The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Scott McInnis.

[1:35 p.m.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Scott McInnis.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are joined in the gallery today by Bronwyn Phillips, who is a project manager with the Ministry of Infrastructure who is celebrating 25 years of service with the public service. She is here today with her husband, Jim Phillips.

I ask the House to please join me in thanking her for her wonderful service to British Columbians.

Lynne Block: I’d like to recognize someone very special who is with us in the gallery today, my extraordinary constituency assistant, Ashton Young. Ashton first came into my life as my campaign manager, and from the very beginning, she proved herself to be tireless, organized, compassionate and deeply committed to the people we serve.

Today she is the steady hand in our constituency office, someone who always has my back, has earned my complete confidence and has become not only a trusted colleague but also a dear friend. Ashton and her family are expecting their third child in June, and she will soon be taking some well-deserved time away from her CA duties to focus on her growing family.

Please join me in welcoming Ashton here today and in wishing her every joy and blessing in this wonderful new chapter for her family.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m pleased today to introduce a group of more than 20 medical students from UBC School of Medicine who are joining us in the gallery today.

These are students who are members of a political advocacy committee. They’re here in the Legislature to raise awareness about the health and well-being of migrant farmworkers, people who play a vital role in B.C.’s food and agriculture sectors. They’re advocating for strong supports in areas like health care access, safe housing, language services and transportation, recognizing that these are factors that are critical to the health and well-being of workers who help feed our province. Their commitment is truly admirable.

I would like the House to please join me in making them feel most welcome here today.

Ian Paton: I’d like to welcome today Surrey resident Bradley Budden and his daughter Emily here. Bradley came to our caucus this morning and presented on something we don’t think much about. But he’s the executive director of the B.C. Insulation Contractors Association, and everything underneath us and inside of our walls has to be insulated.

Welcome, Bradley and his daughter Emily.

Rohini Arora: I had the honour of hosting a lunch today with the B.C. Epilepsy Society. They’re joining us in the gallery today, and I just want to take a moment to welcome them. I hope you’ll all join me. Trevor Young is the chair of the B.C. Epilepsy board of directors. Deirdre Syms, executive director of the B.C. Epilepsy Society. Irene, Trevor’s partner, is also joining us. Quina Wong and Esther McConia.

Please join me in welcoming these amazing advocates.

Without the work you do, so many people would be left navigating epilepsy without you. Thank you so much.

Linda Hepner: I would like the House to welcome two of my constituency assistants here today, Deborah Colt and Kyla Colt. Yes, they are sisters, and they do an enormous amount of work, as everyone here knows, at the constituency office.

In fact, we are so excited because this next week, on Monday, I officially get the keys to my office that I have been….

Interjections.

Linda Hepner: Yes.

Deborah and Kyla have been insistent on working with the Legislature to make that happen, and we’re very grateful for all the work they have done.

[1:40 p.m.]

Would the House please welcome them here today.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to welcome Dr. Paula Burns, who is the president of Langara College and the chair of B.C. Colleges.

B.C.’s public colleges are the backbone of

House please welcome them here today.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to welcome Dr. Paula Burns, who is the president of Langara College and the chair of B.C. Colleges.

B.C.’s public colleges are the backbone of practical, employment-ready education here in British Columbia. They deliver agile, responsive and equitable training that fuels the workforce our economy depends on, today and well into the future. They partner directly with employers and industry to co-design programs aligned to real labour market demand and modern workplace standards.

I’m so proud of all of the work that the B.C. Colleges are doing, and tonight in the Hall of Honour, we have a reception with them, so please join us. And please join me in welcoming Dr. Paula Burns to the House.

Scott McInnis: What a week for young athletes in Kimberley.

It came into my attention this morning that another former student of mine, Abigail Betker, from Capilano University, has received the Canadian Collegiate Athletic Association women’s volleyball player of the year.

Abby is a phenomenal athlete since she came into high school in grade 8. She’s been the best volleyball player in the East Kootenay, boy or girl, and she continues on with that. She’s studying kinesiology, sports sciences.

I know how proud Abby is to represent her community, and I wish her and her family all the best.

Would you please join me in congratulating her.

Janet Routledge: I’d like to introduce seven incredible young women in the gallery today who are part of the Indigenous youth internship program within the government of British Columbia.

They are being hosted at the Legislative Assembly on a one-day twinning program by our British Columbia branch of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. While the group is here, they have an opportunity to spend time with women MLAs to learn about our roles and life as women parliamentarians.

They are T.J. Dutton, Shania Hills, Angel Houle, Alexis McGilvary, Ashley Stanley, Julia Su and Riley Swan, and they are accompanied by the team leader, Amanda Sylvester.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Reann Gasper: A couple days ago, my community was hit with a tragedy. Chartwell retirement residence, which housed the elderly, caught on fire.

Thankfully, no lives were lost, but would the House please thank the first responders, the people that just wrapped around our community to support this time. It is worth giving them a round of applause.

Trevor Halford: I’d be remiss if I didn’t highlight that in my office, Melissa McCaskill is in the House today, so I want to thank Melissa for all the work she does in Surrey–White Rock and here as well.

I ask the House, please welcome Melissa.

Harwinder Sandhu: Today my nephew, Avinoor Singh, is turning 19. He’s graduating this year as well, and he wants to pursue his career in medicine.

He’s the one who started cricket team in his school, the school where he was so nervous to go because he has long hair and wears turban, but school students and teachers accepted him with open arms, as that’s who true Canadians are, and now he’s thriving there.

I just want to say thank-you to everyone for the last few years for the love and kindness you’ve showed and which helped Avinoor to thrive.

So happy birthday Avinoor, and welcome to the adulthood.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m delighted to introduce to the House today Liza Brechbill.

Liza joins the B.C. Green caucus as a policy advisor, where they will focus on health, education and social justice. Liza comes to us from the B.C. First Nations Justice Council, where their expertise in the interaction between people and systems was used to full effect. Liza has experience in addressing barriers to health and justice across Canada and addressing colonial harm within education and political spaces. We are very excited to have Liza join our team and to help us continue being a strong voice for underserved and equity-deserving communities across British Columbia.

Would the House please welcome Liza Brechbill.

Janet Routledge: I have the pleasure today of introducing three school groups. I think the first one is here. École Jules-Verne?

[1:45 p.m.]

Please help me welcome 27 grade 11 students from École Jules-Verne.

Please help me welcome 27 grade 11 students from École Jules-Verne.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I have the pleasure of introducing to the House today someone very special that works in my office, Gwen Desnomie. She came to the work with a heart full of love for the community. She’s a single mom. She takes such good care of absolutely everybody that walks into our office. I get that feedback from people all the time because of the way that they’re treated with such dignity and care and respect.

I wouldn’t be able to do the work that I do without that solid support in the community and at the office every time I come back to my riding, Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. So it is with so much gratitude that I say thank you and introduce you here in the House. It is my absolute pleasure and privilege to work alongside you.

Also, Kyla, since you’ve joined our team, everything that you’ve done to hold up the work in our office has been absolutely incredible.

I’m just so privileged to work with you both. Huy ch q’u.

Tony Luck: It’s always a pleasure when you can introduce a group of young people here that are interested in politics and listening. As you know, last week I had grades 6 and 7 French immersion students here from Collettville in Merrit. They’re actually tuned in today watching the procedures because they were unable to stay late last week.

So please welcome them again to watch us, and let’s try to behave today.

Sharon Hartwell: I would also like to join my colleague across the aisle to show my respect and my gratitude for the First Nations ladies that joined us this morning. It was enlightening, and we really enjoyed their company here and showing them around.

So I just want to say welcome, and I hope you enjoy your afternoon.

Rob Botterell: In the gallery today are several members of the Saanich Peninsula Outreach Team, SPOT, and other community members who are very familiar with and support the extraordinary work that SPOT does providing health care for people living on the Saanich Peninsula who do not have a family doctor.

They are joined by church leaders from across my riding who work tirelessly to provide food and shelter to the unhoused populations in Saanich North and the Islands and also to support SPOT.

Will the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to introduce my two good friends from Maple Ridge, Gordon Wilson and his wife, Mary. Gordon was once an advisor to B.C. Premier Bill Bennett, and he was also once a mayor of Maple Ridge.

Interjection.

Lawrence Mok: Oh, Gordon Robson, sorry. Yes.

So will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Harwinder Sandhu: I have my family joining us in the chamber. First of all, your biggest fan, my son Avinoor, who I adore. He’s here today along with my brother Lakhwinder Singh Jaura, who is my only brother since dad left us too soon. A lot of responsibility fell on my shoulder as the eldest daughter, but my brother has always been there for me and my sister. I’m thrilled to have him here. Since my re-election, it’s their first time.

And of course my mom, Surinder Kaur, who taught me so many things, as all our moms. But my mom taught me two things I hold near and dear to my heart. She would say share with everyone and never hate anybody.

Last night, when I was reflecting on this introduction, I reflected on my entire life. There is not a single person in this world who I hate. It’s the upbringing. I may dislike, disagree. That is such a good teaching that she taught.

The other thing she used to say in Punjabi [A language other than English was spoken.] It means what is the point of eating alone when others around us are hungry? She always taught me, no matter how much you have, strive to share, and share anonymously so you can protect others’ dignity. I’m so grateful for my mom for being my rock, helping me raise my daughters when I was by myself.

So would the House please join me to welcome my family.

[1:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: That’s a hard one to follow, for my friend from Vernon-Lumby, but I’ll do my best.

Just at lunch, myself and the

Please join me to welcome my family.

Gavin Dew: That’s a hard one to follow for my friend from Vernon-Lumby, but I’ll do my best.

Just at lunch, myself and the Forestry critic had the opportunity to meet with a group of Island leaders to talk about forestry economic development and support for workers.

That group was put together by my friend Tek Manhas. We’ve known each other since his beard was the colour of my beard.

And a great group from Cowichan Council, Councillor Tek Manhas, Bruce Findlay and Mike Caljouw. As well, Colwood Council, Ian Ward, Kim Jordison and Misty Olsen.

We of course, were also joined by Brian Boll, who is a union leader with Steelworkers, who are losing their jobs in Chemainus at the Western Forest Products mill.

Thank you very much for joining us today.

Speaker’s Statement

The Speaker: Hon. members, as the House is aware, following the introduction, first reading and printing of a private member’s bill, the Chair undertakes an examination of each clause of the bill to ensure its procedural admissibility.

On Thursday, March 5, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream introduced Bill M235 intituled, Drug Recovery and Community Safety Act. Clause 13 of the bill invokes section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly called the notwithstanding clause.

The Chair will remind the House that Standing Order 76 provides: “Any bill affecting the constitution must be introduced by a member of the government or with the sanction of the government.”

As noted in previous rulings by the Chair, this applies to private members’ bills as well. That touches upon the Provincial Constitution Act as well as the Constitution Act, 1867 or the Constitution Act, 1982, being Canada’s constitution.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is entrenched in the Constitution Act, 1982. A private members’ bill that seeks to invoke the notwithstanding clause therefore offends Standing Order 76.

In consideration of the above, it is the ruling of the Chair that Bill M235 is not in order. As such, the bill will be removed from the order paper. Pursuant to Standing Order 27A(5), the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream is moved to the bottom of the list of precedents for consideration of private members’ business.

Members’ Statements

Mable Elmore: In a news item dated May 22, 1926, the local paper reported that particular Saturday was a red-letter day in the history of South Vancouver.

The report went on: “Reverend George O. Fallis, assisted by Reverend A.D. Archibald and Reeve Jack Cornet, in the presence of a large crowd, solemnly dedicated and officially opened a 37-acre memorial park and memorial pavilion, thus bringing to fruition a movement started in 1918 to establish a suitable memorial in honour of South Vancouver citizens who rallied to the colours and gave their lives to the Empire during the Great War.”

For context, Jack Cornet was Jonathan Webster Cornet, and he carried the title of Reeve because he was head of the town council of South Vancouver before it was absorbed into the City of Vancouver. Jack Cornet later became an alderman and mayor of Vancouver, and before that, a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Jack was here and served in these chambers.

Once a grazing area for cattle, Memorial South Park has served residents of the southern area of Vancouver for the last 100 years. Enjoyed by neighbours and sports teams, the park features a track field, the synthetic turf field, a pond and a war memorial.

The field is used by soccer, field hockey, lacrosse and ultimate players. It’s a popular area for picnics and festivals. There’s a lot of excitement building up to the centennial, the 100-year anniversary.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to thank park champion Beth Ringdell and her friends for organizing the centennial. In addition to Beth Ringdell, kudos to Cindy Heinrich, Sharon Olson, Sherry Luff and neighbours.

Cheers as well to Eddie Carringhan and the John Oliver legacy association. I also wish to mention Cherry Wong, Lisa Bautista, and Prabh Deol with the

champion, Beth Ringdahl, and her friends for organizing the centennial. In addition to Beth Ringdahl, kudos to Cindy Heinrichs, Sharon Olson, Sherry Lough and neighbours. Cheers as well to Eddie Carringham and the John Oliver Legacy Association.

I also wish to mention Cherry Wong, Liza Bautista and Prabhi Deol with South Vancouver Neighbourhood House. Thanks as well to South Vancouver’s Rob Howatson for the material about the history of Memorial South Park.

Everybody is invited to a great celebration for 100 years for Memorial South Park coming up.

David Williams: Today marks World Plumbing Day, a day that recognizes something that many of us rarely think about. Plumbing is foundational to modern public health and community infrastructure. Clean water, safe sanitation and reliable plumbing systems are not luxuries. They are essential services that prevent disease, protect our environment and keep our communities functioning.

World Plumbing Day was established to highlight the vital connection between plumbing, sanitation and public health. Behind these systems are tradespeople whose work keeps homes, schools, hospitals and businesses operating across B.C. Most of the time, we don’t even think about plumbing at all, but as any homeowner quickly learns when there’s a plumbing issue, it suddenly becomes the most important item on the agenda. Unlike government, plumbing is a profession where people prevent leaks and cut red tape.

Most of the time, the World Plumbing Council is encouraging plumbing professionals to mark the day by wearing blue — which happens to be my favourite colour — to recognize the essential work of plumbing professionals around the world. In rural communities, these skilled trades are especially important. When something goes wrong with our water systems, our septic systems or local infrastructure, it is often local plumbers and trades professionals who step in to solve the problem quickly and safely.

World Plumbing Day is also a reminder of the importance of encouraging young people to pursue careers in the skilled trades. British Columbia faces labour shortages in many trades, and plumbers are among the professionals who will help build and maintain the infrastructure our province will rely on in the future.

I would like to recognize and thank the plumbers and tradespeople throughout British Columbia, including those working every day in Salmon Arm, Armstrong and communities around the Shuswap and North Okanagan, for the essential work they do. On World Plumbing Day, let’s take a moment to recognize the people who keep our water clean, our communities healthy and our province moving forward.

Rohini Arora: I had a fully typed-out speech, but we had a beautiful moment today for Epilepsy Awareness Month. On March 26, people often wear a purple shirt in honour of those living with epilepsy, and B.C. Epilepsy, of course, is here.

It was amazing to hear from the Minister of Health about the supports that we have available to folks here in B.C. when navigating epilepsy, and also hearing from the House Leader for the official opposition.

It was a really heartfelt song holding the people that are dealing with the stigma of epilepsy — things like being denied rides through ride-share apps, not being allowed in classes because they are seen as unpredictable, and a general lack of understanding about what a seizure can look like and what form it can take. This means that there are multiple added barriers when there shouldn’t be.

There was one, quite frankly, disappointing story of a ride-share app request being accepted, and someone had a tonic-clonic seizure and was kicked out of that vehicle, left in the snow, in the dark, at 21 years old. This is unacceptable, and it is why Epilepsy Awareness Month is so important, because there is still so much stigma surrounding epilepsy. It is a spectrum.

[2:00 p.m.]

That’s why the work of B.C. Epilepsy Society, through Dierdre, as well as Jacquoline and team that I introduced today.... If there’s anyone here navigating epilepsy, and they don’t know where to go, please reach out to info@bcepilepsy.com.

today. If there’s anyone here navigating epilepsy and they don’t know where to go, please reach out to info@bcepilepsy.com. Thank you, everyone.

Tony Luck: Today I want to recognize a true cultural treasure in the Nicola Valley, the Canadian Country Music Hall of Honour in Merritt. Merritt is proudly known as the country music capital of Canada, and right in the heart of our downtown stands a place that celebrates the artists, the storytellers, the pioneers who built Canada’s country music tradition.

Housed in the historic Armstrong Department Store building on Quilchena Avenue, this beautiful century-old landmark has welcomed visitors from across Canada and around the world who come to experience the history of Canadian country music. The hall first came to Merritt in 2011 and quickly became a cornerstone of the community, preserving memorabilia, instruments and the plaques that honoured the musicians, songwriters, the broadcasters and the industry leaders who shape the sound of our nation.

When the original agreement expired in 2021, there was real concern that this important collection and the legacy it represented might leave Merritt. But when the Nicola Valley did what it usually does. The community stepped up. Thanks to the dedication of volunteers, including former mayor Susan Roline, a new board was formed and the venue was reborn as the Canadian Country Music Hall of Honour, ensuring this piece of Canadian heritage remained exactly where it belonged.

Today the hall continues to thrive, welcoming visitors, showcasing music history, hosting performances on the Copper Country stage, and serving as a hub for tourism and community gatherings. But places like this do not survive because of buildings. They survive because of dedicated volunteers who give their time, their energy and their love of music to keep the institution alive for future generations.

Today I want to thank the volunteers, the board of the Canadian Society of Country Music and Heritage and Tourism Nicola Valley for keeping the doors open and the music playing.

To all the members of this House, if you have not had a chance yet to visit the country music capital of Canada, please, I extend an invitation to everyone. And take your time, because not only will you hear the music. You’ll also feel the history.

Garry Begg: It’s my honour today to recognize March 8 to 14 as Social Work Week in our province. We proclaim this week every year to honour the dedication shown by thousands of social workers and front-line staff who have some of the hardest jobs in our province. These dedicated individuals support British Columbians in our schools, hospitals, through senior services, within local health authorities, non-profits, private practice, community organizations, Indigenous child and family service agencies and through our public service.

No matter where they practise their profession, these are people who make a real difference in the lives of people of all backgrounds, children, youth, families and communities across the province. We know that social workers are helping people cope with some of society’s most challenging and heartbreaking problems — toxic drugs, homelessness, cost of living, mental health issues and intimate partner violence, just as a few examples.

These are complex problems with no simple single solution. Yet social workers are there, steady and strong, through thick and thin. For some of the most vulnerable in our society, they offer critical support, bringing empathy and calm and often providing hope when it seems like there is no one left. They frequently play a pivotal role in helping someone rebuild their life or chart a new path, and their support is often remembered with admiration long after the crisis has passed.

This week shines a light on their work, but our hearts are full of thanks for them day after day all year. On behalf of the government, please join me in thanking social workers and front-line staff throughout our province for their kindness, passion and commitment to putting people first.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today to speak about a community that is important to all of us in this House, our seniors and our Elders. In our communities, they are our most precious commodity because they carry what we call [an Indigenous language was spoken]. That is the teachings and the knowledge that we cannot forget, which we carry forward with us.

[2:05 p.m.]

Recently I had a chance to sit down with a few amazing citizens in Chilliwack–Cultus Lake, Brigada and Tony

They are our most precious commodity because they carry what we call [an Indigenous language was spoken], and that is the teachings and the knowledge that we cannot forget that we carry forward with us.

Recently I had a chance to sit down with a few amazing citizens in Chilliwack–Cultus Lake, Brigida and Tony. They started Community Angels. They recognized that there was a real need in our community, and they stepped up to do work from their heart and to make a lasting impact for seniors that are struggling.

They shared with me how many seniors were quietly facing food insecurity. These people have contributed their whole lives to building up our communities. They’ve worked their whole lives to be able to have dignity and to be seen and to be respected. And we can’t forget that. It’s becoming too often that we’re seeing — it’s heartbreaking really — seniors that are accessing food banks and community programs. This is an essential thing that they do every month.

Community Angels is stepping in to help fill the gap through support. I really just want to highlight the work of Brigida and Tony of Community Angels for what they’ve done for starting this conversation. It’s a conversation that we need to have. It’s not just about providing the food. They’re making sure seniors feel cared for, that they’re seen and they’re valued, and that they know that their community cares about them.

Organizations like Community Angels show us that the strength of community leadership and compassion can be the difference between not having a meal and having that hot meal waiting for you and somebody that cares about you to bring you in.

I just want to say thank you to Community Angels. I want to highlight the work they’re doing and say we want to continue that work with all people in the House that represent our communities.

Oral Questions

Trevor Halford: Small businesses have been struggling to stay afloat for years under this NDP government. Now, there are many examples. When you walk into a small business, whether it’s in White Rock, Surrey, Prince George, Kelowna, Vancouver, what do you encounter? It could be a grocery store. It could be a clothing store. It could be a second-hand clothing store. It could be a thrift store. You usually encounter a security guard. That is something new.

Many small businesses are saying that this government’s punishment, this PST expansion to professional services and security, could bankrupt their businesses that are already on edge.

Caren McSherry, the owner of Gourmet Warehouse on East Hastings in Vancouver, is already spending $7,000 per month just on security. She says, and I quote: “I’ve voiced my opinion so many times and it falls on deaf ears, and pretty soon there won’t be any more privately owned businesses left because they haven’t got the wherewithal to survive.”

My question is a clear one to this government. When will they stop picking on small businesses? And who in their right mind thought that it would be acceptable to put PST and tax on security costs?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Since the PST was brought in, B.C.’s economy has shifted significantly towards services. I’ll be frank, updating the PST means that we can continue hiring doctors, hiring nurses, hiring teachers and supporting the important services for British Columbians. We are not out of step with other provinces. This aligns B.C. with seven other PST provinces.

It’s important to note that in Budget 2026, we’re investing in programs for small businesses, like the $16 million that we’re investing in the chronic property offenders intervention initiative to help police fight property crimes.

The Speaker: Member supplemental.

Trevor Halford: There is the problem. Instead of growing the economy to pay for those services, they are just going to tax the economy to pay for those services. That’s not going to work. Full stop.

The NDP’s formula on this seems to be very simple. Big business becomes small business and small business goes out of business, when it comes to the NDP. This government has chosen not to listen, not to listen to small businesses.

[2:10 p.m.]

Security costs. People are hiring security because of this government’s incompetence to deal with repeat offenders. It is this government’s responsibility. It is this government’s fault on why there are security officers that are now staffing small businesses. That blame is on them. That cost is on them.

And what do they do now?

People are hiring security because of this government’s incompetence to deal with repeat offenders. It is this government’s responsibility. It is this government’s fault on why there are security officers that are now staffing small businesses. That blame is on them. That cost is on them.

And what do they do now? What are they going to do? They are going to tax that service. They are going to tax the security that is now having to go into small businesses to make sure the employees are safe, the customers are safe and they’re not watching thousands of dollars of merchandise go out every day.

My question is a simple one to the minister, and I’ll ask it again. Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea and made economic sense to tax small businesses that are just trying to stay open and making sure that their profits aren’t walking out the door through shoplifting? Why on earth would they think that’s a good idea?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate my friend across the way for raising the concerns that some small businesses face.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I haven’t even started talking, and they’re heckling.

I had the opportunity to raise that. As I shared with them a couple of days ago, my family ran a restaurant a few blocks from here. At that time, all the local businesses came together and hired a security guard to make sure that there was protection on the street. That was 20 years ago. Challenges arise in communities. You have to respond.

What we’ve heard from communities, what we’ve heard from small businesses, is the programs that we’ve launched in this budget and expanded with additional dollars is what communities need to make sure that the people who are causing 99 percent of the challenges have the intervention from police to be able to address that. That’s what I hear from small businesses.

The member said: “Oh, this government doesn’t want to grow the economy.” We have the fastest GDP growth since 2017 in the entire country. Every indication there is from all national forecasters is that B.C. will continue to be one of the leaders in the country. We are going to continue to support small businesses. We are going to continue to support large businesses. We are going to continue to attract investment to British Columbia. This budget helps us do that.

Claire Rattée: That was an incredibly tone-deaf answer. As a small business owner myself, I can tell you that that’s not cutting it for the other small businesses in B.C. right now. B.C.’s Jewish community alone now spends $100,000 every month on security services to keep their schools and their synagogues safe — $100,000 every single month. Now this government is adding PST to those security services that’s going to cost this community another $84,000 a year.

Does the minister really think it’s appropriate to tax people for protecting themselves?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Over the last few weeks and years, we have been meeting with the Jewish community to understand what’s needed and what they need on the front line to keep their places of worship and schools safe. I can’t talk about a bill that is before the House, but I will say that we are responding with legal steps and resources to make sure they have the money for security that they need, but also legal protections to make sure that anybody that goes to a place of worship is protected, anybody that goes to schools, students, teachers are protected. We’ll continue to do that work.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: I don’t really need to know more about that side of the House’s record on anti-Semitism and addressing that. Maybe they should talk to Selena Robinson if they want some pointers on how to fix this problem.

People are being forced to pay for their own protection because public safety has deteriorated, and instead of helping, this government is taxing them for it. Communities are only hiring security because this NDP government has failed to keep them safe.

I have a simple question for the minister. Will the minister commit today to an exemption on PST for security services for places of worship?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My friend, the Attorney General, has highlighted the work we are doing to protect places of worship. I’ve highlighted the supports we are providing to small businesses to ensure that they can continue to operate in a safe way.

I’ve shared with the members, because they raised concerns around the growth of the economy, that we have the fastest growing economy since we’ve formed government in 2017. We continue to be leaders in that. These are important issues that we take very seriously.

[2:15 p.m.]

There are things in this budget that help address many things. The members talk about small businesses

with the members because they raise concerns around the growth of the economy, that we have the fastest-growing economy since we’ve formed government in 2017. We continue to be leaders in that.

These are important issues that we take very seriously. And there are things in this budget that help address many things.

The members talk about small businesses. We’ve had the largest reduction of red tape in the country’s history by removing interprovincial trade barriers on goods. We continue to make investments in security measures. My colleagues are meeting with local governments on this every single day. And we continue to work with our not-for-profit partners, our faith leaders, to ensure that all the legal measures are in place to ensure that they can practise their faith in peace.

Rob Botterell: At the end of this month, the Saanich Peninsula Outreach Team, or SPOT, health clinic will close. The Minister of Health has met the dedicated team at SPOT, which served more than 500 patients, two-thirds of whom are Indigenous.

This is a vital service for people with complex needs that can’t get the type of service they require online or at an emergency and certainly are not able to travel to other parts of the region or other communities. Over 500 patients will be shortly without access to vital primary care services, and this is on top of the already 15,000 residents on the peninsula who do not have access to primary care.

So what guarantees can the minister provide that all former SPOT patients will have access to the individualized primary care they need after March 31?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and for his advocacy. He is correct.

Upon being fairly newly appointed as Minister of Health, I was able to travel out to his riding to sit down with him and his constituents and meet with one of the physicians and board members from SPOT. I want to say…. I want to commend and thank them for the service they’ve provided over these years in the way that they have.

I know that this is a really challenging situation for the clinic. They had space that they had leased under an agreement from Island Health, and there was an understanding that that space would end. They’ve been unsuccessful in being able to secure a new space.

What is the most important here is that every single one of these patients is able to be attached to another primary care provider. That is exactly what the primary care network on the Saanich Peninsula is doing that work of.

I know that the member understands he can come to my office at any time and talk about any challenges that particular people are facing, but the commitment from the primary care network is to do that work. There is space for attachment amongst primary care providers. There is a Coast Salish First Nations–led primary care centre able to provide the culturally specific care that people are required, and I’m committed to working with the member to ensure that happens.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

These are complex care patients. In three weeks time, the lives of these patients will be put at significant risk if they are not attached to primary care services appropriate to their complex needs in their community. Every single one of these patients has a right to access the primary health care they need.

So what steps is the minister taking to closely monitor progress and ensure that resources are added, as needed, to ensure that not one patient is left at risk after the end of this month?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member again for the question. That is the commitment on the part of the primary care network who oversees primary care services and works with different clinics and different providers to ensure that patients are attached. That work is underway to make sure that every single one of these patients has access to the care they need, because I know just how important that is.

We are seeing across British Columbia an increase in the number of family physicians. We are able to attach hundreds of patients every single day in communities, large and small, in B.C. But for this particular set of patients, I know just how critical and important it is that they be attached. And again, to the member, I am very happy to continue to work with him to ensure that they have those services, come the end of this month.

[2:20 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: This budget hurts seniors, cuts funding for autistic children and expands the PST, pulling more money out of the pockets of businesses and hard-working British Columbians. An economic

this month.

Ward Stamer: This budget hurts seniors, cuts funding for autistic children, and expands the PST, pulling more money out of the pockets of businesses and hard-working British Columbians. An economic professor at UBC said: “Expenditures are growing more quickly than revenue, and that’s a choice they made.”

Can the Finance Minister explain how new taxes on land lines, basic cable TV and yarn that seniors use to knit their grandchildren’s sweaters will somehow fix their $13 billion deficit budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This budget, Budget 2026, is a very serious budget for very challenging times. That’s where we are. We didn’t choose this trade war, and it’s where we are.

The reality is that Budget ‘26 does a number of things at the same time. First and foremost, it focuses on protecting the key services for British Columbians. We continue to invest in health care, in education, in public safety, but at the same time, stepping, over time, our deficit down.

We’re making serious, serious changes in how government spends. We’re reducing the size of the public service. We’re repacing capital. We’re doing these things because it’s so important that we address the deficit, all the while investing in the future of British Columbia and the major projects that are coming our way. All of these things need to happen. Budget 2026 does this work.

Ward Stamer: So would the minister have us believe that in her budget, seniors are actually better off than they were last year? The only ones that I think believe that, we believe, is the government members on the other side of the House. Our seniors are incredibly proud, but now many of them are going to food banks for the very first time.

Will this Finance Minister admit that her budget is hurting seniors and repeal the PST hike on land lines, cable TV and yarn today and show a show of good faith?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for speaking about how important seniors are in British Columbia and how important they are in this budget.

How do we see that reflected? By protecting health care. It’s the most important thing for seniors, absolutely.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In last year’s budget, we took measures to expand SAFER, and we did that by not only expanding the amount that people could access but the breadth of the program. That is protected in this budget.

We are doing the work to make sure that we can build more long-term-care homes by pulling back the costly situation that we’re in and coming up with new models to deliver more long-term care over time for seniors. It’s so important. It’s $35 million over three years to support Independent Living B.C., to grow more opportunities for seniors to age at home.

But we know exactly what would happen if the other side had the reins right now. The member for Fraser-Nicola told us. So let’s take a quote. They would have health care and education take the brunt of these cuts.

The reality is that the choice that we have made to protect these services supports seniors.

Kristina Loewen: It sounds like the answer is no. She will not repeal it in good faith.

The lines have become so long at our food banks that they now need to hire private security. Food banks should be a last resort, but under this government, we’ve seen an 80 percent increase in food bank usage. Also under this government, food banks now have to pay PST for security. Meanwhile, the head of Community Living B.C. made $330,000 last year and has a vehicle allowance of $12,000.

How does this Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction find it acceptable to pay a $12,000 vehicle allowance when people in B.C. can’t afford food?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We all want adults with developmental disabilities to have the most dignified, independent, supported life that they can. We all want people to have the best access to food that gives them the very best

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We all want adults with developmental disabilities to have the most dignified, independent, supported life that they can. We all want people to have the best access to food that gives them the very best start to the day. These are investments that we are working on together with community so that people get access to those supports.

I’m so encouraged that this budget provided a lift of $81 million for Community Living B.C. so that we can respond to the growing caseload. The schools and teachers and parents are doing a better and better job of identifying who is going to need supports when they age into adulthood, and this budget lift responds to that need.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m also so grateful to the community organizations that let us know the kind of food security infrastructure that they needed in their communities.

If the member has got more questions for me, I can tell her about the really fantastic work that has been happening in every corner of the province, where walk-in fridges and smokehouses…. Every corner of the province. With our funding, community organizations are meeting that intensely deep need, given the increased cost of groceries.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kristina Loewen: I’d like to congratulate the minister for being the only person in the province who is encouraged by this budget.

Food banks are supposed to be a last resort, yet 33,000 children relied on B.C. food banks last year. When British Columbians shop at their local grocery store or visit the food bank, they are faced with guards, not greeters. Costs to prevent shoplifting don’t just disappear. They get passed down the line. The people who feel it most are the ones at the checkout. Higher costs at the till compound the problem, leading to more families struggling and more people turning to food banks.

To the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, will you commit to an exemption of the PST on security at food banks, and will you end the $12,000 car allowance today, yes or no?

The Speaker: All questions through the Chair, Member.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I am reminded that under the government led by the Leader of the Opposition, working families with an income of less than $30,000 used to pay $177 in tax. Now, they get $1,600 back at tax time.

I could go all day with this member…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: …on the ways that we have been taking a bite out of the cost of inflation, whether it’s affordable child care, free birth control, affordable housing and lifting income assistance rates when the official opposition leader’s government froze them for a decade.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We’re going to keep investing in people because that’s what we do on this side of the House.

Reann Gasper: A couple of days ago, the Minister of Social Development said: “Conservatives say that we are cutting supports. We are not.”

Let me be clear. We absolutely want all children to get the support they need, but we don’t understand why that comes at the expense of 5,000 other families. One parent I spoke to affected by these cuts is concerned for their child, AB. They said: “While daily life is still much more difficult than it should be for AB, these supports have been a lifeline for all of us. As her parents, we are utterly terrified to think what might happen without them.”

Will the minister stand on the front steps of the Legislature this Saturday and defend these cuts directly to the families losing their support?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I thank the member for the question. I will talk to any family and any parent who has a question for me, and I have met with many of them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I know that the member opposite received a comprehensive briefing around our program redesign. I know that when we redesign a system, families will have questions and concerns.

[2:30 p.m.]

We also know that our old system was not working for thousands of children in this province. I’ve received emails from many members of the opposition about children for whom the current system was not working. So what we are doing

and concerns.

We also know that our old system was not working for thousands of children in this province. I’ve received emails from many members of the opposition about children for whom the current system was not working.

So what we are doing is we are creating a stronger system, one that will serve more children. And I just want to be clear that under the new system, we expanding direct funding, including for children with autism. Under our new system, the direct funding to families of children with autism is increasing from around $190 million to about $230 million.

As I’ve said before, when you meet one child with autism, you meet one child with autism. You cannot take a blanket approach to every single child. In the new system, we will walk alongside families throughout our changes, and I am happy to meet with anyone.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Reann Gasper: The minister has the opportunity to look families in the eye on Saturday and tell them and explain this to them, because this answer is cruel, it is out of touch, and they feel betrayed. We are talking about young, vulnerable children losing their pathologists, their therapists, their support network because of this government’s fiscal incompetence.

AB’s parents said: “Increased inclusion does not involve exclusion.” How can you develop a program that is supposed to be inclusive for all children and yet children and families are excluded? That does not make sense. AB’s parent says this is the very essence of hidden disabilities. Just because they are hidden does not make them any less disabling nor deserving of support.

Will the minister stop the cuts and ensure that no family loses the support they were already promised?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I will meet with any family in this province and speak with them. I have attended rallies myself. I understand the concerns that families currently have about a redesigned system. We know that in our old system, too many children living with disabilities received no direct support at all. For far too many children, the amount of support that they received did not meet their need, and our system was very complicated to navigate.

Every child with a need in our province will access supports and services. This includes an increase of $80 million to community-based services in all of our communities across the province.

I want to just be clear: $475 million has never been invested in children and youth with disabilities in this province ever. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Dr. Glenn Davies — the director of Able Developmental Clinic, a registered psychologist and the director for our Autism Integrated Medical Services — said: “It’s not every day that you hear a government commit $475 million of new funding to children with disabilities, and we recognize that this is coming at a time with economic uncertainty, with many competing needs, and for the government to choose to move forward with this initiative at this time is particularly meaningful. So thank you.”

Beyond a very significant increase in funding, this plan extends supports to thousands of children who did not previously have support in any organized fashion. It enhances supports for high-needs kids, whether they have autism or don’t have autism. It creates funding access like never before.

It is a challenging time, but I’m happy to talk to parents.

Brennan Day: I can’t wait to hear the minister say that to the parents on the lawn on Saturday.

In this budget, this government quietly changed the seniors property tax deferral program, raising the interest rate by 4 percent and switching to monthly compound interest.

To the Minister of Finance, this disastrous budget is hurting seniors. Why is this government making it more expensive for seniors struggling? Will you commit to reversing this damaging tax hike today?

[2:35 p.m.]

The Speaker: Questions through the Chair, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. The property deferring program was designed to help seniors stay in their home. Unfortunately, the way that the program was structured was that it was lending money

The Speaker: Through the Chair, members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

The property deferring program was designed to help seniors stay in their home. Unfortunately, the way that the program was structured, it was lending money to many folks who didn’t need it, at rates that were below commercial lending rates, which means everyone else in the province was providing that funding.

The correction that we’ve made is prime plus 2. This is still a very competitive rate, and the program is designed to help seniors stay in their home. There is no additional monthly fee. This is a program that’s available for people to defer their taxes and pay it when they sell their home in the future.

Larry Neufeld: Tumbler Ridge. It has been one month since that horrific event occurred in the community — one month. I have called for a public inquiry. We have had no response.

The community deserves more than vague answers and a lack of commitment to that essential tool, which will provide information that we must have in order to prevent something so horrific, so incredibly soul-tearing, from happening in another community again. Even former judges and Attorneys General from this province are calling for this to be done.

My question to the government is: will they today commit to calling for a public inquiry into the Tumbler Ridge incident — yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I want to start by just acknowledging that member’s leadership over what is a really challenging and trying time for his community and for the people he represents. It was remarkable to me how many of us stood together in this House to support the work that he’s doing for his community, for the grieving families and for the community that’s suffering right now.

My hands go up to you for that work.

We as a government — and the Premier has said this many times — have committed to using every tool that we can to get the answers we need. That includes a public inquiry. At this stage, the coroner’s inquest is underway, and so is the RCMP investigation. We’re going to get to the bottom of it and make sure that every family and every member of the member’s community gets the answers that they need through every tool that we have.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, in this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In section C, the Birch Room, I call continued Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’re going to call the chamber back to order, so I’d ask you to take your conversations outside.

We’re going to continue our debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

[2:40 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: I’m continuing the debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. I just want to summarize what I was talking about yesterday, about living in a democracy. Freedom of information is fundamental to democracy.

Anna Kindy: I am continuing the debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. I just want to summarize what I was talking about yesterday, about living in a democracy and how freedom of information is fundamental to democracy and that this government is making it more difficult for citizens, taxpayers, to get information from this government.

The question is: who owns this information? Is it the taxpayers? Is it the people that are asking for transparency and accountability? This act makes it harder to get this information.

I’ll go over again these categories of clauses that make it harder to get this information. It expands a category, again, if information or a request is thought to be malicious, abusive; unreasonably interferes with operations of government; repetitious or excessively broad. We can all interpret these differently. To unreasonably interfere with operations of government can be interpreted any way the government wants, and it therefore will limit the ability for citizens who actually own this information.

I think the government is so out of touch to the taxpayers, to the voters that want transparency and accountability with this government. It’s been nine long years where we’ve seen a government do more and more things behind closed doors. In times of a health crisis, data for people trying to access health care is paramount.

You might be smiling, but I think people waiting for cancer care are not smiling. I’m seeing somebody smile, and it could be my wrong interpretation. That is my point about interpretation. Interpretation is subjective, and therefore, when you limit access to interpretation, it’s subjective. What may seem to be a smile to me or abusive or malicious is actually maybe not. Maybe it’s a smile of friendliness.

That is the issue with what this government is doing with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. It limits transparency and accountability of the government. Coming back to health care, I keep hearing more and more stories that keep happening, emails, I had another one today, for example, of somebody with potential cancer that cannot see a specialist for a biopsy for two months. That is real.

Is the government collecting that data, and is it accountable to that data? Sometimes the only way to get that data is by doing freedom of information. I’ll argue that that data is not owned by the government. It is owned by the taxpayer, by the people trying to access health care, by the patients.

Interjection.

Anna Kindy: Yes, correct, by the patients. Those patients sometimes don’t have the $10 fee, or because they’re anxious and their requests might seem to be repetitious. But when it’s about a life-and-death situation and the category where we can limit the access of FOI because someone in the government assumes that this FOI is repetitious....

My point being that we need access to information, and if that information is not available, then maybe the government isn’t doing their job.

[2:45 p.m.]

You can’t be accountable if you don’t have data. And if you have data, we the taxpayers, the people voting for us in this House, deserve to be able to access it.

When I’m saying that these stories.... They’re not stories; they’re emails of

data. And if you have data, we, the taxpayer, the people voting for us in this House, deserve to be able to access it.

I’m saying that these emails of people in despair trying to access timely care…. Because it’s about life and death. Some of these people have children, and they know that the clock is ticking.

There are organizations that are accessing it through FOIs. They publish reports as to the wait times. We know that in this province, wait times are increasing. Is the government accountable to that data if it’s not being published?

In summary, government exists to serve the public. The records produced by the government are produced using public funds. That information belongs to the public, and that information should be accessible. It should be transparent. That is the only way that we can make a government accountable. Freedom-of-information law exists to protect that right.

I’m not sure why this government is changing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. I’m not sure why this government needs this. Why is it making it more complex to access information? It makes no sense. If a government is doing its job, it should be proud of it. The citizens should not need to require FOIs to get information.

We, in this House, work for British Columbians. People in the bureaucracy work for British Columbians. Taxes pay for our salaries. What has happened over nine years is it’s become more difficult to access.

In conclusion, Bill 9 does contain some administrative improvements, but these improvements are overshadowed by provisions that restrict access to information, by provisions that expand the power to disregard requests.

I think British Columbians deserve a government that is transparent and accountable. We all need to be accountable. It’s not just the government. But the government has lost touch with the reality of being, in a sense, public servants.

We don’t live in this castle and ignore the people on the ground. This is not what this is about. This is about the public. We are public servants. I repeat the word “servants.” We serve the public. Serving the public means being transparent and accountable.

I’m hoping that as I progress in this job as an MLA, I won’t lose touch with this, because I think it becomes easy, when we’re sitting in this House, to forget why we’re here.

In conclusion, I cannot support Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

And I’m hoping that as time progresses in this job, I’ll keep in mind who I am supposed to be serving and working for.

I’m hoping that, as time progresses in this job, I’ll keep in mind who I’m supposed to be serving and working for.

Rob Botterell: I will be the designated speaker for the Third Party. I’ll just begin my statement and reflections on second reading notes.

First, I want to note that the Third Party will not support Bill 9 in its current form. Later in my presentation, I’ll outline the fundamental flaws that need to be addressed.

This is not just any legislation. Freedom of information is the foundation of open, transparent and accountable democratic government — period.

Bill 9 represents the culmination of a 34-year effort of the NDP and other governing parties to convert freedom of information to freedom from information. In the balance of my remarks today, I’ll outline why that is so.

Not only that, this Bill 9 represents another step of this NDP government’s efforts — supported by every member of caucus, whether voluntary or whipped — away from open, transparent and accountable government. We look for a government that builds consensus rather than division, and the lack of an effective Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prevents that from happening.

We now know the concentration of power and decision-making in the Premier’s office. The removal of checks and balances, such as the Merit Commissioner. The lack of oversight and involvement of key legislative committees. The move to put everything in opaque, cabinet, Premier-decided regulations where there is not the scrutiny of the Legislature. The use of budget cuts to justify reducing review or consultation.

This is all part of an effort to convert 22 votes, a 22-vote win, into unchecked power. And we know from history and what has happened south of the border that this will not end well.

And now this is being capped off by a disturbing pattern that has emerged where we end up on key pieces of legislation in a tie vote, where the Speaker is repeatedly put in the impossible position of breaking the tie, for a variety of reasons.

Then we have Bill 9, and Bill 9 really is the culmination, as I mentioned earlier, of a 34-year trend to eliminate freedom of information in this province.

In the next period of time, I’m going to take you back in time to an era when the NDP upheld instead of bypassed and degraded democracy. I’m going to talk about a time when the NDP built consensus, not division. Then I’ll take you through to around 2010 for a check-in to document the reductions in freedom of information that occurred in that period of time.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’ll touch down in the early 2020s, when fees became a barrier to access, and then I’ll turn to Bill 9 and offer some observations on Bill 9.

And why is this

information that occurred in that period of time. I’ll touch down in the early 2020s when fees became a barrier to access. Then I’ll turn to Bill 9 and offer some observations on Bill 9.

Why is this context important? Because it explains the steady degradation of our democracy in B.C. to the point where the independent Information and Privacy Commissioner says he supports a bill that destroys the right to know, as I will show. No other commissioner in Canada would ever countenance some of the amendments that are proposed in this legislation. Be so for real right now.

Let’s go back to 1991. It was 1991. The Premier, NDP, Mike Harcourt had just been elected. The Attorney General was Colin Gabelmann. There was a passionate advocate for freedom of information in NDP MLA Barry Jones, and there was a special advisor, one Murray Rankin, who at the time was a big advocate for freedom of information. And there was a young public servant in his mid-30s. I may add he was quite, quite accomplished. His name was Rob Botterell.

So what happened? Well, in the fall of 1991, the NDP had just been elected, at least in part, on the basis of a promise to bring the most open freedom of information legislation in Canada to British Columbia. There was a great deal of fear about freedom of information and protection of privacy. Public servants that I worked with feared they would have to operate in a fishbowl. Treasury Board feared that freedom of information would be prohibitively expensive.

Cabinet members feared that the NDP government would lose control of its political agenda. One cabinet minister at the time, I remember, raising these concerns was a fellow by the name of Moe Sihota. Non-government organizations like the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Association and the media feared the legislation would have too many loopholes and would be ignored — fears that are now fully realized if Bill 9 passes.

To address these fears, former Attorney General Colin Gabelmann and MLA Barry Jones, a long-time advocate, as I mentioned, opted for a very open, inclusive and transparent legislative process both before and after the legislation was introduced.

I led, as part of my team and working for the Attorney General, extensive consultations inside and outside government. All submissions were made publicly available. Lawyer Murray Rankin provided advice on the act. I even participated, along with other ministers and senior officials, in a televised debate on freedom of information with a coalition of media organizations on the other side of that debate.

We looked to precedents in other jurisdictions, such as Ontario, to find workable, predictable provisions that would stand the test of time. Full openness and transparency of process, of how we develop the legislation was critical to achieving a broad-based consensus on what the legislation would do, how much openness there would be and how much privacy protection there would be.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s a rare event in B.C. politics. It’s hard to believe that it occurred 34 years ago, but in 1992, the NDP government of the day and the opposition, Liberals and others, set aside their political differences and unanimously passed what was then the most open freedom of information legislation in Canada.

The NDP government of the day and the opposition, Liberals and others, set aside their political differences and unanimously passed what was then the most open freedom of information legislation in Canada.

I should describe a bit about that process because the difference in that process compared to the process we go through in this Legislature, in these sessions that I’ve had the privilege to be an MLA sitting in the House, was quite different. We introduced the legislation, and then we went out and we consulted after people could see the legislation. We didn’t have everybody sign NDAs or a select few see it in advance in that same the way we do now or the government does now. We let everybody see the legislation, and then we sought public input. Then we prepared a report on that public input which everybody could see.

Then, you wouldn’t believe what we did. It seems unimaginable given how this particular government operates. The NDP government of the day listened to the input both from those that were concerned about the degree of openness and those that were looking for more openness. We introduced over 50 amendments to the legislation. And that legislation passed unanimously because we had taken the time to build the consensus across party lines.

On that day, there was a promise made by the NDP government and everybody who supported that bill. That promise to the citizens of B.C. was that we would have the most open and accountable jurisdiction in Canada. This meant that access to information would be timely because access delayed is access denied, something I’ll speak more about. Fees would not be a barrier to access. We were determined not to charge fees to the public for access to their own personal and general information, the information that they paid to have created. We committed and promised that exemptions to access would be narrow and specific.

And when I say “we,” I mean the government — all of those that voted in favour of the legislation, all of us that worked on it too. Because we were given a mandate that it had to have these attributes. The amount of information you received would no longer depend on who you are and why you want the information. Bill 9 will change all that. And there would be an independent commissioner free from judicial and political pressure or interference who would be unstinting to ensure this happened.

In short, there would be a new culture of openness within government, and the government at the time said we need to commit the resources to information management, to systems that are needed to create and have this culture of openness.

I would defy anybody in the Legislature to challenge that view, and, if they wish to, boy, they should go and have a chat with former Attorney General Colin Gabelmann and others at that time. This promise was made not only to the citizens of this province but also to those who rely on freedom of information to hold government accountable: the media, opposition parties, non-governmental organizations, public-minded citizens.

[3:05 p.m.]

And it worked. As I mentioned in June 1992, after making 50 amendments, the B.C. Legislature passed the act unanimously. David Loukidelis, President of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, as a future information and privacy commissioner said at the time, with the new amendments

Privacy Association and a future Information and Privacy Commissioner, said at the time, with the new amendments, FIPA — that was the name of his organization, non-profit — can state unequivocally that this is the most open, balanced and effective information rights legislation in Canada.

Later that year, after the NDP’s first session, so mid-1992…. We had longer sessions back then because we actually spent more time debating legislation, and we didn’t use tactics to speed it up or move everything into regulation. So there was less to debate except to vote no and have the Speaker overrule on a tie.

Back in the old days we actually took a lot of time. So it was later that year, and the Vancouver Sun’s Vaughn Palmer, who was also a lot younger then, wrote: “Its most outstanding achievement, which sharply increased its point average, was the passage of a freedom-of-information bill that was handled in exemplary fashion, with full opportunity for public input, resulting in what experts agree is the best legislation of its kind in Canada.”

That was what Vaughn Palmer said about this freedom-of-information legislation in 1992. He’s not saying that now, but he was saying that then. I think it’s pretty rare that we hear Vaughn Palmer complimenting this government on the legislation it passes.

But most importantly, the degree of openness in the act was no accident. It reflected a hard-won balance that everyone believed would be respected. How wrong we were. And so now what I want to do is start in on talking about the various ways in which this legislation was dismantled.

Let’s fast forward to 2010, because I only have two hours. We could go through every year and every single amendment, but I’m going to check in at 2010. One of the items that we provided in this legislation was that we would have a review every six years. So in 2010, we had that review, and that was a good timing for talking about the start of what had been dismantled by 2010.

If it’s any consolation, some of this was the result of NDP government amendments, others the result of Liberal amendments. You know, I’ll share the blame a bit. I won’t take responsibility, because I was actually advocating to hold on to the legislation and improve its openness.

So what was the first one that I want to touch on in 2010? Access to information was not timely. Guess what. Access delayed is access denied. If you have concerns about a decision related to autism funding, if you have a concern related to the establishment of a fund, a Look West fund, if you have concerns not about legislation, maybe, but about other things that are happening….

[3:10 p.m.]

You would like to see, for example, what exactly was the briefing material that was in front of the Premier when the Premier suddenly decided that this was the time to announce a permanent spring forward in time zones. Or what is the background, and what are some of the key issues related to FIFA and what’s going to happen later this year? I mean, there’s any number of issues.

In order to hold government to account, the purpose of freedom of information

of the key issues related to FIFA and what’s going to happen later this year. There’s any number of issues.

In order to hold government to account, the purpose of freedom of information is that we can access that information in a timely way. It’s hard to actually use information to hold government accountable six, 12 or 18 months after the fact. It’s a great approach if you’re a history professor or if you’re writing the memoirs of a bad public policy decision or a good public policy decision.

Maybe the FOI information will show that the government’s fully justified in the approach it took. Well, in 2010 work started on dismantling section 6. Section 6, we’ll come back to later this afternoon. Section 6 of the act places a positive duty on public servants to assist applicants and respond without delay, openly, accurately and completely.

This was intended to make it clear that the time limits under the act, such as the requirement to respond no later than 30 days after the request is received, would be the outer limit. The government would move to make information routinely available. It would modify information systems, filing systems, bring it into, at that time, the 20th century, early 21st century, and actually create a way for information to be released in a timely way.

We did that intentionally. We said “without delay.” I’ll come back to the latest effort here, which is to insert the reasonable test, because then, that opens up the possibility for government, ministries, agencies to say: “Well I don’t know. It seems reasonable. Sixty days would seem reasonable here. I can probably find some mystical objective person somewhere that I can create to say ‘Oh, yeah, 60 days.’”

We even equipped the commissioner with order-making power to enforce this duty. What was the government’s response? Oh, amend the act. Sound familiar? To relax the deadlines and legalize delay through the stroke of a legislative pen. The 30-calendar-day outside response time morphed into a 30-working-day outside response deadline. Four weeks became six weeks. But, of course, the government….

Many of you will not realize that it’s changed at all because this may be, at least for some MLAs, the first time they ever heard that the deadline, in line with everybody else in Canada, was 30 calendar days. But with stroke of a pen, let’s make it six weeks. That’s just the first of a number.

The other change that happened and that started to emerge was massive delays in response times, and fees. Oh, we can use processing fees to delay responding, delay the issue, delay getting information so we can hold government to account.

Some of my colleagues on both sides of the House will be old enough to have remembered the harmonized sales tax, that glorious invention that caused a fair amount of foofaraw until it was eventually eliminated. Media outlets thought: “Oh, it’d be interesting to have some information on the harmonized sales tax.”

[3:15 p.m.]

The government said: “Sure, yeah, no problem. Just write us a cheque for $800, and we’ll start processing your request.” Then, of course, the media organizations would appeal. Then the appeal would take a whole bunch of time to deal with so that five months later

Just write us a cheque for $800, and we’ll start processing your request.

And then of course, the media organizations would appeal. And then the appeal would take a whole bunch of time to deal with, so that five months later, there’s no information provided.

So that’s a history lesson there of how the legislation was used and the fees under it were used to delay access. The fact is that it’s inconceivable that it would cost $800 to locate and process public records on a high-profile issue like the HST. That information should be at the government’s fingertips.

At that time, we didn’t have nearly the computing capacity and internet capacity that we do now. But even then, we lived in the era of Google and iPads. It wasn’t just filing cabinets and typewriters.

So this information that was requested must have been generated and stored on computers. And instead of building the infrastructure to access it, it was used as a shield to eliminate the access and charge a fee.

At the time, government records management was either in a shambles or the government had something to hide and was doing everything it could to delay responding. Either way, the public paid their taxes to have the HST information prepared and have a right, not a privilege, to know what it says, subject to the exemptions in the act.

So whether it’s, I’ve mentioned a couple…. There are numerous issues that we’re debating in the course of estimates and legislation in this House. In between sessions, there are going to be lots of announcements of issues where it would be extraordinarily helpful to hold the government to account by having access to information about that decision.

The next step in dismantling the act was two or three key decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to broaden the exemptions so that you could deny disclosure of amazing categories of information. There are three areas where this unfolded.

The first area was in policy advice. Policy advice can be divided into several categories. Most of us, over the years, have seen briefing notes. You have the topic, you have background, you have discussion, you have options.

In some decisions that’ll go down in history as the steps towards everything becoming advice, the factual background in a briefing note was treated as advice. The options were treated as advice under the idea that, well, a gifted public servant picked out some options, so he’s giving or she’s giving, they’re giving advice on the options.

Well, that’s balderdash. That is not what was intended and it was made very clear, in the development of the legislation, to everybody involved, that was not the intention. The document that related to the legislation that was introduced said: “For the purposes of the act, advice or recommendations refers to the submission of a suggested course of action, which will ultimately be accepted or rejected by its recipient during a deliberative process. Advice must contain more than mere information.”

[3:20 p.m.]

That was the interpretation of the section that was provided to all public servants across government. That is the basis on which government operated until the Commissioner broadened it, and broadened it in a manner that is inconsistent with the same language in Ontario. Now, I’m not trying to

public servants across government, and that is the basis on which government operated until the commissioner broadened it — and broadened it in a manner that is inconsistent with the same language in Ontario.

Now, I’m not trying to relitigate this, but I will for those who remember, fondly, a fellow by the name of Phil Hulkit. You will be surprised…. Phil was a little surprised when this change happened. He came to me because we knew each other and we worked on a variety of issues together.

He said: “Rob, you told me that the act would require the disclosure of options and factual material. Now the commissioner has changed that.” And I said, “Yeah, well, you know, that’s the commissioner’s prerogative.”

It’s your prerogative as the government to straighten that out, to amend the act and take it back to the clear intent that was presented to everybody and agreed on by everybody and to the hard-won balance that was achieved when the act was passed. Well, of course that didn’t suit the government. The government was quite happy to see the legislation evolve in that manner.

My view at the time, based on review of precedent across Canada, the work that a legislative team does, was and still is that large portions of briefing notes can be released, including the topic, the background, the discussion, options and transmittal information. Those should all be accessible for the purposes of section 13. That was the intention.

That doesn’t mean that it’ll all go out, because there are other important exemptions. There are business exemptions. There are solicitor-client-privilege exemptions. There are numerous others. But if it’s just the advice part, that should mainly go out.

My view and opinion was then and is now that it is possible to structure briefing notes so that you separate out the advice from the factual background in a manner that respects the policy advice process, respects the ability of public servants to be candid in their advice but also equips the public and others — journalists, opposition, others…. Businesses are interested in this, too, because they have to assess decisions and be able to provide their views on it.

That can be accomplished. As a matter of fact, in a future iteration of Freedom of Information, I was retained by a First Nations client who was drafting treaty legislation, and — gadzooks, oh my god — what did they do? They created legislation that made sure that there would be routine release of that information.

I can tell you today I still know those First Nations. They still invite me back. The world has not ended. Their community has access to information that we don’t, as non-Indigenous British Columbians, B.C. government information.

Then, of course, just to continue this trip down memory lane, after following the Ontario precedents in this area, having them rejected, having a government that would not go back to the original intent because it suited them to have broader exemptions, we had section 25, the public interest override. It says that if something is clearly, clearly in the public interest, a matter of significant public interest, then it’s an override.

[3:25 p.m.]

Once again, for those who are interested in history, around that time the government made a major decision with major implications for the public. What was that decision? Oh, we’re going to privatize B.C. Rail. No, we’re not going to sell it. We’re just we’re just going to grant a

The government made a major decision with major implications for the public. What was that decision? Oh, we’re going to privatize B.C. Rail. No, we’re not going to sell it. We’re just going to grant a 999-year lease. So we’re not selling it.

At the time, that would have been a candidate for section 25, but instead it was interpreted as: “It has to be something imminent of a public emergency nature.” Once again, that wasn’t the intention. Once again, the government made no attempt to fix that.

Very interesting time we’re in because we’re on the other end of that discussion now. We have the NDP government. This government has said it’s going to bring in amendments to DRIPA, and we’re going to see those amendments at some point and debate them in this session. In that case, the concerns about the rulings and so on have caused the government to say: “Well, we better amend the legislation so that we don’t have the rulings apply.”

In this case, we have the opposite end, where the rulings aren’t quite what we want, and so we won’t make the amendments to deal with them.

When going down this memory lane, I do want to quote what is at the heart of freedom of information. Often, we’re asked: “What is freedom of information for? Why do we need freedom of information?” This quote from John Plamenatz puts it very clearly: “If there is to be responsible government, information should be so distributed amongst professionals and ordinary citizens so that competitors for power, influence and popular support are exposed to relevant and searching criticism.” If you don’t have the information, you can’t hold government accountable.

I’ll make one last observation, which is that by 2010, there would also be a demonstrated loss of judicial deference. What do I mean by that? When this legislation was drafted, we — I’m going to say naively in retrospect — didn’t introduce a privative clause because we mistakenly, after looking at other jurisdictions, thought that the courts would defer to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, much in the same way that the courts look at labour tribunals and other tribunals and say: “You have specialized expertise, so we will defer to your decision.” That was not the case with freedom of information.

We have never seen any move to protect the Information and Privacy Commissioner to some extent or to a greater extent from judicial interference. That’s something that would have reduced this move in terms of the broadening of exemptions.

So here we are. We’re in 2010 now, and we’ve identified some of the main changes that occurred in that first period of time since the legislation was passed. But it’s still that the promise hadn’t changed. The promise was that embarrassment would not be an exemption under the act. The information is embarrassing; it still goes out.

[3:30 p.m.]

The promise that administrative convenience is not a legitimate reason to abandon a fundamental democratic right, the public’s right to access to information…. That hasn’t changed. That’s the original promise. It’s being broken. But that

promise that administrative convenience is not a legitimate reason to abandon a fundamental democratic right, the public’s right to access to information. That hasn’t changed. That’s the original promise. It’s been broken, but that is the original promise.

The issue about how to balance privacy and access and secrecy or non-disclosure or confidentiality versus releasing information to the public.... That calculus, that balance, was struck and resolved in 1992. What we’ve seen up to 2010, and now it’s carrying on, is step by step a move away from that balance. As in 1992, as in 2010, as now, those that passed this legislation promised the people of British Columbia the most open government in Canada. I’m here today, and I will outline in additional ways what needs to happen to keep that promise.

I’m going to turn, shortly, to Bill 9, but I would be remiss if I didn’t reflect on the fact that in 2021, this NDP government introduced fees, application fees, for the first time, to apply to get the information that taxpayers paid to create, that you and I paid for. We discussed at length in 1991 and before it was passed in ’92 and said we’re not going to put fees on information and create either a perception or an actual barrier. It’s mystifying what the purpose of establishing application fees was, and I was sorely disappointed to see the NDP government and, in particular, at the time a former strong advocate for freedom of information, Murray Rankin, involved in that.

In ’24-25, how much did those fees generate? At $22,590, it can’t have been a revenue-generation plan. I have no idea to this day how that came about. It’s just one of those items in life where you’re gobsmacked and you just go: well, who knows? But it was a step away from the original promise.

Now I’m going to turn to, with that background, Bill 9. I’m thrilled to have members on the opposite side here to listen to my scintillating, scintillating presentation on Bill 9. I know you’ve been waiting now for the better part of 45 minutes to find out: what will Rob, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, say about Bill 9? Let’s start with who was consulted.

Let’s start with who was consulted, aside from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Well, First Nations were consulted, as they should be. Public sector organizations were consulted, as they should be. There were internal discussions, as there should be.

[3:35 p.m.]

There was a look at the 2022 review of FOI. The report was read. There was no recommendation for these sorts of changes in the 2022 report. Were those that might potentially be concerned about Bill 9 consulted? Was the

of FOI. The report was read. There was no recommendation for these sorts of changes in the 2022 report.

Were those that might potentially be concerned about Bill 9 consulted? Was the B.C. Civil Liberties Association consulted? Was FIPA consulted, the Freedom of Information Privacy Association, who I may add has been a diligent and long-time advocate for this legislation since it was created? Were users of the legislation consulted — those that have lived experience? Nope. Media organizations? Nope.

So the only folks that were consulted about Bill 9 were those in the administrative convenience world. They’re the ones that find it inconvenient to respond to requests, find it a burden. They were sure consulted.

That’s where we start, and what do we find? Well, let me take you through what we find.

But first, let me talk about a fundamental point when you’re drafting legislation. In the course of my career, I’ve drafted hundreds of pages of legislation. I’ve drafted election acts. I’ve drafted financial administration acts. I’ve drafted, obviously, Freedom of Information Act. I’ve drafted governance acts, forestry acts. I’ve drafted a lot of legislation. The first thing you ask when you’re drafting legislation is: what’s the problem? What is the problem we are trying to solve? And then you start to look at policy and then, of course, you look at legislation, and you say: “Okay, well, what’s the problem?”

The drafting instructions are always focused on “We have an issue. How are we going to deal with it?” Well, the interesting part about this is that the issue in front of us is not addressed. It does not need to be addressed.

Let me explain why. In 2024-25, there were 4,691 FOI requests for general information. Those are the requests that those that want to hold government to account or celebrate their achievements and get the information to do so…. Those are the requests. And what was the average number of days to process those requests? These are all extracted from the annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Forty-three days. Forty-three days.

So what changes do we have to make when we’re at 43 days and the legislated target is 30? I mean, that’s not bad. Maybe we should work on our systems and the way that information is organized rather than giving the government, the public bodies, the ability to delay responses, to broaden categories of exemptions, to effectively avoid having to deal with it. Forty-three is not bad. The goal should be to change the policies and systems around FOI requests to get more routine disclosures so you can get down to the magic 30 days.

Where is the problem that we are trying to address in this legislation? It’s with MCFD personal requests. There were 2,372 requests in ’24-25 to MCFD.

[3:40 p.m.]

What was the average days? The average is only one indicator. What was the average days? So 121 days. That’s completely unacceptable. That’s not even near meeting the need. Why? It’s because when individuals request their own personal information, those files are huge.

It was 121 days. That’s completely unacceptable. That’s not even near to meeting the need. Why? It’s because when individuals request their own personal information, those files are huge.

So we have provisions in this act to address that. We have provisions around connected services. We have provisions around enabling proactive access to personal information by the person it’s about. We even have provisions so that Information and Privacy Commissioners can share information across jurisdictions, which is a good thing.

Those are all good provisions in this legislation, and the government deserves credit for bringing those amendments forward, because those amendments are aimed at addressing the problem, which is personal information requests in MCFD.

As is the wont of government throughout the ages.... The one I particularly remember with some — I won’t say fondness; this is a new word — gobsmackedness is Stephen Harper and his ability, when he was Prime Minister, to have a government that would create these huge bills, then slip in something that was completely unacceptable with the good stuff, and then just see if he could sneak it through.

What are the problems with this legislation? The problem with this legislation is that it has the good parts, but it also has the bad parts. What are those sections? What are the sections that turn this from an acceptable piece of legislation into a piece of legislation that either needs to be fully withdrawn, or those sections need to be pulled. What are those sections? Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 25, 26, 27 and 28.

There’s still a lot of meat left in the legislation, after those are pulled, that will enable this government to deal with the overwhelming burden of personal requests at MCFD — not by refusing to disclose personal information to the individual it’s about, but by building the systems, the cross-ministry support and the summarization so that those individuals can get access to an initial tranche of information that is really important, really quickly, and then they can be much more targeted about follow-up requests.

That is good public policy, and this legislation deals with that. But it has this little Trojan Horse in it, of amendments that are not needed and that put freedom of information at risk, to the point where I’ve been saying that it’s freedom from information.

Let me describe, in some painful detail, what those amendments are. First of all, in section 3, some records are excluded where records are required by law to be produced as part of a proceeding.

So far, so good, but then (5.1) adds an additional, gratuitous, “Well, while we’re at it” type of amendment, which is that it excludes “a record that is not specifically listed or identified, but that falls within a general class of records....” I get the first part of the amendment, but that second part is just broadening it unnecessarily and completely in contradiction with the fundamental purpose of this act.

[3:45 p.m.]

It gets better. In section 5, there is a provision to ensure that the applicant “provides enough detail to enable an experienced employee of the public body, with a reasonable effort...to identify the record sought.” And then, new magic words: “in the opinion of the head of the public body.” So the head of the public body is now the judge.

Then the additional

enable an experienced employee of the public body, with a reasonable effort… to identify the record sought.”

And then, new magic words: “in the opinion of the head of the public body.” So the head of the public body is now the judge.

Then, the additional test: “in a reasonable amount of time.” Well, we’re in a budget where there’s a forecast to eliminate 15,000 positions in the public service. We have huge increasing demands across government, given the current economy and the challenges we face. So you’re putting the head of the public body and, by implication, everybody in the ministry or the agency in an impossible position.

We have less resources, we have increasing demand on the services we’re providing, and we’re expected to do this, but we’re not going to be able to do it, identify it, in a reasonable amount of time. So we better change the act to allow us to extend the start time for the response.

This is all about that you need enough detail in the application. You can delay starting the response by saying that it would take too long to find the record, so you better provide us with more detail — boom! We got an extra 30 days added on.

But we’re already at 43 days. So why aren’t we trying to get down to 30 days rather than creating an opportunity for the head of the public body to say: “Oh, sorry, we love openness, we love accountability, we love transparency, but we can’t afford the time right now.”

That does not reflect what government promised at the time this bill was unanimously passed. And so my call on government is, take that amendment out. I’ve given you the list.

Then it gets better. The next one is, “respond without delay,” and we talked about this earlier. Well, what does “respond without delay” mean? It means respond within the 30 days. If you’re going to go over, you better have an explanation. You better be working hard to get down to 30 days. And we’re at 43.

So “without unreasonable delay” gives you a “get out of jail free” card. It enables you to say: “Oh, well, it’s not reasonable to do 30 days, so I guess we’re good.” I know, from working within government and as a practising lawyer for 25 years, you can always find an argument to support “unreasonable.” And it is a ticket to not meet the 30-day requirement or even try.

Oh, I like this one. Section 10 amendment: “If an applicant consents in the prescribed manner” — there’s that word. You know, what I should do is I should be doing a word search of all the acts passed in 1992 and all the acts we were going to pass, say, this spring session, go through all sorts of fancy statistical analysis and then count up how many times major parts of bills say “prescribed.” And I will guarantee that “prescribed” is the favourite word of this government in legislation, both in the last year and this.

So, “may extend the time for responding to the applicant’s request by the period to which the applicant has consented.” What does this do?

[3:50 p.m.]

This creates the possibility that the head of the public body says: “Well, you know, we’re thinking about…. It’s really tough times. We’ve got lot of impacts. We could reasonably delay this for months. You know, your detail isn’t detailed enough. Tell you what: why don’t we just both agree that we’ll respond in three months instead of 30 days.”

And you create an asymmetrical relationship between the applicant and the public body because

tell you what, why don’t we just both agree that we’ll respond in three months instead of 30 days?

You create an asymmetrical relationship between the applicant and the public body because you’re equipping a discussion where, well, we could take a year, and you know you won’t get it, but if you give us an extra 40 days, well then why don’t we just both agree? And then the commissioner won’t be involved, and nobody will be unhappy because you’ve agreed. This creates the possibility to contract out of the fundamental timelines in this legislation and to enable the public body to apply pressure to the applicant to agree. That is fundamentally wrong. It gets better.

It gets better. So, 16.1. We have a controversial court decision, or we have a ruling…. I’m not talking about any of the court decisions over the last year. It could be two years ago, and I’ll explain why in a second. You say: “Well, we’d like to get some advice on respecting a proposed or existing policy, program or enactment.” What this does is this excludes a whole class of records from this act.

The fact is that when a record is included in the act for the purposes of this act, you still have a myriad of carefully crafted exemptions to make sure that anything harmful to law enforcement, harmful to intergovernment relations or negotiations, harmful to financial or economic interests, harmful to the conservation of heritage sites, harmful to interests of an Indigenous people, harmful to individual or public safety, information that will be published or released within 60 days, harmful to business interests of a third party, harmful to personal privacy, etc. Policy advice, legal advice, cabinet. Oh my god.

We have dozens of exemptions, but this government wants to put an amendment in that effectively says, oh, we’re not going to go through the analysis of where there’s harm. We’re just going to exclude this because the public don’t have any right to even maybe know about this. That is fundamentally not what this legislation was intended to do. The legislation….

Let me let me talk about the purpose of the act. The purpose of this act, which is the purpose of most acts across Canada, is to make public bodies more accountable to the public, that’s us, and to protect personal privacy by giving the public a right of access to records, specifying limited exceptions to the right of access.

So what are we doing? We’re converting limited harm-based exceptions into class-based exceptions. That’s exactly the opposite of what the drafters of this legislation and the unanimous Legislature intended. It just gets better.

It gets better. I can’t tell you how happy I am to be able to make this speech with such easy targets. I can tell you that there are much more subtle ways to ignore the principle of freedom of information than this act. I mean, I frankly couldn’t believe my eyes. I thought: how did this ever, ever happen?

[3:55 p.m.]

Then of course we get to the best one of all, section 43. Now just for the record and because we’re over an hour now, and we have another hour to go, I’ll just read you section 43 because this really is at the heart of the act. If the head of a public body asks, the commissioner may authorize

because we’re over an hour now, and we have another hour to go, I’ll just read you section 43, because this really is at the heart of the act.

“If the head of a public body asks, the commissioner may authorize the public body to disregard a request…, including because (a) the request is frivolous or vexatious, (b) the request is for a record that has been disclosed to the applicant or that is accessible by the applicant from another source….”

All good. We spent a lot of time on this because we saw this at the time we drafted the legislation, on direction from cabinet, of course, on direction from a cabinet caucus committee set up specially, where we spent hours going over each clause because we wanted to get it right, and it wasn’t going to be done off the sides of people’s desks.

So frivolous or vexations, standard language, a record that’s already been disclosed. Makes sense. Why would you have to disclose something that’s already out there or that the applicant can get from another source?

Then we get to 43(c). “Responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body because the request (i) is excessively broad, or (ii) is repetitious or systematic.” Makes sense. We don’t want requests that are excessively broad or repetitious or systematic to clog up the system. And it’s not clogging up the system. We’ve got a 43-day response time here.

So what did the drafters of these amendments, on direction from cabinet, do? They said: “Aha. Here is the solution we’ve been looking for. First of all, you have to apply to the commissioner, so we’ll put it on the commissioner. But we’re going to make it really clear the approach and the criteria the commissioner has to apply. So what are we going to do? Well, first of all, we’re going to add a new section saying the behaviour of the applicant is abusive or malicious.”

Abusive or malicious. So are we saying that the public body has no other way to deal with a request that is abusive or malicious than to not respond to the request at all? Is there no other mechanism to address or deal with an abusive or malicious applicant? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’ll certainly, if this gets to committee, be asking that question and asking the specific instances of information access requests that led to the need for this.

What is the problem we are trying to remedy? Is this: “Oh, once we had somebody come and threaten us, and we didn’t have any ability to deal with somebody being abusive or malicious. So we need to amend the act so we don’t deal with the request.”? Maybe the information requested is vital to that person being able to understand how they’re being treated by government.

So I can’t…. There’s no ready justification for that amendment, and I certainly would like to see it go. I’ve said that at the beginning. We’ll deal with it, as I said, in the event this ends up getting to committee.

[4:00 p.m.]

The next one is really the winner, the Oscar winner of the Freedom from Information Award for 2026: “…responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body” or the government of B.C.

really the winner, the Oscar winner of the Freedom from Information Award for 2026: “responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body or the government of B.C., or the request is an abuse of the right to make a request because it’s repetitious, systematic or excessively broad.”

So we took out the reason. We don’t have to have a reason, it’s just unreasonable. It’s unreasonable: “I’ve got stacks of other work to do. I’ve got budget cuts. I’ve just had staff around me laid off. I can’t deal with this right now. It’s unreasonable.”

And then what’s been responded to, I gather, in some other forums over the last few days is: “Well, but that’s the Commissioner. That’ll be the Commissioner’s decision.” Well yeah, it’ll be the Commissioner’s decision. But any lawyer worth his, her or their salt can create a compelling argument that: “Well, we really like freedom of information, but sorry, it’s going to unreasonably interfere.”

And the hallowed, objective, mythical person tasked…. Here are the facts that type of person would say: “Yeah, it’s going to unreasonably interfere.”

This is a definite Trojan Horse they’re all…. It’s the cumulative impact of these changes that effectively makes the public body the judge and juror on whether and if you’re going to get the information you request.

I’m not talking about the personal information. I support the amendments that deal with helping out MCFD deal with their 121-day response time and focus it and reduce the number of pages on that initial step.

I’m talking about those that are charged, publicly minded citizens, media organizations, political parties, businesses. This is for businesses too. In fact, in 1992, businesses were supportive of this legislation because it opened up access to information they need to do their work and to build this economy.

So this section is, in combination with the others, going to eviscerate what’s left of this act. And…. Save the best for last.

So what have we got? We’ve got legislation that takes us right back to the beginning where the amount of information you receive will depend on who you are and why you want the information. This legislation equips us to go back to 1990, all in under ten sections.

But now, I just want to touch on the one I just…. I mean, there are so many. It’s so clever. But the sections 25, 26 and 27, 28….

Most people don’t enjoy reading legislation the way some of us do. We might sit down and, depending on your interest, you might get a nice cup of chamomile tea or you might get a glass of red wine or for me, it’s a coffee, a black coffee, thank you. I love that, sitting down with a black coffee. And you start reading this legislation and then you get to section 25, section 26, 27 and 28 and you do a word search or, if you’re like me, you actually read it because it’s the old way of doing things.

[4:05 p.m.]

And oh. Oh my god. There’s a word. What? It’s “before”. Before. In each of these sections, there’s the word before. Oh my god. This act, these changes, are retroactive. So if I’ve got a particularly embarrassing file sitting on my desk from

it’s before. Before. In each of these sections there’s the word “before.” Oh my god. This act, these changes, are retroactive.

So if I’ve got a particularly embarrassing file sitting on my desk from a year and a half ago that I haven’t dealt with, that’s going to be really embarrassing — probably before I was elected as MLA — and it still hasn’t been responded to, I can use these sections to shut it down. That’s what retroactivity means. I’ve got a production of documents and oh, the general category is going to be a little troublesome. I’d better talk to the government and see how we’re going to fix this.

That is really, really a bad step to change the rules in the middle of the game, to create retroactivity, to eliminate the right the public has to information retroactively. I’m speechless. I’m speechless.

Those are the changes, so remember these numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28. Take those out, and the Third Party will support this legislation. Better yet, let’s come to the next step in Groundhog Day. Why do I call it Groundhog Day? It’s because every six years there’s a review of the legislation. What does that review do? It’s an all-party committee.

Imagine an all-party committee, a committee that actually works across party lines and develops, collaboratively, recommendations for change. This is what the act should be doing. It should deal with — let me drum roll — the 34 recommendations made by the all-party committee in 2022.

But the best part…. I get excited about this stuff. This is right up there. Why is it right up there? It’s openness. It’s accountability. It’s transparency. It’s the foundation of our democracy. We can have amendment bills galore, but this is the legislation that provides the information to hold governments to account and provide information that British Columbians need in order to conduct their affairs.

I’m just going to read out the ones that have been recommended repeatedly and ignored repeatedly out of the — what did I say? — 34 recommendations.

So culture of transparency. Add a duty to document to the act. That was recommended in 2016, and nothing happened. Nothing’s happened now. Amend the definition of public body to ensure that any board, committee, commissioner, panel, agency or corporation created or owned by a public body is subject to the act, regardless of whether it is listed in schedule 2. That was recommended in 2010 and 2016.

Let’s go down to recommendation 6. Clarify the discretionary exception for advice or recommendations. Does not extend to facts upon which they are based, or for factual investigative background material, or for the assessment or analysis of such material or for professional or technical opinions. That’s the recommendation to fix what was wrong in 2010, and it was recommended twice before. Nothing’s happened.

[4:10 p.m.]

Recommendation 10. Ensure that information held by public bodies is considered public by default. Similar to 2004, 2010, 2016. I will, perhaps, give the government in a spirit of generosity some credit on that one because I believe that the recommendations related to better and more effective

2004, 2010, 2016.

I will perhaps give the government, in the spirit of generosity, some credit on that one because I believe that the recommendations related to better and more effective disclosure of personal information to reduce the 121-day wait are good.

Reduce the timeline in which a public body must respond or access request or extend the time responding from 30 business days to 30 calendar days. Oh, I remember talking about that earlier this afternoon.

Amend the act to provide an automatic waiver of application fees and processing fees for applicants when a public body has failed to meet the statutory timeline. Oh, that’s been recommended before? And why not? No consequences for missing your timeline. Well, in the real world, there are consequences, and consequences affect behaviour.

Nineteen. Amend the act to establish that an applicant who makes a formal access request has the right to anonymity. I can’t believe that’s here. We made it as a policy matter that application requests had to be anonymous. That’s been recommended four times. Of course, if the name of the applicant is not anonymous, then, oh, then we’ll know which of these multiple provisions in Bill 9 we need to apply. “Oh god, Vaughn Palmer is applying.” “Uh-oh, Rob Botterill is applying.” “Uh-oh, we better shut her down. Delay, delay, delay.”

New technologies. Twenty-two. Draft and consult with the OIPC on regulations that address transparency, privacy protections and oversight for data. Oh, that’s been recommended before.

Twenty-six. Add to section 29 of the act a requirement about correction of personal information. Oh, that’s been recommended before.

Twenty-seven. Enact new comprehensive health information privacy legislation. I think this is partially covered perhaps. But if not, it’s been recommended twice before.

Thirty-three. Extending the 90-day period in a manner consistent. That’s been recommended.

And then 34, twice. Amend section 42 to expand the commissioner’s oversight by granting the commissioner the jurisdiction to review matters or allegations of unauthorized destruction…. Oh, that’s been recommended twice.

Now, I will say that if members opposite wish to point me to legislation that has enacted any of these 34 recommendations, I’ll be more than happy to correct the record. I just want to make public note, on the record, of the fact that as a relatively new MLA, I’m in learning mode. The other day the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth graciously apologized for an error, on the record, that I pointed out. I’m learning from that. So if all of those recommendations, 34 recommendations, have been implemented, boy, I’m going to be the first one to withdraw any concerns I may have raised and compliment the government.

I’ve been listening over the last few days to some of the coverage and some of the response. These amendments enable applicants to get the right information, so we’ve got to make the amendments. Great, okay. I agree in terms of personal information. But the record on freedom of information is actually quite good. It’s — what did I say? — 43 days. So people must be getting the information they’re looking for. It’s just not quick enough, and it’s exempted. Parts are blacked out that shouldn’t be.

[4:15 p.m.]

OIPC oversight. “Oh, this is all okay. The Information and Privacy Commissioner will keep us honest.” Yeah, but you’ve set the rules of the game around delayed response or not responding to a request at all in a manner where if you can construct

“Oh, this is all okay. The Information and Privacy Commissioner will keep us honest.” Yeah, but you’ve set the rules of the game around delayed response or not responding to a request at all in a manner where if you can construct an argument that it would unreasonably interfere with your operations, you can ignore the request. The commissioner doesn’t have the ability to modify the direction you’re giving them in this amendment. So that’s just a red herring.

“Oh, there’s too much information for us to deal with.” Well, hold on a second here. There is too much information involving the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I grant you that. You’ve got amendments in here that we’re not objecting to that address that.

But there isn’t a problem on the FOI side. These amendments are not needed. What is needed is a stronger commitment to implement the changes recommended by the all-party committee in June 2022. All of them, not just the ones that have been made repeatedly.

Then…. I love this one. I won’t call it ageism, because that probably was never the intent. Every once in a while I hear words like: “But Rob, things are different than 30 years ago. We have more information. We have a lot of things on our plate.” Well, give me a break. Give me a break or — as my caucus team likes to remind me, I need to bring my language into the 21st century — be so for real right now. It’s apparently how you say: “Are you serious?” I just want you to know that I’m trying to stay in sync despite my advancing years.

So where does that lead us — that little pearl of wisdom I just provided? Well, I have to check my notes, because I think that we’re getting pretty close to the wrap-up of my second reading speech, but I do have 32 minutes. I expect…. I’m aiming for two full hours here.

So how are things different in a good way since 30 years ago? We have huge, huge data management capacity. We have ways to access and organize information that we couldn’t even imagine when I was using a blackberry. We have a way…. We can put our effort in…. And I can tell you when the Premier or any minister says, “Find me the information because I got to be ready for estimates,” that information is magically going to appear very quickly.

I grant that things are different than 30 years ago, but the ability to use information technology and information management to achieve the targets that are set in the act…. It’s there. The will to use it may not be, but the technology is there. We are responding…. The government is responding, public agencies, in 43 days. Let’s get it down to 30. Let’s use the…. Let’s innovate.

I know, let’s use some of the Look West funding to establish a world-leading information management system that we can sell to everybody so we can actually get the response time down to 10 days instead of 43 days.

[4:20 p.m.]

Let’s look at the way that we have organized briefing materials and reorganize them so that it facilitates disclosure rather than creates the task of blacking out and turning it into a patchwork quilt.

and reorganize them so it facilitates disclosure rather than creates the task of blacking out and turning it into a patchwork quilt.

I may be giving my colleague a bit of a warning, because it’s just possible I might not get through two hours here. We in the Green caucus will not be participating in this final evisceration of freedom of information in this province. We will not.

I’ve named the sections that need to be withdrawn. The balance of the act is deserving of our support, and we will support it at second reading, if it didn’t have all those other sections. My understanding is that depending on what happens at second reading — and we’ll be voting against the bill in second reading — if it gets to committee, we’ll be looking to see what government does in response to our request for those sections to be removed. In simple terms, we cannot support this bill in its current form.

There are many other provisions in the act that haven’t been used in the way that they could have been. We’ve dwelt this afternoon a fair amount on routine disclosure and the lack of use of information technology and the lack of willingness to innovate in the way in which policy documents and cabinet documents and briefing notes are structured to facilitate access.

I always wonder if, sometime in the next 25 years, we might actually see the consultative committee that’s provided for in the act meet a few times, because that was going to be and was intended to be a mechanism to build understanding, consensus around the successful operation of the act.

We’re calling on this government and every member of the caucus to follow the path set by Premier Harcourt, by former Attorney General Colin Gabelmann, former MLA Barry Jones and a unanimous legislature in 1992 to take the steps to return to open, transparent and accountable government, to not proceed with this legislation in its current form.

Every single NDP member in this House must speak up for democracy. Your children, your families, your partners — everybody you know is counting on you on the government side to stand up for democracy to the end. The ends do not justify the means. The promise that was made in 1992 has been broken, and you need to work to make it right. We fundamentally need to stand together.

[4:25 p.m.]

I am not at all interested in how we got to today with Bill 9. I am interested in where we go tomorrow. We still have time as a legislature to stop, take a deep breath and either pass the parts of the legislation that don’t eviscerate freedom of information

as a legislature to stop, take a deep breath, and either pass the parts of the legislation that don’t eviscerate freedom of information or pull the legislation. Fundamentally, this is an important moment in this government’s commitment to keep the promise of a unanimous legislature that has stood the test of time up until now.

What do I mean by that? I don’t mean that there haven’t been disappointments and backtracking on freedom of information — every report, every six years, has provided government with a list of what needs to be done to fully keep that promise — but this act is really the last step.

What it does, which none of the changes up until now do, is that it effectively returns us, as I’ve said, to the way government handled information prior to freedom of information: who gets the information, and what they get, depends on who you know and why you want it. That is fundamentally wrong.

I’m going to conclude by reading, into the record, those who hold the future of democracy in this province in their hands. Who holds the future of freedom of information in their hands? In a month’s time, in five years’ time, in ten years’ time, it will be possible to look back to the day on which this legislation was either pulled, passed without these horrific sections or passed intact.

What I want to do is to respectfully ask each NDP MLA to think carefully about how you will proceed with any votes on this bill. We have the member for Vancouver-Strathcona. Please, please think about this vote in a different way than others. Please preserve freedom of information in this province. I urge, and I plead with, all NDP members to do the same.

The MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, the MLA for Kootenay-Monashee, the MLA for Esquimalt-Colwood, the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview. The MLA for Burnaby South–Metrotown, the MLA for Nanaimo-Lantzville, the MLA for Juan de Fuca–Malahat, the MLA for Surrey City Centre, the MLA for Vernon-Lumby, the Minister of State for AI and New Technologies, the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside, the member for Cowichan Valley, the Minister of Citizens’ Services, the Member for Burnaby East.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The member for Vancouver-Kensington, the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, the MLA for Surrey-Guildford, the MLA for Burnaby North, the Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services, the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, the Minister of Infrastructure, the Minister of Children and Family Development, the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

The MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and Child Care, the minister without portfolio, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth, the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Transit, the Attorney General and Deputy Premier.

[4:30 p.m.]

The Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions; the Minister of Agriculture and Food; the Minister of Forests; the Minister of Environment and Parks; the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General; the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals; the Minister of Health; the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship;

Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. The Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Minister of Forests. The Minister of Environment and Parks. The Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. The Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. The Minister of Health. The Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. The Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities.

I ask you all to individually reflect on freedom of information, what I have said today, and urge you to consider voting against this piece of legislation at second reading, or alternatively, voting in support of amendments in the balance of the legislative process, if it gets past second reading, to take out the provisions that put freedom of information in this province at the end of its lifespan.

This afternoon, there will be many who say, “it’s no big deal, it’s just performative.” But I have tried over this last hour and 40 minutes to lay out the history of the act: the promise, the promise of freedom of information, that was made when this act was unanimously passed in 1992, and the steady chipping away at freedom of information that’s happened; to outline the reason some of the provisions are needed in this act to deal with MCFD, and the challenge it faces in relation to personal information requests; the complete lack of justification for the other amendments, which effectively turn the clock back to a time when it was not freedom of information.

We all have caucus solidarity and we all have whipped votes and we all have that, but I’m asking you to think carefully about what you will say to future generations if this act is passed.

For all of the reasons I’ve outlined, it brings the fundamental aspect of open, accountable, transparent government to an end. And that is access to information, subject to limited exemptions, that is timely. Because delayed access is delayed, denied, prevented access.

To repeat: delayed access is denied access, and this act, with those amendments, completes the effort that has been undertaken over the years to eviscerate this legislation.

It’s up to the NDP colleagues across the way to individually decide whether they want to be party to that outcome. Why do I say that it’s up to the NDP MLAs on the other side of the House? Because we’ve seen time and time again in this legislature that a 22-vote win is treated as majority government and we end up with a tie vote and then we end up with the Speaker breaking the tie in favour of the legislation that is being brought forward by the government. You have an opportunity to reflect on whether you want to be a part.

This legislation is far more important than other legislation because it’s the foundation of how democracy works in this province.

[4:35 p.m.]

George Chow: I rise to speak in support of Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

As the Minister of Citizens’ Services said, for over 30 years, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — or known as FOIPPA, for short — has played an important role in

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. As the Minister of Citizens’ Services said, for over 30 years, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, known as FOIPPA for short, has played an important role in protecting democratic governance in British Columbia. It gives people the right to access information held by public bodies, and it protects people’s privacy by setting clear rules for how personal information must be protected.

These principles remain unchanged. What has changed is technology and how people interact with government and how government must work if it is to meet modern expectations and maintain people’s trust.

I’d like to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for going into the details of this, the history of this bill. But one thing about this amendment act: it’s not about fees. Fees that we charge…. It’s in line with other jurisdictions in Canada. The people who are seeking personal information do not pay a fee. For example, former children in government care, when they ask for information, do not pay a fee.

Also, as the member said, we have increased proactive disclosure so that the number of requests for information has remained the same. It’s just that people are now more targeted when they want to get information. I think that’s certainly very important.

This amendment is not about fees. We also have found that the fees did not stop people seeking information, and the number of requests remained about the same before and after the fees were enacted. So it’s not about the fees.

Of course, opposition members are saying that this amendment will disadvantage rural British Columbians. This is, again, not true.

This amendment is a direct response to requests made by the FOIPPA special committee, and the ministry has consulted extensively with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The amendment process has been transparent and open.

As a side note, the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, which is responsible for Bill 9, has a mandate to serve all British Columbians equally. For example, the ministry has 64 Service B.C. offices to serve the province, especially in rural B.C. It also has a mobile van that can be dispatched to remote communities, and the van is very useful during emergency situations such as fires and floods when people have fled their homes without their government documentation such as drivers’ licences and B.C. Service Cards. These people can get their documents replaced at the mobile van.

These are all the good works that the ministry is doing. The ministry also embarked on an important program in rural and remote communities, and the program is called Connecting Communities B.C. The goal is to provide broadband internet access to all communities in B.C. by the year 2030, in cooperation with the federal government.

Let’s talk about Bill 9. The Bill 9 amendments to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will improve the experience of people using government services and allow the new Connected Services B.C. system to improve digital service delivery for people and businesses. This makes available more complete digital services for people using their B.C. Service Cards.

What are the new FOIPPA amendments? The proposed amendments to FOIPPA are grouped into three categories. First is to enable the delivery of connected services, like connected B.C., which I just mentioned, and also to improve FOI efficiencies. Lastly, to deal with miscellaneous issues and procedure clarifications.

[4:40 p.m.]

I’ll talk about the first two. Regarding Connected Services, it will help streamline information-sharing and create the ability to issue directions and standards with the goal of providing applicants with a one-stop-shop approach to getting the information they need.

Second is about improving FOI efficiencies. The amendments are to improve process efficiency and transparency for applicants and to enable public bodies to better manage the

applicants with a one-stop-shop approach to getting the information they need.

Second is about improving FOI efficiencies. The amendments are to improve process efficiency and transparency for applicants and to enable public bodies to better manage the administrative workload associated with processing FOI requests. These amendments, together with the connecting community B.C. that I mentioned earlier, reinforces our government’s commitment to strengthen connected digital services for British Columbians, especially in rural B.C. as well as improve FOI efficiency and service delivery. That is exactly what we want to accomplish. This is what the member from Saanich has said, that we are using technology.

More on connected services. The provisions in this bill will help enable government to work as one unified system, providing people with simpler, more predictable and more streamlined services. These amendments will support the delivery of connected digital services across government by enabling information to flow within government, provided we have the people’s permission.

The proposed amendments will allow public bodies to securely and responsibly share information with appropriate safeguards, so that services can be delivered in a more seamless, centralized gateway that gives people more control over how their information is shared. People repeatedly giving the same information across government program areas…. These changes will enable better information flow between programs and ministry while protecting people’s privacy.

So there are some concerns that were expressed about connected Service B.C., where they would create a centralized data system with large amounts of personal data. The answer to that is no. This is not the case. Connected services are content to improve service delivery by ensuring information is appropriately shared across program area using existing systems.

The connected services model is designed to enable secure sharing of information between public bodies, but it does not consolidate all personal information into one central registry. Public bodies will be able to securely share information in ways that better reflect how people interact with government — not by department, but by need. This will reduce the personal information collected by government over all programs and services. Personal information will continue to be secure even when parts of the services are managed by different programs or ministries.

In addition, the amendments require that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner be notified when a connected service provider is established and that the office can assess the privacy impact at the commissioner’s office’s discretion.

More about freedom of information. The goal is to increase efficiency so we can actually reply to requests much quicker, but the complexity and the volume of FOI requests has grown, and public bodies across the province, from ministries to school districts, municipalities and health authorities, are struggling under the administrative pressure of maintaining timely and equitable access for all FOI applicants.

These amendments will help with administrative inefficiency while maintaining people’s right to information access. These amendments are intended to make the FOI process more transparent and workable for everyone involved. They will allow public bodies to better communicate with applicants, including seeking clarification when a request is unclear so that people will see the information they’re looking for.

So right now, people who requested information and they sent their information to the ministry, but the ministry has to find that information…. Sometimes, because the applicant was unclear on what they what they want to get, the ministry has to get back to the applicant. That takes a lot of time, and we would like to improve on that procedure.

[4:45 p.m.]

One example of increasing efficiency is minimizing duplicate disclosure processes. Though time isn’t getting wasted processing records, they’re already being released through a different process like legal discovery. Enabling the proactive release of information to individuals who are seeking their own personal

Some of the examples of increasing the efficiencies are a minimizing duplicate disclosure process, so time isn’t getting wasted processing records if they’re already being released through a different process, like legal discovery.

Enabling the proactive release of information to individuals who are seeking their own personal information without always needing them to go through a formal FOI process. And that’s really what’s happening in the MCFD ministry for example, the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We are trying to resolve that issue. This will improve the access for applicants, especially the former children in government care, which I already mentioned.

This will take pressure off the system, as currently 60 percent of the FOI applications are for personal information. Most of that information is in paper form, making the FOI process very challenging. Improvements in this area will free-up resources so that we can respond to FOI requests faster.

I’ll close by reiterating my support for Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, because the amendment will improve the experience of people using government services, improve digital service delivery for people and businesses, and improve FOI efficiency.

Bruce Banman: For those at home that enjoy watching the Legislative Assembly, we are discussing Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. I highly recommend they take the two hours, not quite, to listen to the member from Saanich North and the Islands. Probably one of the most succinct speeches I have seen in here on privacy and importance of this legislation and what’s before here.

And just to give people…. Like, why would you want to sit through one hour and 45 minutes of this? I will just bait them with a few things. You’re going to hear amazing words, such as “gobsmacked.” I believe “balderdash” was in there. There is an Academy Award, I believe, that was put down for one of the sections in this.

But in all sincerity, it actually impresses upon us…. The member took us through a history because he was there. And he stressed upon the importance of why freedom of information actually matters. And it is important. And transparency in government….

We are at an all-time high for mistrust in government. An all-time high. And not in a good way. It’s nothing to be proud of. And what this legislation does, is it will further increase the mistrust, I believe, in this institution, in democracy itself.

Freedom of information is often embarrassing. It’s often not in government’s best interest. But every now and again it actually has an unintended consequence. So I want to share with this House what happened to me personally and why freedom of information is important and how it relates to Bill 9.

It’s been used in this House by members opposite to try to embarrass, to point a finger at me and to basically sully my name or my character. And it hasn’t just been done by members opposite, it’s been done by others as well.

It goes back to when I was a mayor. I think I was a mayor all of about six months. Six whole months, sitting in the chair.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’d never been in public office before. I remember the day I was sitting in my office and I was still practising chiropractic at that point. I remember I put in a few hours at my practice, and then I went running to city hall as I normally did

sitting in the chair. I’d never been in public office before.

I remember the day I was sitting in my office. I was still practicing chiropractic at that point. I remember I put in a few hours at my practice, and I went running to city hall as I normally did. I got a phone call from someone from the Salvation Army. I will leave them out of it. They said: “Hey Bruce, are you in your office right now?” I said: “You know I’m always here for you. Come on up.” They said: “Great. I’m in the parking lot. I’ll be right up.”

What happened is the next question when they got there and we exchanged pleasantries…. They said: “Do you have any idea what’s going on across the street from the Salvation Army right now?” I said: “No. Please tell me.” “Well, city staff is actually spreading manure, chicken manure, where a homeless encampment had been, where a homeless encampment actually had been dismantled,” which was a cat and mouse game that had been going on for long before I got there.

I was absolutely horrified. I said: “You’ve got to be kidding me.” They said: “No, no. I kind of wish that I was kidding.” That was the response. Sure enough, that’s exactly what was going on.

Here’s how it relates to freedom of information. Well, it became a massive public embarrassment for the city, and it became a massive embarrassment for myself. I was the mayor. Everybody expected that somehow the mayor had said: “That’s what you’ve got to do. Get them out of there and do something so they don’t come back.”

I ended up being in front of a scrum of cameras. This is again my first…. Really, I was still kind of new at this. A scrum of cameras as you can imagine…. Actually, the first day, city manager said: “Look, you’ve got nothing to do with this. Bad news comes from staff, good news comes from mayor and council. We got this.” I said: “I don’t think so, not in this case.”

I ended up having to stand in front of cameras and apologize on behalf of the city, because I was the one responsible at the end of the day for the actions of all the employees of the city. I was the mayor.

Now here’s where an FOI, actually, as embarrassing and as horrible as that particular event was…. Here was the unintended consequence for myself. Although it doesn’t get talked about much, you can imagine that I had to turn in my phone, I had to turn in my computer, because the FOIs came hard, quick and rapid from every single newspaper that was looking for a way because they figured for sure this had to have come from a politician. The mayor had to have ordered it.

It turned out, no. I was exonerated, although I still wear it to this day. It turned out that it was actually staff members that had done it. They had gotten together. As an elected official, you can’t name a staff member, because you know what happens if you do that? The city would end up having to pay damages because you make someone unhirable and they will not be able to get a job anywhere else.

There are those that say, well, perhaps that’s exactly what should have happened. But I ended up standing there apologizing on behalf of the city, which I would do again today. I apologized on behalf of the city. I took responsibility for it, even though I didn’t do it. Later on, it was the FOIs that actually proved that I did not.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now, how that relates to this bill is what’s buried in here. As we heard from the member from Saanich North and the Islands, it’s that being embarrassed is not a good enough reason not to have freedom of information.

the member for Saanich North and the Islands is that being embarrassed is not a good enough reason not to have freedom of information. It could very well have gone the other way.

It could very well have gone that people said: “Aha, we were right.” They weren’t, not in this case. But I believe to this day that the press had a right to figure out who was ultimately responsible for that, and they did that through freedom of information. It was highly embarrassing.

It was perhaps what we have seen in this is that this government has used the things malicious or abusive. There were a few reporters that were absolutely abusive in their insistence of digging deeper and deeper and deeper and the broad scope in which they had looked for.... That’s not good enough.

I’m living proof that that is not good enough. The public had a right to know, and the press had a right to know how that decision was made, what got to that decision. It eventually did come out. And yes, city management tried to do what they could. This is what governments do. They try and pivot and push and find a different reason to say: “Well, there’s nothing to look at here.” But in this particular case, the truth did come out.

Now, I’m not thrilled with it, because I still to this day end up wearing that. I have had members on the other side here use that, and we’ve heard insults that have been hurled across. That’s okay. I took this job on, and this is part of the history that goes on. Sometimes we inadvertently get blamed for things that really are not our fault, but that’s the life we chose.

The very nature of government is to try and hide embarrassing things from seeing the light of day. And as we heard from the previous speaker, or the speaker prior to them, there are valid reasons why democracy needs to understand how decisions are made, whether or not there was wrongdoing, who was responsible for the wrongdoing, or even if it’s to gather information as to how government came to make its decision.

I’ve got to tell you my life was put through absolute hell during that time frame. I was accused of things that I did not do, and I just stood there, and I had to take it. Especially in a case where you don’t have the ability to name a staff member. Nor do you have the ability to even name if that staff member was sanctioned or punished for that, for whatever incident it may have been.

In this case, it turned out there were more than one involved in the ultimate decision. But the public and the press have a right to transparency. They have a right to know what the truth is. They have a right to know how we get to decisions, what the advice of staff was in a particular case in a decision, whether we, the politicians, like the results of that or not.

[5:00 p.m.]

It’s what keeps democracy transparent and truthful, and that’s an important principle. What we have heard in here is that there are words such as — and I want to go over a couple of them, which I think are the most outrageous — the term “malicious.” Well, malicious, based on whom and on what opinion?

I’ll tell you what. At the time, I thought that was pretty malicious, having

that there are words such as — and I want to go over a couple of them which I think are the most outrageous — the term “malicious.” Well, malicious based on whom and what opinion?

I’ll tell you what. At the time, I thought that was pretty malicious having to turn in my phone. I thought it was abusive, and I thought it unreasonably interfered with the operations of my city. It’s not a good enough reason, ever.

We need to be certain that we use our powers that we have in here to actually build trust with the public, to actually build the openness and transparency upon which decisions are made.

We do some good work here. Sadly, what most people experience when they listen to what happens is they catch the question of the question period of the day. They don’t actually hear necessarily the joint committee work, as was discussed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands. They don’t hear about the good joint work and the recommendations and the hard work that’s done, because what catches everyone’s eye is the 30 minutes of question period, not the 30 minutes of answer period, by the way. Rarely is there a good answer, in my experience thus far. And that’s really not what goes on most of the time in the committee work.

This particular act…. It’s the natural instinct of government and of staff to protect us. I know that’s what my staff try to do. Good news comes from mayor and council; bad news comes from staff. Good news comes from Premier and ministers; bad news comes from staff. It’s how the system works, because the very nature of staff is to try and protect those they work for, to try and shield them because quite often in this business, we are under a microscope. But protecting us who have chosen this life, have chosen public service, is in no way, shape or form a good enough reason to reduce freedom of information.

As was mentioned, protecting privacy of individuals, especially children…. This side of the House won’t have a problem with some of that, if any of it. But we certainly have a problem with reducing the public and that other unofficial opposition, which is the press, or businesses.

We heard a number of really good, worthwhile reasons why this legislation is flawed. It goes against the very nature of when the Freedom of Information Act was put into being back in 1993, if I recall hearing him correctly. It was amazing to hear from someone that actually was originally there, the intent of what this legislation was supposed to do and now where we’ve come to.

Basically, what I heard him say and I agree with 100 percent, is that this no longer is about freedom of information. It’s about protecting, it’s about hiding, and it’s about putting up as many roadblocks as we possibly can to make that more difficult when in fact, in democracy, what we should be doing is making things less difficult for the public to get at the truth, to get to the heart of how we get to where we are, how we make the decisions on legislation.

[5:05 p.m.]

Sometimes, as mentioned, and for privacy reasons, yes, we need to tighten some things up, especially now where people can use your personal information in a very malicious way. But the

as mentioned, and for privacy reasons, yes, we need to tighten some things up, especially now, where people can use your personal information in a very malicious way. But the actual job of what we do in here should never, ever have it made more difficult.

Timelines should not be extended because, as we heard, to delay or to charge is actually a way of denying. But the public have already paid for this information. They paid for it with their taxes. What goes on in here, what goes on in this building, is funded by taxpayer dollars, who have already paid with their sweat and their toil in the taxes that they pay. To then further charge them and increase charges and fees to get at the information that they should be entitled to in the first place is insulting and a slap in the face. It’s fundamentally wrong.

We say that we need to do this because staff have to go to all this work, and therefore government has a right to recoup the costs through fees, to be able to recoup the time that staff are going to spend. Really, what this House should be doing is instead of making that more difficult, instead of making ways for a bureaucrat to decide whether or not they’re going to give that information out…. What the goal of this House should be is: how do we make things even more transparent? How do we get to the point where a freedom-of-information request is not required at all?

Sometimes, yes, they’re embarrassing. I remember talks of expensive glasses of orange juice. I remember talks recently of the cost of a limo and the cost of a little soiree that someone put on. That should never, however, be the reason we tighten things up and say: “No, this is malicious. This is abusive. It’s repetitious,” or, “it’s excessively broad.” Sometimes you have to be excessively broad, because sometimes, when you’re going through something, it’s….

I don’t know. It’s kind of like…. I’ll put it this way. Sometimes when you go through the back of the index of a particular…. I’ll use medicine for instance. When you go back into the thing, and you start looking into a particular disease, you start with a rash. Well, there are many things that can give you a rash. But if you make it so that you have to be right into the very, very heart of it, it can become so narrowly scoped that you will never actually find out what the cause of that actually is, especially when it comes to government.

Who gets to decide what is excessively broad? That’s an excessively unclear definition. Sometimes the only way you can do that, and you want to try and find out the heart of something, is if you’re from the press or opposition. I can see, on the other side of the House, the job that opposition does is annoying because we’re holding you accountable. Nobody really likes to be held accountable. In my house, it’s my wife that holds me accountable. It’s annoying. But I’m glad she does, because those that know me and love me know that I need to be held accountable once in a while.

[5:10 p.m.]

We all mess up. The very job of this side of the House is to hold that side of the house accountable. But if you start narrowing it in so that it becomes excessively broad, you’re now getting to the point where you will never find it. It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I go back to my example of

up. The very job of this side of the House is to hold that side of the House accountable, but if you start narrowing it in so that it becomes excessively broad, you’re now getting to the point where you will never find it. It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

I go back to my example that there are many, many diseases that start with a rash and flu-like symptoms, overall malaise. If you tell me I am not allowed just then from going from that to figure out…. It gives me what’s called a definitional diagnosis of all the different diseases that start off…. Some are cancers, by the way. If I have to figure it out by symptoms that are very similar in nature and not be able to then go into a differential diagnosis by narrowing it down — which is really similar to a freedom-of-information act, in a way, because what you’re doing is you’re looking for clues — it’s annoying. But it’s a necessary annoyance.

It is part of what keeps us accountable. And if we are to restore trust, if we are to restore faith in these institutions, which I repeat is at an all-time high, that’s the price we have to pay.

We now live in an era of database collection, where there’s really no excuse for why it takes as long as it does. And what this side of the House, based on this, cannot take and further erode is freedom of information and the ability for the opposition, the public, businesses that want to do business with the government, who want to know how it is a decision is made on building a bridge, for instance…. “What are the parameters in there? What were the parameters that were done before, because we suspect there was something wrong?” It could be that they suspect that there was an insider condition. I’m not saying that goes on.

But only through transparency and things like freedom of information are you able to ensure it’s the backstop and the safety valve of government. And we should never make it harder, ever. We should be working diligently to make it more and more transparent and easier.

I’ve got to go back. This government got blamed for being the most secretive government in Canada over freedom of information. They tightened it up so much, they charged the fees so much that it was the press, not this side of the House, that labelled this government the most secretive ever. What does this do? It says: “Hey, that was nothing. Take a look at what we can do now.”

This is way worse. This no longer becomes secretive. This becomes the equivalent of locking freedom of information basically into a vault compared to what was done in the original time. And I remember debating with the minister at the time over: “Well, what are the fees going to be? Tell us what the fees are.” “Oh, we can’t tell you. We can’t tell you. We can’t tell you. We haven’t determined that yet.” Yet within two hours after the legislation had been passed, literally, the fees were announced.

So were the fees already determined? The freedom of information, if it’s allowed to do it properly, would actually get to the heart of that. Were the fees already discussed? Did government already know what they were and they were avoiding having to answer the opposition questions because they were difficult and they were awkward and they were embarrassing? Maybe they were.

That is, in part, why this government got labelled as being the most secretive ever, because they made it more and more difficult for the public and the press to get to the information that they have already paid for through their taxes. They own this building, they pay for this building, and they pay for us to do our jobs.

[5:15 p.m.]

I think that this legislation adds one more layer of disrespect, and it will further erode the trust that people have in the institution of democracy. And when we are at an all-time high of mistrust, I believe

This legislation adds one more layer of disrespect, and it will further erode the trust that people have in the institution of democracy. When we are at an all-time high of mistrust, I believe that we should be doing the exact opposite.

I will not support this bill unless, as the member from North Islands and Saanich has mentioned, there are significant changes, which I doubt will happen, because that’s the way this government seems to roll. It does not matter what any of us come up with on this side. Very rarely, if at all, do any of the amendments pass.

I think it’s a mistake, especially when it comes to freedom of information. It’s the foundation of democracy. It’s the foundation of trust.

I would ask that side of the House to think very long and hard. Don’t make it easy on yourselves. This isn’t supposed to be easy. It’s supposed to be hard. It’s supposed to be difficult for a reason. We have to restore trust in these systems and restore trust in our democracy and, especially, restore trust in this House.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers…. Oh, sorry. Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The minister had me fooled with her podium. Cunning. A cunning ruse. That was quite the sneaky move. It was like a Trojan podium. Hidden inside it was her lack of intention to speak to the bill. I’m glad that I stood up quickly. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

As folks are aware, Bill 9 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by introducing fees to proactive disclosures and expanding the categories government can apply to the OIPC to get FOIs ignored. It expands the category of clauses that can be applied to the OIPC to include the terms “malicious,” “abusive,” “unreasonably interfere with operations of government,” “repetitious” or “excessively broad.”

The challenge is that none of these terms are defined, and they’re left completely up to the government to interpret in their application to the OIPC. I worry about the implications of that. I worry about the arbitrary interpretation of terms by this or any government, and I worry in particular about legislation that creates an increased scope for government to avoid accountability, avoid transparency and to effectively label their critics, both in the House, in the media and in civil society, as being “malicious,” “abusive.”

That’s not how the relationship between government and the people is supposed to work. The relationship between government and the people should be one in which we understand that we have been given the gift, the fragile gift, of the confidence of the people to govern on their behalf, to govern with their money, to govern with their legitimacy, to govern with their God-given right to freedom, to govern responsibly.

When I see that kind of language embedded in a bill, when I see the baked-in assumption that people seeking freedom of information, people seeking accountable government, people seeking the means by which to ask reasonable and justified questions about what their government is doing with their rights, what their government is doing with their money, what their government is doing with their assets, what their government is doing to them, for them….

To have those basic rights of access to information, to have freedom of information be clouded by the idea that people seeking information are malicious, abusive, repetitious or excessively broad…. That really gets under my skin. Anyone who has ever actually gone through a freedom-of-information process, generally speaking, would probably point some of those adjectives in the opposite direction.

[5:20 p.m.]

I have filed freedom-of-information requests to governments. I have had a government go out of its way to use every single legal procedure in the book to delay disclosure by months, if not years. I have seen a government impose a

to governments. I have had a government go out of its way to use every single legal procedure in the book to delay disclosure by months, if not years. I have seen a government impose a $50,000 fee in order to gain access to information. When that information was finally disclosed 18 months later, I have seen that information directly contradict claims made publicly and privately by members of that government.

That is a malicious abuse of process — malicious, abusive. That is an abuse of process. That is an abuse of the mechanisms of avoidance in order to try to prevent people — individuals, companies and organizations that deal with government — from having information that would allow them to put the lie to misrepresentations or obfuscations made by government.

My worry is not that we will suddenly be beset by malicious, abusive, unreasonable, repetitious people that want access to information. That is not my worry. My worry is that we will continue in a direction of closing off access to information and of closing off access to power from the people to whom it should belong.

On this side of the House, we believe in open, transparent and accountable government. This legislation is going in exactly the opposite direction

It is part of a worrying trend that we have seen over nine long years of this government — part of a trend where this government believes that it knows better on everything, part of a trend where this government believes that it doesn’t have to share information if it doesn’t want to, part of a trend where I literally stood in this House, a year ago in Health estimates, and asked a simple, innocuous question to the Minister of Health.

I represent Kelowna-Mission. I’ve got Kelowna General Hospital in my riding, and I’ve got people in my hospital that are waiting in an emergency room to get a bed, to get one of 20 hallway beds, which is one of 50 hallway beds in that hospital. They can’t get a bed, in part because upstairs on the fifth and sixth floors of Kelowna General Hospital, there’s more than 50 beds’ worth of space sitting vacant.

I asked the Minister of Health, in estimates last year, what percentage of the constructed space in Centennial tower of KGH is sitting vacant on the fifth and sixth floors. I got no answer; I got a promise to come back with an answer; that was never fulfilled.

I went and got that answer myself, in talking to people that worked in the system, who were happy to tell me what the government refused to tell me. In my own riding, this government would not tell me what share of the space in a hospital was sitting empty — vacant, locked, full of boxes, used for storage — while people suffered indignity and literally died in hallways in my hospital.

That is what this government does. This government hides information from people to avoid embarrassment, and they should be embarrassed. The Minister of Health should be extremely embarrassed by that situation, but she didn’t want to share that information.

This government is already doing that, and they want more tools to tighten the locks on information. They want more tools to avoid the terrible, dreadful, scary expansion of abusive, malicious citizens; abusive, malicious journalists; abusive, malicious opposition MLAs asking them to show some accountability and some transparency, and to make available to them information that ought to be available.

[5:25 p.m.]

This bill is a bill that this government should be embarrassed to have brought forward, particularly nine years into a government that is well on its way to losing the confidence of the people of British Columbia. This is another blow to the basic confidence any right-minded individual in this province should have that this is a government fit to govern.

This is a government that wants to close off information. This is a government that

nine years into a government that is well on its way to losing the confidence of the people of British Columbia.

This is another blow to the basic confidence any right-minded individual in this province should have that this is a government fit to govern. This is a government that wants to close off information. This is a government that imposed fees on FOI. This is a government that over and over and over again systematically limits transparency. This is a hypocritical government run by people who in opposition would have shuddered at the very idea of bringing forward legislation like this.

Can you imagine the Premier of British Columbia, the member for Point Grey, in his time as a muckraking activist, sitting quietly while a government brought legislation like this? I cannot imagine it.

This is a Premier who literally would have been the first to use the tools of freedom of information in order to hold a government to account. And yet, now that he’s in the treehouse, he wants to pull the ladder up, and he wants to make sure that nobody else can get a look at what he’s doing in the treehouse.

This Premier has completely lost touch with his roots as a muckraking activist, who, as I said, would have used the tools of freedom of information to hold government to account. And you know what? I bet that was really annoying for folks in government.

Heck, a lot of folks in government get really annoyed when they get FOI’d. They get really annoyed when they get asked questions in question period. They do. That’s the point. Government is not supposed to be comfortable. Government is not supposed to be easy. Government is not supposed to be a place where you sit and make decisions without accountability and nobody can see what you’re doing in there.

Nobody — nobody — truly believes that’s how democracy should work, and that is why I’m so concerned about this bill. That is why I’m so concerned about the specific provisions in this bill that, again, would create arbitrarily defined broad categories under which this government or any government can apply to the OIPC to refuse disclosure. That worries me very, very deeply.

Again, proactive disclosure should be exactly that. It should be accessible and proactive. Adding yet more fees to access them cuts off disclosure. It just absolutely boggles my mind that at the same time as it is introducing new ways to refuse information to people in order to hold government to account, government is looking for new ways to charge people.

But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, because this is the same government that literally just raised taxes on knitting yarn. This is a government that literally just raised taxes by 7 percent on knitting a scarf. This is a government that just raised taxes by 7 percent on fixing your shoes.

The member opposite is laughing. The member opposite evidently thinks that it is funny. You know what? I would ask the member opposite to go down to her local knitting circle, go talk to a nice grandmother who’s knitting a scarf for her son, her grandson, her granddaughter. Does the member really think it’s funny? Does the member truly think it’s funny, to the point where she’s about to lose it, that her government is raising taxes on knitting a scarf?

The Chair: Member. Member for Kelowna-Mission, through the Chair.

Gavin Dew: I’m just observing how disturbing it is and how out of touch it is, just like this bill is out of touch, just like it is ridiculous and absurd to expand definitions, to expand language, to use words like “malicious” and “abusive” and “repetitious” to talk about people trying to seek basic information, and to levy further fees on freedom of information.

[5:30 p.m.]

Again, I’m absolutely stunned that the members opposite think it’s funny that they’re taxing people knitting scarves. They’re taxing people fixing shoes. They’re taxing people more on patterns to make their own clothes. Generally speaking, getting your shoes fixed is not something you do when you’re feeling abundance.

Now, here’s the thing. Getting your shoes fixed is not a luxury. Basic cable is not a luxury. A land line is not a luxury. And do you know what else is

getting your shoes fixed is not something you do when you’re feeling abundance.

Now here’s the thing. Getting your shoes fixed is not a luxury. Basic cable is not a luxury. A landline is not a luxury. Do you know what else is not a luxury? Access to information, freedom of information, transparency of government. It should not be a high-priced luxury to get a basic understanding of what government is doing with your money, what government is doing in your community, what government is doing with your information. That is not a luxury. That is a staple good.

Transparency is a staple good, and people should reasonably expect to be able to access the information that their government has about them, the information that their government has about projects, This is just absolutely shameful. This bill is an assault on freedom of information, it is an assault on transparency, and it is a consistent theme with this government. This is a government that just introduced a budget in which they raised a threshold for disclosing what’s happening with capital projects from $50 million to more than $100 million, because they don’t want anyone to know what’s happening with their projects. That’s absurd.

So now, after doing that, you can go back through an FOI process that they’ve just made more expensive, more problematic, more opportunities to not disclose information. By default, this is a government that is taking the free out of freedom of information. This is a government, the most closed-off government in Canada….

This is a government that literally, on page 9 of their Infrastructure ministerial service plan, has a section that outlines what their target is for on-time and on-budget projects. Do you know what the target is? The target is to be determined. The target for on-time and on-budget was so far behind schedule, they could not put it in the budget.

So what are you going to do? File an FOI to eventually get some understanding of what target the government might eventually set for when they’re going to deliver projects on time and on budget? This is absurd. This is a government that has wilfully gone out of its way to limit transparency in every way possible.

This is a government that likes to rail on about past governments and about how villainous they were and about how saintly this government was in opposition. This government, if it were in opposition, would be railing against the legislation that they themselves are bringing with this ridiculous assault on freedom of information. This is a government that, if they were in opposition, would be railing on what they’ve just done to seniors, to working people. This is a government that has completely lost the plot. This is shameful, absolutely shameful.

I think about the many members of this government who fancy themselves as activists, who fancy themselves holding the feet of power to the flames, who fancy themselves as champions of the people.

I think about the member for Richmond-Steveston across the way. I am absolutely confident if she were in opposition, she would be railing against this legislation. She would be hurling invective at ministers and saying that they were hiding information from the people. She would be filled with righteous indignation as she stood in question period and thunderously called upon cabinet ministers to stop this horrific assault on freedom of information and to let the people have the information that belongs to them.

And yet, she won’t do that. She will sit meekly and do what she is told. She will sit meekly and defer to men in suits. She will sit meekly and vote for this legislation because she and every other member of the government caucus lack the courage of their convictions. They lack any actual spinal fortitude. They lack any actual belief in the things that they said they believed in when they were opposition. They lack any belief that the people deserve freedom of information.

I look forward to watching each and every single one of the members opposite look down at their desks like the members opposite are doing right now because they are embarrassed by what their own government is doing, they are embarrassed by what their Premier is doing. They are horrified by the fact that they are cowed caucus, whipped, unable to think for themselves, unable to have any freedom, unable to discuss this very matter in their caucus because they’re afraid that they will be whipped.

[5:35 p.m.]

They’re all going to vote for this. Every single one is going to vote for this bill. I look at them across the way, smirking. I look at them laughing. I look at them staring at their desks, reading their books, standing up and walking around. This must be terribly embarrassing

that they will be whipped. They’re all going to vote for this. Every single one is going to vote for this bill.

I look at them across the way, smirking. I look at them laughing. I look at them staring at their desks, reading their books, standing up and walking around.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Gavin Dew: This must be terribly embarrassing.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate the moment here. That was quite the characterization and I would ask the member to speak to the bill and not characterize members in the chamber. I would appreciate also withdrawal.

Gavin Dew: If the member could clarify what she would like me to withdraw, I would entertain it.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Characterization of members on the opposite side.

Gavin Dew: Could the member clarify whether it was the characterization that the members are spineless or hypocritical or cowed or whipped? I would like to understand which characterization exactly I’m being asked to withdraw.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Okay, hold on. Settle down.

I’ll ask for the member for Kelowna-Mission to…. And a reminder to everyone not to impugn motives, not to malign other members and also keep to the bill and to be relevant.

Gavin Dew: I certainly will not impugn the motives of any of the individuals on the other side of the House. I will, however, impugn the expectation that this bill will be rammed through by government.

I think it’s a very, very fair point. I think it’s crucial that in this House, we have fulsome debate. I think it’s important that we are able to reflect on what the implications of legislation are for the people of British Columbia. I think we’re able to reflect on whether or not legislation is philosophically congruent with who we are as people and as legislators.

I personally believe fundamentally in freedom of information….

Deputy Speaker: Member, the minister has asked you to withdraw your comments. Will you withdraw?

Gavin Dew: I’m still looking for a clear understanding of which comments I’m being asked to withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: I have ruled and I have advised members to take care, to not impugn motive or malign members.

And so I’m asking the Member if you will withdraw your comments along those lines.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Continue.

Gavin Dew: Now, it’s not so much the motives that I think anyone ought to be concerned about when it comes to this bill. I have no doubt that everyone’s motivations are sincere.

What concerns me is what’s going to happen with this bill. What concerns me is that this government, this government that is clinging to a tattered majority, this government that is collapsing in the polls with a second poll coming out today indicating just how much the people of British Columbia have lost confidence in this government…. What concerns me is what’s going to happen with this legislation. My great fear is that two things will happen as a result of this legislation.

The first is that I expect that every single member of the government will grin and bear it and vote for this legislation. That’ll be awfully embarrassing. Now, that’s just really unfortunate.

I can’t speak to the motive behind anyone who would vote for this legislation because it is an assault on freedom of information. I can’t speak to the motives of why anyone would draft this legislation in the way it has been drafted, especially after hearing the long and incredible speech given by my colleague from the Greens, who walked us through a history of freedom of information.

I think to the rich legacy of the NDP in freedom of information in this province. I think to myself that the architects of freedom of information, many of whom were New Democrats, are probably ashamed of their party today as they watch this legislation be rammed through, which polls in the exact opposite direction of what they once thought their party stood for.

[5:40 p.m.]

Perhaps that is why their party is collapsing. Perhaps that is why a second poll has them falling apart. Perhaps that is why the knives are being sharpened and the leadership campaigns are being prepared on the other side of the House. Perhaps that is why we hear so much….

Deputy Speaker: Member, member. I’ll ask you to focus on the contents of the bill, please.

Gavin Dew: I’ll be very happy to focus on the bill. This bill is a shameful assault. This bill is a shameful

apart. Perhaps that is why the knives are being sharpened and the leadership campaigns are being prepared on the other side of the House. Perhaps that is why we hear so much….

The Chair: Member. Member, I’ll ask you to focus on the contents of the bill, please.

Gavin Dew: I’ll be very happy to focus on the bill, Madam Speaker.

This bill is a shameful assault. This bill is a shameful, shameful assault on freedom of information. I expect that the way this bill will be used is to hide information from the public as this government circles the drain.

My expectation is that over the short months or years ahead, as this government continues to lose the confidence of the people of British Columbia, we will see an ongoing tightening of access to information. We will see more focus on spin. We will see more focus on controlling information. We will see more characterizations of members of the public, the media and the opposition as being “malicious, abusive, repetitious or excessively broad” in their desire to get information from the government.

I expect we will see more characterizations that basic inquiries and demands for transparency are met with the insinuation or the claim that they “unreasonably interfere with operations of government.”

If this government believes that being held to account, being transparent and having disclosure of information “unreasonably interferes with the operation of government,” perhaps they ought to think about a different line of work.

Because in a democracy, transparency, accountability — those are fundamental attributes of what a democratic government is. I thought this was a new democratic government, but evidently this is not a government that is interested in basic functions of democracy. This is not a government that is interested in being transparent. This is not a government that holds by any of its espoused values, as I’m sure have been articulated in many NDP policy documents over the years.

I am absolutely shocked, absolutely shocked, to see this assault on freedom of information being brought forward by a party that has a rich historical legacy in freedom of information. It absolutely pains me to see that divergence from that rich history on display.

But as I have previously mentioned, this is not the first time this government has proposed to limit transparency and bring in fees to the system. This is not the first time that this government has sought to generate revenue off of gatekeeping information that belongs to the people.

The last time they amended the FOI system, they introduced $10 fees for filing, which severely reduced access to information. Pretty much anyone who follows what happens with media knows they did that in order to target one specific journalist, a fellow named Bob Mackin. They did that because they didn’t like how many FOIs Bob Mackin was doing.

This government literally went out of its way to try to kill the journalistic career of one journalist whose primary approach to journalism relied on filing FOIs and getting information and getting leaks and getting scoops that nobody else had.

How vicious, how personal, how vindictive must you be as a government to literally go after one journalist with a fundamental change to freedom of information for every individual in the province because you don’t like that he is embarrassing you. That is no way to do government. That is a terrible way to do government. That is an embarrassment.

And this bill follows in exactly that same spirit. That spirit of believing that government knows best. That spirit of believing that the people do not deserve access to their own information. That spirit of high-handed, bunkered, insular, arrogant, out of touch government.

I’m old enough to remember when this government, in opposition, used to refer to the government as arrogant and out of touch. I’m old enough to remember, and many of us are.

Point of Order

The Chair: Member, hold on. I have a point of order from the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville.

George Anderson: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have not heard the member talk about the bill. I’ve been sitting here listening to this diatribe go on, and I would really appreciate hearing a debate about this bill rather than hearing a long pontification about when he was born.

So it would be great if we could go back to speaking about the bill — the bill that British Columbians expect us to be talking about. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[5:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, thank you.

That’s your point of order with respect to relevance, and we’ve mentioned that, so please keep your comments to the bill. Thank you.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I’m baffled a little bit, because I was literally just talking about the bill, which is an assault on freedom of information.

And I was talking about the bill

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you. That’s your point of order with respect to relevance, and we’ve mentioned that, so please keep your comments to the bill. Thank you.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m baffled a little bit because I was literally just talking about the bill, which is an assault on freedom of information. I was talking about the bill because it’s important to recognize the precedent for this bill. It’s important to recognize that the last time this government amended freedom of information, they did so in a way that was sneaky. They did so in a way that involved having, seemingly, a fee ready to go and rolling it out within hours of legislation passing, having claimed they hadn’t said it.

That should worry people. That should worry people about the spirit in which this legislation is being brought forward. It should worry people about the attitude of this government, and I am worried. If the member opposite is not concerned, it shocks me that he, as a lawyer, would be so unconcerned about accountability structure of the law.

I am concerned about democracy and governance, and I worry that this amendment to freedom of information is a fundamental assault, not just on freedom of information but on the very way the democratic governance is exercised in this province.

Now, let’s get back to the substance of the bill and the context of the bill. This government that has been in power for nine years, this government that used to talk a big game in opposition about freedom of information, this government that used to be the ones railing on about arrogant, out-of-touch, bunkered governments, this government that likes to bring up that imagined boogeyman for them, from 2022 to 2023….

Deputy Speaker: Member, hold on.

Minister.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It seems that we’re hearing a lot about things that are not the bill. I’d really love to be able to discuss the contents of the bill rather than a historic rundown of what government may or may not have done.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder for the member to connect your remarks to the contents of the bill and not necessarily generalizations about government policies. Connect it to the actual content of the bill.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I can’t help but notice that my time has been elapsing while members opposite have been….

Point of Order

George Anderson: Madam Speaker, I’d also like to ask that the member withdraw, especially since he decided to bring up my profession. I am an officer of the court. I pay my legal fees, and I would like the member to withdraw the statement about me not caring about the rules of order and laws that pertain to British Columbia regarding freedom of information.

That’s completely disrespectful. I am an officer of the court. I went to law school. I passed the bar. It’s completely unacceptable for him to make any type of comment with respect to my profession.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Thank you, Member.

That’s a request to withdraw those comments, Member.

Gavin Dew: I’m a little…. I’m not claiming that the member did not attend law school, but I withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Thank you. Continue.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: In closing, let’s focus on what this government could have done with this legislation. Let’s focus on what Bill 9 could be. Do we need to make changes around freedom of information? You bet we do. Do we need to turn the dial on freedom of information? Absolutely. We need to make changes around freedom of information.

You know what change we could be making in this bill? We could be addressing the fact that, from 2022 to 2023, FOI applicants had to wait, on average, 192 additional business days to receive a response. That’s absurd. That is shameful.

A government that believed in freedom of information, a government that believed that people had a right of access to information, a government that believed in accountability would be bringing forward a bill that addressed the very real and serious issues that are facing us when it comes to freedom of information, and that is that they have taken the freedom out of freedom of information.

[5:50 p.m.]

But no. No. Instead, this bill, Bill 9, insinuates that people who want access to information are malicious, abusive, repetitious, excessively broad and that, God forbid, by wanting information they might unreasonably interfere with operations of government.

This bill and the attitude of this government toward freedom of information

abusive, repetitious, excessively broad, and that, god forbid, by wanting information, they might unreasonably interfere with operations of government.

This bill and the attitude of this government toward freedom of information could not be more fundamentally wrong-headed. They could not be moving more fundamentally in the wrong direction. Every member of the government caucus who votes for this bill should be ashamed to do so. They should hang their heads as they do so. We will be voting against this bill. I encourage them to grow a spine and vote against it too.

Macklin McCall: Freedom of information is not an administrative convenience. It is not a procedural courtesy extended by government. It is a structural restraint on power. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act exists for a reason. It recognizes that public bodies do not own information in the ordinary sense.

Government holds information in trust. Records created, collected and maintained by public institutions are not the property of a political party or cabinet. They are part of the public record of a government that operates on behalf of the people.

FOIPPA establishes two core principles. First, that citizens have a right of access to records held by public bodies, subject only to limited and clearly defined exceptions. Second, that government must protect personal information it collects. These two principles work together. They are not in tension. They are the foundation of accountable administration.

Access to information is not meant to be comfortable for government. It is meant to ensure scrutiny. It allows journalists to investigate. It allows researchers to analyze. It allows members of this Legislature to examine the actions of the executive. It allows citizens to verify what they are told. Transparency is not ornamental; it is functional.

When a government operates transparently, public confidence grows. When access narrows, even incrementally, confidence weakens. That is why amendments to FOIPPA are never minor. They shape the relationship between citizens and the state. They define how easily information can be obtained. They determine how much discretion rests with public bodies. They establish the boundaries of accountability.

Bill 9 proposes to amend FOIPPA in several significant ways. It expands the categories under which a public body may apply to disregard a request. It introduces the possibility of charging fees for records that were previously available without cost. It creates a framework for centralized information-sharing through a designated connected services provider. Each of these changes may be defended individually as administrative refinement. Each may be described as modernization. But taken together, they shift the balance between access and discretion.

Freedom of information exists to ensure that power is visible. It exists so that decisions made behind closed doors can be examined in the light of day. It exists so that citizens are not dependent solely on official narratives. The question before us is not whether government requires efficiency. Of course it does. The question is whether efficiency is being pursued at the expense of access.

When we alter FOIPPA, we are not just adjusting a routine statute. We are recalibrating the boundaries of transparency. If we narrow access, if we broaden undefined discretion, if we make it more costly to obtain records that were previously available without charge, then we are not simply improving process. We are changing the structure of accountability.

Government authority in a free society is delegated, it is limited, and it is accountable. FOIPPA is one of the instruments that enforces that accountability. This debate is not whether government should function efficiently. It is about whether the mechanisms that allow citizens to examine government actions remain strong. Freedom of information is not a favour granted by the state. It is a right established in law. That is the lens through which this bill must be examined.

Legislation must be examined, not only in isolation but in context. If this were the first time we were debating a bill that expanded executive discretion, perhaps it could be viewed narrowly. If this were the first time concerns were raised about undefined language or concentrated authority, perhaps it could be dismissed as technical disagreement. But it is not the first time.

[5:55 p.m.]

Over the past sessions in this Legislature, we have seen a recurring pattern. Government introduced bills that expand discretionary power. Official opposition raised concerns about constitutional compliance. Amendments were

dismissed as technical disagreement. But it is not the first time.

Over the past sessions in this Legislature, we have seen a recurring pattern. Government introduced bills that expand discretionary power. The official opposition raised concerns about constitutional compliance. Amendments were proposed to ensure Charter compliance. Those amendments are continually rejected.

At first, one might conclude that these were isolated decisions. A drafting oversight here, an interpretation dispute there, a disagreement over scope. But when the same pattern repeats itself, when warnings about rights are brushed aside, when reasonable amendments are voted down without meaningful engagement, when discretion steadily expands, it stops looking incidental. It begins to look deliberate.

The issue is not whether government should have authority. The issue is whether that authority is being extended carefully. In a constitutional system, power is not meant to accumulate without resistance. It is meant to be checked, questioned and justified. When members stand in this chamber and raise concerns about the scope of authority or protection of rights, those concerns should be met with careful reasoning, not dismissal.

We have seen legislation where the risks to individual rights were identified early. We have proposed amendments aimed at tightening language and clarifying limits. Those amendments were rejected outright. Not revised. Not refined. Rejected. One could view that once as a disagreement, twice as coincidence. Repeatedly, it becomes something else.

Now we are presented with amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the very statute designed to limit executive power by ensuring transparency. This bill expands the categories under which government may seek to disregard a request. It introduces undefined terms. It broadens discretion. Each of these changes may be defined as administrative. Each may be described as necessary for efficiency. But when placed in the broader pattern of expanding executive authority and resisting corrective amendments, they take on greater significance.

There is a line between strengthening administration and consolidating power. There is a line between protecting government operations and shielding government from scrutiny. When legislation steadily moves discretion toward the executive while narrowing access for citizens, that line begins to blur. When it blurs repeatedly, eventually it is crossed.

Freedom of information exists to ensure that government remains accountable to the governed. If we expand the government’s ability to ignore requests, redefine what is excessive, and introduce new barriers to access, then we must ask whether we are still strengthening transparency or whether we are stepping beyond that line.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

This debate is not about administrative tidiness. It is about the direction in which power is moving. It is our responsibility to say clearly that that direction concerns us.

There is another issue that must be addressed in this debate, and it is not partisan. It is institutional. It is legislative literacy. In prior debate in this chamber, members opposite stated that they could not support legislation because other acts prevented it. They claimed that existing law made the proposal impossible. They cited statutory conflict as the reason for rejecting it. But when the text of the legislation was examined carefully, that claimed conflict did not exist.

The bill in question applied in clearly defined circumstances. It did not apply broadly to private citizens. It did not override privacy protections. It did not create the sweeping consequences that were asserted in debate. The statutory interpretation offered in opposition to it was simply wrong. That was not a policy disagreement. It was a failure to read and interpret the act correctly.

Why does that matter here? It’s because we are now debating amendments that introduce undefined and highly discretionary language into the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Terms such as “malicious,” “abusive,” “repetitious,” “excessively broad” and “unreasonably interfere with operations” are being added as grounds upon which a request may be disregarded. These terms are not defined in the act. Their application will depend entirely on interpretation, and interpretation matters.

If clearly limited statutory language can be mischaracterized in debate, if members can assert that legislation does something it plainly does not do, then we must ask how undefined discretionary terms will be implemented in practice.

[6:00 p.m.]

Freedom of information depends on careful reading of text. It depends on understanding what is and is not within scope. It depends on discipline and interpretation. If interpretation becomes loose, access becomes uncertain. This is not about scoring political points. It is about institutional responsibility.

of information depends on careful reading of text. It depends on understanding what is and what is not within scope. It depends on discipline and interpretation. If interpretation becomes loose, access becomes uncertain. This is not about scoring political points. It is about institutional responsibility.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I ask you just to pause just for a moment. I want to recognize the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

Questions of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Diana Gibson: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege with regard to comments by the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, thank you very much. We’ll take that under advisement and certainly convey that to the Speaker of the House.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I also rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege on comments made by the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. We will certainly have the Speaker contemplate that.

Thank you very much, Members.

Recognizing the member for West Kelowna–Peachland. Sorry for the interruption.

Debate Continued

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of this Legislature have an obligation to read legislation carefully. Public bodies have an obligation to apply it faithfully.

When undefined terms are inserted into a statute that governs public access to information, the standard of interpretation must be high, because the effect of misinterpretation in this context is not hypothetical. It affects whether a citizen receives information. It affects whether a journalist can pursue a story. It affects whether the Legislature can scrutinize the executive.

Legislative literacy is not optional; it is foundational to accountability. When this bill expands discretionary grounds for disregarding requests, without defining those terms clearly, it increases the importance of disciplined interpretation. If that discipline is not demonstrated, then confidence weakens. Confidence is the foundation upon which transparency rests.

Clause 13 of this bill amends section 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. On its face, it may appear technical; in reality, it is one of the most significant changes in this legislation before us. Section 43 governs the circumstances under which a public body may apply to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard a request.

Under the existing framework, powers to disregard are narrow. They are meant to address clearly abusive situations where the right of access is being misused in a way that undermines the functioning of the system. Bill 9 expands those grounds. It adds new categories under which a request may be characterized and, potentially, disregarded.

Specifically, it introduces the terms “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,” “systematic,” and “excessively broad” and requests that would “unreasonably interfere with the operations of (i) the public body, or (ii) the government of British Columbia.” Let us pause on those words. None of them are defined in this act. There is no statutory definition of “malicious.” There is no statutory definition of “abusive.” There is no statutory threshold for what constitutes “excessively broad.” There is no clear standard for what qualifies as unreasonably interfering with operations.

Supporters of this bill will point out that a public body cannot unilaterally disregard a request. It must apply to the commissioner. The commissioner retains authority — that is correct — but expanding the categories, under which a government may apply, changes the balance. Previously, the grounds were limited and more tightly framed. Now the range of potential justifications is broader and more subjective

Consider the phrase “unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body.” What does that mean? Does a request for communications from the Premier’s office interfere with operations? Does a request for briefing notes during a contentious policy debate interfere with operations? Does a request that requires significant search time interfere with operations?

Almost any meaningful request requires time and effort. Freedom of information is not designed to be effortless for the government. It is designed to allow scrutiny. If inconvenience becomes a threshold for disregard, then access narrows.

Now, consider the term “excessively broad.” Broad requests can be refined, they can be clarified, and they can be narrowed, through communication between the applicant and the public body, but when “excessively broad” becomes a statutory ground to seek to disregard, the incentive shifts. Rather than working to assist an applicant in refining a request, the public body may instead move to have it dismissed.

[6:05 p.m.]

Similarly, repetitious and systematic requests are not inherently abusive. Journalists often file repeated requests on related topics to build a complete picture. Researchers may file systematic requests to analyze trends. Under this amendment, those patterns could be characterized as grounds for disregard. Again, the commissioner must

systematic requests are not inherently abusive. Journalists often file repeated requests on related topics to build a complete picture. Researchers may file systematic requests to analyze trends. Under this amendment, those patterns could be characterized as grounds for disregard. Again, the commissioner must approve the application, but the initial framing rests with the public body.

The introduction of undefined and subjective language matters. When a statute grants discretion, the clarity of its terms determines the breadth of that direction. Undefined language increases interpretive range. The more elastic the language, the more elastic the power.

This is not about assuming bad faith. It’s about understanding how legal drafting affects authority. Freedom of information exists to retain executive power by ensuring access to records. If we broaden the grounds upon which access can be challenged, particularly using undefined terms, we change that balance. In a system built on public accountability, that shift must be examined carefully.

If this bill sought to define those terms clearly, if it set objective thresholds or narrow criteria, that concern would be reduced. But it does not. It leaves interpretation open, and when interpretation is open, discretion expands. This is the heart of the concern. Freedom of information is not meant to be easy for government. It is meant to be available to the citizens. It alters the relationship between the governed and those who govern. That is why clause 13 deserves close scrutiny.

Clause 21 amends section 71 of FOIPPA. At first glance, it may appear administrative. In substance, it represents a meaningful shift. Under the current framework, public bodies are required to establish categories of records that are available to the public without a formal freedom-of-information request. These are commonly referred to as proactive disclosures.

The purpose of proactive disclosures is straightforward. Information that is routinely requested or clearly in the public interest should be made available without forcing citizens to file a formal request. Proactive disclosure reduces workload. It improves transparency. It strengthens public access. Importantly, information that is proactively available is accessed without a fee.

Bill 9 changes that. Clause 21 allows the head of a public body to require a person who asks for a copy of a proactively available record to pay a fee. That is a shift. This is not about complex document searches. It is not about time-sensitive retrieval of archived material. It is about records that the public body has already determined should be available without formal access requests. If a record is proactively available, the presumption should be that the access is simple and direct.

Introducing fees changes that presumption. Fees may seem modest in isolation, but barriers do not need to be large to be effective. The principle matters. Freedom of information is built on the idea that access should be the rule and restriction the exception. When fees are introduced at the point of access, even for records designed as publicly available, the direction changes.

Supporters may argue that fees are necessary to offset administrative costs, but proactive disclosure exists precisely to reduce administrative burden. If records are categorized as proactively available, the cost of access should already be minimized.

There is another dimension to this change. This is not the first time fees have entered the FOIA framework in this province. Previously, amendments introduced a filing fee for submitting requests. That change reduced the number of requests significantly. Now, instead of addressing delay or resourcing challenges, this bill introduces the possibility of charging for records that are already designed for public accessibility.

Government has also taken no meaningful action to address the extremely long wait times for FOIA processing. From 2022 to 2023, applicants waited an average of 192 additional business days to receive a response. If efficiency were the priority, one would expect structural reform aimed at reducing delay. Instead, we see expanded grounds to disregard requests and new authority to charge fees.

[6:10 p.m.]

Taken together, those charges move in one direction. They do not expand access. They restrict it. Proactive disclosure should be exactly that: proactive and accessible. If information has been designated as available to the public, adding a financial barrier undermines that principle.

Access to information is not a luxury good; it is a democratic safeguard. When we begin to layer fees onto access points that were previously free, we must be honest about the effect. It discourages access. That deserves

designated as available to the public, adding a financial barrier undermines that principle. Access to information is not a luxury good; it is a democratic safeguard. When we begin to layer fees onto access points that were previously free, we must be honest about the effect. It discourages access. That deserves serious consideration.

Section 69.3 of the bill introduces the concept of a connected services provider. Now, that may sound administrative. In reality, it represents a significant structural development in how personal information may be shared and managed within government.

Under this provision, the minister responsible for the act may designate a public body as a connected services provider. That designated body may establish and maintain an online platform to facilitate access to and delivery of services and programs across one or more public bodies.

More importantly, it may facilitate the sharing of personal information between public bodies. The provision authorizes the connected services provider, through the exercise of its powers respecting the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, to establish and maintain an online platform for service delivery, facilitate the sharing of personal information between public bodies, identify services and programs for which a person may be eligible, and provide other related services as considered appropriate by the minister.

In addition, the minister may use directions to a connected services provider or a public body respecting the type and quantity of personal information to be shared, the privacy and security of personal information, the format in which personal information is shared, which source of data is to be used for specified categories of information, and the circumstances in which particular types of information may or may not be shared. The minister may also give different directions to different classes of person, public bodies or categories of personal info.

This is not a minor amendment. It centralizes authority over how personal information is shared across government. To be clear, integrated service delivery can improve efficiency. Coordinated platforms can reduce duplication. The ability to identify eligibility for programs across departments can help citizens navigate complex systems. But centralization of data-sharing authority also requires strong safeguards.

When a single designated body is empowered to facilitate the sharing of personal information across multiple public bodies, and when the minister may direct how the sharing occurs, the concentration of authority increases. That is not necessarily improper, but it is significant.

The more centralized the data architecture, the greater the responsibility to ensure that privacy protections are robust and that oversight mechanisms are clear. Section 69.3 requires that the minister notify the commissioner of his designation and, if requested, make the privacy impact assessment available for review and comment. That safeguard matters, but it is reactive. It depends on request.

Given the scope of authority granted, the Legislature must consider whether additional clarity is warranted. When personal information moves more freely between public bodies, the risk is not simply misuse. It is mission drift. Data collection for one person may gradually be used for another.

Freedom of information and protection of privacy are two sides of the same statute. Access rights and privacy protections operate together. When one side shifts, the other must remain strong. The introduction of a connected services provider with ministerial direction authority marks a structural shift in how government manages personal info. The question is not whether integration is beneficial. The question is whether the safeguards are proportionate to the authority granted.

As government systems become more interconnected, transparency must keep pace. Citizens must understand, not only what information government holds but how that information is shared and under what authority. Consolidation without clarity invites skepticism. In the context of this bill, which also expands grounds to disregard FOIA requests and introduces new fee authority, the creation of a centralized data-sharing structure raises legitimate questions about the overall direction of travel.

Efficiency and integration can be positive, but concentration of discretion must always be accompanied by clear limits and visible oversight. That is the principle that should guide our review of this section.

[6:15 p.m.]

When we step back from the individual clauses in this bill, a pattern becomes clear. Clause 13 expands the categories under which a public body may seek to disregard a request. The language introduced is undefined and broad.

Clause 21 permits fees to be charged for records that were previously available without cost.

Section 69.3 creates a framework for centralized data-sharing authority with ministerial direction over the type and quantity

may seek to disregard a request. The language introduced is undefined and broad.

Clause 21 permits fees to be charged for records that were previously available without cost. Section 69.3 creates a framework for centralized data-sharing authority with ministerial direction over the type and quantity of information shared between public bodies.

Each of these provisions may be defended individually. Each can be described as administrative refinement, efficiency or modernization. But legislation must be examined not only clause-by-clause, but its overall direction. When discretion expands in multiple places within the same statute, the cumulative effect matters.

Freedom of information exists to restrain executive authority. It ensures that the government remains accountable to the governed. It allows citizens, journalists and members of this Legislature to scrutinize the actions of public bodies.

When we broaden the grounds upon which requests may be characterized as malicious or excessively broad, we increase the government’s ability to challenge access. When we introduce fees for proactively available records, we increase the barriers to obtaining information. When we centralize authority over how personal information is shared and give the minister power to direct that sharing, we consolidate executive discretion.

Individually, each measure may appear measured. Collectively, they shift the balance. This bill does not directly abolish access. It does not eliminate the role of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It does not remove the right to make a request, but it recalibrates the system.

It gives public bodies more room to characterize requests as problematic. It introduces costs where there were none. It strengthens executive control over information architecture.

Freedom of information is not an administrative feature of government. It is a safeguard. It exists because power, by its nature, accumulates. It exists because executive authority must be visible and accountable. It exists so that citizens are not required to rely solely on official narratives but may examine the record for themselves.

This bill does not eliminate that right, but it narrows it. It expands the grounds upon which requests may be characterized and challenged. It introduces undefined language that increases interpretive discretion. It permits fees for records that were previously accessible without cost. It centralizes authority over how personal information is shared within government.

Each of these changes may be defended individually, but legislation must be judged by direction. Does it expand transparency or does it expand discretion? Does it strengthen access or does it introduce new barriers? Does it reduce executive concentration of authority or does it consolidate it?

Freedom of information legislation should move in one direction, towards clarity, towards accessibility and towards accountability. If government believes requests are burdensome, the answer is not to broaden undefined dismissal categories. If delays are excessive, the answer is not to introduce new fees. If integration of services is needed, the answer is not to concentrate authority without equally visible safeguards.

Government authority in this province is delegated. It is not inherited. It is granted by the people and must remain answerable to them. Information held by public bodies is not the private property of the executive branch. It is part of the public record of decisions made on behalf of British Columbians.

This Legislature is not owned by government. It is funded by the people. When access to government records becomes more conditional, when undefined language increases discretion, when cost becomes a factor in obtaining publicly available information, that direction should concern every member of this chamber.

This is not about partisanship; this is about principle. A constitutional democracy depends on limits. It depends on checks. It depends on transparency that is real, not rhetorical.

We support efficient administration. We support modern systems. We support responsible protection of personal information. But we do not support expanding discretionary power without equally strengthening accountability.

[6:20 p.m.]

Freedom of information exists to hold government accountable. It does not exist to shield it. When amendments move the balance toward shielding rather than scrutiny, it is our responsibility

do not support expanding discretionary power without equally strengthening accountability. Freedom of information exists to hold government accountable. It does not exist to shield it.

When amendments move the balance toward shielding rather than scrutiny, it is our responsibility to say so clearly. That is why we cannot support this bill in this current form.

Kiel Giddens: I’m going to join the debate this evening on Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

No surprise that I will be also addressing my serious concerns with this particular bill that’s been brought before the House. We’ve heard quite passionate messaging from members on this side of the House. I think there is a concern that we’re hearing from community members across British Columbia about secrecy and what that’s doing in eroding trust in public institutions. I’m going to get into that in my remarks.

Access to information certainly has been debated at length in this House over many, many years now. That alone, I think, tells us how important this actually is. I think the main question before us today is pretty straightforward. Do these amendments strengthen transparency and accountability in British Columbia, or do they move us further away from our democratic foundations? I think that’s what we’re asking here. That’s what the public is wondering.

I think we have heard certain things come out over the past number of years about this government being labelled the most secretive government in Canada. I think that’s why, when we look at a bill like this and how important it is to get it right — what we need to achieve in this legislation in access to free and open information — we can’t do things that are going to send us backwards.

Of course, access-to-information legislation is used all across Canada and has evolved over the years. It’s become one of the primary tools citizens have to hold government accountable. It allows journalists to scrutinize spending. It enables unions to obtain workplace safety records. It helps communities understand how major decisions are made and gives ordinary British Columbians a way to confirm that public institutions are actually acting in the public interest.

In my riding, in Prince George–Mackenzie, the consequences of some of these government decisions…. People see them each and every day. They affect families. They affect workers. They are immediate, and, I would say, they’re tangible. They affect workers who have faced what they consider wrongful dismissals. I’m sure all of us have had those case file examples in our offices, and I’m going to touch on that a little bit later in my remarks.

They also affect people worried about health care access and ensuring that their health information is both transparent and protected. Government decisions affect municipalities seeking infrastructure funding and small businesses competing for government contracts. I think in those circumstances, access to information is practical to help with continuous improvement for those local governments as they’re looking…. If they’re not successful, they want to see, the next time, what they need to change. Maintaining that public trust in that process is important.

I think people want to understand that decisions are made fairly, equitably, responsibly and in the public interest. For that reason, any amendments to this act should be approached very carefully, cautiously and measured against the principle that government information does not belong to government. It actually belongs to the public. I think that it’s not government’s information, and that’s something we have to really keep in mind as we look at opening up a significant piece of legislation like this one.

When this Legislature first adopted access-to-information legislation, members, I think across party lines, emphasized one very simple idea. That’s that public bodies, as I’ve just said, are custodians of that information, the people’s information, not owners of it. There’s a duty that comes with that, obviously.

[6:25 p.m.]

I recognize that this information is not easy to manage. It’s not easy to set up the systems that ministries need to use all across government agencies. It’s actually quite a complex undertaking. Sometimes it actually can be uncomfortable as well. But over time, the idea or principle, I think

It’s not easy to manage. It’s not easy to set up the systems that ministries need to use all across government agencies. It’s actually quite a complex undertaking. Sometimes it actually can be uncomfortable as well. But over time, the idea or principle, I think, has evolved into what many refer to as “open by default.”

Transparency is not granted simply at the pleasure of government. I think it is a baseline expectation when the public knows we have this law in place. That’s what they believe already. This information is just going to be accessible by default. Exceptions, of course, exist. We need to have those safeguards for privacy, security and legitimate confidentiality of people’s personal information. But those exceptions must be clearly defined and very carefully limited.

That’s where our legislation has to hit the right balance. It’s a standard against which, I think, Bill 9 has to be measured. Does it narrow exceptions and improve service? Or does it expand the discretion of certain individuals and create new barriers? I think you’ve heard from many members on this side of the House that there are concerns that we’re hearing about new barriers being created here.

When undefined terms, such as “malicious,” “abusive” and “unreasonably interfere,” are introduced into legislation, as we’ve heard proposed here, we move away from clear standards and towards subjective interpretation. I’m not actually sure why this isn’t defined. It could have been included right in the definitions to make this much more clear. Perhaps government is including that in regulation, but even that has not been properly explained.

It looks like, to me and to members of the public, a loophole that government is creating here. And loopholes are what undermine the process in the first place.

Clause 2 of the bill amends section 5 of the act to provide that the head of a public body determines whether an access request contains sufficient detail to identify the record sought. It also introduces a requirement that the record must be capable of being located within a reasonable amount of time. On the surface, I think, this sounds like we’re looking for something that’s bureaucratically workable, but it is really a meaningful shift in discretion. I think that it’s something we have to look at and examine very closely, this wording in the bill.

The public body that holds the records will now actually be the ones to determine whether a request contains enough detail and also what qualifies as a reasonable amount of time. None of that is defined. So we’re left wondering that.

I think it’s incumbent upon the government to have members explain that, to make sure that that’s clear for the public, because legislative language actually matters. The language in this bill will be used in judicial processes, in appeal processes, and I think that’s something that we have to keep in mind. When standards are undefined, discretion does expand, and when that happens, certainty also declines as well.

Of course, we have heard on this topic from the dean of the legislative press gallery, Vaughn Palmer, legislative columnist. I think he captured that particular concern pretty clearly. he wrote that the bill grants public bodyheads “the authority to decide in their opinion whether the request provides enough detail to enable an experienced employee with a reasonable effort and a reasonable amount of time to identify the record sought.” He continued: “Again, the officials themselves will decide what is enough and what is reasonable.”

I think that is the heart of this particular issue with the bill — that discretion. When the institution being scrutinized also determines whether the scrutiny is properly framed, the safeguards have to be very clear, and they are not clear in the way this is currently written. Most applicants to freedom of information requests are not lawyers. It has to be very obvious and very clear how this is going to work.

[6:30 p.m.]

If the threshold becomes uncertain, participation may decrease, not because the interest has actually faded — because I think there’s actually an appetite for more freedom of information requests — but because the process has actually become more difficult to navigate. We can’t…. Again, this is not government’s information. This is public information. So it has to be…. I recognize that we have to have these bureaucratic systems in place

there’s actually an appetite for more freedom of information requests.

But it’s also because the process has actually become more difficult to navigate. We can’t…. Again, this is not government’s information; this is public information. I recognize that we have to have these bureaucratic systems in place to manage this, but it has to be workable for the public.

Clause 3 of the bill changes the duty to respond “without delay” to a duty to respond “without unreasonable delay.” Another adjustment, I think, that let’s look at with a very critical lens. It adds discretion or subjectivity to this.

I think that’s something that we’re seeing, time and time again, as themes coming up here — that British Columbians’ FOI system, it already has faced significant delays. As of a couple years ago, applicants experienced an average of 192 additional business days beyond statutory timelines before receiving responses. That is not just a small administrative hiccup. That is actually a systemic challenge.

I understand wanting to create efficiencies, but make it in a way using tools that are actually going to speed up that process. Or just open by default, making that information just automatically accessible, where that’s possible.

In that context, changing the statutory language raises legitimate concerns. Rather than reinforcing urgency, because I think that’s what the last language actually did, the amendment introduces interpretive flexibility.

In previous sessions of the Legislature, members — actually, on all sides — have raised concerns about backlog and timeliness. Ministers have acknowledged those concerns and committed to improvements through things like digitization and improved staffing. I think commitments…. Let’s make those commitments and hold ourselves accountable to them.

But applicants are not asking for more flexible language; they’re asking for more timely responses. If the core problem is delay, the solution lies in resourcing and management, not in redefining the obligation. Hopefully the government can answer that more clearly in how this subjectivity is being used here.

I’m going to drop down to clause 13, because it’s one of the most consequential provisions in the bill. It expands the grounds on which a public body may apply to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard an access request.

The bill adds, as I said, terms such as “malicious,” “abusive,” “repetitious,” and “excessively broad.” It also allows requests to be disregarded if responding would “unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government of B.C.” That is very, very broad language. It refers not simply to the operations of a ministry, but to the operations of the government as a whole.

Again, Mr. Palmer highlighted this part, this provision, in his analysis that came out publicly. He said: “A third provision allows officials to disregard requests altogether if, in their opinion, responding to the requests would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government of B.C.” He emphasized: “unreasonably interfere with the operations of the entire government, no less.”

He went on to caution: “Imagine how that power could be abused to ask a potentially embarrassing request at a time of supposed fiscal restraint.”

While the commissioner must approve applications to disregard requests, expanding the categories under which those applications may be made changes the balance. This is a critical, critical component of the bill, this clause 13.

Undefined terms widen interpretation, and wider interpretation increases discretion. Of course, I’ve said, discretion can really be a challenge here when we’re looking at something like this. Transparency shouldn’t depend on whether a request is convenient.

Moving forward a little bit more. Clause 21 allows public bodies to require payment for records that are otherwise available without the need to file an FOI request.

[6:35 p.m.]

Currently, proactively available records may be accessed without cost. Of course, those are on the government website. This amendment introduces the possibility of fees for obtaining copies of those records. So that

proactively available records may be accessed without cost. Of course, those are on the government website.

This amendment introduces the possibility of fees for obtaining copies of those records. That information that we have opened up we are now going to close, potentially. That is seriously concerning. At a time when many British Columbians are also facing economic pressure, even incremental fees should warrant some careful consideration. Again, this is their information; it’s not the government’s.

And of course, we’ve heard this many times already, but this is not the first time the Legislature has debated these fees. In 2021…. That’s the last time amendments came in and introduced a $10 application fee for filing an FOI request. At the time, it was described as modest and administrative, but critics cautioned at that time that even small fees create barriers, particularly for journalists, for researchers and individuals making multiple requests.

I’m going to use journalists as an example. In a free and democratic society, obviously, journalism is critical. Work that the folks do in the press gallery is actually critical to the entire work of how this place functions. The debate back in 2021 also centred on whether we were placing a price on transparency, and so exactly…. A price on the work that those journalists are doing. Clause 21 reopens that question that we talked about, the Legislature talked about back in 2021. Transparency should not depend on an applicant’s ability to pay. I know we’re talking modest fees, but this is the public’s information.

As the opposition critic for Labour, I do consider how these changes affect working people, working families in this province. I think one of the things that it does is support workplace accountability. It enables workers and unions to obtain inspection reports, policy guidance, and communications relevant to employment standards and occupational health and safety. If they are going into an employment standards tribunal hearing, getting that information is actually critical for these workers who may have a legitimate complaint. Maybe they have wages that they have owed from their employer, and they need to actually access the information to be able to state their case.

If procedural hurdles increase or requests can be dismissed more easily, the impact is not something that is something to be dismissed. It affects individuals seeking clarity about decisions that actually affect their jobs, it affects their livelihoods. That’s something very serious. Transparency also strengthens fair labour practices, I think, and that even is fair labour practices within the government, for government employees, public sector workers. It reinforces public confidence in institutions, and those, I think, are outcomes that are worthwhile protecting. And it’s one of the of the things I’m very concerned about in this particular Bill 9 legislation.

So the bill’s provisions talk about regarding a connected services provider. I think that’s how the government has described this. They’re going to offer efficiencies. However, I do think that implementation details on that also matter. Will the participation be mandatory for Crown corporations, for example? Will centralization improve response times, and how will independence be preserved? Administrative reform should enhance service and accountability and not merely consolidate control.

I just want to point out the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the concerns that they’ve had. They’ve recognized that the government has framed the bill as a modernization effort to improve digital service delivery, but they go on to note that the real source of FOI delays lies upstream in inconsistent record creation, classification, retention and digitization practices across ministries.

And so Jason Woywada, the FIPA executive director, said: “Access delays are often a symptom of record-keeping failures. You cannot fix systemic information management problems by weakening public access rights.” That’s a serious quote from an important organization that I think is critical to this conversation.

[6:40 p.m.]

I’m going to get to my biggest concern with reviewing this bill, and I’m going to go back to the rights of workers.

rights. That’s a serious quote from an important organization that I think is critical to this conversation.

I’m going to get to my biggest concern with reviewing this bill, and I’m going to go back to the rights of workers in speaking to that. I’m quoting Vaughn Palmer again because I found that his analysis was pretty clear. He observed: “Bill 9 is a piece of legislation with the NDP drive to stifle independent oversight of government hiring, promotions and firing by abolishing the independent Merit Commissioner.”

This is happening at the same time. We’ve canvassed this topic extensively in the Legislature. The independent Merit Commissioner provided oversight to ensure public service hiring and promotions adhered to merit-based principles.

I talked about the fact that workers need access to information, whether that’s a dismissal, whether that’s a wage dispute. But the government should also remember that the Merit Commissioner also looked at wrongful dismissals. When a worker is wrongfully dismissed, access to information through an FOI and review by an independent Merit Commissioner are both extremely important.

This was added under the previous Premier to rectify an issue when a wrongful dismissal actually led to a tragedy in this province. I’m going to speak to that tragedy. In September 2012, seven health researchers, including co-op student Roderick MacIsaac, were fired from the B.C. Ministry of Health following a flawed investigation into alleged data breaches.

Of those individuals, the House will hopefully remember the name Roderick MacIsaac. He was a 46-year-old PhD student on a work term. He was terminated just days before his co-op ended. In January of 2013, he was found dead by suicide. The B.C. Coroners ruled that the significant stress from the firing was a factor in his death.

The incident prompted major changes to how the B.C. government handles internal investigations and data access policies. The Merit Commissioner gained the power to examine dismissals in 2018 after the release of a scathing report from B.C. Ombudsperson Jay Chalke investigating this wrongful dismissal case, which eventually led to a legal settlement with the other health care workers.

I know this is a very serious topic that I’m bringing into this debate, but I have to ask why the government is choosing to remove the types of transparency that were brought up in this example. They’re meant to protect people who were wrongfully dismissed when they need that access to information. We don’t want something like this to happen again.

I don’t believe that that’s at all the government’s intent, but there is a serious risk when people don’t have access to their information. They can’t file a proper appeal. They feel they had an unjust dismissal. Taking away both the Merit Commissioner and access to freedom of information, which can be withheld from them — that’s something, seriously, that we need to think about as a province.

When oversight mechanisms are reduced, access to information becomes even more important. Transparency serves as a safeguard when independent review structures are narrowed. Public servants deserve confidence that hiring and promotion decisions are merit-based, and they also deserve to know that dismissals were done fairly and ethically.

I think that is something, within the context of FOI, that is worth having a conversation about. Taxpayers also deserve assurance that public positions are filled fairly and competently, and the same is to do with dismissals. Access to information is one of the tools that allows the public to verify that integrity.

That is my biggest concern with Bill 9. This bill regarding access to information exists…. The legislation overall exists because democracy requires informed citizens. It operationalizes accountability.

[6:45 p.m.]

Bill 9 may contain elements aimed at efficiency and modernization. However, as I’ve said, it expands discretionary authority, introduces undefined standards, softens response language and enables new fees. When you take in all of these things together, these changes alter the balance between citizen access and government control.

expands discretionary authority, introduces undefined standards, softens response language and enables new fees. When you take all of these things together, these changes alter the balance between citizen access and government control. That’s something that we should take note of.

I think that over time there have been improvements to transparency, and that has actually strengthened government. It has led to better decisions in public policy. I think that’s something we just need to hold to, to shine that light, to make sure that we are looking for that access to information, so that we can make those improvements.

For the people of Prince George–Mackenzie whom I represent, and for the people across British Columbia who value open and accountable institutions, we have to ensure that freedom of information remains robust, accessible and clearly defined.

For those reasons, I cannot support Bill 9, in its current form, at second reading. I thank you for the time, and I look forward to continued debate on this bill.

Korky Neufeld: I want to choose my words carefully, but I’m extremely proud today to speak in this chamber, not only representing Abbotsford West but, because of this bill, representing every British Columbian.

I want to start off, as the last speaker mentioned, with an article by a senior author and pontificator, Vaughn Palmer, in his article of February 27, 2026. The headline states this: “NDP Set to Weaken B.C.’s FOI Law and Keep Public in the Dark; New Bill Would Give Public Servants More Power to Refuse to Supply Requested Information.”

Now, these aren’t my words. In fact, as I googled Bill 9, there was a flood of responses, all across British Columbia, of people who had dire concerns over this bill. It goes on in this article to say:

“The New Democrats are quietly moving to weaken the public access provisions for B.C.’s freedom-of-information legislation.

“Amendments introduced this week would give public officials greater leeway to delay responding to requests for information, and they could challenge whether the request provides ‘enough detail’ to implement. These same officials could reject requests altogether if, in their opinion, the effort to respond would interfere with the operations of the provincial government.

“The Citizens’ Service Minister barely hinted at those changes Thursday in introducing Bill 9, with its amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or FIPPA.”

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Here’s what Vaughn Palmer said:

“These proposed changes will support more connected, people-centred government services while maintaining strong privacy protection,” said the minister.

“The only hint on the clawback on access was a reference to the introduction of ‘practical efficiencies, to how freedom of information requests are processed’ and to ‘helping public bodies better manage growing volumes and complexity’ of requests.

“Even so,” the minister claimed, “the changes would be implemented ‘without limiting people’s right to access.’”

Well, I listened to the member from the Green Party, for Saanich North and the Islands, speak so eloquently, in an hour and a half, of the history of FOI, where it came from, what it represents, the foundation of our FOI, and he scathed this bill. He opposed it strongly, as did most, if not all, the speakers on this side of the House.

[6:50 p.m.]

It was really interesting. When the member for Kelowna-Mission got up, it definitely hit a nerve across the aisle. You have to ask the question: “I wonder why.”

I reserve the right to continue debate, and I move to adjourn debate.

Korky Neufeld moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Would you like me to?

Korky Neufeld: I reserve the right to continue debate and move adjournment of debate.

Korky Neufeld moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Amna Shah: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Kelly Greene moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.