Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Scott McInnis.

[1:35 p.m.]

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. She 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 Ashten Young.

Ashten first came into my life as my campaign manager. 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. Ashten 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 Ashten 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 is executive director of the B.C. Epilepsy Society. Irene, Trevor’s partner, is also joining us, and Queena Wong and Esther Mkilania.

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 Coult and Kyla Coult. 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.

Would the House please welcome them here today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I would 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.

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.

Statements

Abigail Betker
Athletic Achievements

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

It came to 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 has 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.

Introductions by Members

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 TJ Dutton, Shaniah Hillis, Angel Houle, Alexis McGillivray, Ashley Stanley, Julia Su and Riley Swan. They are accompanied by the team leader, Amanda Sylvester.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Reann Gasper: A couple of days ago my community was hit with a tragedy. Chartwell retirement residence, which housed the elderly, caught on fire. Thankfully, no lives were lost.

Would the House please thank the first responders, the people that just wrapped around our community to support at this time. It is worth giving them a round of applause.

Trevor Halford: I’d be remiss if I didn’t highlight that from my office, Melissa McCaskill is in the House today. 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 a cricket team in his school, the school where he was so nervous to go because he has long hair and wears a turban, but school students and teachers accepted him with open arms — 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 shown, which helped Avinoor to thrive.

Happy birthday, Avinoor, and welcome to adulthood.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m delighted to introduce to the House today Liza Brechbill. Liza joins the B.C. Green caucus as a policy adviser, 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.

[1:45 p.m.]

Janet Routledge: I have the pleasure today of introducing three school groups. I think the first one is here, 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.

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. Hoy chexw.

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.

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 Robson and his wife, Mary. Gordon was once an adviser to B.C. Premier Bill Bennett, and he was also once a mayor of Maple Ridge.

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 Boparai, 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.

Of course, my mom, Surinder Kaur, who taught me so many things, as all our moms do. 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 whom I hate. It’s the upbringing. I may dislike or disagree. That is such a good teaching that she taught.

The other thing she used to say in Punjabi: “Aap khade da ki khana.” 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.

Would the House please join me to welcome my family.

[1:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: That’s a hard one to follow from 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. It’s a great group from Cowichan council — Couns. Tek Manhas, Bruce Findlay and Mike Caljouw — as well as Colwood council, Ian Ward, Kim Jordison and Misty Olsen.

Of course, we were also joined by Brian Bull, 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

Admissibility of
Private Members’ Bill

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 member’s 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 precedence for consideration of private members’ business.

Members’ Statements

Centennial of Memorial South Park

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

The report went on: “Rev. George O. Fallis, assisted by Rev. A.D. Archibald and Reeve Jack Cornett, 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 Cornett was Jonathan Webster Cornett, 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 Cornett 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 lit 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 Ringdahl and her friends for organizing the centennial. In addition to Beth Ringdahl, kudos to Cindy Heinrichs, Sharon Olsen, Sherry Loof and neighbours. Cheers as well to Edie Kernighan 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.

World Plumbing Day

David Williams: Today marks World Plumbing Day, a day that recognizes something 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.

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 our 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.

Epilepsy Awareness

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 of 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 Deirdre 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.

Thank you, everyone.

Canadian Country Music
Hall of Honour

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 and the pioneers who built Canada’s country music tradition. Housed in the historic Armstrong’s 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 honour the musicians, songwriters, the broadcasters and the industry leaders who shaped the sound of our nation.

When the original agreement expired in 2021, there was a real concern that this important collection and the legacy it represented might leave Merritt. But 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.

Social Work Week

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.

Support for Seniors and
Work of Community Angels

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 s’íwes. That is the teachings and the knowledge that we cannot forget, that we carry forward with us.

[2:05 p.m.]

Recently I had the 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 that 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

Provincial Sales Tax
and Support for Small Business

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 or 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, which 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: “I’ve voiced my opinion so many times, and it falls on deaf ears. 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’s 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 to small businesses.

[2:10 p.m.]

Security costs. People are hiring security because of this government’s incompetence in dealing with repeat offenders. It is this government’s responsibility. It is this government’s fault 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 that 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. I had the opportunity to….

Interjections.

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

I appreciate him raising 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’re going to continue to support small businesses. We’re going to continue to support large businesses. We’re going to continue to attract investment to British Columbia. This budget helps us do that.

Provincial Sales Tax and
Security Costs for Places of Worship

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. And 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’ve 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. I will say that we are responding with legal steps and resources to make sure they have the money for security that they need, and also legal protections to make sure that anybody that goes to a place of worship is protected, that 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 antisemitism 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’re doing to protect places of worship. I’ve highlighted the supports we’re providing to small businesses to ensure that they can continue to operate in a safe way.

[2:15 p.m.]

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, 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.

Saanich Peninsula Outreach Team
Health Clinic and Access to
Primary Care Services

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 shortly be without access to vital primary care services, and this is on top of 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 new space.

What is 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 that 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.]

Budget Priorities
and Support for Seniors

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 economics 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 re-pacing 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.

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.

Food Costs and Government Priorities

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 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.

Interjection.

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 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.

Service Model Change for
Children with Support Needs
and Funding for Autism Services

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 is we are creating a stronger system, one that will serve more children.

I just want to be clear that under the new system, we’re 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 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’ve 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 that $475 million has never been invested in children and youth with disabilities in this province, ever.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Dr. Glen 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. 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.

Property Tax Deferment Program

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 deferment program was designed to help seniors stay in their home. Unfortunately, the way that the program was structured was that 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.

Investigation of Shootings
in Tumbler Ridge
and Call for Public Inquiry

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 that 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, through you, Mr. Speaker, 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 and 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, 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: 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.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

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, and 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 the categories of clauses that make it harder to get this information. It expands a category — again, if the 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. And 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.

Interjection.

Anna Kindy: 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 who 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 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, 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 taxpayer, 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 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 has 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 don’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.]

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; and the use of budget cuts to justify reducing review or consultation.

This is all part of an effort to convert 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.

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. 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 NDP Premier, Mike Harcourt, had just been elected. The Attorney General was Colin Gabelmann. There was a passionate advocate for freedom of information, an NDP MLA, Barry Jones. There was a special adviser, 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 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 longtime 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 in 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 developed the legislation, was critical to achieving a broad-based consensus on what the legislation would do and 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.

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 to see it in advance the way we do it now, or the government does it 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.

When I say “we,” I mean the government — all of those that voted in favour of the legislation, but all of us that worked on it too. 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.

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 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 there, 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.

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. 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 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? 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. We’ll come back to section 6 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 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. 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 relitigate this, but I will for those who remember, fondly, a fellow by the name of Phil Halkett. 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.” 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 them.

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 that 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 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. 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, 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. 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, hasn’t changed. That’s the original promise. It’s being 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 weren’t 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 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 B.C. Civil Liberties Association consulted? Was FIPA consulted, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association — which, 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.

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, the 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? 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. So 43 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. So 43 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 were 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.

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.

But 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, 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. 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 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’ve 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. 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.” 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.

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

[3:50 p.m.]

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? 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. In 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’ll 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 doesn’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 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. 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 the public body to disregard a request, including because the request is frivolous or vexatious, 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.

“Frivolous or vexatious” — standard language. And 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 is excessively broad or is repetitious or systematic.” Makes sense. We don’t want requests that are excessively broad, 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.

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. 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.

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., or the request is an abuse of the right to make a request because it’s repetitious or systematic or excessively broad.”

So we took out the reason. We don’t have to have a reason; it’s just 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.”

Then what has 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 test…. Here are the facts that that type of person would say: ‘Yeah, it’s going to unreasonably interfere.’”

This a definite Trojan Horse. 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 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. This section, in combination with the others, is going to eviscerate what’s left of this act.

I’ve saved the best for last. 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 — I don’t know — under ten sections.

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, 27 and 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 a glass of red wine — for me, it’s coffee, a black coffee, thank you; I love that, sitting down with a black coffee — and you start reading this legislation. Then you get to sections 25, 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.]

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 a year and a half ago that I haven’t dealt with and 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 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.

Culture of transparency. “Add a duty to document to the act.” That was recommended in 2016. Nothing happened, and nothing has 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.” It 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 has 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 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.

So 19: “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’s applying.” “Uh-oh, Rob Botterell’s applying.” “Uh-oh, we’d better shut her down. Delay, delay, delay.”

New technologies — 22. “Draft and consult with the OIPC on regulations that address transparency, privacy protections and oversight for data.” Oh, that’s been recommended before.

Then 26: “Add to section 29 of the act a requirement about correction of personal information.” Oh, that’s been recommended before.

And 27: “Enact new comprehensive health information privacy legislation.” I think this is partially covered, perhaps. But if not, it’s been recommended twice before.

Then 33, 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 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 from 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” is 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.

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 can put our effort in, and I can tell you when the Premier or any minister says, “Find me the information, because I’ve got to be ready for estimates,” that information is magically going to appear very quickly.

I grant that things are different from 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. And we are responding, the government is responding, the public agency, 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.

I may be giving my colleague a bit of a warning, because it’s just possible that 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…. We’ll be voting against the bill at 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 and 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’m 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 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 who holds 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 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. 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 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, 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. 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. 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, 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. Also, to improve FOI efficiencies. Lastly, to deal with miscellaneous issues and procedure clarifications. I’ll talk about the first two.

[4:40 p.m.]

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 administrative workload associated with processing FOI requests. These amendments, together with the Connecting Communities B.C. that I mentioned earlier, reinforce 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 the 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 give the same information across government program areas. These changes will enable better information flow between programs and ministry while protecting people’s privacy.

There are some concerns that were expressed about Connected Services 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 areas 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-services 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 request information, and they send their information to the ministry. The ministry has to find that information, and 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.]

Some of the examples of increasing efficiency are minimizing duplicate disclosure processes so time isn’t getting wasted processing records that are already being released through a different process, like legal discovery, and 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.

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 the 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.

To give people…. 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.

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. It is important. And transparency in government….

We are at an all-time high for mistrust of government. An all-time high. And not in a good way. It’s nothing to be proud of. What this legislation does is that it will further increase the mistrust, I believe, of this institution, of 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 actually 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. 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,” and they said no. “No, I kind of wish that I was kidding,” 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’ve 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 that, for sure, this had to have come from a politician. The mayor had to have ordered 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 un-hirable 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, 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.

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 the broad scope in which they had looked.

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 to try and…. You know, 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 was more than one that were involved in the ultimate decision.

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. It’s what keeps democracy transparent and truthful, and that’s an important principle.

[5:00 p.m.]

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 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 tried 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 and 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 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 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. They 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 soirée 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…. For instance, if you’re from the press or the 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 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. 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 that 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.

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. 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 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 $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 the exact 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. It’s 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 imposed fees on FOI. This is a government that 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 in 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. 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. 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.

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. 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 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 couldn’t 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.

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.

[5:35 p.m.]

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 a 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. 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.

Points of Order

Deputy Speaker: Member, 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.

So I’m asking the member if you will withdraw your comments along those lines.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Continue.

Debate Continued

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 that is clinging to a tattered majority, 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 will 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, 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 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

Deputy Speaker: 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.]

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….

Points of Order

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….

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 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, broaden undefined discretion and 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, limited and 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 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 but 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.

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you. Could I ask you 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 regards 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.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2026
(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, confidence weakens. And 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, disregard powers 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, 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 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 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 discretion. 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. Taken together, those charges move in one direction. They do not expand access; they restrict it.

[6:10 p.m.]

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 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 persons, 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 FOIPPA 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-direction 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 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 in 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.

[6:20 p.m.]

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.

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.

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 and 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 across party lines emphasized one very simple idea, and 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 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. That’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? 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. To me and members of the public, it looks like 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 that’s something that we have to keep in mind. When standards are undefined, discretion does expand. 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. He captured that particular concern pretty clearly. He wrote that the bill grants public body heads “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. 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 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 that 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.

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.

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 for 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, 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 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 is even 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. It’s one of the of the things I’m very concerned about in this particular Bill 9 legislation.

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 to 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.

Jason Woywada, the FIPA executive director, said: “Access delays are often a symptom of recordkeeping 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 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. 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, from 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 when she introduced 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:

“The minister stated this. ‘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.

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.”

[6:50 p.m.]

I reserve the right to continue debate and move to adjourn 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.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Children and Family Development

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $2,711,928,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do. Thank you, Chair.

I’d like to start by gratefully acknowledging the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, upon the lands that we do our work today and every day here in the Legislature.

First and foremost, I want to start by thanking our MCFD executive team who are here today. We have Keith Godin, deputy minister. We also have assistant deputy ministers. Denise Devenny of partnerships and Indigenous engagement. We have Kelly Durand from service delivery. We have Marnie Mayhew from youth justice; Emily Horton from policy, legislation and litigation; Fisnik Preniqi, executive financial officer; Jeremy Y’in Neduklhchulh Williams, our Indigenous child welfare director; and Cory Heavener, practice and quality assurance.

I really want to thank them all for their guidance and advice to me in this role and for their leadership in guiding the historic changes that are taking place within our ministry.

I know that there are other senior staff that are here as well. I can say confidently that our ministry is stewarded by people who are passionate about this work, people who are knowledgeable and come to work every single day with children and families and our communities in their hearts.

[2:50 p.m.]

They work diligently to make sure that the mandates that I’ve been given and that keeping children and families and safety and well-being and thriving is at the heart and the direction of everything we do. I have my utmost gratitude for this work and for all of them.

I also want to thank the member for Abbotsford-Mission as the critic and all of the opposition MLAs for the work that they’ve done to prepare for this. I know that we’re going to have a fruitful discussion. I did, once upon a time, sit on that side as a critic and ask ministry questions, and it is an important part of our democratic process. I have a lot of respect for the process and will do my best to answer questions to the best of my ability, and if there are times where we have to get back to you, we absolutely will.

I also want to just take a moment to acknowledge that, for me, being the Minister of Children and Family Development really is a privilege and the honour of a lifetime. It’s not, I often say, a role that I expected to be in, but here I am, and it’s one that I take incredibly seriously and one that I will carry with me throughout my career and throughout my life. I imagine speaking about my learnings and my interactions and the work that I’ve done to my grandchildren and hopefully great-grandchildren one day.

For many families who interact with our ministry, no matter where they are and what their story is, it’s typically during some of the most challenging moments of their lives. And I want to really commend all of the dedicated ministry staff throughout B.C. who work so tirelessly to work with children and families every day.

I want to acknowledge that this is Social Work Week. We have thousands of dedicated social workers across our province. I’ve had the opportunity to travel the province and visit many different ministry staff. I’ve sat down with direct service staff, with child protection workers and team leads and clinical counsellors and heard about the challenges in their community. I got to speak to a couple of social workers last week and ask them some important questions, like what they wanted me to think about and know in my work as the minister.

I just want to thank them all for the work they do and hope that everybody will celebrate Social Work Week and reach out. If you can find a social worker in your community, reach out to them and thank them for the really important work that they do.

We also work with some really incredible partners in community. These community organizations and Indigenous child and family service agencies do some of the most committed and important work for us across our government together. Their dedication, their knowledge, their skills and commitment to serve children and families across our province is deeply valued. Whether that work be in community-based early childhood development programs, our youth justice programs, our child welfare or mental health services, I’m really grateful for them, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to learn and work alongside all of them.

I want to just touch on my ministry’s mandate and priorities over our four-year term in government.

Our first priority is to make sure that every vulnerable child and youth receives the support they need when and where they need it. That is really paramount to changing the trajectory of a child’s life.

To do this, we must work together to build a better system of support for children and families, one that prioritizes intervention, crisis prevention and culturally safe services and one that’s easier to access and navigate. Everything that we do is based on careful consultation and engagement and from feedback from oversight bodies, advocates, community partners and our own ministry staff and people with lived experience. And I believe that we are making good progress in our ministry.

Budget 2026, as we’ve seen, recognizes the reality of rising costs, global instability and pressures on our economy and our public systems. Now more than ever it’s important to make sure our services are effective and efficient and that we are delivering value and important work for people across British Columbia.

[2:55 p.m.]

We know that families, especially, are facing these rising costs, and as we navigate these fiscal pressures, our government has remained committed to ensuring our public dollars are directed towards front-line services, safeguarding supports for those who need them the most.

It’s our job to provide stability and predictability around access to services for now and for long term. What we do today will impact years into our future. That’s why for Budget 2026, for my ministry, our budget continues to grow, this time by over $311 million, bringing our total annual budget, as I mentioned, to over $2.7 billion this year so we can continue the critical work that’s necessary to improve supports and services for children, youth and families.

We’re making sure public dollars are focused where they matter most — finding efficiencies, tightening administrative and operating spending, and updating outdated contracts. We’ve streamlined administrative tasks so staff have more time to spend on direct services with families, because there’s no one in our province more worthy of investment than our children and youth.

We made that clear on February 10, when we introduced changes that will strengthen supports for children and youth with disabilities. I know that we’re going to talk, probably quite at length, about that. But it is a historical investment of $475 million in net new funding over the next three years.

We can now support more children and youth with disabilities and their families than we ever have before. This funding will meaningfully expand supports in a few ways, with a focus on families who need it the most.

The first is with two new individualized direct funding streams. We are introducing a disability benefit of $6,500 or $17,000 per year for children and youth with the most significant needs, not just children with autism, and an income-tested disability supplement of up to $6,000 for middle- and low-income families. This means new direct funding for thousands of families whose children have never received that type of support before and an increased support for children with the highest needs across all diagnoses.

We’re also expanding access to free community programs to make it easier for families to get the supports they need when they need them. We have these programs in all of our communities, backed by an $80 million investment. We are expanding these programs by more than 40 percent over the next three years, including behavioural and mental health supports, six-to-18 programming and navigation services to help families connect with the right supports faster.

Let me be clear. We’re not making these changes in a vacuum. These changes were a result of extensive engagement, spanning a number of years, with more than 5,000 advocates, service organizations, experts, doctors and families with lived experience. We also learned from our family connection centre pilot project and from reports and recommendations from oversight bodies like the Representative for Children and Youth and our First Nations Leadership Council.

Again and again we heard that far too many children with diverse needs and families from a wide range of circumstances were not served by our current system. I’ve been in the field for over 15 years. We’ve heard time and time again that our current system is a one-size-fits-all approach that does not work for thousands of children in the province. Families told us repeatedly that they wanted better access to the right supports, more choice and flexibility and a system with sustained investment and stronger accountability.

As the minister, as a parent and as a service provider previously, I believe that every child deserves access to the supports and services they need to be their best selves.

I know, and many parents that work in the Legislature and are elected officials know, how much support it takes to help a child flourish. I know that’s especially true when we are raising a child with a disability. I’ve seen firsthand how critical it is for families to get the right help when they are doing everything they can to meet the needs of a child or children, particularly with significant or complex needs.

[3:00 p.m.]

Looking ahead, this really is about building on what families, advocates and experts have told us works: expanding access to direct funding and strengthening community-based services for children, youth and families who need them the most.

Striking this balance is really important. It also creates an opportunity to build a system that is better aligned and connected, easier to navigate and less burdened by administration. It’s a fundamental shift in how we support children with disabilities, and with this investment, we will deliver more financial support than ever before. It’s about designing a fairer, stronger system that lifts all children in our province while providing the most support to those who need it the most.

We will continue to provide step-by-step support for parents as we align these services over the next year. These changes aren’t all happening overnight, and we’ll continue to provide information and communications to members of the opposition and to our communities.

I also want to just say that strengthening supports for children and youth with disabilities is a part of a larger vision as our ministry continues to transform towards a better system overall. At this time, we’re finalizing our cross-government child and youth well-being action plan and outcomes framework. This action plan will shape a long-term approach to improving the well-being and outcomes of children and youth across British Columbia. It will align our services across ministries and agencies, creating a renewed model of child well-being that focuses on prevention.

We know that the earlier you can intervene, the better you can. There’s a very popular saying that says: “You pay now, or you pay later, but you will pay.” We can reach children and families earlier and provide support before crisis occurs, strengthen supports and provide comprehensive wraparound services so that we can track and evaluate outcomes. This is a big undertaking. It will take time to align the actions across our government that address safety, accountability and more consistent care.

As this work moves forward, we know that there is still more to do, especially when it comes to supporting Indigenous children, youth and families. In recent years, we have seen the numbers of Indigenous children and youth in care reach their lowest levels in decades, yet Indigenous children continue to be a significant proportion of those in government care despite being a small percentage of the overall population, and we know that that must change.

This disparity highlights the urgent need for systemic change and culturally appropriate approaches to child welfare. We know that Indigenous children and youth do better when they remain connected to their families, their culture and their community. That’s why I’m proud that B.C. is leading the country with First Nations as they reclaim jurisdiction over their children, their youth and their families.

We have signed 15 agreements with nations that have determined their path forward to self-determination of child and family services, with dozens more to come. This work is unprecedented and vital to enable collaboration, information-sharing and self-determination of child welfare for and by First Nations.

I will say it’s been some of the most deeply impactful parts of this job and the work that has touched me most, being able to travel to communities and sign agreements and see the pride and love and hope that these communities have for a better future in transforming our child welfare system in the ways that we know are right and are just and are crucially important.

In closing, as the minister, I am committed to seeing children and youth thrive in an environment with better wraparound supports, early intervention and prevention and fewer barriers between programs and services so they can get the services they need when and where they need them.

I stand behind the changes that come with the investments in this budget, and I look forward to the coming hours of having a really good conversation about these changes, providing some clarity. Hopefully, given the subject matter and the importance of children, youth and families in this province, we can work together in non-partisan ways.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m happy to meet and discuss at any time and happy to spend the next couple of hours with you.

Reann Gasper: It is an honour to be here. Thank you to the minister for her remarks. I know she has a hard-working team.

Reflecting on the beginning of this journey for me, when I was campaigning, people would often ask: “Why are you doing this?” I would say to them: “I could give you my top three things that I’m passionate about, but really, at the core of who I am, I’m doing this for my family and for your family. I’m in it for the family.”

As God would allow it, I started this journey being the critic for child care, learned a lot of things happening in that sphere, then became the Deputy Whip. I didn’t have a critic role, per se, last session. Then to be given the MCFD file and critic role, you kind of go: “Okay, well, there’s something happening.”

I’m honoured to represent families in B.C., to present what I’ve heard and work together, really. At the end of the day, if we don’t have a solution for them, then a lot of them feel very hopeless, and we don’t want that.

I want to thank my staff that have worked very hard and the other MLAs that have also inputted into the estimates questions. So yes, I will get started on my preamble.

When the public thinks about the Ministry of Children and Family Development, they think about a government delivering services directly to families and youth in need.

In the ministry’s documentation, including pages 85 to 87 of the November 2024 transition binder, MCFD managed approximately 2,800 active contracts across more than 1,100 community agencies, involving a workforce of over 23,000 non-government employees.

This means that the vast majority of services families rely on, from child and youth mental health to children and youth with support needs to foster care supports, is being delivered by contract agencies and not by direct government staff.

Contracting out these services is not inherently problematic, but when the volume of contracts reaches this scale and when oversight structures have not kept pace, it raises serious concerns about the quality assurance, accountability and consistency across the system.

The transition binder outlined some important reforms that were underway in November 2024. The ministry had established a sector-focused workforce, planning units, analytics teams and a procurement branch initiative to better manage contracting relationships. It partnered with Social Services Sector Roundtable and created a social services contract committee to identify and prioritize critical issues, including recruitment, retention, compensation fairness, Indigenous service equity and sector sustainability.

Twelve sector contracts issuing were prioritized and grouped into tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 reforms. But these initiatives likely remained largely in development.

Meanwhile, oversight gaps persist, service quality varies, the contract performance monitoring is inconsistent, and the children, youth and families served by these agencies are left vulnerable to an uneven delivery system.

When the ministry outsources this much of its mandate, it cannot outsource responsibility. It must ensure that every service delivered under a government-funded contract meets the standard the public would expect if it was delivered directly.

My first question. According to page 85 of the November 2024 transition binder, over 23,000 non-government staff delivered services under contract through more than 1,100 agencies.

[3:10 p.m.]

What specific accountability mechanisms does the ministry use to evaluate performance across this vast and decentralized service network?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I thank you for the question. It’s a really important one, and it’s one that I’m actually very passionate about.

We absolutely value our partnerships in community with the organizations that deliver our programs and services and have contracts delivering these services in every corner of the province — northern British Columbia, in the Interior, on the Island. It’s really important that we have robust community organizations that have expertise and the ability to deliver high-quality services.

I will say that there are a couple of different aspects to oversight. But just before I talk about that…. What families and advocates and many people in communities have talked about for quite a long time, with respect to services being delivered by our ministry, is that they do actually want arm’s-length services. They want there to be community-based organizations delivering these services, not directly by MCFD, necessarily.

One of the really positive aspects of that is that many of our multiservice agencies are also able to very effectively wrap services around families. They don’t just deliver programs and services for MCFD. They also deliver programs and services for health. They deliver programs and services for social development and poverty reduction. They receive grants.

A family may show up to a multiservice agency and need family support. That family support worker, that is funded by our ministry, is able to refer them and get other programs and services — clinical counselling, refer them to the food bank. Us delivering services that way really leverages and strengthens the services that we are delivering, so that’s a really important aspect of our contracting.

When it comes to oversight, there are a number of things in place that we do to monitor the performance and the outcomes of contracted organizations.

First and foremost, any organization that delivers services over $500,000 must be accredited.

Accreditation is a robust process that an organization must go through to show that they have appropriate policies and procedures, that their staff have criminal record checks, that they have human resource policies, that they are measuring outcomes, that they have financial policies. It’s actually three days of an audit that organizations go through from an accredited agency. They come in, and they look at all of these things. I know this really well because I was in charge of accreditation for a non-profit, and it’s pretty significantly robust.

The other aspect to oversight is we have contract managers in each service delivery area that work with contracted organizations, monitor those contracts, meet annually. As a part of all of our contracts, we have service hours and we have outcomes outlined in those contracts, and the contract manager will meet with those organizations annually, sometimes quarterly, to talk about where things are at with various different programs and services. Each different program has a different set of metrics and things that need to be monitored and discussed with their contract manager.

Reann Gasper: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Can the minister confirm whether all contracted agencies receiving government funding, as outlined on page 85 — I guess you already just answered this — are subject to routine quality assurance audits?

I’ll read the question, and then maybe we can kind of slim it down.

If not, how does the ministry determine which contractors are reviewed and how frequently?

I think you kind of answered a little bit, but I’ll….

[3:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that all questions should be directed through the Chair.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I will just expand on my previous answer.

Firstly, we have very strong local contract oversight with a contract manager with strong relationships that does regular reviews of deliverables in a contract.

Then I talked about the accreditation and the robust quality assurance that goes into the accreditation process. If an organization does not achieve accreditation, they have a period of time to look at areas where they were cited, it’s called, to make adjustments or to improve. They have a short period of time to do that, to come into compliance.

We also have a robust audit program within the Ministry of Children and Family Development and an audit team that looks at contract deliverables, quality assurance. Then in addition to that, we have external oversight bodies like the Office of the Auditor General, which looks at services, contracts and systems.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

On page 87 of the November 2024 transition binder, the ministry identified 12 tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 contracting reform priorities. Can the minister provide the full list of these priorities and indicate which have been addressed to date and which remain outstanding?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Can you please clarify what document you’re referring to and page?

Reann Gasper: Page 87 of the November 2024 transition binder identified 12 tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 contracting reform priorities.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We have the transition binder, and we can’t seem to see it on the page you’ve referenced. If you can print it off or if we can get a copy, then we can come back to the question.

Reann Gasper: Absolutely. We can come back. I’ll ask another one.

What proportion of the ministry’s 2026-2027 budget is allocated to community agency contracts, as referenced throughout pages 85 to 87 of the binder? And can the minister indicate whether this proportion has grown or declined compared to 2023-2024?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In the budget, the classification is total government transfers. That’s the amount of funding that we provide for services rendered. It’s really important to keep in mind that that includes contracted agencies, foster parents, payments for any service rendered for the ministry.

In this year’s budget, the total amount is $2.292 billion. Last budget was $1.989 billion. So we have increased our spending. The proportion of contracting remains relatively stable.

The Chair: Members, I call five minutes’ bio break now. Let’s take a recess until 3:35.

The committee recessed from 3:31 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Reann Gasper: We did get an answer for question 4, correct? We did finish that? We did.

On page 86 of the transition binder, the ministry describes several positions created to focus on the contracted sector, including staff in HR, workforce planning and reporting unit, analytics office, procurement branch, sector initiatives and analysis unit, with roles such as director, senior economist, senior manager, economist and HR consultant.

Can the minister confirm how many of those positions currently exist today within those units?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The answer is yes.

I wanted to go back to a question from before, around the Social Services Sector Roundtable question that occurred, because we found the page. We were looking at different binders.

I just want to clarify that the areas of priority and the different tiers were co-developed with that round table. That round table includes members from across the social service sector. Members would include the Federation of Community Social Services and the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention. They would have interests across both MCFD and Social Development and Poverty Reduction. This isn’t just the ministry doing the work or having the initiative. The work happens together with members from the community.

Progress has been made on all of the tiers. We’ve completed three. We are actively working on three. All tier 1 recommendations have been complete, with the exception of cybersecurity and data-sharing. That’s a pretty complex challenge that both the sector and the ministry are working through, as well as alongside Citizens’ Services.

Reann Gasper: Just for further clarity, how many of those priorities…? So completed three in tier 1, working on three. Is there a list of priorities — like ten priorities? How many priorities are there in this?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are 12 priorities.

[3:45 p.m.]

Reann Gasper: Thank you, Minister. Yes, there are 12.

All right, going on to my next question. Can the minister confirm the 2026-2027 funding allocation associated with the positions across HR, workforce planning and reporting unit, the ministry’s analytics office and the procurement branch sector initiatives and analysis unit referenced in the binder?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think I understand the question. I will attempt to do my best to answer it.

All of the positions referenced are permanent positions. They were a part of last year’s budget. They remain.

The analytics office and procurement branch is a part of our corporate services. The line item would be executive and support services, and the positions remain the same.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

The transition binder described those roles as supporting sector workforce planning, workforce intelligence and contracting policies oversight. What specific outcomes, benchmarks or improvements in oversight of the contracted service provider sector has the ministry been able to demonstrate as a result of those staffing investments?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are a couple of things that we have accomplished due to those investments and those positions.

Firstly, and we can share more information with the member, we have completed a robust and comprehensive workforce plan for the entire ministry and can share that plan with the member.

I talked earlier about the joint accomplishments with the Social Service Sector Roundtable, so things like stakeholder alignment, our contracting processes, multi-year contracting, solicitation approaches, non-compensation costs.

[3:55 p.m.]

We have also done quite a lot of work around our specialized homes and support services. We’ve looked at improved and faster, more modernized procurement processes through that. We’ve really started to target what’s important in the sector and how we align those things with our contracts.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I’m just going to go back to one of the questions. I just need some clarity on it. I’m going to read the question, and I’ve added a few things.

On page 87 of the transition binder, the ministry identified 12 tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 contracting reform priorities. Can the minister provide a full list of these 12 priorities on the record and indicate specifically which ones have been addressed to date and which ones remain outstanding?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I have a chart of that. I will print it off, and I will provide it to you.

Reann Gasper: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

Having discussed the scale of the ministry’s contracting model and the systems used to oversee it, I would like to now turn our attention to the people responsible for delivering those services to children and families.

Regardless of whether services are delivered directly by government staff or through contracted community agencies, the quality of care ultimately depends on the workforce expected to carry out that work and the conditions under which they are doing it.

According to page 82 of the November 2024 ministry transition binder, approximately 77 percent of the ministry’s 5,500 staff are classified as direct service employees. The remaining 23 percent are identified as administrative support, excluded management, corrections staff or other corporate roles.

The transition binder further acknowledges that the average employee’s age is 43.5 years, with an average tenure of nearly ten years, a clear indicator that significant succession planning challenges are on the horizon.

As outlined on page 85 of the transition binder, the ministry references a range of recruitment efforts and initiative programs, including incentive pay, regional support measures and staff wellness initiatives. But it does not present a measurable or fully developed strategy for rebuilding the front-line workforce at the scale required to meet current demand, and external oversight bodies have validated these concerns.

In No Time to Wait, Part One, released in July 2024, on page 2, the Representative for Children and Youth described MCFD’s social workforce as being in a state of crisis, marked by persistent and substantial understaffing, unmanageable workloads, an inability to meet practice standards and an unhealthy environment, categorized by undue stress, burnout and fear.

No Time to Wait, Part Two, released in February 2025, echoed those findings on page 2, confirming the same conditions still exist. On page 24, the report highlights supervision and mentorship gaps across the province, with front-line staff reporting inconsistent access to support and team leaders too overwhelmed to manage meaningful guidance.

Despite internal recognition and repeated external warnings, the ministry still lacks a measurable plan to stabilize, support and scale its workforce. Until that happens, service expansion efforts will continue to run aground, not because of ambition but because of capacity.

My first question. Page 42 of the 2024 ministry transition binder indicates that the average staff age is 43.5 years and the average tenure is 9.9 years. What succession planning and workforce development measures has the ministry put in place to ensure a continuation of services?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are a number of really important parts of our workforce planning that I want to highlight.

Firstly, we have our first-ever comprehensive workforce plan that we have developed and that is underway for the ministry. We can certainly provide the member with that plan.

Then a couple of other things. The first thing is that our numbers of staffing in the ministry are very stable. Our front-line staffing is up 419 front-line staff over the last couple of years.

It’s not just about the numbers; it’s also about a holistic workforce plan. It’s about training; recruitment, as you mentioned in your question; incentives; health and safety; looking at how we have good morale in our workforce. We have a number of things that we’re also doing to ensure that the work is done differently, more efficiently — things like our provincial centralized screening team, how we do coordinated intake, how we decrease administrative burden for front-line staff.

We’re taking a number of actions to recruit and retain and support staff, particularly in rural remote communities, including using things like a cyclical bulk hiring and practicum to employment pathways, bringing mobile teams and volunteer practitioners to rural and remote locations, providing financial and other incentives that the member talked about, actively collaborating with local governments and health authorities to identify needs, partnering with community organizations like the Foundry to offer virtual supports where possible, streamlining administrative tasks, like I mentioned.

I even go to…. I was just at Douglas College talking to a class of fourth-year social work students to talk about the benefits of working in the sector. We have recruitment teams. There are a number of strategies that we’re undertaking to ensure that we do have the ability to bring more people into the sector.

Reann Gasper: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

In No Time to Wait, Part One, released in July 2024, on page 2, the Representative for Children and Youth described the social worker workforce as “operating in conditions of fear, unmanageable caseloads and routine non-compliance with practice standards.” Does the minister agree with the representative’s assessment? If not, what evidence can the minister provide to show that these conditions no longer exist?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to say that I deeply value the work that the Representative for Children and Youth does. Her oversight and her reports provide valuable reflections and recommendations to the ministry and to government. The office has for decades. I think it’s really important for us to pay attention and work with that office to accomplish good things for children and families in the province.

As I mentioned before, our comprehensive workforce strategy and plan incorporates much of the recommendations that the Representative of Children and Youth made.

Our human resource staff have completed several actions that respond to recommendations, including developed and released the health and safety action plan, which focuses on health and well-being supports and occupational health and safety; launched the Guarding Minds at Work survey, the survey administered in alternating years with the workplace environment survey; expanded the peer-to-peer program and updated programming for the cumulative stress management program and critical incident stress debriefings; drafted a recruitment strategy focused on high school students, post-secondary students and new graduates; piloted a senior leader position at the provincial centralized screening and South Fraser service delivery area.

Significant progress has been made in reviewing the expanded credentials for social workers; reviewing the onboarding training for new social workers; developing and implementing a dedicated training program to enhance child welfare team leader competencies; developing a guideline and communication strategy to clarify support and encourage staff participation in cultural events in their communities; developing a plan to include contextual data and quality assurance mechanisms, such as practice evaluations, special audits and child and family practice reviews; and increasing human resource analytics and planning capability.

Reann Gasper: So would it be fair to say that given the conditions the industry is under as far as understaffing and unmanageable workloads, there is a provincewide workforce stabilization strategy in place?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do believe that I somewhat answered the question already. Our comprehensive workforce strategy and plan really is about responding to the needs of the ministry with respect to our workforce.

[4:10 p.m.]

We are always, in my role as the minister, visiting communities and ministry offices to listen to the concerns that direct service staff have and taking those conversations and working with the team around a variety of initiatives that are in the workforce plan. We are constantly improving our processes, whether those be IT processes or availability of trainings for direct staff.

So I think there’s a lot of work that we are undertaking with respect to our workforce, and I think we’re doing good work in that part.

Reann Gasper: On page 24 of the same report, front-line workers reported poor access to supervision and mentorship, citing inconsistency across regions and supervisors who were too overwhelmed to provide adequate support.

Has the ministry implemented minimum supervision and managerial standards across service areas? If so, how are they being enforced?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Thank you for the question.

I’m going to first talk about the structure that exists for staff. Our province is broken up into service delivery areas. Then in each service delivery area, there is an executive director of service, there’s a director of operations, and there is a team lead.

[4:15 p.m.]

We have created, in every service delivery area, a senior social worker. A senior social worker provides mentorship to, potentially, new hires on their team. Each team lead has no more than ten staff, and there is consistent monitoring of the structure that exists in each service delivery area by the executive director of service and senior ministry staff to ensure that that structure doesn’t come out of alignment, so that there is an appropriate level of supervision and an appropriate level of available mentorship.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Just one brief question. When did that plan get implemented?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are a couple really good-news stories that we’ve been able to accomplish since No Time to Wait.

Firstly, I will say that the position of the senior social worker has been able to be expanded to every service delivery area within the last year.

[4:20 p.m.]

Another aspect of the work that has occurred is that our social workers’ caseloads are not the same as they were at the time of No Time to Wait, for a couple of different reasons.

The first is…. There was a question earlier about our analytics. Strengthening analytics has enabled us to be able to monitor and improve the balancing of caseloads. So in real time, ministry staff are able to see when…. I talked about a team lead not having to have more than ten staff. Anytime that gets out of alignment, it’s our analytics and the monitoring that’s enabled us to be able to alert that we need to shift things around and change things there.

We’ve also looked at the restructuring and being able to have different positions included in our teams, so things like social work assistants being able to do more administrative tasks, things like having work centralized in our provincial centralized screening program.

These are all things that support direct service staff work so that their caseloads can be more consistent, and they’re doing more work, actually, directly with families and less on the administrative tasks of before.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Just going back to the question and the time frame. I’m just wondering…. In my conversations with social workers, the load doesn’t seem to be being alleviated.

I guess my first question would be: in the province of British Columbia, as far as a ratio to workload and social worker, do we have enough qualified social workers in the field to carry and manage the workload that we’re seeing from the reports?

Let’s start there.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I appreciate the question, and I appreciate, as the member highlighted, that when you talk to people in community, there are things that they bring forward. There are concerns that they bring forward. I’ve heard those things when I visited offices, and I’ve been able to have real, robust conversations with social workers about what’s happening in their community.

Families are experiencing more complexity than ever before. The work has evolved in a way that’s more challenging…. Competing different information…. We’ve evolved our laws. We’ve evolved our standards and our requirements around reporting and everything that’s in our Child, Family and Community Service Act. We’ve evolved our interactions with Indigenous communities. We are working on jurisdiction. The work is more complex than ever before, and I can appreciate that.

I can appreciate that we have long-standing difficulties recruiting and retaining staff. This is a global issue, not just in MCFD or in Social Services. Across the board, we’ve experienced that.

I do remain of the belief that we are continuing to deliver services and evolve things in a way that meets the needs of children and families in our communities. We have 3,900 direct service employees, which is an increase of 419 from the time of No Time to Wait. It illustrates that we’ve been incredibly successful in our recruitment and retention efforts within our ministry. We are experiencing a reduction in the exit rate. So only 652 employees left the ministry, down from 792 in 2024.

[4:30 p.m.]

Between 2022 and 2025, there’s been a 15 percent increase in ministry staffing levels, with year-over-year increases. I think we’re seeing things in the right direction. We’ll continue to meet with staff and community, continue to have different ways for them to provide their input to senior ministry staff and continue to work in every way that we possibly can to address the needs of the workforce.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

Reann Gasper: What portion of the ministry’s 2026-27 budget is dedicated to the workforce wellness and staff retention initiatives, and can the minister provide the current funding allocation for those programs?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We just don’t have that level of detail and number with us, but we can get it for the member.

Reann Gasper: Thank you, Minister.

I guess I’ll ask this one too. Separately, what funding is allocated within the 2026-2027 budget to support staff supervision and professional oversight for front-line workers?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: That would be funded through our positions that I spoke of earlier around supervision and mentorship. The total amount that we spend on salaries and benefits is just a little over $507 million.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

[4:35 p.m.]

I want to go back to question 3 and ask for some more information. I know the minister talked about providing the chart. I would like to ask the minister, when she does bring the chart, which could be tomorrow, if she could read it into the record.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes.

Reann Gasper: Okay, I am going to go on to the next section. The ministry has acknowledged, in its own documents, that responsibility for supporting children and youth with mental health needs is shared across government. Yet in practice, the system of care remains fragmented and often difficult for families to navigate and access. On pages 122 and 123 of the transition binder, the ministry confirmed that while MCFD is responsible for clinical mental health services, therapy and some supports, the Ministry of Health holds authority over core medical diagnosis, developmental pediatrics and psychiatric care.

The result is not a shared system. It’s a divided one, where families are left to coordinate across ministries that don’t operate as one. The same pages categorize this as a governmentwide challenge, but that challenge is falling squarely on the shoulders of families, particularly those who are trying to support a child with complex, overlapping needs and no clear point of entry.

On page 73, the ministry outlines the existing CYMH intake process, a referral-based system reliant on screening, interviews and assessment. But this process is highly dependent on clinician availability, regional workforce capacity and the abilities of families to persist through long wait times.

On page 74, the ministry makes a stunning admission that an estimated 55.8 percent of children with mental disorders, nearly 53,000 children in British Columbia, do not receive any service in a typical year. Among children with neurodiversity, the gap is even worse. It’s 91 percent that do not receive mental health intervention. These numbers are not just data points. They reflect tens of thousands of children facing significant emotional and behavioural challenges who are either stuck on wait-lists or not being reached at all.

The service plan points to an integration with the health system, alignment of mandates and prevention programming, but there’s no joint accountability framework, no interministerial case coordination protocol or no plan to unify intake, despite years of discussion.

Families should not be expected to determine which ministry is responsible for their child in crisis. Nor should MCFD staff be left trying to fill service gaps they were never resourced to cover.

When responsibilities across government remain fragmented and the services are not properly coordinated, access will continue to be the exception, rather than the norm.

My question is: according to pages 122 and 123 of the November 2024 transition binder, responsibility for children and youth with mental health needs is shared between MCFD and the Ministry of Health. Can the minister describe how families are meant to navigate this division, and who is accountable when children receive no service at all?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to start by just saying that we are going through the transition binder from when I was appointed into this role almost a year and a half ago. There are a considerable amount of things that I’m really proud of.

My mandate has a strong direction to align mental health services with our health services. I’m really proud to be a part of a government that has invested millions more dollars in child and youth mental health services in our province.

In Budget 2018-2019, the budget was $98.3 million. Today it’s $127.6 million. That doesn’t include all of the other investments that we’ve made outside of my ministry, including the Foundry, including Foundries across the province, including integrated child and youth mental health teams in schools.

There has been, also, just so much work underway to support the shared mandate and commitment to realign and improve our services for children and youth with support and mental health needs. Staff both within Health and MCFD have been working together as part of a joint project team.

Since spring of 2025, there has been a series of engagement sessions with key partners in the CYMH substance use services in Health and in our CYSN sector. More robust engagements with Indigenous partners and with children, youth and families with lived and living experience are planned to take place this year.

Decisions surrounding movement of MCFD CYMH services haven’t been fully determined at this stage and will be informed by planned engagement alignment with our CYSN model changes announced just last month.

I think one of the really exciting things…. A part of our increased expansion in community services of the $80 million is we heard loud and clear that mental health services for neurodivergent youth were something that they wanted to see an expansion of. So that’s a really exciting opportunity in community. We’re working with Foundry to strengthen integration of youth mental health services across CYMH and Foundry.

There are just so many things that we’ve done to address responsiveness and quality of services. We have implemented or are undertaking a streamlined intake process to better align with cross-ministry partners. We have policy guidance on wait-list monitoring that includes flexible options to connect with youth and families. Our wait times have drastically decreased over the last number of years.

We have more resources to support parents, care providers and educators on, particularly, neurodiversity and mental health. Provision of virtual services — we’re looking at the whole continuum of mental health services that children and youth need and how we can expand those services.

[4:45 p.m.]

I had a really amazing meeting just the other day with our Minister of Health and B.C. Children’s Hospital Foundation where they talked about the really wonderful work that they’re doing there and the expansion of their desire to support mental health services across the province.

There’s a lot of really exciting work that we’re doing and that still needs to be done, and that’s a part of my strong mandate for the next three years.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Just some clarity, because I understand that this work is in process. It’s in progress. But how do we communicate to parents that feel like they’re being passed from one ministry to the next? If they need care for their child and they go to the Ministry of Health and they get an answer that says “Well, no, you have to go to the Ministry of Children and Family,” how is that process being tightened up so parents don’t feel like they’re being passed back and forth?

Also, just on the record, could the minister clarify the difference between CYSN and CYMH?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just for that last part, CYSN is children and youth with support needs. CYMH is children and youth with mental health.

[4:50 p.m.]

I think it’s very normal for a family to walk through one door and go to a doctor’s office or go to a health clinic or a facility and then be referred to or have to receive services through our ministry and feel…. I understand the feeling. I’ve heard families talk about that and have experienced it myself. But there is a lot of work that happens to coordinate those services behind the scenes for a family, so we do have strong mandates that our clinicians are to work with providers — primary care providers or clinicians.

It’s not uncommon for a youth, for example, to be receiving cognitive behaviour therapy and also medical support at the same time for prescription medication and things like that. Those service providers do work together. I think there are a number of….

It’s also why I’m just so very excited about our Foundry centres that we’re standing up around the province, because a youth can walk into a Foundry centre and receive a number of different types of supports — peer support, primary care, clinical counselling, sexual health care — and all of those providers work within the Foundry to coordinate those services around the youth. It’s a really promising model, and it is really important that we support that in all of our communities.

We also need to work with schools, communities and program providers to communicate how families can access services. We have 92 intake clinics across the province where children and youth access services without requiring a referral. We need to make sure that we get that information out to families and that families are aware that they can go to an intake clinic in their community and have an intake interview with a clinician to assess their needs and look at what kinds of services will be best to meet the needs of those youth.

Children and youth that present with urgent mental health issues, such as suicidal thoughts, are immediately responded to by a mental health clinician and assessed for safety planning. We also have our provincial virtual CYMH team, designed to be flexible and accessible.

There are a number of initiatives. We offer specialized services provided by CYMH teams in communities throughout contracted agencies or in health authorities — infant, early childhood mental health, early psychosis intervention, developmental disabilities mental health, concurrent disorders and eating disorders. The more we can ensure that services are also embedded in health, the less fragmented services will feel for families.

More work to always be done to ensure that families feel that seamless service experience.

[4:55 p.m.]

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I just want to touch on the Foundry. My question would be: how many Foundries are established in British Columbia? What is that number?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We have 20 operational, 15 in development close to being operational and then five new satellite locations announced in January: Pemberton, West Kelowna, Summerland, 100 Mile House and Port McNeill.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Are there any Foundries established in our northern and rural parts of B.C.?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes, there are six: one in Prince George, one in Terrace, one in Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Fort St. John and Quesnel.

Reann Gasper: What is the criteria?

I’m just going to give a little bit of backstory, because this one is a little personal. I know that Mission has applied for a Foundry twice. The city has also expressed putting finances, I think $1 million, on the table to invest in a Foundry in Mission. I’m just wondering if the minister could explain or give some context to why something like that would be denied or why we still don’t have a Foundry in Mission.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think it’s a really good question. It’s better directed at Health, but I will just relay a couple of things that I know. I do know that there is a Foundry in Abbotsford and one in Maple Ridge and a brand-new one happening in the Tri-Cities.

There is a process for communities that want to have a Foundry in their community. That process is pretty comprehensive.

The community decides that they want a Foundry. There’s a lead agency that takes the role of being the lead agency for the Foundry. They work collaboratively with the other agencies in their community delivering services for youth. They come together and decide what those services are going to look like for their particular Foundry, and then they build that proposal.

Then Foundry central is responsible for looking at the needs across the province where there are other Foundries, looking at the proposal and the readiness of the community and the readiness of the lead agency. Then decisions are made that way. I can also get some more information from Health with respect to that.

Reann Gasper: I would greatly appreciate that, just some clarity on that.

On page 74 of the November 24 transition binder, the ministry states that 55.8 percent of children with mental disorders, which is approximately 53,000 children, do not receive services in a typical year.

As that binder was prepared approximately 16 months ago, can the minister give an update on what that figure is today?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s really important to highlight that the part the member is referring to is a study that was done by SFU. The numbers that the member is citing are estimated prevalence data at one time. So it’s much different than how we look at the children that we’re serving.

What I can say is that last year we saw 30,000 children. I can also say we don’t have the number of children who were never referred. We wouldn’t have that information.

I also can say that we never turn anyone away. If a family or a child or a youth requests service, they will receive service.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer there.

Even though we don’t have a number, is there a target through the ministry to reduce what we are hearing? We may not necessarily have concrete numbers yet, but we know that mental health, on the whole, is on the rise. Is there a target or a benchmark for the ministry of the number of children with mental health needs who are not receiving services, as far as…? How do I phrase that without it being confusing?

Does the ministry have a target when it come to children with mental health…? Or do we have, I guess, a current target that hasn’t been met or has been met? Do we have data to say where we are, to locate us right now when it comes to children and mental health?

Let’s start there.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think the question that you’re trying to get at is: how many children do we know in our province that have a mental health challenge that aren’t being served? That would be a really difficult number to try and get when we don’t know children who aren’t being referred, for whatever reason. But we do measure how many children we are seeing, and we measure things like wait times.

What we have seen is, over the last number of years, wait times decreasing year over year. We also ensure that we prioritize services based on the severity of need, so any child or youth that comes to a CYMH office that has significant need will receive services immediately. Any child waiting for services also will receive services while they are waiting for their ideal service.

For example, a youth may be waiting to see a clinical counsellor one-on-one weekly. They may have to wait for that specific service, but in the meantime, while they are waiting, there will be check-ins with the family from a clinician. They could be referred out to group services. We could work with other community providers to see what other services are available in the community.

We don’t have the number that you’re seeking, but we do have things that we look at in our ministry to make sure we’re serving the children who need it.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

The CYMH intake process described on page 73 relies heavily on clinician availability and regional workforce capacity. Can the minister confirm whether there is any provincewide wait-time standard for CYMH intake and clinical access?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We have policy expectations that outline a couple of things.

For children and youth who are experiencing urgent mental health presentations, it’s 48 hours for intake; for non-urgent, five days.

As far as…. I mentioned earlier, there is a prioritization based on presentation and based on a variety of factors, which takes clinical judgment. So there isn’t a specific standard, because it would look differently for many children and youth based on how they’re presenting.

I can say that we have 453 CYMH clinicians. The way that children and youth show up is really what guides how services are delivered moving forward.

Reann Gasper: How many children are currently on the wait-list for mental health services?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Currently we have 1,548 children on the province. I’ll just point out that in 2019, we had 2,812 children on the wait-list.

With that, I’m just going to ask for a ten-minute break.

The Chair: Members, we will take a brief recess for ten minutes, and we anticipate to come back at 5:25, no later.

The committee recessed from 5:15 p.m. to 5:25 p.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Reann Gasper: I’ll just start off again.

I know we touched on this. I’m just going to go a little bit more specific. What is the current average wait time for a child to receive mental health counselling or psychiatric help through MCFD? What new resources are being invested to reduce these waits and expand access?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple of things.

Our current wait time right now is an average of 51.2 days on the wait-list, although, as I mentioned before, that does not mean that a child or youth would not receive any services. They could be referred out to different community services. They could still connect in with a clinician and receive group services.

I also want to point out that in 2021-2022, the average wait time was 70 days. So there is work being done to bring those waits down — as I mentioned earlier, an increase in our budget of $29.3 million.

[5:30 p.m.]

Also, we’ve streamlined our intake process to better align with cross-ministry partners like our ICY teams. We have policy guidelines on wait-list monitoring. That includes flexible options to connect with youth and families. We have resources to support parents, care providers and educators. We have a whole bunch of online videos to support educators, particularly around neurodiversity and mental health. And we have a provision of virtual services to children, youth and families currently on wait-lists in three service delivery areas identified as having the longest waits and wait times in the province.

Our Maples satellite services have been developed in Vernon. The location is offering live and community treatment services.

All of this is also a part of a broader continuum of investments that the government is making. I talked before about Foundry services and our integrated child and youth mental health teams in schools. So that’s all a part of a network of things to try and support children and youth when we know that they need them the most.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

One more question. How many new mental health clinicians or service spaces are funded in this budget?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to just reiterate that we currently have 450 child and youth mental health clinicians. It’s an important note that in 2023 we had 426 mental health clinicians.

Also, through our $80 million investment over the next three years, we will be working with the community-based providers to ensure that there are clinical positions available to serve the population that we’ve spoken about — neurodiverse youth, who have typically been underserved in services. That would be a part of the investment to ensure there is increase in staffing in that area.

[5:35 p.m.]

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Just so that I’m understanding, the $80 million of financing coming into the sector…. Actually, I’m trying to understand if that $80 million will not be divided into CYSN needs versus CYMH needs. So the $80 million coming into these two things….

Maybe let me ask this. Could the minister clarify on the record or describe on the record the difference between CYSN and then CYMH?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: CYSN is children and youth with support needs. CYMH is children and youth with mental health. Many of these children have both. You could have a child with autism that also has mental health challenges. You could have a child with an intellectual disability that also has mental health challenges.

Traditionally, in our province, across various provinces and places in the world…. I would say there is a lot of acknowledgement that this population of children and youth are underserved with respect to their mental health. Traditional ways of supporting mental health don’t always align with the needs of a child who may have behavioural challenges or otherwise.

As a part of the $80 million investment…. Some of the feedback that we heard from families and service providers in the engagement process that we overtook over a number of years was that there was a gap. The $80 million investment into community services will allow for that gap to be addressed.

There’s a variety of ways that that can happen, but ensuring that there are both services available to this cohort is really important.

Reann Gasper: Of course, we’ve got neurodiverse children that have mental health struggles, that need support, but then we have children that are not neurodiverse. So just to clarify, that $80 million will service both of them?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The $80 million investment in community-based services is for children and youth with support needs and would also capture children and youth with support needs who also have mental health needs.

Reann Gasper: Is there a plan to support children that do not have support needs, that have mental health challenges? Is there a plan to support those children?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: That would encompass the 450 CYMH clinicians, the 30,000 children that we serve through our CYMH clinics, all of our community providers that provide mental health support in community through grants and otherwise, our Foundries. All of those services would serve children and youth with mental health needs.

[5:40 p.m.]

Some of those services may include children that also have support needs, but for the community-based services and the additional $80 million investment that was announced in our announcement, that is tied to children and youth with support needs.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer. So there is no funding for children that do not have support needs but need mental health support.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: As I mentioned before, our 2026-27 budget is $127.6 million for children and youth with mental health needs. That’s up $29.3 million from our 2018-2019 budget of $98.3 million.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for providing that number. I will move on from that part.

Every child deserves the stability of a permanent home. For children and youth in government care, permanency through adoption, guardianship or family unification is an important outcome that can shape long-term well-being.

In the previous years, the Ministry of Children and Family Development placed a strong emphasis on adoption as one pathway to permanency. In 2014 and 2015, the ministry launched a strategic adoption initiative in partnership with the Representative for Children and Youth. The initiative included dedicated funding, a published adoption report and specific efforts to reduce backlogs and support more children in finding permanent homes.

In the fiscal year ending in 2016, there were 362 completed adoptions in British Columbia, including 187 Indigenous and 175 non-Indigenous children. Public reporting indicates that by 2024, the number of adoptions had declined to 96 placements in total, including 53 Indigenous and 43 non-Indigenous children.

Given this change over time, can the minister provide an update on the ministry’s current approach to adoption and permanency planning?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to start by saying that things are much different today than they were in 2014 with respect to adoption. I’ve talked publicly…. Adoption is something that is important to me as someone who has been adopted themselves.

[5:45 p.m.]

I will say that adoption is just one of several permanency options available to ensure that children feel like they belong and then are connected to their family. As I mentioned, our adoption practices have changed significantly in the last decade, which has allowed us to change how we deliver adoption services in the province.

Our focus is keeping families together — family reunification and other forms of permanency for all children and youth — which has really led to fewer children remaining in care and fewer children being available for adoption. Every single child in care has a plan for permanency, and we’re keeping more families together all of the time, which I think is really a good-news story. Our primary goal is always for a child or youth to be placed or reunited with their family whenever possible.

Between 2019-20 and 2024-25, children and youth in care eligible for adoption decreased by 42 percent and children and youth from care adopted reduced by 50 percent. So children and youth in care are achieving permanency through other options, such as kinship care and permanent transfer of guardianship.

We will continue to work closely with all partners, family members, and know that there’s still a place for adoption, but the way that that looks is much different today than it did a decade ago.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I guess my question would be: in a revamp of what I’m hearing as a provincial strategy as far as adoption, is there data that we have or that says that the strategy change of not increasing those adoption numbers is working? Because it has been a decade, is there trackable data to say those permanency options are working in our favour for children?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The short answer is yes. We do have the data that shows the trends of number of children in government care coming down, the number of children in permanent out-of-care options going up, so things like kinship care or permanent transfer of custody as the preferred option.

An example of family…. A parent who may not be able to care for their child would likely have a desire for their child to be taken care of in a family setting, with a family member who is willing to take care of that child, versus a permanent adoption to someone that they didn’t know. That is exactly what the data tells us and shows us.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Another issue that is often raised by families and caregivers concerns the difference in financial support between foster placements and kinship care. When a child is placed with a foster care giver, that caregiver receives foster care maintenance payments along with the access to a range of additional supports.

[5:50 p.m.]

However, when a grandparent, aunt, uncle or other relative steps forward to care for that same child, they may receive different levels of support, depending on the arrangement. Can the minister explain how the ministry determines the level of financial support available to kinship caregivers?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Kinship care providers receive direct financial support that helps meet the needs of a child. It’s a monthly maintenance payment, and it’s equal to the amount that’s provided to non-kin foster caregivers for children in care.

In 2023, we harmonized the rates for kinship care, and there was a significant rate increase at that time — about 47 percent. We’ve also added enhanced out-of-care support. I think it’s important to note that the amount a foster parent or a caregiver, an out-of-care giver, would receive is really based on the needs of the child, so it would be different based on those needs.

We have a lot of amazing provincial organizations like the B.C. Federation of Foster Parents that provides support to foster parents and also has expanded its support to kinship care providers. There’s a lot of just amazing work that’s done there.

[5:55 p.m.]

I just have to say I think we’re really grateful in the province of British Columbia to have such dedicated foster parents, organizations and families who step up in circumstances that can be challenging, to care for their family members.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Has the ministry reviewed the current funding model to ensure that relatives who step forward to care for children are adequately supported? This one is from conversations with grandparents that are on a pension. They want to care for their own, and they’re finding it very difficult to do that on what they do get.

Is there a way that we can support especially those grandparents that are just on a pension, maybe barely on a pension? What does that look like?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I actually missed the last part of my answer from the last question. Part of one of the Representative for Children and Youth’s recommendations out of Don’t Look Away was for our ministry to undertake a comprehensive review of kinship care, and we are doing that review currently.

I have a wonderful organization actually in my community called Fairness for Children Raised by Relatives, and they’re always top of mind. She comes into my office often to bring me her pamphlets and to advocate for grandparents and relatives raising their grandchildren or other relatives.

That work is underway, and it’s really important. I do appreciate that there’s a need to do that work.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I would also like to ask about outcomes for youth who age out of government care. Advocates and researchers have raised concerns about the challenges many former youth in care face after leaving the system, including housing instability and barriers to education and employment.

Does the ministry currently track long-term outcomes for youth who leave care, such as housing stability, education completement, employment or involvement with the justice system? If so, can the minister describe how that data is used to evaluate and improve transition supports?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We have a lot of data that is available to us globally and nationally around outcomes for former youth in care. We know that when a youth grows up in government care, they’re more at risk for homelessness, they’re less likely to complete high school, and they’re at higher risk for mental health challenges. So that data and information and research have all been used to inform our programs that we currently have in place.

When we formed government in 2017, we were serving 600 former youth in care with supports after they aged out of care. Today we’re serving over 4,318 youth who have aged out of care. It’s a historic investment — and the first province that has created a comprehensive support system for young people transitioning from government care to adulthood.

It’s our SAJE program, strengthening abilities and journeys of empowerment, which was developed and guided by the input of former youth in care. It has had quite a bit of uptake.

Part of the program with young people is that they are connected with a SAJE navigator. That navigator is able to support them with getting post-secondary education; attaching them to our provincial tuition waiver program; making sure that they are signed up for dental benefits, mental health benefits, any sort of cultural programming that they can access; ensuring that they have income supports and housing support; and supporting them through the years after they age out of care into independence.

We have a lot of real-time stories of young people who have been connected to non-market housing and independence and are going to school. There are a lot of really good things that are happening in our province for former youth in care today that weren’t happening before.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Just out of curiosity, with the SAJE program, is there an age that they age out of that program?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s currently 27.

Reann Gasper: Just a suggestion. As I’ve sat in front of service providers and young people and listened to their stories….

[6:05 p.m.]

Being in care, aging out and then being thrown into the world to become dependent, it would be really great to have….

The thought that came to me was that I still need my parents, and I’m in my 40s. And we have young adults that…. I think a wraparound continuing support would be beneficial to those kids in care so that they don’t feel like they ever age out of somebody looking out for them — whatever that looks like. It doesn’t have to be as heavy-handed as the SAJE program, but just so that they know that they have somebody in their corner, even as they gain independence.

Just throwing it out there as something.

With respect to agreements with young adults in other transition programs, how many young people are currently receiving support through these programs?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I would agree with the member. I have a 20-year-old and a 16-year-old. I anticipate that they will be…. Well, I mean, I would enjoy for them to live with me for as long as they would so choose to. I don’t have any problems with that, and it might be selfish of me to encourage it.

The number that I mentioned before — 4,318 — is how many young adults are on agreements.

Reann Gasper: How many changes have been made recently to expand eligibility or improve access to these supports?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s important to note that the SAJE program was only fully implemented in 2024. We are continuing to evaluate the program and evolve it.

When we had agreements with young adults — that was our previous program for youth aging out of care — it had very narrow criteria. It was only available to young people who were aging out of care at the age of 19.

We recognized that those narrow criteria did not reflect the experience of young people. You could have been in care for the vast majority of your childhood, and then, because you went and lived with your grandparent, or your parent came back into the picture, you were no longer eligible for any type of support. So we changed those criteria with the strengthening abilities and journeys of empowerment program.

Our program currently…. I talked about the navigators in my previous answer. Those navigators support youth after they have come out of government care, but we also have something called SAJE guides that are for young people prior to turning 19. Those guides are attached to young people in care to help them get ready for becoming out-of-care and ensuring that they are connected to the right types of services. They’re navigators to navigate things that are going forward after that.

We’ll continue to look at how the program is working and how we’re making sure that we can meet the most vulnerable youth and ensure that we’re supporting those youth in the ways that we need to. Every youth will be different, and what they need once they age out of care will be different.

Reann Gasper: I’m wondering. Can we take a little break? That would be awesome.

The Chair: All right. Members, we will take a ten-minute break, returning at 6:22 — no later.

The committee recessed from 6:12 p.m. to 6:22 p.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Reann Gasper: Housing stability is also a critical issue for youth leaving care. How is the ministry working with housing partners to support youth transitioning out of care? Specifically, how many rent supplements or priority housing units are currently available for youth aging out of care?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are a couple of things.

First and foremost, the program itself provides income support. That income support is available for young people. They can use that income support on whatever they choose, and that could include their housing situation.

As far as the rent supplement program, 1,900 young adults have received the rent supplement. We also have SAJE housing agreements. These are agreements for young people who are aging out of care to stay in their placement. They could remain…. If they’re in a foster care placement, they could remain there. If they’re in a contracted agency, they could remain there. We don’t have that exact number of the number of young people on SAJE housing agreements, but we can get that number.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I would love that number. I’m just curious to see if it’s changed in the past year and where we are with that.

The Ombudsperson’s 2023 report Misinformed raised concerns about how permanency planning decisions were communicated to a youth and about how the information regarding post-care supports was provided. Can the minister confirm whether the recommendations from that report have been implemented?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to highlight that this is all public information that’s posted publicly on our website.

We have declined to accept some of the recommendations that the Ombudsperson made. We did accept and are implementing some recommendations. One calls for ensuring that staff are aware of the benefits and limitations for the variety of permanency plans available. Another calls for ensuring that staff are aware of their responsibility to provide a referral for independent legal advice as required by legislation and policy.

Any sort of report and monitoring would also be available publicly.

Reann Gasper: What are the measures in place to ensure youth approaching adulthood receive clear, accurate information about their eligibility for post-secondary supports, tuition waivers or other transition programs?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There’s a variety of things that we do to support young people, with respect to the member’s question.

First and foremost, I’ve spoken about our SAJE navigators and guides. I think I might have mixed it up in one of my answers, but navigators start working with young people as young as age 14 to start working with them on their journey and what that will look like once they age out of care.

We also have what’s called guardianship workers that are attached to young people who are in care that, through case planning and work with young people, would also provide information to foster parents around what benefits and supports are available.

We have a handbook for guides and navigators that includes an inventory of provincial programs that are available and federal programs that are available, including the tuition waiver program and any federal benefits that they might be eligible for.

Indigenous children and youth in care may be receiving services through an Indigenous ICFSA, an Indigenous child and family service agency. They would work to connect Indigenous young people with their nation, and there may be supports and funding available in that regard.

We also fund a website called AgedOut.com. That was created by youth for youth and has a comprehensive inventory of all of the programs and services that are available to former youth in care.

[6:40 p.m.]

The organizations I mentioned earlier that we fund, the provincial organizations that support foster parents and kinship care providers and others, would also be a source of information for young people on what programs and services are available for them once they age out.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Do we have any data tracking how many of our kids that have been in care go on to post-secondary education?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I believe we do have that data, but I think it would be with Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills.

Reann Gasper: Turning to placements, can the minister provide a current breakdown of the number of children and youth in care who are placed in kinship care, foster homes, staff residential or group homes or temporary arrangements?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just for the member’s awareness, all of these numbers are published on our reporting portal. We publish them every year.

As of December 2025, for children and youth in care, we have a total of 4,945 children in care, and we break that down between Indigenous and non-Indigenous. For out-of-care services and other alternatives that include children in the home of a relative, extended family member, youth agreements, we had 4,318.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:47 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,683,425,000 (continued).

[2:45 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Bear with me, Minister, this afternoon. I’ve got sticky-notes everywhere.

I’m going to start with a question on BC Builds. In a BC Builds scenario, what data is the cross-government project acceleration committee using to assess risks with capital grants to non-profits, First Nations or public partners?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question. Every BC Builds project undergoes a detailed risk screen, including, for example, an underwriting analysis, a review of their development experience, project partners, how much equity they’re bringing to the table, as well as due diligence on issues like geotechnical.

Linda Hepner: How many…? I’m going to move into Crown agency, B.C. building particularly, right now. I’m wondering: how many complaints does the Crown agency get in a single year? What I’m trying to get to is that we’ve heard a number of concerns around derelict buildings, pests, rodent issues, black mould.

[2:50 p.m.]

I have a follow-up question that I can include, which is: how is B.C. Housing dealing with the moneys that they get in terms of ensuring livable conditions? Have you, Madam Minister, asked B.C. Housing to give you an understanding of their maintenance and repair schedules on projects where we know there are issues?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question. B.C. Housing oversees approximately 3,200 buildings across B.C., some of which are aging buildings requiring significant investment in capital repairs and all of which necessitate ongoing investment in general building maintenance issues such as client safety features, overall condition, upkeep or individual client concerns.

Major building capital repairs are funded by B.C. Housing through the capital renewal fund program. We take residents’ safety seriously and work closely with non-profit operators to address safety and maintenance concerns across our properties.

Many buildings are aging and, as I stated, require investment, which is prioritized based on urgency and funding. As I said, approximately 3,200 buildings, over 100,000 units. There are roughly 1,500 complaints a year, and they are responded to by operators. B.C. Housing works with operators to address larger concerns in a timely manner.

Linda Hepner: Is there any standard or any substandard that you impose on the Crown agency to whom you have given the moneys?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The B.C. Housing service plan, which is publicly available, on page 8, outlines in goal 1b the facility condition index. It’s an industry standard, described as the physical building condition assessments of building systems, subsystems and components tracked by B.C. Housing and used to calculate this FCI.

It is our expectation that that number be under 21, and the forecast this year is 19.

Linda Hepner: Do you involve your ministry at all in any level relative to the subcontractors that B.C. Housing uses to either maintain the building or act as building managers?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The governance structure of B.C. Housing is through the board of directors to the minister. The minister isn’t involved in procurement decisions, and, as an agency of government, B.C. Housing is required to follow core government practices related to procurement.

Linda Hepner: That’s basically what I’m getting at, in terms of this being a Crown agency, and I understand they have a board of directors.

What I was wondering is: have you at any time asked for a third-party assessment on some of the contractors, some of the complaints? We get a lot of complaints, and I’m sure the minister does as well, regarding building managers, timely consideration of maintenance and those many issues.

I’m wondering, through a third-party agency, whether or not you have the standards or the mechanisms to say that this is a subcontractor that has actively supported the issues or has not. How do you measure, as a ministry, whether or not your agency is fulfilling its role? Have you ever done a third-party assessment to find that out?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. Each individual building has an operating agreement with B.C. Housing. Part of that operating agreement includes maintenance and management of complaints.

In addition, as the minister, I meet regularly both with the board chair and with the executive team at B.C. Housing. Where issues are raised, I am able, through those meetings, to ensure that action is being taken.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to turn this over to my colleague, MLA Luck.

Before doing that, I would ask you, through the Chair to the minister…. I have a lot of questions that I’m never going to get to today. May I provide those to you and get some correspondence later? Thank you.

Tony Luck: Just to hit on a few questions here.

One of the things we’ve been finding, as we talked to a lot of industry experts out there, is that they’ve offered many, many times to put together a housing round table that the minister could participate in and everything. Yet we’re kind of getting ghosted and hear crickets on that.

Could we get a commitment out from the minister to sit down and work with an independent group of so-called housing experts like BCHA and BCREA. Is that something that we can see happening in the near future?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Like the members opposite, I had productive conversations this week with the Real Estate Association and with the Home Builders Association.

In the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, we meet regularly with industry stakeholders, with key stakeholders across the portfolio of Housing and Municipal Affairs and have had very productive relationships that have resulted in a number of significant changes, both legislative and regulatory, informed by and often requested by industry in the service of delivering more homes for people across the province.

The B.C. Real Estate Association has named a request of a round table. I am certainly open to discussing the idea, as I shared with them this week, and look forward to further discussion. We’re always keen to be working alongside key partners to see this good work advance.

[3:10 p.m.]

Tony Luck: I’m a little excited about hearing that because it just seems that they’ve been hitting a brick wall on this and haven’t been able to get anywhere with the ministry, so it sounds like she might be committed to maybe working with this group, seeing how they are.

They represent 26,000 realtors in the province and are people that know what they’re doing when it comes to housing. We look back at some of the things…. Before this gig, I was a realtor. There were some things that came down the pipe that came out — not just in this ministry; a few ministries — and we just shook our heads on it. If they’d just spoken to somebody in the industry that knew what they were doing, it would have saved a lot of embarrassment in those ministries and everything.

My next question would be: could we get a solid list of the people that you sit down and talk with, who your industry experts are? We’d love to be able to compare those against some of the other industries. They seen to be being shut out of the process. We’re kind of excited to see that list. Could we be able to be provided with a list of those experts that this ministry would use?

Further to that is: what criteria does the ministry use to determine who qualifies as a housing expert?

Hon. Christine Boyle: My calendar is publicly available, so the member is certainly welcome to look and see who I meet with. Just in the last couple of weeks, I have met with the B.C. Real Estate Association, the Homebuilders Association, the B.C. Construction Association, the B.C. firefighters, seniors housing advocates, numerous mayors and more.

To the question of who our housing experts are, the ministry oversees a wide range of issues. We look to different experts specific to that issue.

[3:15 p.m.]

I wanted to be able to give you an example. On the work that the ministry did around short-term rentals, as an example, we met with the tourism industry, with the Hotel Association, the mountain ski resort association.

We met with short-term rental platforms like Airbnb, with small operators, with strata hotels, with tenant advocates, with local governments and more.

Tony Luck: Excellent. I like to hear that. Maybe I’ll get one of our LAs to go over and pull that list off, and we can have a look at it and see what there is there.

It’s a nice thing. It’s a good thing that you mentioned some mayors here. I just want to go back to infrastructure a little bit. We’ve got a couple more mayors coming out very recently, and they’re frustrated. They’re done. They’re throwing in the towel with this ministry and that, because they just cannot keep up with demands from this ministry.

Can the minister table the…? I’m sorry. No, that’s not…. So as we look at this and see the frustration of the mayors with the infrastructure and all that, are you finding ways to help relieve the fiscal pressures on these communities? These are communities that aren’t really like, in rural British Columbia…. These are downtown, in-the-city communities that have just had it. They just cannot keep up with it, with the demands anymore.

Can you provide some kind of assurance that you’re going to be looking at some of the things that need to be done, especially around that infrastructure piece to help them get through this financial crisis they’re in right now?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: We share local government concerns about increased service and infrastructure costs, particularly driven by factors like climate events and new federal regulatory requirements.

The Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and UBCM are working to find ways to strengthen the financial resiliency of local governments and continue to advocate with the federal government for bilateral funding programs to support local government infrastructure needs. The province is currently in discussion on this.

The province has taken a number of steps to support local governments in addressing their infrastructure projects. The growing communities fund provided a one-time total of $1 billion in grants to all 188 local governments, and I know we’ve had a chance to talk about that already during estimates.

We as a government renegotiated the Canada community building fund for 2024 to 2034. That fund was over $300 million. As well, we’ve implemented changes in development finance, including amenity cost charges, expanding eligible categories for development cost charges and updating the ACC and DCC installment payment regulations.

We’ve amended the Municipal Liabilities Regulation and the short-term capital borrowing regulation to provide municipalities more efficiency and flexibility to finance capital infrastructure projects.

All of that work builds on work that we have taken on since forming government in 2017. In 2018, we signed a multi-year bilateral agreement with Canada on the investing in Canada infrastructure program, ICIP, a program investing more than $3.9 billion in federal funds in B.C. We worked closely with the Ministries of Transportation and Energy and Climate Solutions to deliver this funding.

Housing and Municipal Affairs administered five programs under ICIP, all of which have fully allocated their funding: the environmental quality; community, culture and recreation; rural and northern communities program; the CleanBC communities fund; and the COVID-19 resilience infrastructure stream. So 445 projects were approved and have been funded. Project construction is ongoing on those projects.

As I have spoken to before, we are in active discussion and negotiation with the federal government around the build Canada strong fund, recognizing the significant need of local governments and echoing those needs in our advocacy to the federal government.

Tony Luck: Wow, that’s quite a list. I really appreciate that, Minister. Those are some great programs there.

Just two questions following up through that. I think we learned in the past that just throwing cash at things…. It’s great throwing all these billions of dollars around, but, at the end of the day, are we getting what we want out of that?

[3:25 p.m.]

One of the first questions I have towards that is: what modelling does the ministry conduct regarding the cost impact of provincial housing mandates on municipalities? Do we even know what we do to municipalities when we do this?

We’ve seen this ministry seems to have a thing of cookie-cutter and one-size-fits-all for everybody, from the smallest community in rural British Columbia to the most dense community in the Lower Mainland. I think, at one time…. I think we were in estimates last year, and we talked about that. You know, if density was the answer, and just throwing money at things, Vancouver would be the cheapest city in Canada because we have the highest density. So just throwing money at things doesn’t necessarily always work.

That’s why my previous question is about making sure we have the right experts here, giving the right information to use, finding out better ways of doing things. So question one is: what modelling does the ministry conduct regarding the cost impact of provincial housing — and federal — mandates on municipalities?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Ministry staff are working to support local governments with implementation, including $51 million that was distributed to 188 local governments as part of capacity funding to implement housing changes, and $25 million was provided for the local government development approvals program, which I know we spoke more about yesterday.

Local governments continue to have extensive autonomy through land use tools to respond to local conditions. Each community in the province is unique. All have a responsibility to help in addressing the housing crisis, but local governments retain land use tools to help identify where in the community that housing is best fit. The province’s approach recognizes the difference between small and rural communities and larger urban centres.

[3:30 p.m.]

Speaking to the infrastructure questions and the direction of infrastructure funding, I’ll provide as an example, again, the $1 billion through the growing communities fund that was designed to support the delivery of infrastructure projects necessary to enable community growth. Those dollars were provided directly to local governments to decide what their priorities for growth-related funding and investments were.

We have seen a wide range of projects funded through that fund — from sewer upgrades to splash pads and children’s playgrounds, sports complexes and more. Local governments got to decide — because they know, in their communities, what’s needed in terms of investment of those funds.

Additionally, I just want to speak to a recognition that increasing housing supply in existing neighbourhoods makes better use of existing infrastructure than single detached homes and helps to reduce urban sprawl. We’ve also worked, as we’ve covered already, to provide new and updated tools to local governments to fund infrastructure and amenities. We anticipate that the small-scale, multi-unit housing uptake will be gradual, allowing local governments time in upgrading infrastructure and adapting to that new form of housing.

Tony Luck: Well, that was great. I heard a lot of new information and everything. But the question was: what modelling do you use? So analytical modelling to know exactly how many housing units you need in a community or whatever. Does it include immigration? Does it include interest rates? Does it include land availability, labour availability, those kinds of things?

That’s the model. It becomes a formula. It’s like some kind of form thing you use. What are the criteria that you would use to be able to come up and decide you need 10,000 or 50, or the number we keep hearing, 95,000 — I’ll come back to that a little later — units of housing in there?

So that’s more what the question was. What modelling do you have to use? What are your inputs that you use to decide how much housing is needed? How much infrastructure is used in some particular place to be able to do that? So that’s okay. I’ll leave that. Go on that. You can give me a little bit of input.

My next question was…. So with all this stuff that’s going on and everything…. I’ve mentioned before that just throwing money at something doesn’t necessarily always fix the problem. We can give examples of a number of ministries that go through that. But what evidence does the ministry have that current housing policies are improving affordability rather than simply increasing supply? I’ve made an example already — density, very expensive housing.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m going to speak to the modelling question specifically, because I hadn’t heard that directly in the previous answer, and then speak to the impact. Happy to get to speak to both.

The housing needs report method is a standardized methodology based on six components that provides a more robust, consistent and comparable understanding of current and anticipated housing needs. The housing needs report method includes an additional demand buffer for municipalities to better account for units required to meet healthy market demand.

Housing needs reports calculate the number of housing units to address current and anticipated needs over five and 20 years. The housing target orders apply for a five-year timeline based on 75 percent of what that municipality’s housing need is calculated at.

The housing needs report includes additional quantitative and qualitative information about current and anticipated local housing need. That’s the methodology piece.

On the member opposite’s question about what evidence we have that our housing action is making a difference. I’ll speak to the latest report from rentals.ca that came out on March 9, indicating that average rents for all unit types continue to fall across the most populous provinces, with B.C. leading the country, down by 4.9 throughout the province; while declines in Ontario, for example, were at 4.7; 4.6 in Alberta; 3.1 in Quebec.

In February of this year, purpose-built apartment and condo asking rents in B.C. were down 11.8 percent from their peak seen in September 2023. In Vancouver, in particular, as the member referenced, one-bedroom apartment rental asking prices have fallen by 5.7 percent compared to this time last year.

Overall, apartment rents in Vancouver fell 7.2 percent year over year, the biggest decrease among Canada’s six largest markets. The largest overall decrease in apartment rents was seen in New Westminster at 12.8 percent. In Kelowna, two-bedroom asking rental prices fell by 11 percent from this time last year. One-bedroom prices in Coquitlam were down 12.7 percent.

Outside of those largest markets, six B.C. cities were among the 15 cities showing the largest decreases in asking apartment rents.

[3:40 p.m.]

This is evidence to us that our work is making a difference — cutting red tape, speeding up approvals, cracking down on speculators and connecting with important partners to get more affordable homes built faster.

This work is one piece of why B.C. is leading the way in rental declines and how we achieved record-level completions of purpose-built rentals in 2025, with 21,000 completed for a 56 percent increase over 2024. I could go on.

We’re doing excellent work through DASH, as we have had a chance to speak to.

We secured $170 million in capital funding from the federal government through the first tranche of Build Canada Homes funding.

While we build new rental homes, we know it’s essential that those homes fit people’s needs.

I was recently able to visit an example of 116 below market rental units near transit that are under construction in Burnaby. Those homes — in partnership with a not-for-profit organization and a developer and the city of Burnaby and the federal government, all as partners — show how, when we come together, we can build the kinds of affordable housing that people need near transit that helps reduce not just housing costs but transportation costs and save people thousands of dollars each year to ease pressure.

All of this is, to me, indication of good progress, and we absolutely know that there’s more work ahead to help people across B.C.

Claire Rattée: I’m going to ask some questions around housing support. I’m not sure if the minister would like me to wait until there’s a chance to swap some staff.

Interjection.

Claire Rattée: We’re good? Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Just to start off, I’d like to know if the minister can tell me how many supportive housing units currently exist in British Columbia, just the number of how many units there are, and how many of those are operated directly by B.C. Housing versus third-party operators.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Welcome to the member. I know how well she knows these topics and how dedicated she is to this work, so glad to have the conversation.

In B.C., there are just over 15,000 units of supportive housing available as of December 31 at the end of last year. More than 6,800 units of supportive housing have been completed in the province since 2017, with thousands more underway. That’s in addition to 1,052 HEARTH sites that have opened, with 608 of those being temporary housing with supports and 480 units of supportive housing designated for youth ages 19 and up. None of that supportive housing is managed directly by B.C. Housing.

Claire Rattée: I’m just wondering if the minister can provide me with the current vacancy rate in supportive housing units across the province.

[3:45 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. As the member will know, vacancy count is a point-in-time count. Our annual assessment of vacancy rates is underway now across the province.

There was a count as of last March focused on Metro Vancouver and the CRD that showed a vacancy rate of 8.5 percent. I’m sure the member can understand from her own work that these are often units with a high turnover and a significantly higher level of wear and tear on the units between tenancies than other housing.

Our coordinated access tables, during turnover, work collaboratively to fill units as quickly as they can, working to match the right type and level of supports with tenants looking for housing.

Claire Rattée: I think that kind of answers my next question then, which would be the most common reason that they remain unoccupied. It’s primarily going to be that the units need renovations, I’m assuming, or that somebody has just left and they happen to be waiting for a new tenant.

My next question, then, would be: how many individuals are currently waiting for supportive housing placement in British Columbia, and is there a way to break that information down by region? I don’t know if by health authority would be a useful way to break it up. I know that’s not relevant to this ministry but just so that I can get a sense of how many there are overall in the province and what regions they are residing in when they’re waiting.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks again for the question. We spoke a bit about housing registries yesterday. I know we’re all busy, so I’ll repeat a bit of it.

Specific to the question of the supportive housing registry, there are roughly 10,000 people on that registry. What I want to be clear on is that this registry includes people who currently have housing and have added their name to the list requesting a transfer. They’re looking to move back closer to family. They’re looking for a different type of building.

That list has a wide variety of current housing situations and needs within it, and that’s the work that the coordinated access team does, as a unit becomes available, to look to best meet the need with the support and building that is available.

Claire Rattée: Is it possible to break that 10,000 number down, then, by how many people are currently unhoused and are on that list?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: When people add their name to the registry, there’s a supplementary form that gathers information on their current housing situation, including whether they’re housed or not, the type of housing that they’re looking for, geographic information, etc.

As the member, I know, will be aware, that information can be quite fluid, so it represents a point in time of what their housing situation was at the time. For many people on the supportive housing registry, their housing situation is changing much more often than the general population.

I don’t have the detailed numbers now. I can have the team pull those numbers for you. Again, just recognizing the fluid nature, those numbers will represent a point in time of either when somebody put their name on the registry or the last time that they updated that information.

Claire Rattée: Thank you for that response. Does the ministry currently have an estimate on the total number of people that are experiencing homelessness in the province right now? I understand, again, that it would be a point in time, but just a rough number of how many people are unhoused.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Data about people and their experiences of homelessness helps the province and communities develop services and supports that are effective in assisting vulnerable people across the province.

Since 2019 the province has completed annual estimates of the population experiencing homelessness in B.C., now released by B.C. Stats through the data catalogue. That data spans 2019 through 2024. That project uses de-identified provincial data from income and disability assistance, shelter use and Medical Services Plan databases to develop a more complete picture of who is experiencing homelessness, and it informs our work to prevent and respond to homelessness.

For example, communities use local homelessness estimates in the latest round of interim housing needs reports when estimating long-term housing needs. So 32 communities or regions participated in point-in-time counts across 2024 and ’25. Ten of them were federally funded, 20 were provincially funded, and two were independent counts.

[4:05 p.m.]

As in all past years, all the data will be combined to produce a provincial summary report this year. Community profiles for each of the 20 provincially funded counts were released in October. That data-driven approach helps us deliver, as I said, better services and supports.

I can go into a few more specifics. The annual estimates of homelessness, based on the integrated administrative data that I mentioned on shelter stays, income and disability assistance cases of folks without a fixed address for three consecutive months, identified 32,000 people as experiencing homelessness at one point or another over 2024.

This was 0.4 percent lower than the rate was in 2023. The member can find that data over many years. It indicates that the growth in homelessness seen in recent years is levelling off, though, of course, still too high a number by every count.

Annual estimates per the integrated administrative data differ from the point-in-time count numbers due to differences in methodology. The point-in-time counts are helpful for monitoring local trends.

Of the 20 communities I mentioned with provincially funded counts in the spring of 2025, eight of those communities saw a decrease in the total number of people identified as experiencing homelessness compared to the previous count two years earlier in 2023, although there’s some, as I said, variability by community, based on available data. The point-in-time counts show similar trends overall to the integrated administrative data.

Claire Rattée: Yeah, I do follow the point-in-time counts. I was just looking for a general idea from the ministry of how many throughout the province. I’m going to take from that that we’re assuming roughly 32,000 people.

I’m hoping that the minister could provide me with the number of shelter beds that are currently existing in British Columbia, and what percentage of those are typically occupied?

The Chair: Member for Skeena for a clarifying question.

Claire Rattée: Sorry, I just wanted to clarify that I’m looking for possibly a breakdown between full-time and temporary weather shelters, if possible.

[4:10 p.m.]

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The province funds B.C. Housing to provide emergency shelters to offer life-saving, immediate short-term indoor places for people to stay who are experiencing homelessness. Also, shelters act as a critical gateway to stabilization, helping individuals address urgent needs and transition toward more permanent housing solutions.

As the member knows, but maybe not everybody knows, permanent shelters in B.C. communities provide this service year-round, and the shelter system expands temporarily during winter in times of extreme weather through the delivery of temporary winter shelters and extreme weather response shelters.

As of January 9 of this year, B.C. Housing is funding 6,883 shelter spaces across the province. Of those, 4,282 are permanent shelter spaces, 1,308 are temporary winter shelter spaces, 726 are extreme weather response shelter spaces, and 567 are HEARTH-funded shelter spaces.

Shelter spaces across B.C. operate at or near capacity year-round. As of March of last year, the average shelter occupancy was 90 percent for permanent and temporary winter shelter spaces.

Claire Rattée: How many individuals are turned away from shelters every year due to a lack of space?

[4:15 p.m.]

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Shelter operators don’t collect that data. But shelter operators do their best to meet the need, if they don’t have the appropriate service or space, in most geographic places where there are options. We know that shelter operators are connected with other services; they have a network of support to try to find the appropriate option for people. But unfortunately, operators aren’t collecting that specific data.

Claire Rattée: I mean, I think the problem with that would be that some communities don’t have other alternatives. But I’m just wondering if the minister thinks that that might be useful information to require shelters to gather so that we have a better sense of how many people are not being served currently.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the tiny House.

Thanks for the question. We know that there’s an unmet need. We typically look to the point-in-time count as our indicator of need and that’s why we continue our work to increase and deliver both permanent and temporary shelter beds, as well as supportive housing units to meet that need.

There is a balancing act here around a caution of not putting additional administrative load on shelter operators, recognizing the good and challenging and important work that they’re already doing, which is why we typically look to the point-in-time count as a broader indicator of that need.

[4:20 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: How many serious incidents, including assaults or deaths, occurred in supportive housing sites in the past year?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: We don’t have that particular number handy. I’d be happy to work with the member to understand what types of critical incidents she’s interested in, and we can pull that data.

As the member knows from her own work, there are 15,000 British Columbians who call supportive housing home across the province. While there can be fear and sometimes misinformation in communities about supportive housing, the vast, vast majority of residents who live in supportive housing are good neighbours. They’re good community members. They themselves experience multiple kinds of vulnerability, and they are seeking good and safe and stable housing.

That’s the work that we continue to prioritize and that I know matters to the member as well.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister for that response. I mean, I certainly do know that. I know that the incidents are likely not that common, which is why I was hoping that we might have numbers on them or a breakdown of some sort. But I’m happy to work with the minister on getting that.

I’m curious how many organizations…. I understand that all of the units are being managed by different organizations, but I’m wondering how many organizations there are that are currently operating supportive housing on behalf of B.C. Housing and how often those operators are audited or inspected.

Hon. Christine Boyle: There are 138 supportive housing providers in the province, and B.C. Housing conducts operational reviews every three years unless there are incidents that indicate that a review in the interim is required.

I wonder, Chair…. I note there’s some turnover, and it’s been a couple hours since any of us visited a bathroom. Can we ask for a ten-minute break?

The Chair: The Chair will call a ten-minute recess because we also need to fix some IT problems. Right now it is 4:30 exactly, so if we could all return at 4:40. If you don’t return by 4:40, I am going to ring the bells.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, I now bring us back to order. Thank you.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering how many supportive housing units are considered abstinence-based sites, supportive recovery, that sort of thing.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Supportive housing and shelters for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness include models that serve a wide range of populations, from people with high health care and service needs all the way through to people with relatively low service needs.

While I certainly appreciate the desire for a black-and-white characterization of supports, the reality is that the wide range of services and restrictions in place in these buildings means they just can’t be separated into only two categories. In reality, just as the needs of people experiencing homelessness vary widely, so do the services and operating models of the buildings that exist to support them.

This can include some buildings with barriers related to age — for example, seniors-focused supportive housing buildings like Mount Edwards, which is 55 plus; Olympic Vista, which is 55 plus; and Cottage Grove, which is 55 plus. All are here in Victoria, which are mainly for tenants above a certain age, with the services in the building designed to meet the needs of seniors.

Other buildings are restricted to people who have experienced gender-based violence, with support services in these buildings set up to address the needs of people with these experiences. Other barriers exist with respect to gender, with some sites being only for either men or women.

Others are culturally aligned to support Indigenous people, such as SpeqƏȠéutxw House supportive housing on Hillside Avenue in Victoria, which is designed to meet the needs of Indigenous women experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Similarly, some sites are designed to be able to support people who are actively in addiction, with supports on site to reduce the risk of harm and to support residents to access health care supports and allow them to have stable housing without their addiction being a barrier to coming indoors and accessing housing.

Other sites operate with various levels of restrictions on substance use, including some sites like Healing House in Penticton or Seven Sacred Fires by the Surrey Urban Indigenous Leadership Committee, which are designed for people who are further along their recovery journey and want to live in a substance-free environment.

Just some of the ways that these operating models can vary across sites…. At its core, our goal across this wide range of housing types and models is to provide a diversity of housing options that meet the diversity of needs that people experiencing homelessness have, as well as to eliminate many of the barriers that prevent people from accessing stable housing.

Claire Rattée: I think the minister misunderstood my question. I understand that there are various types of housing and different needs. I was just asking how many units there are that are specifically for the purposes for somebody that has left recovery and that is looking for sober living facilities. I don’t know if the assumption from that answer needs to be that we don’t have any. I’m not really clear.

I’m also wondering if the minister could tell me what the average length of stay in supportive housing is right now and how many individuals were evicted from supportive housing in the past year.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the clarification of the previous question. Sorry I hadn’t drilled down into the specifics.

For B.C. Housing–funded recovery-oriented sites, there is a total of over 1,100 sites. Worth noting that that doesn’t include supportive recovery and health-focused facilities, which are typically the direct line for people first leaving detox or recovery. Then, of course, there are additional federally funded programs and private sites.

To the second question, the metric tracked on page 10 of the service plan, goal 2(b), is the percentage of homeless individuals who accessed housing and remained housed after six months. That target, which is the forecast, as well, for this year, is 94 percent. I just think it’s helpful to outline why that, in particular, is the measure. The number of homeless individuals who accessed housing and remained housed after six months is an important indicator of the success of a housing program because of the cyclical nature of homelessness.

[4:55 p.m.]

People often experience homelessness more than once over the course of their lives, and the longer a person is housed, the greater likelihood that they will remain housed. So measuring the percentage of individuals experiencing homelessness who remained housed after six months of placement allows B.C. Housing to measure progress through the goal of providing services that are reliable and responsive to those needs.

To the third question, the rental tenancy board doesn’t track evictions by housing type.

Claire Rattée: This is going to be my last question because we are running out of time here, and I have to hand it back to my colleague. Just before I ask that last question….

Last year I started the process of asking for a list of the supportive housing sites across the province — unit counts, operators, municipalities, that sort of thing, the type of housing unit. I still haven’t received one that actually breaks that all down for me throughout the province. So I am hopeful that I can get that. I would find that incredibly useful.

I do have a number of questions that obviously I haven’t had time to get to, so I’m hoping I can pass those on and get a response in writing.

Also, I just wanted some clarification around that number of 1,100 units, just to confirm that those are, in fact, abstinence-based; if they’re for people that have transitioned out of recovery; if these are sites where drug use is prohibited, because that’s kind of what I’m looking for. How many of those are actually supporting recovery and require an abstinence base?

So my final question. I just want to ask the minister…. Sorry, so many questions here that I didn’t get to.

Does the ministry track how many residents successfully transition from supportive housing into independent housing each year? If they do, what are those numbers looking like right now?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member opposite for a good and important conversation on this.

Again, we’ll try to answer both of these questions. Of the more than 1,100 units that are recovery-focused, our understanding — again, I’m sure the member knows this — is that substance use recovery isn’t a linear journey. If a resident…. Our goal is to avoid a case where a single slip-up results in an eviction and the massively destabilizing result of that.

I think a useful example is a conversation I had recently with folks from the Union Gospel Mission, who run a recovery-oriented housing program. The way that they described it to me was that the housing is program focused. Residents have certain goals that they work on with support staff to set and continue to work towards if they slip up, and they remain committed to working on those goals and getting back on track. That is the focus of the housing.

That’s why we talk about recovery-oriented housing rather than abstinence-based, because of an understanding of working with people through that broader journey.

Then, to the second question on flow, we don’t have stats across the whole system, but I’m happy to share some examples. As of end of December, at the Crowley site in Kelowna, 40 percent of cumulative departures of residents from that site moved into permanent supportive housing. At the Trailside site in Kelowna, 43 percent of folks there moved into various forms of permanent housing, including both permanent supportive housing and independent market rental housing.

A local example here in Victoria is Caledonia Place, where 62 percent of residents have moved from Caledonia Place into various forms of permanent housing, including, again, both permanent supportive housing and independent market rental housing.

Again, as I said at the beginning, I really recognize the member’s depth of knowledge and commitment on this issue and appreciate the conversation we’ve been able to have about it.

Linda Hepner: Residential tenancy branch disputes. Can you let me know whether or not those are increasing, or are they decreasing?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: In 2025, the residential tenancy branch experienced a 14 percent increase in application volume for dispute resolutions, up from 21,500 to 24,500 from 2022 to 2025, a three-year gap. Despite those increases, we’re seeing average wait times decrease quite significantly because of important work done and investments made by our government.

Again, for example, average wait-time hearings for emergency applications were down to two weeks compared to nearly four weeks back in 2022. For standard applications, they were down to 4.6 weeks compared to 16.4 weeks in 2022. For deferred or monetary applications, ten weeks down from nearly 36 weeks in 2022. So an increase in volume but a significant decrease in wait times.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that, Minister.

What we’re hearing is that there seems to be, generally from the landlords, a bias in the resolution process that prejudicially favours tenants. I’m wondering whether there is any data that can support that. For instance, do you have a way of assessing the percentage of favourable landlord complaints compared to tenant complaints? But what is a mechanism by which you could say that is an argument that works or an argument that does not?

One example I’ll use for the question is that on an appeal, the same people are examining. The same person who is examining the case in the first place is also examining the case on an appeal mechanism.

I’m wondering what data you have that would either support that there seems to be a disconnect with favour towards tenants over landlords or what the minister has, to be able to say that doesn’t exist.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate getting to have this discussion as well. Landlords are a critical partner in the provision of rental housing in British Columbia. We know that the vast majority of landlords do their best to provide safe and secure housing to their tenants, and challenges with a tenancy can be very difficult for both tenants and landlords.

The province has taken a number of steps to introduce process improvements and increased resources to be more responsive to these concerns, including a hearing verification and enhanced screening to reduce the number of dispute resolution hearings that aren’t needed or have no merit; reducing wait times; early interventions to resolve disputes without a hearing, reducing the opportunity for the dispute to become adversarial; and better supporting healthy, long-term landlord-tenant relationships; a facilitated settlement process during which a case facilitator assists parties to resolve their dispute by agreement rather than arbitration; as well as an expansion of the types of disputes eligible for direct requests to include tenancies ending with cause, allowing for faster resolutions.

Direct requests are used for straightforward applications where the other party doesn’t dispute the application, and as a result, a full hearing isn’t required.

In April of 2025 the province announced its commitment to introduce changes to further support landlords. These included changing landlords’ requirements for holding onto a tenant’s abandoned property, creating more transparency by publishing the outcome of monetary orders and providing guides and toolkits to better navigate hearings.

I do want to say that I don’t accept the premise that there’s bias at the RTB. Appeals are not done by the same person who adjudicated the original case. They are done by a director who’s a statutory decision–maker, and decisions can also be elevated to a judicial review. Last year, in 2025, the total number of judicial review petitions filed represents approximately 0.7 percent of all RTB applications, and of those, most petitions were dismissed or abandoned. Only 37 of the total judicial reviews filed were returned to the RTB for a rehearing.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that information. I would suggest, based on the cases that are coming through the constituency office, that maybe keeping track of those that are in favour and not in favour and reassessing how you collect that data might be useful in the future, as we go forward.

The community housing fund has been closed indefinitely. My question to the minister is: how many approved or pending units does that now put in limbo? The number is really all I’m looking for.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The community housing fund is a $3.3 billion program that will build more than 20,000 affordable rental homes for people, including families, seniors and people living with disabilities. I want to be really clear that the community housing fund program hasn’t been cancelled or paused indefinitely. Thousands of homes continue to be built under the program across the province.

Since the launch of the community housing fund in 2018, the province has made strong progress across multiple intakes. As of December 31, 2025, more than 5,900 homes have been completed, with more than 4,600 homes actively in construction and more than 3,000 in earlier stages of the development process across the province.

We’ll continue to proceed. We remain committed to delivering all homes committed to under the community housing fund. The remaining 6,703 homes will be delivered over a longer period of time with the availability of funding.

Linda Hepner: Can the minister table the list of impacted municipalities and the unit counts per municipality, as well as any funds that have been invested either by government or by private sector partners that will be delayed, as opposed to not cancelled or indefinitely…?

Hon. Christine Boyle: All community housing fund projects that had funding committed are continuing.

Linda Hepner: That’s confusing to me. I believe that we heard in the House just yesterday that there were communities that had spent several thousands of dollars, if not millions, preparing the land for development. It was not on the list of…. It was cancelled from the community housing fund or put aside until a future date.

Am I to understand the minister to say that no one who is on that list that has now been re-paced has invested any money, either through private funds or through government-invested funds?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Happy to clarify. There have been a number of intake cycles for funding in the community housing fund. Last year’s intake cycle was cancelled. No projects were awarded. So there were a number of applicants who were proposing projects and requesting funding under that intake, and no projects were awarded under that intake.

I absolutely understand the frustration of those applicants who were hoping to get funding for their project. I look forward to future funding cycles or projects where we can work with proponents to see what federal funding is available. All of the community housing fund projects that have funding committed from previous intakes of the program are continuing.

Linda Hepner: So of the 6,703 units that have been delayed, could I get a list of which municipalities those are in and the number of units in each of those municipalities?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, appreciate the opportunity to clarify. None of the community housing fund projects, like I’ve said, that had funding committed are delayed. All of those projects with committed funding are continuing.

The number the member has represents the larger goal of where we will get to in funded projects. The original goal was to have the full program target complete or underway by 2031-32.

We’re re-pacing projects, and so we won’t meet that original goal for a few extra years, but the 6,700 number that the member is referencing are not projects that have funding allocated yet. There aren’t projects that are being delayed through funding commitments from this program.

[5:25 p.m.]

All of the projects that have funding committed are continuing, and we will continue through future cycles to meet our commitment of that original goal of the full program target. So there are no municipalities or specific projects I can speak to, because the awarded projects are continuing, and then future funding cycles will identify those future projects that get us to the original goal.

I hope that’s helpful.

Linda Hepner: Yes, that’s as clear as mud. The 6,703 units are part of the large package but are not defined by any application at all yet, is what I heard the minister say.

Originally, I thought the minister had said there were a certain number that had been delayed — 6,703 — and that was the list I was looking for. But in the last response, I heard that the 6,703 still exist but that no one has yet applied for them. But they’re part of a larger package that will eventually be built using this fund when it’s brought back to fruition.

I guess what I’m saying is that’s pretty definitive — 6,703 units but no applications for them. Is that what the minister is telling me?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Let me try this again. The community housing fund target is 20,000 affordable rental homes. Since the beginning of the program in 2018, there are more than 5,900 homes that have been completed. We’re trying to get to that 20,000 number. More than 59,000 have been completed, 4,600 are actively in construction, and 3,000 are in early stages of development.

It was always intended to be a phased program, so that 6,703 are future phases of the program, meaning they’re not homes or projects that have been identified and funded. There’s nothing that’s being delayed. Those are simply the homes that will be funded in future funding phases of the program to get to that original target of 20,000.

Linda Hepner: That is much better. Thank you, Minister, for that clarification.

Of those applications that were not part of any funding stream yet, will they then form part of those 6,703 yet to be, or are we to assume that those applicants that didn’t make it through the process and have not been funded will not be funded?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: First, I think I might have said 59,000 have been completed instead of 5,900. We’re all getting a bit tired. I just want to make sure that I was clear on that math.

To the member’s question, it’s really up to applicants. Some may look to other funding avenues. Some may wait for future cycles of the community housing fund.

Linda Hepner: This is my last question on this. If their applicant…. Is it required of the applicant to show that they have given some investment in order to apply? Of those folks that have applied and now are not part of the process of approval right now, was there an expectation in the application that they needed to have done some of their own investing or a third party to also have invested for them? Were they required to spend money to make that application?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Before I answer, I know this is the member’s last question. I will also thank the member for what I think has been a really respectful and well-informed and fruitful discussion.

Thank you for all of these questions.

There is no hard-and-fast requirement for investments. To respond to any RFP requires work put into applications. We understand that many applicants put a significant amount of work into these applications. We share their hope that these projects can continue to move forward, either through different funding sources or through future funding cycles of this program.

Linda Hepner: I didn’t know that was my last question.

Interjection.

[5:35 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: It was my last question on that issue. I had all this paper. I was thinking: “Okay.” No, it was my last question on that community housing fund.

Now I’m interested in knowing how many modular or rapid-build units we have been able to deliver in the last fiscal year.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, my apologies for suggesting the member was done. I’m glad to keep talking about this.

[5:40 p.m.]

The ministry is collaborating across government to advance the uptake of off-site construction and modern methods of construction, focused on accelerating the adoption of modern methods of construction and working with industry to foster innovation and identify regulatory or policy changes to remove barriers to the adoption of more modular and modern methods of construction, helping homes get built more quickly.

Yesterday we got to talk a bit about DASH, the digitally accelerated standardized housing program led by B.C. Housing. It’s a digital platform that provides permit-ready designs and enables architects, designers and housing providers to plan and deliver multifamily housing more efficiently and at a lower cost. The ministry is also collaborating with federal counterparts like the National Research Council of B.C., Build Canada Homes and CMHC to explore opportunities for broader adoption of DASH.

We’re already beginning early work on two demonstration projects that are using DASH. Approximately 50 spaces of women’s transition housing in Abbotsford and approximately 40 affordable, apartment-style rental units for low- and moderate-income people in Prince George.

In addition to that, of the roughly 1,000 HEARTH sites in the HEART and HEARTH program responding to encampments, 608 of those are modular units, as are many supportive housing projects. Again, yesterday we got to speak about a BC Builds program in Prince Rupert, which is a modular construction. The construction time for that project is about five months, which the member, from her background, will understand to be very quick, in a good way.

The ministry is working closely with colleagues at the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth, who are leading work on the off-site manufacturing as part of our government’s Look West strategic plan.

Linda Hepner: Can you tell me what proportion of BC Builds or B.C. Housing 2026 starts are in high-density urban cores versus suburban or rural communities?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m just trying to better understand the specifics of the member’s question. I’d be happy to work with the member to better understand. Is she looking for BC Builds specifically or B.C. Housing more broadly and communities over a certain size or more of a provincial distribution?

Those are numbers we don’t have broken down in all of those ways in front of us. But I’m happy to, as a follow-up, better understand the specifics of the question, and then we can pull numbers.

Linda Hepner: What I was really looking for was Metro Vancouver and Victoria area compared to rural and northern British…. Throughout the rest of the province, and what those percentages look like.

I mean, I could guess, and I already have, but I would like to hear from the ministry where those construction and housing starts are, relative to provincewide. So you can give that to me at a future date, and I’ll move on with another question.

I’m really interested in what the province is thinking and what the housing start target is that the province has assessed would be required to restore affordability metrics. I know that the ministry has said that they’re assessing about 44,000 starts this year. I think it was 44,210.

I’m wondering. Within the provincial ministry’s more broad assessment, what would it take? What would the metric need to be to restore affordability within the housing sector?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Based on the provincial housing needs report methodology…. I know we discussed the methodology earlier today. The total housing units needed from every local government, excluding First Nations lands and the Islands Trust, is 317,726 over five years and 1.1 million over 20 years.

The benchmark price for a single detached home in B.C. fell to $1.2 million in 2025, down 8 percent from the previous year. Benchmark prices for single-family homes continue to moderate after years of strong price growth during the pandemic, from 2020 to 2022. Prices for townhomes and condominiums both decreased by 3 percent as well.

Average rent for an occupied two-bedroom purpose-built rental unit in B.C. communities of 10,000 or more was $2,000 in 2025. As we’ve covered through estimates already, we have seen consistent declines in rental asking rates. In fact, average asking rents have fallen for 19 months straight, between July 2024 and January 2026, on a year-over-year basis.

Linda Hepner: I’m assuming that plan or that number, 317-some-odd thousand, presumes a moderate population growth, and that would lead us to needing at least more than 60,000 every year. I’m just wondering how the supply gap will ultimately be able to be closed.

I don’t expect there’s a plan for that at the moment, but I would ask the minister: do they expect that to come through the private sector for that supply gap to narrow, or is it through more public housing construction?

Just to finish that…. CMHC is suggesting it needs to be around 70,000 to 75,000, but your 317,000 number is about 60-some thousand, so it’s still a gap.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I certainly agree that hitting these housing numbers requires action both from the public and private sector. We are all concerned about housing. It is one of the top issues facing British Columbians. We know this is a challenging time for the housing construction sector. It’s a top priority for the Premier and I and the whole of government.

Housing construction is showing resilience right now. We continue, as a government, to be focused on making sure that’s the case in working alongside industry and partners. We’ve taken many actions to move in that direction. We’re cutting red tape and breaking down the barriers that blocked homes, unlocking the creation of hundreds of thousands of new homes.

As I have talked about before in estimates, our work on this front is estimated to lead to 300,000 homes, including more duplexes and triplexes and more homes near transit. We’re working to take on speculators and rein in short-term rentals, resulting in more homes available for people. We’re giving home builders more financial flexibility to reduce the cost to deliver housing.

We’re accelerating and streamlining provincial permitting. We are, again, as we’ve spoken about, investing approximately $9 million in the local government development approvals program to support local governments in the delivery of housing.

It is a tough time in the sector. We remain committed to hitting those numbers. We’re seeing good signs of resilience. Purpose-built rental numbers…. There were more than 25,000 purpose-built rentals registered for construction in 2025, up 40 percent from the previous year. Nearly 20,000 rental units are in construction in Vancouver, for example, compared to just 10,000 completed during the previous decade.

Almost 41,000 homes were completed last year. That’s up 20 percent from the previous year. I recognize it’s not the 60 percent, but it is going in the right direction. We recognize there is more to do, and we’ll continue to focus on that work.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Minister, for that.

I think we have a long road ahead of us in terms of those numbers and in terms of ensuring both affordability and acceleration of supply.

[6:00 p.m.]

I am going to thank the minister for all of the answers you’ve given, and I look forward to hearing more from you as I provide to you the questions that I didn’t quite get to.

My colleague has a few things to ask of you before our time runs out. I do thank you for your time and your answers today.

Tony Luck: Just a few here. It’s kind of just all over the place. Some questions here as we wrap this up and pull it together and everything.

One of the first things we read…. I live in rural British Columbia, in Merritt. There’s a much different housing situation, unless you’re in Kelowna and Vernon, of course. But those smaller rural communities, they struggle all the time in meeting those kind of things.

One of the things we’re looking at is that we want to build the homes we need. I respect my colleague and everything, but I think we’re looking at about — I can’t remember now — 300,000 homes a year or something over the next little while to fill the gap. It’s a large, large number. How are we going to do that as we move forward?

One of the questions I’ve been asked to ask and see where the minister is on this is: what is the ministry going to be doing, looking at expediting manufactured homes, pre-manufactured homes and that, as we move forward here in the province? There is some stigma around that. There are certainly some blocks. There are some zoning blockages going on as well. Is there anything that this ministry is looking forward to doing to be able to expedite those?

You know, these are really good homes, because they’re built in factories. They’re much better than having stick-built in the wild, crazy weather as we get up to the North and everything. So is there a plan to try to expedite that type of housing, moving forward here in the future?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the question from the member about modular and modern methods of construction.

I share the enthusiasm about the innovative work that’s being undertaken on this front. Off-site construction is showing good results in ability to improve productivity, quality and efficiency in housing, integrating innovative building techniques and technologies.

We know, for example, that increasing housing supply improves affordability, and finding ways through building homes more efficiently through off-site construction and other modern methods of construction are means to accelerate housing delivery, which can improve affordability.

Off-site construction, of course, isn’t a new concept, but industrywide adoption in Canada has been limited, and the shift from traditional on-site construction to off-site or modern methods of construction approaches is complex.

[6:05 p.m.]

That’s why the province is working with industry partners and looking to reduce barriers related to industry readiness, to supply chains and to regulatory alignment.

As I spoke to earlier, the ministry is working closely with colleagues at the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth who are leading work on off-site manufacturing as part of the Look West strategic plan.

I also want to say I agree with the member’s comments about public perception and, perhaps, misperception. There are significant benefits to modern methods of construction including, as I mentioned, reduced design times by potentially 50 to 60 percent, reduced construction costs by 20 to 25 percent, reduced amount of time required on construction sites which has benefits to surrounding neighbourhoods.

Again, I’ll just highlight, as part of our enthusiasm about this work and really wanting to demonstrate to the public the quality and benefits of this work…. We’re beginning early work on two demonstration projects using DASH, on 50 spaces of women’s transition housing in Abbotsford and approximately 40 affordable apartment-style rental units for low- and moderate-income people in Prince George. Both are modern methods of construction through the DASH program which I think will continue to provide clear examples of the benefits of this work.

Tony Luck: I was born and raised in the Lower Mainland and I had no idea that some of these issues existed. If you live in isolation in the Lower Mainland, it’s a different world down here than it is up in the rural.

As I’ve lived there the last ten years as a realtor, you start to understand some of the constraints and some of the issues that we have around some of the things that we do. Smaller communities, budgeting and trying to find the funds to do all that.

One of the things…. Thank you very much for your enthusiasm too. It would be nice to see if we could get a PR program going on that and start changing the stigma around those kinds of products, because they’re quicker to build. They can go in and…. I think we look at that as the middle piece that’s missing in housing because we have low-end and high-end housing. The middle is pretty much gone. It’s hollowed out. So it would be a great product to look at.

Anyway, so the next question I have…. We didn’t see anything in there, and I don’t think there is anything. I’ve read the UBCM report and everything. This budget didn’t seem to go here, but is there any indication from this ministry that any new long-term municipal revenue tools will be available for the municipalities in the future?

I think you’ve listened to the discussions. We’ve heard those discussions quite well. Municipalities are broke. They’re running out of ways to fund the things that they need to, especially around the infrastructure. We’ve talked a lot about that. So are you anticipating any new revenue tools for the municipalities as we move forward in this budget and in future budgets down the road? Is there any planning around that?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Certainly a conversation I was also engaged in, in my years of local government, as well.

Local governments have suggested, as the member references, that the current local government finance system is inadequate to address modern fiscal pressures. They’ve made calls for the province to provide them with new and/or expanded financial and non-financial tools, including legislation or regulation policy and/or best practice.

The provincial commitment to discussing local government’s finance issues is reflected in the signing of the memorandum of understanding on local government financial resiliency in January 2022. The ongoing needs of the local government finance system have been recognized by the establishment of a standing table on local government financial resiliency as the permanent successor of the local government financial review working group established by the MOU.

We are committed to having open, honest conversations with local governments about their finance system and how we can work better to serve British Columbians. I also think it’s worth noting, and we’ve had some discussion about this already in estimates, the province’s work with local governments on new and updated development finance tools that were introduced in fall 2023 to support the shift to a proactive planning framework and help meet long-term housing needs and streamline development approvals.

These tools ensure local governments can collect funds to support infrastructure and amenities from new development to support growth. Specifically, DCCs were expanded to include fire protection facilities, police facilities, solid waste and recycling facilities, as well as certain highway facilities, cost-shared between the province and municipalities, such as interchanges. ACCs were introduced to help pay for amenities like community centres, recreation centres, daycares and libraries. Together the expanded DCC and ACC tools are intended to provide greater cost certainty and transparency to improve planning for new housing and to increase public trust.

The regulations have also been amended to create more flexible and extended DCC, ACC payment timelines for home builders and to make it more efficient for municipalities to borrow for capital infrastructure projects for community services. We’re seeing local governments starting to adopt updated DCC bylaws with the expanded eligibility categories, as well as ACC bylaws.

Tony Luck: That all sounds well and good, but all the AACs and the CACs and the DCCs add cost to housing. All you’re doing is you’re going after the same well all the time for the money. When we talk about municipal funding and changing the whole look at it…. I mean, I think this is obviously a much bigger conversation, because first we’ve got to get the books balanced here within the province so that we can start sharing things like property transfer tax and things like that to the municipalities.

A lot of money comes out of those municipalities. Some of it has got to start going back, because what they need is consistent revenues over time. They can’t be…. If the market’s up, you get lots of DCCs. If the market goes down, the DCCs disappear and things like that. You’re adding more cost to housing.

We’re calling for affordable housing, but we’re loading all these other charges on too. There are some other things, but that’s a bigger conversation. At least we’re thinking about it, and we’re moving in that direction.

I think we’re running out of time, so the last question I have for the minister is…. Last year we talked about this, and we drilled down into it. There was…. For these small communities that are struggling with their infrastructure costs and everything and then the downloading and these requirements for the increased housing and all that, we had talked, and I think my colleague here got down to it.

We just want to make sure this is still in place. We confirmed that there was a compliance deferral program in place. I’m assuming that’s still in place. If a municipality said, “Look, we don’t have any money for infrastructure to be able to serve more toilets, to be able to bring more water to homes and everything,” are the municipalities still able to come and see the ministry and be able to apply for a deferment of some of these housing requirements that are being dropped?

I think we confirmed that. I just want to confirm it again this year that that is still available for municipalities, moving forward.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I think that the member is referring to deadline exemptions that were in place for the small-scale multi-unit housing. We continue to monitor local government compliance with the small-scale multi-unit legislative requirements.

All municipalities are either compliant with the legislation or have an approved exemption request, and 16 compliance deadline exemptions remain for local governments, five of which are for whole communities and 11 of which are for specific areas within communities.

Tony Luck: Thank you very much for the answers, and thank you very much for the two-way conversation and the answers and the questions. It was a great time we had with you.

There are still a lot of things we need to work through. I think we’ve put some things on the table, which I’d like to…. That round table would be really good to see going, if we can, and some of these other things. But I really appreciate the opportunity to question you. Thank you, Minister.

Rob Botterell: Thank you to the minister for the opportunity to participate in estimates on the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. I first want to thank the minister for the commitment and long housing experience she brings to this portfolio.

My aim today is to bring my past experience in housing as a banker, financial controller of the TD Bank and as a First Nations lawyer to bear.

Last year I said that the Indigenous Relations Ministry was the most important ministry in government when Minister Boyle was head of that ministry. I stand by that. But Housing and Municipal Affairs is a very close second.

This is a topic that comes up fairly frequently because it’s been alluded to that every minister and ministry I meet is the most important ministry and minister in government.

The reason this ministry is important is because safe, affordable and healthy housing is a human right, not a privilege. It’s at the centre of our ability, and all British Columbians’ ability, to have a healthy, happy and productive life.

[6:20 p.m.]

That is why, as part of the CARGA, we negotiated an agreement to build 7,500 truly affordable housing units per year for a total of 30,000. We now see that the total for those four years will be roughly 14,500, half of the agreed-upon amount and much less than the need. We look at that, and certainly, it was a factor in our decision not to renew CARGA.

Really, even the 30,000 was much less than the need. Our data shows that somewhere between 12,500 and 25,000 new housing units per year are needed. So the amount that’s planned for this upcoming year is just a fraction of the total need.

As we prepared for estimates, we did note the ministry stating that affordable homes can be created through means other than the programs that have been paused or cancelled this year — programs like the HousingHub, BC Builds and attainable housing initiative.

Our question is: taking into account the CHF intake cancellation and other programs, what’s the total number of affordable housing units that will be built over the next three years? Has the intake cancellation caused other housing fund initiatives to be increased? What portion of the overall units will be deeply affordable to seniors, working people and struggling families?

Our test that we use for “deeply affordable” is: what portion of that projected housing will enable those who are currently spending over 30 percent of their income on housing, which is not affordable, to be housed and pay less than 30 percent of their income on rent?

Really, what we’re asking is: what does the total picture look like? What are the other options, given the CHF decision? What portion of that will be really tackling the core issue, which is affordability for those paying more than 30 percent?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I didn’t get a chance to thank the last two members at the end of their questions, but, as always, I’m glad to get to have this conversation with the member opposite.

As the member knows, we have more than 95,000 homes delivered or underway in communities across B.C. since 2017. We remain committed to addressing the housing crisis and to our investments in new affordable housing. These investments in much-needed housing supply — along with significant policy changes to address speculation, speed up approvals and return short-term rentals to the long-term housing market — are having an impact, with vacancy rates rising and asking rents decreasing.

[6:25 p.m.]

While we are adjusting the pace of our housing investments and moving investments in some projects to later years, we remain firm in our resolve to deliver the housing that we have committed to. The B.C. Housing service plan, on page 8, outlines those targets, which are 10,000 units over the next three years, specifically, to the member’s point, of affordable and supportive homes completed.

Rob Botterell: Housing projects are important to British Columbians. Two of the top three issues to B.C. residents are the cost of living — number one, at 54 percent — and housing affordability — number three, at 35 percent. Last year last year’s Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs agreed that one of the most important things we can do to help renters is to give renters power in the marketplace by increasing supply. That’s the work we’ve been doing as a government.

Then there’s the reallocation of the $1.4 billion year-long pause on the intake. That causes housing projects in my colleague’s and my district’s ridings that have already invested time and money to be left in limbo.

The minister will be aware of some of the examples. Gulf Islands Seniors Residence Association, 50 units of affordable housing on Salt Spring; Mayne Island, ten units shovel-ready and in need of development funding; Galiano, 20 units. Squamish Community Housing spent about $500,000 on predevelopment work on a 100-unit affordable housing building and was hoping to break ground in February. The project was supposed to work in synergy with the B.C. Housing project to reduce costs.

This all follows the May 25 announcement, when the government’s news restated that non-profit municipal housing providers can apply for more than $775 million in total funding to deliver more than 4,600 rental homes. Instead, we have the current situation, where non-profits are held in limbo.

The Squamish Community Housing Society attempted to work with the province to provide affordable housing to those in need. I think the chronology is illustrative of many projects around the province.

They held public engagement sessions in June. They submitted the proposal in July and were told they would receive notice in six weeks. They presented the engagement report to council in October. They submitted the development permit applications to the district in November. They were told in December that they should wait to hear back regarding the CHF application in the new year. Then the budget announces that all CHF applications will be denied on this cycle.

I have several questions. The first question I want to ask is: how will you rebuild trust with the non-profit-housing sector, given that many now feel that the ministry is an unreliable funding partner — or the agencies of the ministry — and feel deterred from allocating resources to beginning steps on these projects? How do you see rebuilding trust?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question. I really understand the frustration that project proponents, who have done good work and recognize the need in their community and have been preparing for it, have felt about this, particularly because that partnership is so key to delivery.

When I speak about the 95,000 homes delivered or on the way, those are the result of an incredible amount of local effort and a strong partnership between the province and hundreds of housing providers around the province who are doing that work. They are delivering or have already delivered thousands of really important homes across the province.

I know the member has heard me say these numbers before. Since the launch of CHF in 2018, 5,900 homes have been completed. Again, dedicated community partners and a ton of volunteer time have resulted in those 5,900 homes being completed, 4,600 actively in construction, 3,000 in the early stages of development, that all continue to go through. We remain committed, as I’ve said, to delivering homes under the community housing fund through future cycles.

Again, I really understand the frustration. It’s why we have been doing the best we can to be in contact. Many of the project proponents who would have applied through the last cycle also are involved in other projects that have previously been funded or underway. Those are relationships that we really value, and I’m really grateful for all of the vital work that groups are doing, who submitted proposals under the funding cycle that was cancelled as well as those who are actively engaged in the development of project through previous cycles.

We look forward to updating the sector. I remain in ongoing contact both with community housing sector partners like the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, the Co-op Housing Federation, the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, women’s transition house fund projects, and individual proponents. Those are, again, key partnerships and relationships that we value because we couldn’t do this work without them.

We continue that conversation and look forward to how we can help projects find other sources of funding or access funding in future cycles to get those badly needed homes delivered.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. That’s helpful.

Following the cancellation of this cycle of CHF funding in this year’s budget, non-profit housing providers in my riding, some of whom you met when you visited Salt Spring, are forming a round-table working group to identify creative ways to move forward with long-standing projects in the rural southern Gulf Islands and meet at least a bit of the huge affordable housing need.

In the spirit of rebuilding the trust and in the spirit of working with these providers who are hard-working volunteers, can your ministry join this round table to hear the discussion and offer practical suggestions?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, happy to follow up and connect, to ensure that a member of staff from either B.C. Housing or the ministry can be part of that conversation.

[6:35 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: One of the things that we’ve learned on Salt Spring Island through our work is that there are 1,600 single-occupancy homes with one individual living in them and with space for more, and certainly in full compliance with the bylaws that are applicable. So that’s 1,600 underutilized single-occupancy homes.

We’ve been told by potential renters and landlords alike — in fact, I was at a community meeting just last Friday — that they’re deterred from renting because of documented I’ll call it “horror stories” related to delays in dispute resolution. I just want to emphasize that it’s both landlords and tenants.

I was assured by community members and organizations in attendance that if these individuals felt more secure in renting, it could potentially solve a large part of or make a big contribution to solving the housing crisis on Salt Spring and, in doing so, create a pathway that is certainly much less costly than building new units. Organizations such as GISRA do have proposals that they still wish to proceed with, but this could make a huge, huge positive impact in a short period of time, say a year or two.

I also do want to credit the residential tenancy branch for almost meeting their 80 percent target, but, respectfully, these standards don’t provide the comfort needed to Salt Spring Island residents.

What I’ve heard from residents is that if the residential tenancy branch dispute process was closer to ten days and there was broader education, we could create hundreds of legal suites on Salt Spring in short order. I think we’re all committed to solving the affordable housing crisis.

So my question is: if the Salt Spring Island community proposed a three-year pilot program and contributed up to $150,000 of their own money out of pocket, with the province making up the balance, in order to support a residential tenancy branch facilitator or arbitrator to provide tenant and landlord education and resolve disputes, obviously in a much shorter period of time start to finish, would the minister be prepared to engage and give the proposal full and fair consideration?

I’d just add that this is a community that is prepared to put $150,000 forward to contribute to the funding of an additional residential tenancy branch resource on Salt Spring to really take away that obstacle. That would, in effect, open up a portion of 1,600 single-occupancy homes for additional accommodation. The community would like to work with the ministry to make that happen, and they’re prepared to put their own money into it for a pilot.

I’m wondering if the minister is receptive to considering that.

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question and the creative idea.

There is a team currently in the RTB that does education. I’m happy to connect them with the group to see if there are existing resources that would be useful. The team is also planning a series of public webinars. Again, I’m happy to make that connection in case some of that is useful. We’d also be happy to have someone follow up and hear more about what the group is proposing.

In the meantime, it might be helpful for folks to know that the average hearing wait times have decreased significantly in recent years. In 2025, for emergency applications, the wait time was two weeks. The standard wait time was 4.6 weeks, which is down significantly from 6.4 weeks, just a few years ago. Significant improvements in recent years in terms of wait times, due to improvements and investments that we’ve made as a provincial government, really in response to concerns that we had heard both from landlords and tenants about wait times.

We’ve been receiving positive feedback. In fact, I have heard occasionally from tenant advocates that it’s, in fact, too fast. But good work happening to address exactly those concerns, improve relationships and help to encourage more rental housing.

With that, Chair, I move that the committee rise….

I’m going to ask — I don’t know who has this information — for a check-in on time so that our staff knows how much more time we’re coming back for tomorrow.

Interjection.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Okay, another half-hour. Thank you.

That was not in my script, but I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:45 p.m.