowledging that we do have some experts on this side and that we do have, out in the public, a wide range of views on this legislation.
I want to remind the member that this bill went through the regular process that you would expect for a piece of legislation. That’s going through the assistant deputy minister committee, through the deputy minister committee, through cabinet, through LRC — both places where the member is in attendance and is able to voice and share concerns there.
I did provide the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, recognizing his experience, a one-on-one meeting outlining the changes that were contemplated in the legislation that we have before us today. As the member knows, any cabinet and LRC discussions surrounding legislation are protected.
A. Olsen: Quoting from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s comments when he was the former Member of Parliament for Victoria, he says:
“The bill also ignores so many of the recommendations made by the Information Commissioner, as I pointed out, and by the ethics committee that also studied this legislation. It appears the government did not even read those. Much like the Harper government, the Liberals continue to disregard the recommendations made by the non-partisan watchdog. One sympathizes with the Herculean efforts made by Ms. Legault over the years to try to get both sides of this place, Conservative and Liberal alike, to take seriously the citizens’ right to know. I salute her efforts, futile though they have been to date.”
Did the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head repeat similar comments to you? With respect to the fact that we have a seven-page letter that is talking about issues in this clause and in several other clauses that would say that, just as advocating for these non-partisan watchdogs to actually be able to have some teeth…. Were there any comments to the minister from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head consistent with the comments that he has on the record in the House of Commons with respect to respecting the non-partisan watchdog?
Hon. L. Beare: As I already answered in my previous answer, these conversations are protected.
B. Banman: Through you to the minister, could she please answer whether or not, with this new clause, Microsoft Teams chat and the channels are now excluded from FOIs?
Hon. L. Beare: Microsoft Teams chat and channels are included in this.
Sorry, before…. Would it be possible to ask for a ten-minute recess?
The committee recessed from 4:03 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
B. Banman: Just to refresh my memory. Where we left off — did I get an answer to the question I actually asked? It was on Microsoft Teams. Oh, yes. Following up on that, are there any apps, whether it be WhatsApp or whatever the new app…? Are there any current or future ways of electronically communicating that would not be subject to an FOI?
Hon. L. Beare: All communications, regardless of the medium, are subject now and in the future to FOI. So it doesn’t matter what the app…. If the conversation is pertaining to a government decision and government information, according to the duty to document that is in legislation, that record must be kept. It’s not the medium. It’s the record.
B. Banman: I have no further questions on this clause.
Clauses 2 and 3 approved on division.
On clause 4.
B. Banman: Can the minister please describe what a right of access is to a record?
Hon. L. Beare: The right of access is simply the ability to request access to records under FOIPPA.
B. Banman: Can the minister please inform the House as to what gender-based analysis was done for this bill?
Hon. L. Beare: As part of the standard process for all cabinet submissions, there must be an inclusion of a GBA+, a gender-based analysis plus, of the submission.
For example, one of the things that we did in this bill was address gendered language, as identified in this bill before. So these amendments will ensure the act’s language reflects contemporary standards with respect to gender identity and expression, and in addition, the amendments will also ensure the act’s language is reflective of contemporary standards regarding Indigenous identity and disability.
B. Banman: Does the minister agree with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, the member for Nanaimo-North Cowichan, the Privacy Commissioner, students of journalism and a host of others, including Indigenous groups, that a fee is a barrier or can pose a barrier to a right of access?
Hon. L. Beare: There are a couple of pieces that I’d love to break out with the member here. First off, I agree with the member that it’s vitally important that people be able to access their information. I believe that’s the foundation of freedom of information, of this legislation, and that continues.
The member talks about a fee being imposed. Now, I just want to clarify for the member…. We’re not quite in the fee section yet, but we can definitely talk about it. I know the member has questions, but it’s kind of in a later section.
The legislation gives government the ability to create a fee. This legislation doesn’t outline a fee or what the fee is or how the fee is going to work. What this legislation does is give the government the ability to create that fee. That fee will be decided in regulation, which is going to go through all the pieces that the member is talking about — go through the analysis of what a fee should and could look like, taking into account all the pieces that the member just outlined.
B. Banman: I’m going to ask the minister to take a look at page 7 of the act, under subsection (4), through subsections (a), (b) and (c). Does it or does it not specifically address the word “fees” under this particular area, which I believe, unless I am mistaken, is under clause 4? Is that not the area that we are discussing?
The Chair: Abbotsford South, just for clarity, clause 4 is in the middle of page 3. It says: “Section 6 (2) is amended by striking out ‘must create a record for an applicant….’” Is that the same clause 4 you’re looking at?
B. Banman: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. Just for clarity, on page 6 of the act, it talks about a time limit for responding. So that would be section 7, I guess. And then we go to subsection (4). Actually, subsection (4) and subsection (5) both mention fees. That is what is being modified under clause 4, this particular part of the act, is it not?
The Chair: Thank you for the clarification.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Hon. L. Beare: Just for clarification with the member, because I know he’s going to have a lot of questions, potentially, on this section, we have clause 4 as the right of access. Then clause 5 lays out for (a), (b), (c), (d), as the member is talking about.
If the member wants to have that deeper conversation and potentially more, that would be in section 5 that the member would…. If we want to continue past section 4 and go into section 5, we can address all those fee conversations right there.
B. Banman: If I got slightly ahead of myself, I apologize.
To the minister: would you please define control and custody?
Hon. L. Beare: Custody and control are not defined terms under the act. They are interpreted from commissioner’s orders, and there are no changes contemplated to custody and control.
B. Banman: Now, I just want to go back to something. Under section 4, the part that’s being amended is striking out “must create a record for the applicant,” and substituting “must create for an applicant a record to which section 4 gives a right of access.”
My point previously, when I mentioned fees, was: does the minister agree that a fee can pose a significant barrier to the right of access? I did mention a host of others, but I’ll just go with that question, please.
Hon. L. Beare: No, not for this section. That’s a section 5–type question. For section 4, the right of access is simply the right to ask for a record that government has created.
The Chair: Just for clarification, when we’re referring to clauses for this bill…. That will help me understand where we’re going.
B. Banman: Pardon me, Madam Chair.
Would it be correct to say in this that only records that currently exist in government are accessible?
Hon. L. Beare: To answer this question, I have to refer to section 6. Section 6 requires public body employees to create any records under duty-to-assist. A record would need to be created.
B. Banman: Could the minister please describe what records or record would now be excluded?
Hon. L. Beare: If the request does not relate to government business and government decision-making, we would not create a record for that request.
B. Banman: Would it be correct to say that if a person put in a request for information coming from Microsoft Teams, for instance, and no records existed under Microsoft Teams….
If it was a subject that perhaps may be under a different electronic or even paper application, would all such records be divulged, or would the applicant then be forced to ask a different question, narrowing down until they got the right particular electronic form correct? Or would they get “no records found” because, for instance, they did not know what application government was using at any one particular time?
Hon. L. Beare: It is unnecessary to know on which medium or which application the conversation is taking place. The request simply has to be requesting information about that government decision, and that will be provided.
B. Banman: So would it be correct to say that screenshots of — oh, I don’t know — say, the Premier’s computer, or his cell phone even, will now be out of bounds when it comes to an FOI?
Hon. L. Beare: If there’s a specific question about a government decision or government information that is contained, that would be included. If it’s a broad request for just a look — you know, the desktop screenshot, for example — that would not be included.
A. Olsen: Just taking a look at the section that this amending act is referring to in the legislation, I’m just wondering if the minister can — we previously had a discussion about metadata — highlight how the records that are being discussed here in section 6 of the bill are really any different than metadata that we were discussing earlier.
Hon. L. Beare: Again, I think we have jumbled up sections here. I think what the member is asking actually pertains more to section 6, on the duty to assist.
On section 4, where we are…. I’m going to do my best to answer the member’s question here. On section 4, that includes metadata, where public servants are not going to create access to data and create a record where the data is out of scope.
Clause 4 approved on division.
On clause 5.
B. Banman: This clause includes an application fee. Can the minister explain how including the application fee in this section affects the ability of the head of a public body to waive the fee?
Hon. L. Beare: I believe it’s important that people have access to information, have access in a timely manner. One of the things that is most important, of course, is that people be able to continue to access their personal information for free.
This section does not change the existing waiver system that exists for subsections 4(a), (b) and (c). Those sections remain intact.
B. Banman: If I heard what the minister said correctly, the application fee can be waived, or is it mandatory?
Hon. L. Beare: We’re combining a few sections here, I think, potentially, with the member. What we’re doing is we’re mixing up the general fee schedule, which is under section 75. It’s outlined here in this section that the member is talking about, under 4(a), (b) and (c). That general fee schedule has not been changed for sections (a), (b) and (c).
I think what the member is talking about — and he can correct me if I’m wrong — is the addition of section (d), which is the application fee. This application fee is not waivable under this section. This legislation provides the ability for government to implement the fee, but it’s not subject to the (a), (b) and (c) waiver that already exists for the general application for time schedules.
B. Banman: No, I think I’m…. You’ve said it. The applicant pays a fee. That was under subsection (d). That’s new. What I just heard you say was that fee is mandatory. Is that what I just heard you say?
What I thought I heard the minister just say was that that fee, under (d), is now mandatory, or did I mishear? I’m just trying to get clarification.
Hon. L. Beare: The member is correct. There is no ability to waive the fee within this section here. Those conversations will be part of policy development, and the setting of the fee itself will be through regulation.
B. Banman: That’s what I thought I read, but I, perhaps, wasn’t sure, because this clause now applies and affects other clauses moving forward. So I think it’s important that we understand this clause, because, as I’ve been told, we can’t come back and talk about it later. We have to talk about it now.
What I’ve just heard is that the fee, as in subsection (d), is now mandatory. So if this presents a hardship, what I’m hearing is that the Privacy Commissioner, or even staff themselves, even the Premier, does not have the power or authority to waive the fee.
Could the minister please confirm whether or not I have that understanding correct? Yes or no?
Hon. L. Beare: We’re going to separate the two things again here for the member.
This clause states that the 30-day clock for an application fee does not start until the fee is paid. That’s what section (d) is. The waiver that the member is talking about through (a), (b) and (c) is for general application requests. The member is correct that the same waiver process that general requests are subject to under 75 does not apply for the fee.
When we’re talking about general requests, what we’re talking about are the fees that are outlined in section 75, which outline a cost associated with producing the documents that were requested. Some of those broad, sweeping requests, for example, can take hundreds of hours, and a fee associated with it would be thousands of dollars. It’s at that level, and those conversations in the general requests, that individuals are able to apply for a waiver from the commissioner. An application fee is completely separate from that. A waiver is not contemplated in this section under that, because we’re talking about two different things.
But I think what the member is trying to get to, and what he did say very clearly in his question, was that the member is worried that the application fee can be a barrier. Absolutely, I want to assure the member that we’re listening as well. I know the member is going to be able to — and I’m sure it’s going to happen very soon — cite a number of letters and communications that my office has received, outlining a certain number that’s out in the public, which is incorrect, as there is no fee set yet, and how that number, for example, would be a barrier to those applying.
I agree with the member that I want to make sure that we are providing access to information to people. I want to make sure that we’re providing good service to British Columbians, making sure that they can access their information in a timely manner. I think it’s important that British Columbians and individuals continue to write in — as I’m sure the member is about to read a bunch of very important quotes — and tell us what they believe an application fee should be, because that application fee is set through regulations. It’s not set in this legislation.
At no point in this section or anywhere through this legislation are we going to discuss a number of what the fee will be, because that’s set through regulation. Any conversation that we’re going to be having about possibly waiving, or what it looks like for a general application fee, which is what the member’s concern is, will be developed through policy.
While we have this piece of legislation before us that talks about general requests and the fee associated that can be into the thousands of dollars for these large, sweeping requests, we’re talking about a fee that’s in line with other jurisdictions that has not been set yet. It will be set in regulation at a later date, and that will require policy work associated with it, as well, that is not laid out in this legislation.
B. Banman: What I think I hear the minister say is that we’re, really, talking about two different things. We’re talking about an application fee, which I wouldn’t have brought up, by the way, if it weren’t in section (d), and we’re talking about the fees that are required to produce whatever it is — the person-hours that are required to look up that information. All right.
If that’s the case, then, under clause 5… I’m going to put aside the application fee for now, which I believe does pose a financial hardship for some, but we’ll get down to that later.
Section 7 of the act is being amended. We now know that at least one of the stuff in here is going to be mandatory, yet to be determined. With regards to the remainder, what is actually being changed within this subsection? We’ll leave (d) out of it, I guess, but let’s go through (a) through (c). What’s really being changed with regards to the substitution that’s been made?
Hon. L. Beare: For subsections (a), (b) and (c), the member will notice, potentially, if he has both copies in front of him, that at the end of (a) there, paying of fees for services is added — the words “for services.” So in (a), (b) and (c), what we are changing is simply language and grammatical. There’s no substantial change in 7(4)(a), (b) or (c).
B. Banman: Under what circumstances would an applicant be excused from paying fees?
Hon. L. Beare: As we’re talking about section 5, the current act outlines the reasons that somebody can apply for a fee waiver, and the waiver is permitted under section 5. But the reasons why are outlined in section 75, and they have not changed. Nor has section 5 changed to change the reasons why.
The reasons outlined in section 75, because I know that will be the next question:
“(4) If an applicant is required to pay fees for service under subsection (1) (b), the head of a public body (a) must give an applicant the written estimate of the total fees before providing the services, and (b) may require the applicant to pay a deposit in the amount set by the head of the public body.
“(5) If the head of a public body receives an applicant’s written request to excuse payment of all or part or all of the fees under subsection (1) (b), the head of the public body may excuse payment, if, in the head of the public body’s opinion, (a) the applicant cannot afford the payment or for any other reason it is fair to excuse payment, or (b) the record relates to a matter of public interest, including the environment or public health or safety.
“(6) The head of the public body must respond to a request under subsection (5) in writing and within 20 days after receiving the request.”
B. Banman: I’m slightly confused. Do you mean clause 5 or section 5? I’m sorry. Does the minister mean clause 5 or section 5? I’m still getting used to that.
Hon. L. Beare: We’re talking about clause 5, for the member’s clarification. That’s where the ability to apply a fee waiver is for general requests. Then the member subsequently asked: “What are the reasons?” I explained that the reasons are further on in the act, under section 75, and they are very clearly outlined, and those have not changed.
So clause 5 has not changed for (a), (b), (c) — what we’ve been discussing. Section 75 has not changed where the reasons for a waiver are outlined.
B. Banman: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that. That’s what I thought the minister meant, but I just wanted to double-check.
What portion of the fees would the applicant be excused from? Is this a case-by-case basis? Does the minister have a general number?
Hon. L. Beare: I think it’s important for the member to know that under section 5, in the general fees, only 2 percent of requests to freedom-of-information offices have a fee applied. Those are generally for large, very broad requests which take a number of hours to produce the records. Again, only 2 percent of requests receive that potential fee.
General fee waivers are submitted to the corporate information and records manager’s office. There’s an assessment done, by the public service, against the criteria that were outlined in section 75, which we were talking about a few minutes ago, to determine whether all or part of the fee meets the criteria and if there is a reduction. It’s handled corporately by our trusted public service.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
B. Banman: Mr. Chair, welcome back.
All right, again, I’m going to, just for clarification…. When the minister said section 5 a moment ago, was she meaning clause 5? Okay, clause 5. All right, we’re on the same page. So far, so good.
What kind of an agreement does the applicant have to have, to enter into, in order to have a portion of those fees waived?
Hon. L. Beare: As I read out to the member earlier, those criteria haven’t changed. There’s a written submission outlining the reasons for a fee waiver. The head of the public body receives the written request to excuse part or all of the payments.
If, in the opinion of the head of the public body, the applicant cannot afford the payment — or for any other reason it’s fair to excuse the payment, or the record relates to a matter of public interest, including the environment or public health or safety — that’s handled corporately through the corporate information and records management office, and it’s managed by our public service.
B. Banman: If an applicant disagrees with the head of the corporate services — I believe I heard — is there a process in place to appeal that decision? If so, how does one do that?
Hon. L. Beare: Yes. That remains unchanged. The applicant can apply to the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office.
B. Banman: Under the situation where an applicant does have a portion of their fees waived or all of those fees waived — they’ve paid the mandatory application fee, which may or may not be a financial hardship — will the applicant receive their information after said fees are paid, if any, or after their deposit is paid?
Hon. L. Beare: Work starts before a fee is paid, because work is done to create that estimate. Then once that estimate is determined, work continues once a deposit has been paid. There’s a full release of documents once the payment in full is received.
Chair, if I could…. I know we’re getting a little late, but I do need two minutes. Just a very brief recess, please.
The Chair: A five-minute break, please. We’ll recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 5:39 p.m. to 5:43 p.m.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
B. Banman: The minister mentioned a deposit. I guess I have the following questions on that, and they can be combined. Is there a schedule for those deposits, like 10 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent? A general fee for a deposit that is put down? If so, how much is the deposit? Is that deposit refundable, and is the deposit subtracted from the total amount of the fee?
Hon. L. Beare: If the estimate is under $200, it’s required to be payable in full. If the estimate is over $200, the deposit is 50 percent of the fee — whatever it is over $200. It is not refundable and, yes, it is rolled in and subtracted from the total amount of the fee.
B. Banman: Under the lowest circumstance, which I think I heard $200 was mentioned…. Other than that, under what circumstance would a deposit not be required?
Hon. L. Beare: As I said in my first answer, anything under a $200 estimate is payable in full. But over $200, the 50 percent deposit — there is no waiving application for that deposit.
B. Banman: Can either the head of the public accounts — I guess, if I remember that correctly — or the Privacy Commissioner override a deposit?
Hon. L. Beare: The deposit requirement comes at the same time as the fee estimate, so the application to the OIPC is where it would go. That would be about the whole fee itself. It’s not applying for a waiver of the deposit. It would be a request for a reduction in the overall general fee.
B. Banman: Thank you. That’s helpful. I think what I’m hearing is that the head of the public body would decide whether or not, in this case, fees are going to be waived, or the Privacy Commissioner. If fees are decided to be waived at whatever that is determined, by either the head of the public body or the Privacy Commissioner, there would then be a deposit required on a portion of the remainder. If it’s $200, it would be all or nothing, and then it goes up, as the minister just explained.
Once someone pays the application fee and then gets the fee that’s required, how long does that process take if, by chance, they choose to disagree with the fee being charged or the lack of accommodation if it creates a financial hardship, let’s say? How long does that process take — for the Privacy Commissioner to get back to the applicant, back to the ministry involved, whomever it is that is looking up the FOI — so that work can then continue to get underway?
Hon. L. Beare: For general fees, the head of the public body receives the request. It takes, generally, a matter of days to determine if there is a general fee required for the application, which, again — only 2 percent of all general applications receive a fee associated with them.
The head of the public body takes a number of days to process and then submits that estimate to the applicant. The applicant then has the ability, as we’ve outlined, to make a waiver request. That is submitted to the head of the public body, which is processed as well, and that depends on a number of factors and is done on a case-by-case basis, so that varies.
If it goes to the Privacy Commissioner for a challenge, again, that’s going through the commissioner’s process and is done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the complexity of the request and the complexity of the waiver request and the needs. So again, that time varies. It really does depend on the case-by-case basis.
B. Banman: How does the act ensure, when one takes a look at the addition of the application fee that’s in this clause and the fees in general and some of the comments I have heard from the minister with regards to different applicants, that this does not become an arbitrary tax that the government can apply to those that they dislike and create a revenue stream from taxpayer-funded information and discourage people from looking at FOIs to uncover the truth?
Hon. L. Beare: There are two pieces I want to address there. First, for the member’s assurance, this is a process that is managed by our trusted public service. It’s a corporate process. There is zero government interference in that. We do not interfere — nor did the previous government, I imagine, interfere — in a corporate process.
When we’re talking about an assumed revenue stream for government that the member was alluding to…. The total annual costs for government to process FOI fees…. The fee to process all 10,265 requests that were received last year cost $30 million. The amount of fees that were applied for the 2 percent of applicants, which we’ve discussed for general fees…. The total fees collected by ministries for FOI requests is $51,000.
Rest assured, Member, it’s a corporately managed process and is only applied to 2 percent of individuals who are requesting complex, broad or deeply private information.
The Chair: Just to remind everyone to work through the Chair.
S. Furstenau: Following up on the minister’s response just now, if the fees are not in any way a cost recovery, the introduction of new fees — is that a deterrent?
Hon. L. Beare: Not at all. We would anticipate that an application fee, which has not been set yet, which will be set through regulation…. We anticipate that it would generate the same kind of level of fees that the general fees apply.
So $51,000 total fees collected for general requests. We would anticipate a fee which has not been set yet, so we can’t speak to a number. But it would be in that very overall low ballpark as well, which is nothing towards cost recovery on a $30 million FOI system.
S. Furstenau: I heard that part. The fee is not about cost recovery. My question to the minister is: is it then meant to be a deterrent?
Hon. L. Beare: What we are doing, and what I’ve been saying previously, is that this fee is aligning us with half the other jurisdictions in Canada. What we want to ensure is that people continue to have access in a timely manner, and it’s very important for the member and for everyone to know that personal requests will remain free. That’s absolutely vital to the system.
What we want to make sure is that people continue to access their personal information quickly and for free. By aligning with other jurisdictions…. We’re doing that in a number of areas of the act, and this is one of them.
S. Furstenau: So it’s not cost recovery. Somehow it is…. I’m trying to get to really understanding what the impetus is for a fee. It’s to align us with half of the other jurisdictions in the country. Does the minister think that that’s a sufficient reason to bring in the fees?
Hon. L. Beare: A modest application fee is about reinforcing the spirit and the intent of the act. Those requesting their own personal information will continue to pay no fee at all.
Under the old legislation, as I’ve said before, people were waiting too long for the information they deserved, for access to government information, for access to their own personal information, because there is a small number of requesters whose often broad requests for information have slowed down the system. Our volume of requests has increased by more than 40 percent over a two-year period.
Adding a fee to non-personal FOI requests is in line with other jurisdictions in Canada. It will only apply to those requesting non-personal requests. Just for the member’s information, 98 percent of requesters ask for five or less requests a year. Most of them are asking for only one.
S. Furstenau: The minister talks about the spirit and the intent of the act. I’m assuming, if it’s a freedom of information act, the spirit and the intent is indeed freedom of information.
I’m interested in this dichotomy that is being drawn between personal information and non-personal information, which I would say is public information — and, importantly, that any information generated by a public body is public information.
Can the minister help me understand this distinction between personal information and public information and why one is not able to be accessed without a fee by everybody in the province?
Hon. L. Beare: I agree with the spirit of her question — that, absolutely, government information should be made available and to all. I firmly believe in that — that government records should be made available as much as possible at no fee. That is why one of the first things I did as minister was increase the proactive disclosures by 40 percent, which is more than any previous government before it, so that people don’t have to file FOI requests, so that they don’t have to access that information using the system — that it’s actually available there to the public.
Some of the new pieces that we have now released for proactive disclosure are estimates notes. I would argue that some of the most valuable information in government is now being made available — just two Fridays ago — to the public for free. Anyone can access this vital information from government. We have our corporate transition binders, which are now free and available for the public, ministers’ transition binders. We have our deputy ministers’ travel expense summaries and our purchasing card and business transactions account expenditures. These are all new subjects under proactive disclosure.
Those build on proactive disclosures which are already there, which are the summaries of open and closed freedom-of-information and FOI requests; release records in response to freedom-of-information requests; gaming grants paid to community organizations.
We have ministers’ and deputy ministers’ calendars. We have directly awarded contracts, and we have ministers’ travel receipts. We have the summaries of contracts with value over $10,000, and we have summaries of alternate service delivery contracts.
We also, as a government, have increased the number of data sets that are open to the public. We’ve increased them by 500, actually. There are now 3,200 data sets available to people, organizations and media because, again, we believe this information should be made available to the public. There is lots of data on the use of Crown land, which is extremely valuable, locations of health services…. It’s all these kinds of pieces that are available for public access now.
We’ve also begun to proactively publish information on integrated data projects underway in B.C.’s data innovation system, because in our core, we absolutely agree that as much information as possible should be made available to the public.
It’s very important that people continue to have access to their personal information quickly and timely and for free. People should be able to access their adoption records or, as they’re aging out of care, access their file histories before them. We want to make sure that that kind of personal information is provided quickly and openly to members, which is why there will be no fee attached.
I know the member and I will disagree with fees. I know there are going to be a number of conversations that are going to continue and a number of questions, but I just want to make sure that everyone in this House knows and that the member knows that we are committed to open and transparent data here in our government.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.