When Hon. Lisa Beare, Minister of Citizens’ Services, introduced legislative changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act with Bill 22 in the fall of 2021, her actions led to more questions than answers. The proposed amendments were contentious and prompted a great deal of discussion due to the Bill’s importance.
Bill 22 was discussed in the Legislative Assembly and Committee over six weeks for 17 days before it was passed. However, discussion does not equal consideration or scrutiny. The Bill proposed seventy-four (74) amendments and only twenty-two (22) of these were debated and considered in committee. The controversy and importance of the Bill meant debate could have dragged on and prevented passage. In response, the government used its majority power to invoke closure limiting discussion on clauses and force the passage of the Bill at a set time on November 23rd.
October 18th – Bill 22 (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021) was introduced by Minister Lisa Beare.
October 19th – Bill 22 was fiercely debated in both morning and afternoon sittings. The opposition strongly opposed the Bill, raising several points of objection that are summarized in our Bill 22 Backgrounder. Most significant among the criticisms was that the government bypassed the review of a statutorily directed Special Committee before drafting and advancing the amendments.
October 20th– Around 2:34 pm, MLA Adam Olsen rose on a question of privilege. The issue concerned the government’s unusual move to bypass the review process of the Special Committee before introducing amendments to FIPPA.
October 21st – Bill 22 remained hotly debated. Among the concerns raised were the discrepancy between Bill 22 and other provincial legislation concerning FOI request fees and the lack of consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner in the drafting of the Bill.
October 25th-Around 3:35 pm, a motion by MLA Peter Milobar was moved to refer Bill 22 to the Special Committee rather than advance in the house.
October 26th – Around 11:25 am, the motion was defeated. The Bill was moved to the committee of the whole for its second reading debate.
October 27th– Around 2:11 pm, in a rare occurrence during Oral Questions, MLA Peter Milobar and MLA Michael de Jong posed questions to Special Committee Chair Rick Glumac. Mr. Glumac could not confirm if the committee would meet prior to final votes on Bill 22 in the next few weeks.
October 28th – As the Bill entered Committee stage, the opposition continued to raise legitimate questions on the content of the Bill and the actions of government in both morning and afternoon sittings.
November 1st – Around 10:48 am during Private Members’ Statements, MLA Jordan Sturdy rose to speak to the “importance of accessing government information”.
November 2nd – No debate on Bill 22.
November 3rd – Around 5:30 pm, debate in the committee of the whole resumed on Bill 22. Debate focused on the issues created for Indigenous Peoples in the Bill. The opposition highlighted not only the cost, but also important discrepancies between terminology and definitions in DRIPA and Bill 22 that would lead to future conflict.
November 4th – The morning debate continued on issues facing Indigenous Peoples. In the afternoon sitting, debate moved to Clause 17 and issues of Data Residency.
November 15th or 16th – No debate on Bill 22.
November 17th – Due to the significant opposition, controversy and debate surrounding numerous Bills—including Bill 22—the government began using dual committee rooms to advance their legislative agenda. No debate on Bill 22.
November 18th – The debate on Clause 17 (the repeal of the data residency requirement) continued in both the morning and afternoon[JW1] debate in the Douglas Fir Room until Clause 17 was finally passed. Of significance in this debate, opposition members asked the Minister, or the public would have to submit FOI requests and pay the new fees to learn the details of those privacy impact assessments. The Minister skated around the question, leaving the listener to infer that that the public will only know whether their privacy is protected if they pay the fee to find out. Whether Privacy Impact Assessments and Privacy Management Programs would be proactively released or if the public would have to submit FOI requests and pay the new fees to learn the details of those privacy impact assessments. The Minister skated around the question, leaving the listener to infer that that the public will only know whether their privacy is protected if they pay the fee to find out.
November 22nd – Around 3:06 pm, MLA Bruce Banman echoed the concern of the Privacy Commissioner that the new regulations, specifically of data linking activities, would be drafted behind closed doors. Minister Beare stated that the government was committed to consulting with the OIPC and the stakeholders in making the regulations and assured the committee those regulatory decisions were not finalized.
November 23rd – The Government House Leader Mike Farnworth proposed a motion to dispose of all remaining consideration of Bill 22 by November 25, 2021, in order to hasten closure of debate. Around 6:12 pm, MLA Bruce Banman read an open letter from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) dated November 23, 2021. The letter expressed the concern that Bill 22 would create barriers for First Nations to access government records to substantiate their historical grievances against the Crown.
November 24th– Around 2:57 pm, following the open letter from the UBCIC, the opposition challenged the adequacy of consultation with Indigenous Groups. The Minister avoided confirming if the draft legislation was shared with First Nations organizations before it was tabled in the Legislature, yet the Minister insisted that meaningful consultation had occurred and that the amendments in Bill 22 had addressed the concerns of First Nations, without any detailed explanation of how these were done. The Minister also could not answer how the government planned to make regulations that offer protections “above and beyond” every other jurisdiction in Canada.
November 25th – Bill 22 was passed amid the controversy.
November 29th – Three days after passage of Bill 22,the new application fee is implemented through regulation and launched on the government website. Regulations typically take weeks to draft, approve, and implement.
POSTSCRIPT
In 2022, when the legislative assembly resumed sitting, a point of privilege was immediately raised. It questioned whether Minster Beare misinformed the house and committee when she indicated that a fee had not been determined prior to passage of the Bill, even though the fees were immediately introduced on passage of the Bill.
February 9th – MLA Adam Olsen asked the House Speaker to find a prima facie breach of privilege on the part of the Minister for intentionally misleading the House with regard to the new application fee. The Minister repeatedly promised to consult the public on the new fee, yet she signed an order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council immediately after Bill 22 was passed on November 25th, 2021. MLA Michael de Jong submitted further evidence of government correspondence that shows the Minister decided to approve the fee as early as October 27th while the House was still debating the Bill.
February 10th – Minister Beare insisted in her response that her words had been misrepresented and that no final decision on the application fee had been made until after the enactment of Bill 22.
February 15th – The Speaker ruled that there has not been a breach of privilege.
The impacts of Bill 22 will continue to echo as the province adjusts to the barriers the Government has put in place that reduce transparency.
2021’s Bill 22 Battle
The Coalition
Calls to Action
Background
Hansard Debate
Updated 2022.05.31