Contents

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply for the estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and, when that’s finished, for the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

[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’ll be continuing our debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Kristina Loewen: Just before the break, I was saying that transparency is not a partisan issue; it’s a democratic one. In fact, in displaying that it’s not partisan, I’m going to quote one of my colleagues from the Green Party, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who said that the commissioner’s support for this bill, in part, is part of a steady degradation of our democracy in this province. No other commissioner in Canada would ever countenance some of the amendments that are proposed in this legislation.

A case in point. In recent weeks, we’ve already seen developments that raise questions about the strength of oversight in our province. One example is the government’s move to eliminate the Office of the Merit Commissioner, an independent office responsible for ensuring that hiring across the provincial public service is based on merit and fairness. The purpose of that office is simple and essential. It provides the public with confidence that hiring decisions across government are conducted fairly and without political influence.

Independent oversight bodies exist for a reason. They exist because governments should not be left to police themselves. When those oversight structures are weakened or removed, public interest is inevitably affected. And now, in this very same period, we see legislation that would make freedom-of-information requests easier to dismiss and potentially more expensive to obtain.

When multiple transparency mechanisms are weakened at the same time, it creates a troubling picture, because each of these systems — oversight offices, freedom-of-information laws and independent watchdogs — plays a role in ensuring accountability. Remove enough of them or weaken enough of them, and accountability begins to erode.

We do not have to look far to see why transparency matters so deeply to communities across British Columbia, including in my own region. In Kelowna and across the Okanagan, residents regularly seek information about decisions that directly affect their communities.

[1:35 p.m.]

One area where this has become particularly important is development and land use planning. As our region continues to grow rapidly, residents want to understand how decisions are being made, what studies were conducted, what internal communications took place and how proposals were evaluated. In many cases, those answers are only available through freedom-of-information requests.

Residents use FOI to access internal reports, staff communications and background documents related to development proposals. Those records help communities understand the full context behind decisions that may reshape their neighbourhoods. Without freedom of information, many of those records would remain inaccessible to the public, and citizens would simply be asked to trust that decisions were made properly without ever seeing the documentation behind them.

We’ve also seen many examples across the Okanagan where journalists and residents rely on access to records to better understand how public institutions are operating. Local media outlets such as Kelowna Now, Castanet, Black Press and other regional publications frequently rely on access to public records when reporting on municipal spending, infrastructure planning and government communications.

The records allow the public to see how decisions are made, and sometimes those records raise difficult questions. It’s not a flaw in the system. It’s exactly how the system is supposed to work.

Transparency can occasionally be uncomfortable for governments. Internal discussions may become public. Policy debates may be revealed. Spending decisions may be scrutinized. But that discomfort is not a weakness of democracy; it’s one of its safeguards.

When public institutions know their decisions may be examined by citizens, journalists and opposition members, it encourages better decision-making. It encourages accountability. And we should be asking ourselves: why is this government seeking less transparency and accountability?

The erosion of transparency rarely happens overnight. It happens gradually — a new fee here, a new administrative hurdle there, expanded powers to dismiss requests. Each individual change may appear modest, but, over time, those barriers accumulate. Each one discourages a few more people from filing requests. Each one limits access to a few more records, and slowly the system shifts. What was once a culture of openness can begin to drift towards a culture of secrecy.

This is why legislation like Bill 9 deserves careful scrutiny. Transparency does not disappear all at once. It erodes piece by piece.

Bill 9 may appear to introduce only modest changes, but those changes matter because they alter the balance between government power and public access to information. In a democracy, that balance must always lean toward the public.

British Columbians deserve a government that welcomes scrutiny. A government that recognizes that transparency strengthens institutions rather than weakening them. A government that understands that when citizens ask questions about public decisions, they’re not interfering with government operations; they’re participating in their democracy. That’s why maintaining strong freedom-of-information laws remains so important. Sunlight remains one of the most powerful tools we have for protecting accountability in public life.

Another reason this debate matters so deeply is that British Columbians are asking more questions than ever about how public money is spent. Across this province, families are facing rising costs — housing, groceries, fuel, insurance and utilities. Communities are watching budgets closely, and people want to know whether their tax dollars are being used responsibly.

British Columbians are also asking a deeper question: what is behind the numbers presented to them? When government announces the cost of a housing unit, does that number include layers of taxes, development charges, regulatory costs and admin expenses built into the project? When we’re told the price of a public program, do we know what assumptions were used to calculate that number?

The public deserves more than a headline figure. They deserve the details behind the data. Without those details, citizens cannot evaluate whether public funds are truly being used effectively. Freedom of information allows the public to see background documents, internal reports and financial assumptions that help answer those questions.

That transparency becomes particularly important when we look at some of the most challenging policy areas facing this province.

We often hear compelling stories used to justify certain policy approaches. Many British Columbians have heard the example of Million-Dollar Murray, a case often cited to suggest that a person experiencing homelessness may cost the public nearly $1 million over years through emergency services, policing and hospital visits but far less than that $1 million once they’re placed in supportive housing.

[1:40 p.m.]

It’s a powerful story, but responsible public policy requires more than powerful stories. It requires transparent data. How were those numbers calculated? What assumptions were included? What services were counted? Equally important, what are the long-term costs of operating supportive housing once it is built?

In Kelowna, residents have asked and raised questions about facilities such as Ellis Place, where serious damage rendered parts of the building uninhabitable for extended periods of time — actually, I believe, the whole building. When situations like that occur, there are legitimate questions. What are the repair costs? What happens to the operational budget? What happens to the residents who were living there? Is Million-Dollar Murray still less expensive housed? I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t house people, but what are the true costs? The public deserves to know.

Without access to internal records and financial documents, the public cannot fully understand the real costs and challenges involved. Transparency allows those conversations to be based on facts rather than assumptions. That’s exactly what we should expect in a healthy democracy.

When governments spend public money, the public has the right to ask questions about where that money goes, what programs it funds and whether those programs are achieving results. Freedom of information is one of the ways citizens get those answers. That’s why legislation that restricts access to information inevitably raises concerns about accountability.

Transparency in spending is especially important at a time when the province is facing record levels of debt and deficit. British Columbians are carrying historic levels of public debt. Government spending has reached record levels, yet many British Columbians are asking why outcomes in critical areas such as housing, health care access and affordability are not improving at the same pace.

Those are legitimate questions. They are questions any responsible government should be prepared to answer. Freedom of information plays an important role in helping the public get those answers.

Journalists also play a crucial role in examining public spending. Investigative reporting often relies on access to government records, expense reports, internal briefing notes, contracts and procurement documents. Without access to those records, journalists would be forced to rely solely on government press releases and public statements.

That’s not accountability. Accountability requires the ability to verify. It requires access to the records that explain how decisions were made. That’s exactly….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I need to interrupt you just for a moment. I believe we have a member about to seek leave.

Donegal Wilson: Yes, I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Donegal Wilson: My apologies to my colleague for interrupting her speech, but this is the first time I have the privilege of welcoming a school from my riding here to the Legislature.

Please give a warm welcome to Similkameen Secondary School.

Right now we’re debating Bill 9, which is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. Often not known here in this building is that there are two other Houses sitting. That’s why some of the seats are a little vacant, because we have other Houses sitting, dealing with other business of the Legislature.

I would appreciate an invitation from the school to come speak to students after their tour, to answer questions.

Please join me in making them feel most welcome here from Keremeos.

Deputy Speaker: Indeed, welcome to everyone in the chamber today.

Debate Continued

Kristina Loewen: Another example comes from our health care system.

Across British Columbia, hospitals have faced incidents where rooms must be temporarily closed due to fentanyl exposure or contamination. When that happens, the consequences ripple throughout the system. Rooms will be closed. Patients may wait longer. Staff face increased workload pressures. Those closures affect emergency department flow; staffing pressures; and, ultimately, the experience of patients waiting for care.

But the public rarely sees the full data behind those impacts. How often are hospital rooms closed due to these incidents? How many patients are delayed or diverted? What does that cost the health care system, and how does it affect the already severe staffing shortages in many hospitals across our province?

Freedom of information allows those questions to be answered with evidence. Without transparency, those impacts remain largely invisible to the public, who ultimately fund the system.

[1:45 p.m.]

The public does not ask questions because it distrusts democracy; it asks because it believes democracy should work better. When citizens seek information about how their government operates, that should not be seen as interference. It should be seen as engagement and participation and democracy in action. That’s why access must remain strong, accessible and protected. The more open our institutions are, the stronger the trust between government and the people we serve.

As we consider Bill 9, it’s important to remember that British Columbia has already experimented with restricting access to freedom of information. In 2021, the government introduced a non-refundable $10 application fee for FOI requests. At the time, British Columbians were told the change would streamline the system and reduce the administrative burden on government. The promise was that the fee would discourage frivolous requests and allow public bodies to focus on legitimate ones.

But what actually happened tells a different story. After the fee was introduced, the number of FOI requests dropped significantly. Yet response times did not improve in any meaningful ways. Shocking. In other words, the system did not become faster or more efficient. Fewer people were simply asking questions.

That outcome should concern all of us. FOI laws are meant to encourage transparency, not discourage citizens from participating in oversight. When barriers are introduced, participation declines — not because the information is no longer important but because the process becomes more difficult, more expensive and more discouraging.

In Kelowna and across the Okanagan, we see many examples that illustrate why access to information matters.

One area where public records are particularly important is policing and public safety. Residents regularly seek information about policing resources, operational priorities and community safety initiatives. Questions about policing budgets, deployment strategies and public safety programs often require access to records that are not readily available through public reports. Journalists and community advocates rely on those records to understand how policing decisions are made and how resources are allocated.

Another example involves environmental concerns in the Okanagan. Our region faces increasing pressures related to wildfire risk, watershed protection and development near environmentally sensitive areas. Residents frequently seek access to environmental reports, internal communications and government studies related to wildfire mitigation, water protection and land use planning. Those records help communities understand how environmental risks are being assessed and what steps government is taking to protect local ecosystems.

In a region like the Okanagan, where our landscapes and natural resources are central to our identity and economy, transparency in environmental decision-making is essential.

Freedom of information also plays a role in helping residents understand infrastructure and transportation planning. Kelowna is one of the fastest-growing cities in B.C. With that growth comes major decisions about roads, transit systems, housing development and long-term planning. Residents often want to see studies, planning reports and internal communications behind those decisions.

Access to those records allows communities to participate more meaningfully in discussions about the future of their cities. When citizens have access, they can engage constructively in the planning process, but when the information becomes harder to obtain, the conversations become more difficult.

The lesson from the 2021 freedom-of-information fee is clear. When barriers are introduced, fewer requests are filed.

Bill 9 is repeating that mistake by expanding the grounds on which requests can be dismissed and introducing new fees related to records. The legislation creates additional barriers to access. Each barrier may appear small on its own, but together they send a signal that accessing information is becoming more difficult.

I’m just going to skip a little bit here, because I see I’m running low on time.

Transparency also matters deeply to families navigating government programs, particularly when those programs involve vulnerable children. Across B.C., many parents of children with autism have raised serious concerns about recent changes to autism funding program and service models. For these families, the issue is not abstract. It’s their children’s therapy, their development and their future.

Parents want to understand how decisions were made, what projections were used and whether service capacity will actually meet the needs of children across the province. Those questions are difficult to answer without access to internal planning documents and data.

In fact, just in March, a parent of a child with autism filed two formal freedom-of-information requests seeking records related to three-year municipal utilization data and clinical staffing forecasts. That parent was not acting out of political motivation. She was acting out of concern for her child and thousands of other children who rely on these services. Families facing these challenges deserve clarity, and transparency is often the only way they can obtain it.

[1:50 p.m.]

When citizens file these requests, they’re not interfering with government operations. They’re exercising their democratic rights. They’re participating in the oversight of public institutions. That participation should be encouraged, because when citizens feel that government is open and transparent, public trust grows. But when access becomes more difficult, the opposite happens.

At the end of the day, this debate around Bill 9 comes down to a simple question: do we believe that government should be open to scrutiny, or do we believe that access to information should be more restricted?

Transparency is not a burden placed on government. It is the foundation of public trust. When citizens can see how a decision is made, when records are accessible and questions are answered, confidence in public institutions grows. When information is hidden or difficult to obtain, that confidence begins to erode.

I might be done. I see my time evaporating.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Members, just a reminder. I know we’ll have a wide array of examples here this afternoon. I would like to know more about Bill 9 this afternoon, and I hope that we all understand it better at the end of the day. So please tie your examples to Bill 9.

Hon Chan: I rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Freedom-of-information laws exist for one fundamental reason, to ensure that the government remains accountable to the people it serves. They are not a privilege granted by the government. They are a right held by the public.

When British Columbians seek information about the actions of their government, they’re not asking for a favour. They are exercising their democratic right to understand how decisions are made, how public money is spent and how policies affect their lives. That is why FOI legislation must always lean towards transparency. It must be on the side of openness, not secrecy. Unfortunately, this legislation before the House moves us in the opposite direction.

The government has presented this bill as an effort to improve the efficiency in the FOI system. They say the system is overloaded, that requests take too long and that administrative improvements are necessary.

On that point, I agree. This system should be faster. It should be more efficient. It should work better for British Columbians. These are elements in this bill that aim to modernize process and streamline administration. On those aspects, I am prepared to offer support.

But buried in this legislation are several changes that fundamentally weaken access to information in the province. Instead of strengthening transparency, this bill risks restricting it. Instead of improving access to information, it risks making that access more difficult, more expensive and easier for government to avoid.

This is very similar to the approach taken by the NDP government with the GLP program change. There was a huge backlog for the second road test. Instead of addressing the problem, they simply cancelled it.

One of the most concerning aspects of this legislation appears in clause 13, which expands the categories under which the government can apply to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard an FOI request. Currently there are already mechanisms to deal with these requests, and that protection already exists in the law, but this bill goes much further. The government proposes to add new categories such as malicious, abusive, repetitious, excessively broad or requests that could reasonably interfere with the operations of government.

At first glance, those terms may sound reasonable. But when we look closer, a serious problem emerges. None of these terms are defined. There is no clear definition of what constitutes a malicious request. There is no definition of what counts as abusive. There is no objective standard for what might be considered excessively broad, and there is certainly no definition of what it means to unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government.

An FOI request that is truly meaningful is often one that asks difficult questions. It may request documents that expose mistakes, mismanagement or even wrongdoing within the government.

[1:55 p.m.]

Those are precisely the kinds of requests that can create pressure and maybe interfere with government operations. The reality is this. The most important FOI requests are often the ones that make government uncomfortable.

Recently, I know, one of the members in the opposition actually made an FOI request on the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm deal, on the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm ceremony, and that exposes the government’s flip-flopping. That makes the government uncomfortable. That’s also the beauty of FOI requests.

When a journalist, a researcher or even an opposition MLA files an FOI that could expose mismanagement or wrongdoing, of course it may interfere with the government’s operations. It may even force the government to answer difficult questions. It may expose problems the government would rather keep hidden. But that is exactly how accountability works in a democracy world.

If the standard becomes that a request can be ignored because it interferes with the operation of government, then almost any serious investigation could fall under that category. A request that uncovers a scandal could be labelled disruptive. A request that demands thousands of pages of records could be called excessively broad. A request that repetitively asks about the same issue could be labelled repetitive. Suddenly this government has a pathway to simply avoid answering, and that is a very dangerous precedent.

There’s a saying in Chinese. I will translate that into English. It says: “When you cannot solve the problem, you remove the person who points out the problem.” In other words, instead of fixing the issue, you silence the person asking the questions.

That is the danger we see here in this legislation. This is exactly how authoritarian and dictatorship systems operate. When scrutiny becomes inconvenient, they do not fix the problem. They block the investigation. And here in this bill, the NDP government is doing exactly that.

Democratic governments should do the opposite. When citizens ask questions, government should answer them, and FOI laws exist to protect that principle.

Very disappointingly and frustratingly, instead of strengthening transparency, this bill risks creating tools that allow the government to avoid scrutiny. When journalists, researchers or even opposition members dig deeper into government actions, the response should be to provide answers, not to make that request harder, not to label that request as abusive, not to claim that it interferes with government operations.

Governments do not exist for their own convenience. They exist to serve the public. Part of that responsibility is to answer difficult questions, even when those questions expose uncomfortable truths. If this legislation allows the government to avoid releasing information simply because that information might create political consequence, then transparency becomes conditional and democracy becomes weaker.

FOI should empower citizens to uncover the truth about their government. It should not give the government new ways to hide it. Without clear definitions, these categories become open to interpretation. That interpretation will be made by the very government that is being asked to disclose the information. That is a very serious concern.

Imagine a journalist submitting an FOI request about communications within the Premier’s office. Could the government claim that fulfilling that request would interfere with the Premier’s office operations?

Imagine a researcher requesting documents of a policy decision. Could that request be labelled excessively broad?

Imagine an opposition MLA seeking records about government spending. Could that request be described as repetitive because similar questions have been asked before?

When these definitions are vague, the door opens for abuse.

Now, the government may say: “These requests must still go before the Information and Privacy Commissioner.” That is true. But the very fact that government can apply under such broad and undefined categories creates an additional barrier to access.

FOI requests have uncovered government decisions that otherwise have remained hidden. They have revealed problems in public policy, exposed its mismanagement and brought important facts to light. They have helped journalists report accurately. They have helped researchers understand government programs. They have helped citizens hold their government accountable. That is precisely why these rights must be protected. Yet Bill 9 expands the tools available for the government to avoid responding.

[2:00 p.m.]

Unfortunately, this is not happening in a vacuum. British Columbia has already been criticized as one of the most secretive governments in Canada when it comes to access to information. Reports have reportedly pointed out delays, redaction and barriers within the system. Instead of fixing those problems, this bill makes them worse.

Another troubling element appears in clause 21, which allows public bodies to charge fees for records that are currently accessible without filing a formal FOI request. This may sound like a small charge, but the principle behind it is significant.

Under the current system, certain information is made proactively available to the public. These are records that governments have already determined should be accessible without requiring a formal request. They’re meant to be easily obtained. They’re meant to promote openness. They’re meant to reduce the need for FOI applications.

This bill introduces the ability to charge fees for those records. That fundamentally undermines the concept of proactive disclosure. Proactive disclosure should mean exactly what? Information that is proactively available to the public, accessible, open and free.

If citizens must start paying for access to information that is already considered public, then disclosure is no longer proactive. It becomes transactional, and that raises a serious question. Is this about transparency, or is this creating another barrier between the public and the government?

We must remember that this is actually not the first time that this government has introduced fees into the FOI system. A few years ago this government introduced a $10 application fee for filing FOI requests. At that time, many observers already warned that even small fees could discourage citizens from seeking information.

Transparency should not be dependent on whether someone is willing or able to pay. FOI should not come with a cover charge. And now we see another step in the same direction under this NDP government.

If the government truly wishes to improve the FOI system, then the first issue that should be addressed is the backlog. British Columbians are waiting for too long to receive response to their requests. According to the recent data, in the ’22-23 period, applicants had to wait for an average of 192 additional business days beyond the initial timeline to receive a response. Let that number sink in — 192 business days. That’s nearly a full year on top of the initial timeline.

Information delayed is often information denied. Imagine — when a journalist must wait nearly a year for documents, the story may no longer be relevant. When researchers must wait months for records, their work is delayed. When citizens must wait indefinitely for answers, trust in government erodes.

If the goal of this bill is truly efficiency, we should expect to see measures aimed directly at reducing those delays. We would expect to see investment in FOI processing. We would expect to see stronger timelines. We should expect to see accountability for missed deadlines. Instead, we see broader powers to disregard requests and new opportunities to charge fees.

I support using technology to improve access. I support streamlining administrative process when it benefits the public. But efficiency must never come at the expense of accountability, and transparency must never be sacrificed in the name of convenience.

The right to access to information belongs to the people of British Columbia. It does not belong to the government. Government records are created using public resources in the course of serving the public. Those records ultimately belong to the public.

The foundation of democratic government is trust. Citizens must trust that their government is acting in their best interests. When government begins to restrict access to information, that trust begins to erode. Bill 9 expands the ability of government to avoid requests and introduce new barriers to public access. Unfortunately, part of this bill moves us away from that principle.

British Columbians deserve a government that strengthens access to information, not one that slowly takes the free out of freedom of information.

Steve Morissette: I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 9, the proposed amendments to British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, commonly known as FOIPPA.

[2:05 p.m.]

These amendments represent thoughtful, balanced and necessary updates to legislation that sits at the very heart of two core democratic values: the public’s right of access to information and the protection of personal privacy. Both of these principles matter deeply, and this legislation strengthens both.

FOIPPA was created in a different era, before digital services were central to how people interact with government. Today British Columbians expect services to be seamless, secure and accessible online. They expect the government to work together, not in silos.

The amendments before us do two important things. They improve the experience of people using the freedom-of-information system, and they enable the next stage of connected digital government services. These are not competing goals. They are complementary. We can and must protect privacy while delivering better service.

Let me begin with Connected Services. British Columbians do not think about government in terms of ministries and program areas. They think in terms of needs. They need to renew a licence. They need to access benefits. They need to update their address. They need to support their family or business. Yet too often they are required to provide the same information repeatedly, across multiple programs.

These amendments support the creation of Connected Services B.C., a single government gateway that will allow people and businesses to apply for services and update their information across programs in a streamlined way.

Importantly, this is not about building a massive, centralized database. It is not about consolidating everyone’s personal information into one giant repository. It is about allowing information, with a person’s knowledge and permission, to flow securely between public bodies so services can be delivered more efficiently.

Public bodies will continue to hold and safeguard information within their own systems, but, where appropriate, they will be able to securely share information in a way that reflects how people actually interact with government, not by department but by need. Privacy protections remain robust.

FOIPPA already contains strong safeguards for collection, use and disclosure of personal information. These amendments go further by allowing the minister to establish clear data standards and privacy and security requirements specific to Connected Services.

Additionally, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be notified when a Connected Services provider is established and retains the discretion to review the associated privacy impact assessments. This is modernization with accountability.

We also know that the volume and complexity of FOI requests have grown significantly. Across ministries, school districts, municipalities and health authorities, public bodies are experiencing real administrative pressure. We have a responsibility to ensure that access to information remains timely and equitable for all applicants.

These amendments improve process efficiency without diminishing access rights. For example, they minimize duplicate disclosure processes, so time is not wasted processing records that are already being released through other mechanisms, such as legal discovery. They enable proactive disclosure of personal information back to individuals seeking their own records.

Currently approximately 60 percent of FOI requests are for personal information. By allowing public bodies to proactively provide personal records directly to individuals, particularly former children in care, we can improve access while relieving pressure on the FOI system. That is not restricting access; that is improving it.

[2:10 p.m.]

Another key improvement is strengthening provisions around request clarity. The current act requires applicants to provide enough detail to allow records to be identified with reasonable effort. However, there is no clear, structured process for clarifying unclear requests. The amendments create a formal mechanism for seeking clarification.

Let me be clear. This does not force applicants to narrow their requests. It simply creates a transparent process to ensure that when clarification is needed, it is requested formally and responded to promptly.

It serves no one if a public body is unsure what records are being sought while a statutory clock continues to run. These changes provide accurate timelines and encourage engagement, ensuring applicants receive the information they are actually looking for. Stopping the 30-day clock during clarification is not about delay. It is about fairness and accuracy. Clearer requests mean better responses.

There has also been discussion about amendments that would allow public bodies in extremely rare circumstances to apply to disregard a request that is abusive or malicious. Let us be precise. There is already a process under which a public body can apply to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard a request. These amendments simply clarify and expand the circumstances in which that application can be made. The oversight remains entirely with the commissioner. A public body cannot unilaterally disregard a request. It must apply to the OIPC, and the commissioner decides.

Abusive or malicious behaviour refers to patterns of conduct intended to harass, intimidate, threaten or overwhelm. Examples include issuing death threats to public servants or mailing suspicious substances with requests. These situations are extremely rare, but when they occur, they are highly disruptive and divert resources away from processing legitimate requests. Protecting public servants from harassment while maintaining access rights is not controversial. It is responsible governance.

I want to address consultation. The ministry has consulted extensively with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner on all these proposed amendments. The commissioner has been engaged throughout the process. We value the OIPC’s role in protecting privacy and ensuring access to information. That oversight remains strong.

Governments must balance two responsibilities: protecting access rights; and ensuring the system functions effectively so that all requests, regardless of size, can be processed within reasonable timelines. This legislation supports that balance.

There has been a discussion about the $10 FOI application fee. This legislation does not change the fee structure. Individuals requesting their own personal information pay no fee. Indigenous governing entities are not required to pay the application fee. The application fee has contributed to more targeted requests rather than broad, cross-government fishing expeditions.

At the same time, we are expanding proactive disclosure, making commonly requested materials available without the need for an FOI request at all. That is how we increase accessibility.

[2:15 p.m.]

These amendments also introduce the ability to proactively disclose personal information back to individuals. This is an important evolution. Instead of requiring someone to file a formal FOI request for their own records, public bodies will be able to provide that information directly. This improves access and reduces administrative burden. It is a win for applicants and a win for the system.

British Columbia is moving toward more connected digital services. We are enabling people to access government through secure digital identity tools, like the B.C. Services Card. To support that modernization, our legislative framework must evolve. But modernization does not mean weakening privacy. It means embedding privacy into service design. It means building systems that are secure, accountable and transparent. It means ensuring that as government becomes more digitally connected, it remains grounded in democratic values.

These amendments do exactly that. They improve the efficiency and transparency of the FOI process. They protect public servants from rare but disruptive abuse. They enable proactive disclosure of personal records. They modernize information-sharing frameworks to support connected services. They maintain strong oversight by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. They reinforce privacy protections while improving service delivery.

This is balanced legislation. It responds to recommendations from the FOIPPA special committee and operational realities across public bodies. It reflects extensive consultation, and it prepares British Columbia for the next generation of digital government responsibly and thoughtfully.

Access to information and protection of privacy are not competing principles. They are complementary pillars of public trust. These amendments strengthen both.

I am proud to support this legislation, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

Linda Hepner: I rise today with the clarity of purpose that comes from more than three decades in public life — first as a bureaucrat, helping to build companies that deliver results for the citizens of Surrey; then as councillor; and then as mayor, where I balanced budgets, created jobs and fought for housing that, at that time, you could actually afford; and now as the member for Surrey–Serpentine River.

I speak not as a partisan but as a leader who knows that sunlight is the best disinfectant for any organization, government or private, and as a mother and a grandmother who believes British Columbians deserve leaders who trust them with the truth and the openness of transparent decision-making and access to data used in public to make those decisions.

Today I speak against Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, the bill the NDP quietly placed on the floor of this House February 26.

This is not a technical housekeeping measure; this is a deliberate step backward for transparency in British Columbia. As Housing critic, I can tell you with absolute certainty that if this bill passes, the housing crisis we are all fighting will become even harder to solve because the public will be kept further in the dark.

Let me be crystal clear from the outset. Freedom of information is not a luxury; it is the cornerstone of accountable government. Our FOIPPA, passed in 1996, was designed to put power back into the hands of the people. It has allowed journalists to expose wasteful spending, opposition members like me to hold ministers to account and everyday families to discover background issues that have directly affected them or their businesses.

[2:20 p.m.]

In my time as mayor, we used FOI requests to benchmark against other cities, to cut red tape and to deliver more accountable results. FOI requests are how we learn the truth when the government’s press releases paint a different picture.

What does Bill 9 do? Instead of investing in reassigning more staff to clear the backlog, it gets reactionary and gives public bodies new tools to say no, to delay and to bury information. That flies absolutely in the face of the act’s very title, freedom of information.

Let’s walk through the provisions, because British Columbians deserve to know exactly what is being taken from them.

First, the government wants to expand the power to disregard requests it labels “abusive” or “malicious.” Those words sound reasonable until you realize they are subjective. Who decides? The same ministries that are already slow-walking requests? A persistent journalist asking the same question six times because the first five answers were incomplete — abusive. A constituent in Surrey–Serpentine River filing multiple requests about why the new provincial transit-oriented development promise still hasn’t broken ground — malicious. The Privacy Commissioner gets more authority to rubber-stamp refusals. That is not efficiency; that is a shield for incompetence.

Secondly, they are watering down the duty to respond “without delay” to “without unreasonable delay.” That tiny word change is everything. It is the legislative equivalent of a government employee shrugging and saying: “We’ll get to it when we get to it.” We already see average response times anywhere from 43 to over 100 days and climbing. This change does not fix the problem. It codifies it. That is troubling.

Third, new hurdles on the specificity of requests. Applicants will be forced to clarify and narrow their asks even more, giving bureaucrats fresh grounds to reject or endlessly loop back. I know what a clear request looks like. As Housing critic, I know what a desperate family in my riding looks like when they ask: “Why can’t I get help for a rat-infested B.C. Housing unit?” They do not need a law degree to phrase it perfectly. This bill tells them: “Try harder or go away.”

Let’s talk about the so-called proactive release of personal information. Yes, 60 percent of requests are for one’s own records. Streamlining that is fine on paper. But when the government bundles it with centralized Connected Services B.C., a single gateway that will hoover up your data across ministries and hand the minister power to dictate data standards, we should all pause. Centralization sounds modern until you remember the privacy breaches that we have seen from many corporations and around the province generally, in a few places.

Notice how the government is far more enthusiastic about sharing your personal data than it is about sharing its own decision-making records.

Colleagues, I have reviewed the briefings. I have read the government’s press releases touting consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Yes, the commissioner has issued a polite statement saying this is one step forward, but polite does not equal endorsement of the big picture.

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has it right. This bill ignores 2022 special committee recommendations that called for strengthening access, not diluting it.

[2:25 p.m.]

Vaughn Palmer laid it out plainly in the Vancouver Sun. “The NDP are quietly moving to give public servants more power to refuse information and keep the public in the dark.”

Now let me bring this home to the issue I am tasked with every single day, housing. In Surrey–Serpentine River, we are at ground zero for B.C.’s housing crisis. Young families priced out. Seniors forced to downsize or leave the community they built. Small businesses not able to attract workers — nowhere for them to live. And I have constituents who have waited a very long time for why provincial funding for units is not happening.

FOI responses reveal the internal memos showing that ministers knew of supply shortages two years before they were admitted publicly. Bill 9 will make those revelations harder.

Deputy Speaker: Member, apologies. I need to interrupt you just for a moment and recognize our Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you very kindly, and I thank my colleague. I’m seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Minister for Energy and Climate Solutions…. He’s the MLA for Vancouver-Renfrew, formerly Vancouver-Kingsway, a man whose last name rhymes with Ricks, but I can’t say his name. You will know him as your MLA.

I want to welcome St. Mary’s School. They’re with teacher Mirna Lewis. There are 23 grade 5s and 8s in one of the groups and 25 grade 5s and 6s, is my understanding, here from St. Mary’s.

Welcome to your Legislature, the people’s House, on behalf of your MLA.

Deputy Speaker: To expand just a little bit on that, we do refer to our members by their riding, so that is why you don’t hear names here.

Welcome, students. We’re glad to have you.

Debate Continued

Linda Hepner: Welcome to the students.

Bill 9 will make revelations harder. When I file my next request asking for the actual timelines on short-term-rental registry and the financial chaos the re-registration system has caused, the ministry will have new tools to say that the request may be too broad; repetitive; or, conveniently, abusive. When journalists dig into the Agricultural Land Commission on decisions on farmland, they will face higher barriers. When opposition members try to expose the gap between the photo ops with the Premier and the reality on the ground, the government will now have legislative cover to stall.

This is not abstract. Last year alone, FOI requests exposed $1.2 billion in cost overruns on provincial projects across B.C. Another set of requests revealed that only 11 percent of the urgent modular housing units promised in 2023 were actually occupied by the end of 2025. Families are living in their cars while the government hides the numbers. Bill 9 does not solve a housing crisis. It protects, however, the people who have failed to solve it.

From a business perspective, the results-driven lens I bring to the House as an experienced leader, transparency is never a cost. It is, in fact, the cheapest form of risk management. When investors look at British Columbia, they want to know the rules are clear, the approvals are predictable and the data is reliable. Weakening FOI sends the opposite signal. This is a government that fears scrutiny. It is why capital is flowing to provinces with stronger access laws. Strong FOI is good economic policy.

I have heard government members say: “But we’re overwhelmed.” When workloads grow, we train more people and streamline processes. We do not rewrite the rules to hide the books. That’s just plain dangerous.

[2:30 p.m.]

The NDP have had nine years. They increased the civil service by thousands while piling up record deficits and wasteful spending. They had a special committee review. Their solution is still to weaken the law rather than fix the administration or control the runaway budget. That is not leadership; that is avoidance.

Let me speak directly to the families watching in Surrey–Serpentine River. The young couple saving for their first home. The single mom fighting for $10-a-day daycare spots near new rentals. The retiree in Surrey or in Serpentine who wants to know why pharmaceuticals are not covered for seniors, or why their pharmaceutical is not covered.

Your right to know is under attack. This bill is not about protecting your privacy. It is about protecting the government from you.

To my colleagues across the aisle, I ask you: please search your conscience. Many of you entered politics to make a difference. You ran on open government. Some of you have used FOI yourselves in opposition. Do you really want to hand your successors, even within your own party, a weaker tool for accountability? Governments change. Today you are in power. Tomorrow you may be the ones filing those requests. History will judge whether or not you chose convenience over principle.

I also want to address the younger members in this House — and, certainly, we have young people here today — those who grew up with social media and expect instant access to information. This bill is a step in the wrong direction for your generation. You deserve better than a government that says, “Trust us,” while building new barriers to the truth.

The amendments in Bill 9 fail every test of good governance. They fail the transparency test, they fail the accountability test, and they fail the test of respecting the people who pay the bills and to whom this information rightly belongs. That is why I will certainly be voting against this bill, and that is why I’m calling on every member who believes in open government to join me.

Have a real discussion. Talk to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. Talk with journalists. Talk with housing advocates. Talk with municipal leaders who are also struggling with provincial secrecy.

Strengthen FOIPPA. Don’t weaken it. Add real timelines with teeth. Enshrine a duty to document and preserve. Make proactive disclosure the default for non-personal information, not just a footnote.

British Columbians did not elect us to manage decline. They elected us to solve problems. You cannot solve a problem you cannot see, and with Bill 9, the NDP are dimming the lights.

In closing, I want to quote the late, great B.C. journalist Rafe Mair, who reminded us that “democracy is not a spectator sport.” It requires informed citizens. FOI is how we stay informed. Let us not turn this into a contact sport where only the government holds the ball.

To the people of Surrey–Serpentine River: I will continue to fight for every scrap of information you need to hold this government to account. Your voice will not be silenced by legislative sleight of hand.

To my colleagues, let us choose light over shadow. Let us defeat Bill 9 and send a message that in British Columbia, the people’s right to know remains non-negotiable.

Dallas Brodie: I want to commend the MLA from Surrey–Serpentine River for one of the most amazing speeches I’ve ever heard on freedom of information.

[2:35 p.m.]

I rise today to speak also against Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. This bill is everything one might expect from this, the most secretive and sneaky government in B.C.’s history, and worse. This is the government that ran on a promise of openness, and we see constantly, over and over again, closedness, secrets, faits accomplis, done deals.

This government, if we could even call it that at this point, must have forgotten that it is supposed to work for the people and be accountable to the people, because there is no other explanation for why a government would go to such lengths to shield its conduct from scrutiny. There is no clearer admission of guilt than a government that wishes to hide its work.

I, for one, would stand to have all my work open to every person in this province at any moment, at any time, no secrets.

This does not come as a surprise. The record of this government speaks for itself — record deficits, irresponsible spending, attacks on private property rights, secret agreements with Indian bands, a health care system in total collapse, rising crime, a failing justice system, an affordability crisis that is crushing families across this province. The list goes on and on. This is nine years of this we’ve had to endure. Now this government is trying to cover its tracks.

This bill does two distinct and troubling things.

The first troubling thing about Bill 9 is that it makes it harder to access information about what this government is doing. The current obligation to respond to freedom-of-information requests without delay is replaced with the words “without unreasonable delay” — standard weasel words to allow anybody to wiggle out of any difficult question. This is a standard that this government will define for itself, at its own discretion, and it is this government that makes the determination.

Beyond that, if a request is deemed too broad, too repetitive or merely disruptive to government operations, it could be disregarded entirely. Anyone who has made a freedom-of-information request has had to learn the fine art of making that request. If you don’t ask something specifically, repeatedly, in every possible use of the English language available, they will simply respond with something that’s completely ridiculous and unresponsive to the claim. That is why the requests have become so annoying and sometimes long and repetitive.

A new exemption shields communications between judicial officers and government bodies from disclosure altogether, removing from public scrutiny precisely the kind of back channel policy conversations that British Columbians have every right to know about. Our judiciary is already cloaked in such secrecy. We have no idea what goes on in their minds at any given time. We don’t elect them. We don’t even really know how they’re appointed. Now they want all their discussions shielded from public view. Why?

This is not administrative modernization. This is a government methodically closing the doors through which it can be held accountable.

The second troubling thing about Bill 9 is that it dramatically expands this government’s control over the personal information of British Columbians. The member who just spoke before me described this very, very well. It is a hoovering up of information about each and every one of us, all of us, all into one person’s control.

Imagine that. You don’t like someone? I think I’m going to look into everything about this person.

This bill creates what it calls a connected services provider, a government-designated body with sweeping authority to collect, share and circulate personal information across public bodies, all directed by ministerial instruction alone, with no requirement for legislative approval. The minister decides what data is shared, with whom, in what format and under what circumstances.

What this means in practice is that the personal information of British Columbians — health records, financial information, social service data — becomes available to be pooled, redirected and redistributed across government bodies at ministerial discretion, far beyond the purpose for which it was originally collected. There are no legislative guardrails on the scope of that sharing and no meaningful, independent check.

[2:40 p.m.]

So on one hand, this government wants less scrutiny of itself, but, on the other, it wants more access to information about the people it governs. That asymmetry should concern every member of this House and every citizen of this province.

Many people fall into the trap of believing that if you’re not doing anything wrong, or if you have nothing to hide, then what’s the problem of having your information available? Think about that. Do you want all the information about your family available to a minister? Do you want that information available? It’s not that you’re doing anything wrong. It’s just that now it’s available.

This government’s intentions are clear: less transparency, more government control and fewer avenues for the people of this province to hold this government to account. I will not be supporting this bill, and I encourage all other members of this Legislature to read this very, very carefully. In the end, please vote against Bill 9.

Heather Maahs: Let’s stop dressing this bill up in the language of modernization. Let’s stop pretending this is a technical cleanup, an administrative tune-up or a harmless rewrite of procedure. It’s not. Bill 9 is a political decision to give government more control over what the public can learn, when the public can learn it and whether the public can learn it at all.

The official explanation notes alone tell the story. They say the bill changes the duty to respond “without delay” to a duty to respond “without unreasonable delay,” lets the head of a public body decide whether a request contains enough detail, excludes certain records tied to court proceedings, creates a new refusal power for communications by or for judicial officers on policy or legislation, expands the grounds for disregarding requests and permits longer review times.

This is not a package of reforms aimed at openness; it is a package of reforms aimed at discretion, delay and denial. Freedom of information exists for one reason, because the public has a right to know what the government is doing in its name and with its money. It exists because the public records are not the private property of ministers, deputy ministers, chiefs of staff, political operatives or communications directors. It exists because democratic accountability is impossible when the government controls the flow of information about itself.

That principle was baked into British Columbia’s original FOI law. Rob Botterell, who was a part of that, my colleague from the Greens.…

Deputy Speaker: Member, we do not use names of any of our members here, please.

Heather Maahs: Oops, I’m not supposed to say names; I’ve got it.

Anyway, my colleague, who says he led the team that developed B.C.’s FOI legislation for the Harcourt government, wrote that the act was passed unanimously in 1992 and was once hailed as the best in North America. He also warns that the system has been chipped away, piece by piece, and that Bill 9 risks turning freedom of information into freedom from information.

That phrase matters: “freedom from information.” It captures exactly what this bill does, not in one dramatic stroke, not with one flashy clause that every British Columbian will notice overnight — a word changed here, a threshold moved there, a little more power handed to the institution being scrutinized, a little less power left to the person asking the question, a little more patience demanded of the citizen, a little more latitude granted to the state.

Each of these changes can be defended by a minister. Each can be described as practical. Each can be called balanced. But taken together, they amount to a plain and unmistakable message from this government. “We want more control over access, and we want less accountability when we deny it.”

[2:45 p.m.]

Look at the time limit change under Bill 9. Section 6(1) is amended by striking out “without delay” and substituting “without unreasonable delay.” That is not semantics; that is substance. “Without delay” is a clear command. “Without unreasonable delay” is a debate. It invites argument. It opens the door to excuses. It lets the public body say: “Well, in our view, this took a reasonable amount of time.” A standard that once pointed government towards urgency is replaced with wording that can be stretched, defended, rationalized and lawyered into meaning almost anything.

This government knows exactly why they change one word in legislation. One word can shift the entire culture of compliance. One word can move an obligation from firm to fuzzy. One word can take a citizen’s right and turn it into an opinion. And that is before we get to section 5.

Bill 9 repeals the current wording and substitutes a new requirement that a request, in the opinion of the head of the public body, provide enough detail to let an experienced employee identify the record with reasonable effort and in a reasonable amount of time.

In other words, the bill does not merely require an applicant to describe what they want. It explicitly says that the sufficiency of the request is determined by the head of the body being asked for the records. The institution being scrutinized gets to decide whether the request is specific enough. The gatekeeper becomes the judge. The respondent becomes the arbiter.

That is not a neutral process. That is a built-in conflict of interest embedded in the law itself.

Ask yourself how that works in the real world. A journalist files a request about communications related to a procurement decision. An opposition MLA seeks documents related to briefing notes, internal warnings or contract irregularities. A foster youth asks for records tied to their own history. A citizen seeks correspondence concerning a controversial service failure.

Under Bill 9, the public body can say the request lacks enough detail not because it is impossible to understand but because, in the opinion of the head, it cannot be identified with reasonable effort and in a reasonable amount of time.

Those are elastic phrases. These are subjective phrases. They are phrases that shift the burden from government to the applicant. And that is exactly the opposite of what a strong FOI is supposed to do.

Then we arrive at section 43, and this is where the mask really slips.

Deputy Speaker: Member, my apologies for interrupting you.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Apologies. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: On behalf of the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, the member for Vancouver-Renfrew….

Anyways, you’re all here from St. Mary’s, I believe. Thumbs-up. Go, St. Mary’s! Your minister, your MLA, Minister Ricks…. It’s not his name, but it sounds like Ricks. We don’t say last names in this House. We refer to each other by ministry titles, so Hadrian Ricks rhymes with your minister’s name.

Anyways, he wanted me to welcome you all to your chamber, to your House, the people’s House. We are currently debating the freedom-of-information and protection-of-personal-privacy legislation.

Thank you, and welcome to your Legislature.

Deputy Speaker: Indeed, welcome to everyone in the chamber. The minister quite rightly pointed out that we don’t use names to define any one of our members, so we do refer to our ridings.

Debate Continued

Heather Maahs: Bill 9 adds and modifies the grounds on which the commissioner can authorize a public body to disregard requests. The new language adds that the behaviour of the applicant can be abusive or malicious. It allows a request to be disregarded if responding would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body or the government of British Columbia.

It also allows a request to be characterized as an abuse of the right to make a request because it is repetitious or systematic or because it is excessively broad.

[2:50 p.m.]

When we say those words out loud — “abusive,” “malicious,” “unreasonable,” “interfere,” “repetitious,” “systematic,” “excessively broad” — these terms are meant to shut down scrutiny that is inconvenient, persistent or maybe embarrassing.

Who exactly files requests that are repetitive or systematic? Journalists do. Opposition researchers do. Watchdogs do. Citizens who suspect there is a pattern do. People investigating waste, misconduct or incompetence do. A single document rarely exposes a serious problem. It takes persistence. It takes follow-up. It takes multiple requests. It takes systemized inquiry. That is how public interest investigations work.

So when a bill flags systematic or repetitious behaviour as a basis for disregarding requests, it is not striking at abuse in the abstract. It is creating a weapon that can be aimed at determined scrutiny in practice.

Let us not ignore the “unreasonable interference with operations” language. Scrutiny is inconvenient, and that’s too bad. Every department can say that locating records takes staff time. Every bureaucracy can say that answering questions interrupts business as usual. But that is the point of a freedom-of-information law. It is supposed to impose an obligation on the state to serve the public’s right to know, even when it is inconvenient. If the test becomes whether disclosure work disrupts operations, then the very existence of accountability is recast as a nuisance.

My colleague earlier, when we were debating this session a few weeks ago, said plainly that under the Premier’s government, legislative oversight is increasingly seen as a nuisance and is being replaced by closed-cabinet-door decision-making. That criticism lands, because Bill 9 reads like legislation drafted by a government that sees scrutiny as interference rather than democracy.

Kirk LaPointe put it just as bluntly in an op-ed. In his commentary, he writes that Bill 9 is really Bill nein. He says that legislation is marketed as modernization but is not. He calls it strategic legislation to defer, delay and deny the public’s right to know. He further writes that the original democratic premise of the law was that government records belong to the public unless there is a defensible reason to withhold them, and that the burden rested on the state, not the citizen.

Those are devastating observations because they identify the philosophical shift underneath this bill. This government is moving away from a culture in which disclosure is the default and toward one in which the applicant — the applicant — must satisfy the system, navigate the hurdles and accept the government’s view of what is reasonable. What happens when disclosure becomes slower and more discretionary and more applicant-burdened?

LaPointe answers that too. He warns that the changes make access slower, less predictable and more discretionary. That is not the description of a stronger accountability regime. That is the description of a weaker one. Slower means information arrives too late to inform public debate. Less predictable means applicants cannot rely on a clear process. More discretionary means outcomes depend increasingly on internal judgments rather than firm, statutory duties.

Taken together, those effects do not just frustrate requesters. They chill scrutiny. They tell local media outlets, independent journalists, citizen advocates and ordinary people that unless they have the time, money and persistence to fight, the process may not be worth it.

[2:55 p.m.]

That chilling effect matters. A freedom-of-information law is not healthy because it exists on paper. It is healthy because taxpayers, ordinary people, believe they can use it. If people conclude that requests will take too long, be denied for technical reasons or be characterized as burdensome, they stop asking. When they stop asking, government secrecy does not even need to work very hard. It wins by discouragement. It wins by exhaustion. It wins by turning accountability into a process that only the most well-resourced can endure.

That is why this chamber should not dismiss wording changes as administrative. Administrative barriers are one of the most effective ways to kill a right without formally abolishing it. Bill 9 also excludes from part 2 of the act certain records that must be produced, listed or identified as part of a proceeding, including records that fall within a general class of records listed or identified as part of the proceeding.

Again, the explanatory note says that right on page 1, and the text on page 2 spells it out: when government, the Attorney General or the government of British Columbia is required by law, as part of a proceeding, to produce, list or identify records, those records are carved out from the access part of the act in that context. This is not some obscure housekeeping adjustment. It narrows the route through which applicants can seek access and broadens the zone in which government can say, in effect: “Not here. Not this way.”

Then there is a new section, 16.1, allowing the head of a public body to refuse to disclose information that would reveal the substance of a communication of a judicial officer, or one made on behalf of a judicial officer, respecting a proposed or existing policy, program or enactment. That may sound specialized, but the effect is obvious: it creates another class of information that can be withheld.

What is the broad trend of this bill? More carve-outs, more refusal powers, more institutional control over the disclosure boundary. Government says this is refinement. The public sees, rightly, that it is another ratchet, in one direction only.

The bill also allows the head of a public body to extend the time for responding to a request by a period to which the applicant consents, and the commissioner’s inquiry timeline can now be extended beyond 90 days if the commissioner specifies a later date and notifies the relevant persons. On paper, those may sound reasonable. In practice, they further normalize longer timelines.

When the law already weakens the promptness standard from “without delay” to “without unreasonable delay” and then adds more room for extensions and later dates, the combined message is unmistakable. Waiting is becoming part of the architecture. Government is not moving towards faster disclosure. It is building itself a more forgiving delay structure.

And now we have to talk about the politics of this, because the politics are inseparable from the bill. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the government should immediately resume proactive disclosures and cancel Bill 9, describing the pause in proactive disclosures and the bill itself as part of a larger rollback.

Its March 18 news release said the pause means government has stopped routinely publishing things such as ministerial briefing notes, purchase card records, travel expenses for ministers and deputy ministers, and contracts awarded without a competitive process. The same release quotes Carson Binda, saying that the Premier had launched an all-out offensive against transparency and accountability government and adding that Bill 9 would make it easier for bureaucrats to delay and deny FOI requests.

[3:00 p.m.]

The federation also listed examples of stories that came to light because of FOI requests. We’ve heard them in this House. Gift card bonuses for bureaucrats. A budget line for an open bar reception. Ministers billing taxpayers for an Amsterdam happy hour. Government spending on novelty soccer balls. Expensive hotels in Dubai. Limousine service costs for a ministerial trip.

The point is that the public learned about those things because access tools existed and were used. When a government that has been embarrassed by records then moves to weaken access, people are entitled to draw conclusions. They are entitled to think the government has learned the wrong lesson — not “we should spend better” but “we should hide better.”

This is why the phrase “assault on government transparency” resonates. It is not just about the text of Bill 9 in isolation. It’s about the context in which the bill arrives. A government paused proactive disclosure of spending-related documents and, at the same time, advances a bill that makes ordinary access requests easier to delay, challenge and disregard.

British Columbians do not need a doctorate in public administration to see the pattern. Fewer routine disclosures. More discretion over requests. More ability to call scrutiny disruptive. More power to decide what is reasonable. Less sunlight, more fog.

This is where the government’s defence collapses. It says the bill is about efficiency, but efficiency for whom? If a minister can decide that a request lacks enough detail because, in its opinion, an experienced employee cannot find the records within a reasonable effort or a reasonable amount of time, that may be efficient for the ministry. It is not efficient for the public.

If requests can be characterized as excessively broad or systematic and disregarded, that may be efficient for bureaucracy. It is not accountability for British Columbians.

If response duties are softened and review timelines lengthened, that may be administratively convenient for government. It is not meaningful access for an applicant waiting for answers. Convenience is the institution, not the same as justice for the public.

Another point that should be taken seriously is the legislation makes no distinction between general requests from journalists or legislators and requests by individuals seeking their own personal records, such as child and youth foster care records or employment records. That matters, because behind the legal jargon, it’s not just politics. It’s also a human reality.

Delays in access are not always about headlines. Sometimes they are about people trying to understand what happened to them, people trying to reconstruct a life event, a care history, an employment issue or an administrative decision that changed their future. When government loosens timelines and hardens the gate, it is not only the press gallery that pays; ordinary people do too.

My colleague also recently said that it is magical thinking to suggest that making it easier to delay or deny access to general information will somehow speed up the process. That is exactly right. The government wants the public to believe that weakening requesters’ rights is a pathway to a better functioning system.

If a system is overloaded, the answer is to improve record management, improve searchability, invest in staff capacity and expand proactive publication. The answer is not to move the goalposts for applicants. The answer is not to grant more refusal powers. The answer is not to downgrade urgency in the statute itself. The answer is not to tell citizens that their rights are causing the inefficiency.

Bill 9 goes in the opposite direction on core access questions. That is important politically as well as legally. It means this bill is not the inevitable product of expert consensus. It is a choice.

The government chose this path. It chose more discretion over more openness. It chose a softer duty to respond. It chose wider disregard powers. It chose to put more weight on administrative convenience than on the public’s right to know.

[3:05 p.m.]

And because it is a choice, members opposite are responsible for it. They cannot hide behind their officials. They cannot hide behind drafting counsel. They cannot say this is simply a modernization file from a ministry. Every clause in this bill expresses a value judgment. Every clause answers a question.

When there is tension between convenience for government and access for public, whose side are you on? Bill 9 answers: the government’s side. When there is tension between institutional workload and democracy scrutiny, whose burden do you lighten? Bill 9 answers: the institution’s. When there is tension between certainty for the applicant and discretion for the state, whom do you trust? Bill 9 answers: the state.

That is why, in LaPointe’s op-ed, the line about “original premise of the law matters so much,” he says the burden rested on the state, not on the citizen. Bill 9 shifts that burden. The applicant must be precise enough, narrow enough, acceptable enough, not too broad, not too systematic, not too repetitive, not too interfering, not too time-consuming.

Who decides whether they’ve crossed the line? The very people whose records they want. That is not a robust right. That is a tolerated request process, conditional on the patience of bureaucracy and the tolerance of government.

Members opposite may say that the commissioner still plays a role. Of course, the commissioner plays a role, but Bill 9 itself broadens the grounds upon which the commissioner can authorize a public body to disregard requests, and it permits later dates for inquiries beyond the default 90-day timeline in certain circumstances.

Even oversight is being furnished with a looser calendar and a broader vocabulary of refusal. That is not strengthening of external control over secrecy. It is a recalibration that gives the system more room to accept delay and disregard it as ordinary.

What is really going on here? The answer is political culture. The most troubling aspect of Bill 9 is cultural. A cultural openness once promised in 1992 has been broken, and that system has been dismantled, piece by piece. The CTF says that government is trying to ensure embarrassing documents never see the light of day. Different voices, different politics, same theme.

This bill reflects a government culture that sees transparency as a risk to be managed rather than a duty to be honoured. That is why this debate matters far beyond lawyers, journalists or FOI specialists, because if government can normalize the idea that rights are subject to administrative convenience, then the damage does not stop with access to records.

It teaches a lesson about citizenship itself. It says your right to know is not a foundational democratic guarantee but a request that the state may accommodate if it finds your wording tidy, your persistence modest and your curiosity manageable. That is a corrosive lesson in democracy.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than that. They deserve a government that meets requests with urgency, not excuses; a government that strengthens proactive disclosure instead of pausing it; a government that invests in records systems instead of blaming applicants for asking hard questions; a government that remembers why freedom-of-information laws exist in the first place. It’s not to protect the comfort of the executive but to protect the sovereignty of the citizen.

So let us stop pretending this is neutral. Let us stop pretending that no values are at stake. Let us stop pretending Bill 9 simply updates an old statute for a digital age.

This bill changes who carries the burden. It changes who gets the benefit of ambiguity. It changes who controls the pace. It changes who can call scrutiny unreasonable. It changes who decides whether a request is acceptable. In every one of those changes, the balance tilts the same way, toward government and away from the public.

[3:10 p.m.]

That is why this House needs to reject the spin on Bill 9. Read the words “in the opinion of the head of the public body.” Read the words “without unreasonable delay.” Read the words “abusive or malicious.” Read the words “repetitious or systematic,” “excessively broad,” “unreasonably interfere with operations.” Those are not words of a government opening windows. Those are words of a government installing thicker curtains.

Freedom of information is not a courtesy extended by the powerful to the powerless. It is not a favour. It is not a gift. It is a democratic right rooted in a simple proposition in a free society, that people must be able to know what their government is doing.

Bill 9 weakens that right. It makes access less timely, less certain and more dependent on the judgments of the institutions being scrutinized. It expands the state’s ability to say no. It broadens the language available to defend, delay and disregard. It arrives in a climate where proactive disclosures have been paused, and critics from across the spectrum are warning that British Columbia is moving from freedom of information toward freedom from information.

For all of those reasons, this bill is not modernization. It is retrenchment. It is not balance. It is bureaucratic self-protection. It is not transparency reform. It is a retreat from transparency, and it needs to be defeated.

Dana Lajeunesse: I’m pleased to rise to speak in strong support of Bill 9 and the proposed amendments to British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

This legislation is about something very simple but very important: making government work better for people while continuing to protect their privacy and their right to access information. These amendments reflect the reality that the way people interact with government has changed dramatically over the past decades, while the systems underpinning those interactions have not always kept pace.

Today’s amendments are a thoughtful, balanced response to two urgent, interconnected challenges: the need to modernize government service delivery through connected digital services and the growing strain on our freedom-of-information system, which must remain strong, fair and accessible to everyone.

At their core, these changes are about efficiency, transparency and respect — respect for individuals’ time, respect for public servants and respect for the principles of privacy and access that British Columbians value deeply.

The proposed amendments are not about sweeping for the sake of change. They’re targeted, measured and intentionally structured around three clear objectives: enabling connected services, improving FOI efficiency and making minor but necessary clarifications and operational fixes. Each of these categories responds directly to long-standing challenges identified by the FOIPPA special committee, by public bodies across the province and by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This is not legislation developed in isolation. It reflects years of practical experience, consultation and oversight.

Enabling connected services for British Columbians. Let me begin with the connected services provisions because they go right to the heart of how people experience government. Too often government still operates as a collection of silos. Individuals are asked again and again to provide the same information to different ministries and programs — their name, their address, their eligibility documents, their personal details. This is frustrating, inefficient and unnecessary.

[3:15 p.m.]

A government that works as one. The connected services provisions in this bill will help to enable government to operate as one unified system rather than as disconnected parts. These amendments will allow public bodies to securely share information within government on the people’s behalf and with their permission so that services are simpler, more predictable and more streamlined. This is about building a system that reflects how people actually live their lives, not how government is organized internally — a single gateway, not a centralized database.

Let me be very clear, because I know this concern will and has been raised. Connected Services B.C. does not create a massive new centralized database of personal information. That is simply not what this legislation does. Instead, connected services are designed to use existing systems, facilitate secure, appropriate sharing and reduce unnecessary collection of information overall. The goal is not consolidation; it is coordination. Public bodies will continue to hold only the information they need to deliver their programs.

What changes is that with appropriate safeguards, information can be shared, where necessary, to deliver services more effectively and more respectfully. Strong privacy protections remain in place. Privacy protection remains foundational.

FOIPPA already contains strong security requirements, and this bill goes further by allowing the minister to publish specific privacy and security requirements for connected services, requiring notification to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner when a connected services provider is established and providing discretion for the OIPC to review privacy impact assessments. These safeguards ensure that modernization does not come at the expense of privacy; it strengthens it.

Part 3, improving the freedom-of-information system. The second major category of amendments focuses on the freedom-of-information system itself, and this is essential. FOI is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. Access-to-information rights are non-negotiable, but it is also true that our FOI system is under significant strain, a system under pressure.

Across this province — in ministries, municipalities, school districts and health authorities — public bodies are facing increasing volumes of requests, growing complexity, administrative backlogs. These pressures affect everyone — applicants waiting longer for responses, staff pulled away from other vital duties. Delays that undermine trust in the system. Doing nothing is not an option. These amendments are designed to relieve pressure without reducing rights.

Part 4, clarifying requests and improving communication. One of the most practical and sensible reforms in this bill concerns clarity in FOI requests. Under the current act, applicants are already required to provide enough detail to allow public bodies to identify records with reasonable effort. What these amendments do is formalize and improve the process for achieving that clarity, a formal clarification process.

The bill introduces a clear, transparent process for public bodies to seek clarification when a request is unclear. This is not about forcing applicants to narrow their requests. Let me repeat that clearly. Applicants are not being forced to narrow their requests.

[3:20 p.m.]

This is about ensuring that the public body understands what records are being sought and the applicant receives information that actually meets their needs. Ambiguous requests help no one. They slow the process and create frustration for both sides. Clear communication improves outcomes for everyone involved.

Stopping the clock, responsibility and transparency. Some have raised concerns about allowing the 30-day FOI clock to pause while an applicant is clarifying their request. This is not stalling. It is about honesty and fairness. Currently the clock continues to run even when a public body is waiting for clarification. This creates unrealistic timelines and unnecessary tension. Under this amendment, timelines become more accurate, applicants are encouraged to engage promptly, and public bodies can focus their efforts on meaningful searches. This reform supports transparency, not delay.

Addressing abusive and malicious conduct. One of the most sensitive but necessary aspects of this bill is the amendment allowing public bodies to apply to disregard requests in cases of abusive or malicious behaviour. Let me be absolutely clear about what this does and does not do. Oversight remains with the OIPC. Public bodies cannot unilaterally disregard requests. They must apply to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which retains full oversight and decision-making authority.

These circumstances are described clearly, narrowly and explicitly — rare but real situations. Examples include patterns of harassment, intimidation, threats to staff safety. These situations are extremely rare, but when they do occur, they’re highly disruptive and divert resources away from processing legitimate requests. This amendment protects public servants while preserving applicants’ rights through independent oversight.

Part 7, proactive disclosure of personal information. Another important improvement is the ability to proactively disclose personal information back to individuals. Currently approximately 60 percent of FOI requests are for personal information. This bill introduces mechanisms to improve access for individuals seeking their own information, reduce unnecessary formal FOI requests, particularly support former children in care and others who rely on these records. This is a compassionate, practical reform that improves service while easing system pressures.

Part 8, fees and access. There has been significant public discussion about FOI fees, and I want to address this directly. This legislation does not change application fees. At the same time, important exemptions remain. There’s no fee for individuals requesting their own personal information. Indigenous governing entities are not required to pay an application fee. Evidence shows that the existing fee structure has reduced broad cross-government requests, while encouraging more targeted requests without reducing access for individuals.

At the same time, government has expanded proactive disclosure, making frequently requested information available without the need for an FOI request at all. That is meaningful access.

[3:25 p.m.]

Consultation and oversight. These amendments were not developed behind closed doors. The ministry has consulted extensively with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, engaged with the FOIPPA special committee and responded to long-standing operational concerns from public bodies. The commissioner has indicated comfort with the amendments, and oversight remains firmly in place. This balance between access and service delivery is essential if the system is to work fairly for everyone.

Part 10, a bill about people. At the end of the day, this bill is not about systems or statutes in isolation. It’s about people — people trying to access services without repeating themselves endlessly; people seeking information that they’re entitled to receive; public servants working under increasing pressure; families, seniors, businesses and communities relying on timely, accurate government service. This legislation helps meet those expectations responsibly and transparently.

In conclusion, these amendments do not weaken FOIPPA; they strengthen it. They do not diminish access; they improve clarity, efficiency and fairness. They do not compromise privacy; they modernize safeguards in a digital world. This bill reflects good governance and careful reform that responds to real challenges while preserving the values we hold dear.

For those reasons, I’m proud to support this legislation and urge all members of this House to do the same.

Claire Rattée: Today we’re speaking about Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

I want to begin by grounding this conversation in something that I think is absolutely fundamental to our role in this House. That is the understanding that freedom of information is not simply an administrative tool, it is not a bureaucratic process, and it is not just about efficiency or timelines or internal systems. It is one of the only mechanisms that British Columbians have to understand what their government is doing, to verify that decisions are being made in the public interest and to hold those of us in positions of authority accountable for the decisions that we make.

At the end of the day, the information we are talking about does not belong to government; it belongs to the people of British Columbia. Government is simply the custodian of that information. We’re entrusted with it, we manage it, we organize it, but we do not own it.

When we start to blur that line, when we start to treat public information as something that government controls, rather than something that the public has a right to access, we fundamentally change the relationship between government and the people that it serves. That relationship is supposed to be built on trust.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

When people believe that they can ask questions and get answers, when they believe that government is transparent, when they believe that information is accessible, even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable, that is what builds confidence in public institutions. But when that starts to change; when people feel like they cannot get answers; when they feel like information is being withheld, delayed, filtered or controlled, that is when trust starts to erode.

Once that erosion begins, it does not take long for people to lose confidence, not just in government but in our entire system. That is what makes this bill so concerning. For the last nine long years, the public’s trust in this government has more than eroded; it has collapsed. This legislation is the icing on the cake.

I think a perfect example of why this is so important is something that happened this morning in the chamber, in question period. My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke was asking questions about some FOI documents that our party had received from the government, in regard to a signing that happened on xʷməθkʷəy̓əm territory, involving the Premier.

The FOI that we’d received was so heavily redacted, and the Premier tried to pull a gotcha: “How did you not know that this was a letter that was in opposition to it?” Well, we didn’t know, because the FOI that we received only told us that there was a letter involved.

[3:30 p.m.]

Then when the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth tried to heckle us over it, I said: “These are your documents. This is your information.” Because government gets to decide what is released and what is proactively disclosed to people and what is available to us as opposition while we’re trying to do our jobs, that’s part of the problem.

Making that weaker, making it so that there’s even less information that we can access or more things that the government is allowed to control whether or not opposition can access or the public can access, is only going to make that problem even worse than it already is today.

I want to acknowledge, because I think it’s important to do so honestly, that there are aspects of the FOI system today that are not working in the way that they should.

We know that there are delays. We know that people are waiting far too long to receive responses. We know that the system can be frustrating and, in some cases, incredibly inaccessible. I’ve experienced it firsthand, and I recognize that there is a need to improve this system.

What is deeply concerning about this legislation is that instead of addressing those problems and instead of fixing what is broken, it moves us in the opposite direction. It does not improve access; it restricts it. It does not increase certainty; it introduces ambiguity. It does not strengthen accountability; it weakens it.

Right now British Columbians are already waiting months — in some cases, close to a year — to receive responses to freedom-of-information requests. That is not a small issue. It’s not a minor inconvenience. That is a system that is fundamentally failing to meet its most basic obligation.

Instead of tackling that problem head-on, instead of asking why those delays exist, instead of investing in the systems and processes needed to actually deliver timely responses, this legislation lowers the standard.

It replaces a requirement to respond without delay with a requirement to respond without unreasonable delay. That might seem like a small change, but it is not, because “without delay” is a very clear expectation, but “without unreasonable delay” is subjective. It introduces flexibility for the institution, not certainty for the public. We see that same pattern repeated throughout this bill — more subjectivity, more discretion, more room for interpretation.

I want to ground this in something very real, because for me, this is not theoretical. It is not a hypothetical concern about what might happen if this bill passes. This is something that I am already experiencing in real time. Since June of last year, I’ve had freedom-of-information requests in for Dr. Daniel Vigo’s quarterly reports.

These are not obscure documents. These are not peripheral reports. These are documents that are directly tied to government policy, particularly in the context of the addiction crisis and concurrent disorders. These are reports that are being used to justify decisions that are affecting communities across this province, or not. I wouldn’t know because I haven’t been able to see them — not a partial disclosure, not heavily redacted records, nothing.

I asked about it again in today’s question period and received a non-answer, just more obfuscation and attempts to distract. The reality is that this is taxpayer-funded work, work that is costing the taxpayer over $1 million in a salary plus expenses, plus covering the salary cost from UBC.

There is no justifiable reason why these reports should not already be a matter of public record. To be honest, a freedom-of-information request should not have even been necessary, but here we are. Nearly a year later I haven’t even received some heavily redacted version — just silence. How am I supposed to effectively do the job that my constituents elected me to do if I can’t even access the information that is required of me to be able to do it?

This government is operating like the gatekeepers on information that belongs to the public, and this legislation is attempting to close that gate even tighter than before. If I have already been unable to access that information with the current system, what will happen if this legislation comes into force? What other information will the public not be able to access?

At the same time, I have also had requests in for the work being done by Larry Campbell on the Downtown Eastside, work that the government itself has publicly acknowledged as being critical to understanding what is happening in one of the most vulnerable communities in British Columbia, one that my critic portfolio is deeply intertwined with, and, again, nothing — no transparency, no accountability, no answers.

As I said before, what makes this even more concerning is that I should not even have to be filing FOI requests for this information in the first place. These are reports that taxpayers are funding. They are reports that are informing government decisions. There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for why this information should not be publicly available — none. Yet here we are, forced to file requests, wait months, pay fees, just to try and access information that should have been proactively disclosed from the start.

What’s incredibly frustrating about both of these situations is that they’re not one-offs. This just happens to be something that’s relevant to my critic portfolio. This is happening all throughout our caucus. We have freedom-of-information requests in that we haven’t received any responses to. We haven’t gotten any answers.

[3:35 p.m.]

These are just two examples of government contracts that the government has repeatedly justified as being incredibly necessary to inform the work that they need to do. In the case of the Downtown Eastside, I believe it’s work that sitting MLAs should be doing, not an outside independent contractor, but here we are.

There has been zero justification for the taxpayers’ money that has been spent on it. We’ve reviewed the contracts. The contracts clearly state there is a requirement….

Interjection.

Claire Rattée: We are still on Bill 9. This is incredibly important because I’m talking about the freedom-of-information requests that I have in right now with your government that have been sitting for over a year that I haven’t received a response to.

I’m talking about the contracts in relation to those freedom-of-information requests. I’m talking about how….

Deputy Speaker: Members, just a reminder, comments through the Chair.

Claire Rattée: Thank you, Chair.

I am talking about the freedom-of-information requests that I have been waiting on for a year now. They relate to documents and contracts that this government has, that they’ve justified as being crucial and necessary taxpayer-funded work that has been done. Reports that were tied into those agreements, reporting deadlines that…. I don’t know if they’ve been met. I have no idea. No one in the public does, because we can’t scrutinize them.

I’ve been waiting almost a year now for any of these reports, and these are reports that were quarterly, which means there are multiple reports which would have been put in, at least in the case of Dr. Vigo, and I’ve received nothing. So if we make this system even worse, if we make it even less accessible, then what?

There’s absolutely no reason, in the first place, why these should require a freedom-of-information request. The taxpayer is funding this work. There’s nothing in it that’s going to be sensitive or dangerous and that can’t get out into the hands of the public. They deserve to know. They have a right to know what is informing their government’s decisions on how they’re approaching policy.

What’s particularly concerning about this is that in the case of Dr. Vigo, statements that he has made publicly completely contradict the direction that this government has gone in, which makes me think that those reports are things that they really don’t want anybody else to see, because they’re not following the advice that they’ve been given. This is not transparency, and it is not openness. It certainly isn’t accountability. That is a system that is designed to control information.

If I, as a member of this House, cannot get access to this information in a timely way, what does that say about the ability of everyday British Columbians to access it? What does that say about a worker trying to access records for a workplace dispute or a journalist trying to investigate government spending? What does it say about a family that is trying to understand what happened to a loved one?

Freedom of information is not just used by politicians or by the media. It is used by people who are trying to navigate real situations in their lives — people who are trying to get clarity, people who are trying to get fairness, people who are trying to get answers. From where I am sitting, the system is already failing them. Instead of fixing that failure, we are being asked to pass legislation that makes it easier to deny requests altogether. That is backwards.

I will say this. Given this government’s track record, it is certainly not surprising, because this is not the first time we’ve seen this. This is a part of a pattern. This is a government that has been called the most secretive in Canada, and that label does not come from one decision or one bill. It comes from years of behaviour. It comes from delays. It comes from refusals. It comes from redactions. It comes from a consistent unwillingness to release information in a timely and transparent way.

We’ve seen it not just in FOI but in how this government approaches legislation more broadly. Increasingly, we are seeing legislation that lacks clarity, legislation that defers critical details to regulation, legislation that asks this House to approve a framework without knowing how it will actually operate in practice.

That matters, because when decisions are made in regulation instead of legislation, they are made with less scrutiny, less debate and less accountability. They are made outside of this chamber. When you combine that with vague legislative language, you are not just creating flexibility; you are concentrating power. You’re shifting control away from transparent processes and into discretionary decision-making, and Bill 9 fits squarely into that pattern.

When you look at clause 13, what you see is a significant expansion in the government’s ability to apply to have FOI requests disregarded, using terms like “malicious,” “abusive,” “repetitious,” “excessively broad” or requests that “unreasonably interfere with the operations of government” — terrifying.

None of those terms are properly defined, not one. That’s not a minor oversight. That is the core issue, and it was likely intentional. When terms are not defined, discretion expands, and when discretion expands, accountability declines. It means that the same request could be considered reasonable one day and dismissed the next. It means that legitimate scrutiny can be reframed as interference. It means that access to information becomes conditional.

[3:40 p.m.]

When the institution being scrutinized is the one deciding whether that scrutiny is valid, that should concern every single one of us in this House. It is, perhaps, the most terrifying language of all, because there is a lot that this government would likely classify as interfering with the operations of government.

I’ve seen the way that this government views opposition, the eye-rolls and insults when we are just trying to do the jobs that British Columbians elected us to do. I can only imagine which parts of our work that we carry out here every day this government would deem as interfering with the operations of government — likely most of it, if I had to guess.

But transparency is not supposed to be convenient. Accountability is not supposed to be comfortable. Government is not supposed to operate without scrutiny. That is the point. These jobs are hard. They are hard for a reason. Yet this bill moves us in the opposite direction.

At the same time, while expanding the ability to deny requests, this bill introduces new barriers on the other side. Clause 21 allows public bodies to charge fees for information that is already available without an FOI request.

Now not only can requests be dismissed more easily, but access to information that is already public can be subject to cost. Again, on its own, that might seem like one small adjustment, but when you layer it together — delays, undefined language, expanded discretion, new fees — you start to see the full picture.

Barrier after barrier, and that is how access is eroded. It’s not always through outright denial but through friction, delay, cost and uncertainty, until eventually people stop asking. That is the risk with this bill, because when you step back and look at all of this together, a very clear pattern emerges. This is not a bill that strengthens transparency. It is a bill that manages it. It gives government more control over what is released, when it is released and under what conditions it is released.

That is not what freedom of information is meant to be. Freedom of information is supposed to be a right. Not a privilege, not conditional and certainly not dependent on whether the request is convenient or comfortable for the government. It’s supposed to be a guarantee that the people of this province have the ability to understand what it is that their government is doing and to guarantee that we, as elected officials, are accountable to them.

There is an opportunity here to actually improve the system, to address delays, invest in proper information management, ensure that proactive disclosure is truly proactive, define clear standards and reinforce the principle that this information belongs to the public. But this bill does not do that, and until those issues are addressed, I cannot support it.

This is where I think it’s important that we take a step back and actually recognize what access to information has already accomplished in this province. It is very easy, in a debate like this, to talk about the system in abstract terms or to talk about legislation and clauses and definitions, but what often gets lost is the very real impact that access to information has had in exposing decisions that would not otherwise have come to light.

Over the past year alone, we have seen repeated examples of this through the work of organizations like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who have used freedom-of-information requests to uncover how public money is being spent in ways that British Columbians would otherwise never have known about and certainly are not happy about.

We are talking about thousands of dollars in gift card spending for government employees that could not properly be accounted for. We are talking about tens of thousands of dollars in travel expenses, receptions and discretionary spending that only came to light because someone was willing to file a request and push for answers.

We are talking about contracts and procurement decisions that raised serious questions about transparency and fairness — again, only revealed because of access to information. I think that matters, because none of that information was proactively disclosed. None of that information was voluntarily brought forward.

The realities of what is happening in our hospitals. Much of what we know about the wait-lists for surgical and diagnostic care has only been made available through freedom-of-information requests. We only know how many people have died on those same wait-lists because of this work. Government certainly wasn’t proactively disclosing it. It came to light because the system, imperfect as it is, still allowed people to ask questions and eventually get answers.

That is the role that access to information plays in a functioning democracy. It is not there for convenience or for comfort. It is there precisely because governments do not always choose to share information on their own. In the case of this NDP government, I would go so far as to say it often does not.

It exists so that the public does not have to rely on what government is willing to disclose but, instead, has the ability to seek out that information themselves.

[3:45 p.m.]

That is why this matters so much, because when you make it harder to file those requests, when you introduce even more fees, when you expand the ability to dismiss them, when you normalize delay, you are not just changing a process. You are limiting the ability of that kind of work to happen.

You are limiting the ability of journalists to do their jobs. You are limiting the ability of organizations to hold government accountable. You are limiting the ability of the opposition to do the work that they were elected to do. Ultimately, you are limiting the ability of British Columbians to understand how their own money is being spent.

That is what this comes down to. This is taxpayer money. This is public money, and British Columbians have a right to know how it is being used. They have a right to know when money is being spent in ways that do not align with their expectations. They have a right to know when decisions are being made that affect their communities. They have a right to know without having to jump through more and more barriers just to access that information.

Government would be very wise to not lose sight of that, because, from where I am standing, it appears that they may have already.

When we look at Bill 9 through that lens, it becomes very clear why there is so much concern, because the tools that have allowed that information to come to light, imperfect as they may be, are the very tools that this bill makes weaker. That is not something that we should be comfortable with.

We are already seeing the real-world consequences of this approach to transparency. This is not happening in a vacuum. It is happening at the same time that this government has made the decision to pause proactive disclosures, disclosures that British Columbians rely on to understand how their money is being spent. That includes things like ministerial briefing notes, purchase card records, travel expenses and government contracts that are awarded without a competitive process.

These are not minor documents or administrative details. These are exactly the kind of records that allow the public to see how decisions are being made, how money is being spent and whether government is acting responsibly. Right now those disclosures have simply been paused, with no clear timeline for when they will return.

This really does speak to a broader issue that we see throughout this government and the way that they have approached things, specifically over the last year and a half, because this government is also eliminating an independent Office of the Merit Commissioner. The Merit Commissioner’s role is to be an independent office that reviews whether merit is applied in hiring within the public service.

In his last report, the commissioner found that 10 percent of hires were merit-not-applied hires, the highest rate since 2017. This should concern this government. But rather than address these concerns, the government thinks that it is simpler to just eliminate the independent oversight. This is relevant because it speaks to a broader issue that we see with this government, an apparent allergy to accountability.

At the exact same time that access to information is being restricted through legislation, the proactive disclosure of information is also being reduced, and the independent oversight is being removed. That is not a coincidence. That is a pattern, one where fewer questions are answered and fewer decisions can be scrutinized. That does not strengthen accountability; it weakens it.

I think this is where the concern that many people have raised, that this is an assault on transparency, really starts to resonate. When you take all of these pieces together, it is not just one change. It is certainly not just one bill. It is a series of decisions that all move in the same direction: more barriers to access; more discretion to deny; more ability to delay; and less obligation to provide clear, timely answers. That is not modernization; it is a step backwards.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is a very simple question. If government is confident in its decisions, if it is confident in how it is spending taxpayer money, if it is confident in the policies it is putting forward, then why is there a need to limit access to information about those decisions in the first place?

Transparency should not be something that government fears. It should be something that it embraces. But what we are seeing here is the opposite. That is why this bill is so deeply concerning, because this government does fear transparency. Transparency is not about what government chooses to share; it is about what the public has a right to know.

Scott McInnis: It’s a real pleasure here today to speak in very staunch opposition to Bill 9. It’s nice to say welcome to all the guests in the gallery today and, I’m sure, the tens of thousands of people at home watching on TV.

[3:50 p.m.]

Very simple here. I have a lot of things I want to cover here today. I want to have some fun with this, because I certainly don’t think…. I’m sure everybody in the gallery and everybody at home would agree with me that it is a public government’s responsibility to walk towards transparency and accountability when it comes to freedom of information, not away from it. That is exactly what we’re seeing with these amendments in Bill 9.

I appreciate the Minister of Citizens’ Services for bringing the bill forward in the two-minute introduction speech. If the vote was based on those words, we would probably all vote unanimously in favour of this bill.

But after peeling back the layers, it is very obvious that this government, which has a pattern and a reputation of not being overly transparent, to say the very least…. Not from the official opposition, this is in the public. This further adds to that, and it is extremely concerning.

I want to thank my friend the member for Saanich North and the Islands for his very eloquently put speech a number of weeks ago on this. As far as I recall, he was involved in the original drafting of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act several decades ago. I agreed with just about everything he said.

This is outrageous, what we’re seeing here with Bill 9. The public deserves to have timely access to information. To put up barriers to make it slower and less efficient is an abdication of responsibility on a public government. I can’t believe that we are seeing this bill come forward.

At a time when the FOI system is already in somewhat of a crisis…. I’ll get to the details here in a moment. I’ve got lots of great examples to share on the record. The government response times are now the worst in 13 years. If I send in a request for a freedom-of-information response, we are in the slowest response time in over a decade.

There’s nothing in here that even attempts to speed that process up. In fact, it’s going to dramatically slow it down. The OIPC found the province takes an average of 85 business days to respond to a freedom-of-information request, the longest delay on record. And 5,100 requests in recent years were delayed without any type of legal authority, forcing applicants to wait an extra 192 business days on average.

I don’t understand why we’re trying to make this system more delayed and more complicated. I certainly, when I get to sit in government, would welcome the opportunity to have the public understand how we are spending their money, as quickly as possible.

We see quite a change in language in Bill 9. We’re replacing, when we’re talking about freedom-of-information requests, “without delay” with “without unreasonable delay.”

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, let’s put that into context for a second, because words matter here. If my wife says to me, “Honey, will you take out the trash without delay?” you best bet I’m going to do it right away. But if there’s leeway, “Honey, can you take the trash out without unreasonable delay?” I’m going to watch the sports highlights, kick back, maybe take the dog out for ten minutes. That matters.

What is unreasonable delay? I certainly don’t see that quantified anywhere in this bill. It builds a permanent excuse for slow-walking even further these requests, at a time when they are the slowest in our province’s history. “Reasonable” becomes whatever the government thinks that says.

Ignoring requests that are abusive, malicious, excessively broad or interfering with operations — all subjective, no definitions, nothing concretely explained as to what that actually means. In the examples I’m going to give on the record today, I’m sure there’d be a great way for this government to steer any one of those examples as abusive, malicious, excessively broad, interfering with operations, when, in fact, it’s information that’s critical for the public to know.

The expansion of the mass data sharing in a time when we have issues around privacy. There’s no way I can support that, in section 69.3 of this bill, with no corresponding expansion in public access rights. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Transparency is mandatory from public government. It shouldn’t be at government’s discretion to decide what that means.

I’d like to thank — I’m sure the government doesn’t like this association — the Canadian Taxpayers Federation for their work in exposing some of the egregious expenditures of government, things that, under this amendment of this bill, they will surely sweep under the rug with the new subjective language that we see here.

Let’s walk through the list a little bit here, and then I’ll get to the more recent conversation from earlier today. Thanks to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, through freedom-of-information requests, they found and exposed that deputy ministers within government get a $14,000 vehicle allowance every year. I’m not criticizing the work of deputy ministers; it’s critically important. But when you’re making $350,000 to $400,000 a year, a $14,000 vehicle allowance? Is that a good use of the public purse? I certainly don’t think so.

[4:00 p.m.]

We had a coronation medal ceremony, very important for local folks. I’m not opposed to government perhaps providing a reasonable level of entertainment, a venue. But recently in Victoria, for this celebration, it was a $35,000 bill, a $35,000 reception. That included 42 glasses of Prosecco and ten shots of Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 Tennessee Whiskey, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Again, the coronation celebration — extremely important. Yes, there should be a reasonable level of snacks and beverages provided, but a round of JD for the boys? I’m speechless.

The minister who brought this bill forward charged taxpayers — again, this is all through freedom-of-information exposure — $3,900 for a happy hour in Amsterdam. And that wasn’t good enough. They extended it another hour and a half, for a cost of an extra $600. The Finance Minister on a recent trip to the United States, through a freedom-of-information request, billed taxpayers $6,600 for limousines. We’ll let the public digest that as they will.

Now, moving ahead to more modern times, I was involved in an exchange with the Premier earlier today about his knowledge of a very significant rights and title agreement between the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band. His story changed several times over his involvement and level of knowledge for that agreement.

First of all, he didn’t know anything about it. Then it turned out he was actually sitting there in the front row. Then he said: “Yeah, but I was just there as the local MLA, not as the Premier. I still didn’t know anything about it.” But through freedom of information and a relatively timely response, we were able to ascertain that, yes, on February 12, weeks before that signing agreement, the Premier received an official invitation to that, to the Premier’s office.

One of two things could be correct. There’s an extreme lack of communication in the Premier’s office, very concerning on its own, or he didn’t want to be forthright, actually, about his knowledge of this agreement.

Now, the Premier got his hackles up today with me, saying how dare I say that there was a letter of support sent by his government to the federal government a year ago, congratulating the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm on this agreement being signed.

Well, I just want to read. Again, this is through a freedom-of-information request. This is a communication between the Deputy Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and their federal counterparts. It says, this is the Deputy Minister: “B.C. provided a letter of support to Minister Anandasangaree last year.” So thanks to freedom-of-information requests, we were actually able to connect the dots that, certainly, in that very significant agreement that was signed around the Premier by the federal government, he certainly knew what was going on.

[4:05 p.m.]

We cannot go down this road away from transparency and accountability with a bill like Bill 9. Why? When you go down these roads, they’re very hard to walk back. They’re not going to be in government forever.

Just imagine for a second…. Let’s just play the what-if game. If the Conservatives were sitting in government and we brought forward a bill like this, the outrage from the NDP for trying to make freedom-of-information requests slower, more subjective as to what can be processed and what can’t be, they’d light their hair on fire. But when they do it, it’s: “Oh we’re just helping everybody out. We’re making it faster.”

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Association raised “serious concerns about the legislation, warning that it weakens at a time when government has failed to meaningfully implement its own recordkeeping law.” It’s not just the official opposition, independents and Third Party members raising the concern here. This is systemic opposition to this. This is very dangerous legislation.

“Access delays are often a symptom of recordkeeping failures,” said the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association executive director Jason Woywada, further saying: “You cannot fix systemic information management problems by weakening public access rights.”

This is not an attempt to modernize freedom of information. This is a calculated play to make it harder to access.

Amna Shah: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Amna Shah: We are joined in the gallery by a group of 15 from the Attorney General’s ministry. I welcome all of these individuals to our chamber.

As you can tell, we are debating a piece of legislation at second reading. I hope you enjoy the debate, and I wish you a wonderful day ahead.

I hope the House will join me in making them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Scott McInnis: Welcome to our new guests here.

I’m really curious, and I’m sure we’ll dig into this in the committee stage of this bill. Who did the government consult with on drafting this legislation? I think that’s a very reasonable question to have answered. I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around various industry associations, business community members — that they would support something like this.

I’m still trying to understand what the intent is with some of this language within the legislation. One of those intentions, as was mentioned, was that this is connecting rural B.C. Gee, thanks a lot. After the punishing measures from Budget 2026 on rural B.C., thanks for connecting us a little bit faster, somehow, some way, with this legislation. I’ll take this back to my constituency and celebrate, and see what the reaction is.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’m seriously asking the government to reconsider this legislation for a number of reasons. I think we have to amend freedom of information to try and make this easier. I know I’ve spoken with people that have worked in government before. It’s tough doing FOIs. It takes a lot of public resources. But it’s necessary. This is extremely important.

I want to keep some of my powder dry here, because, again, there are a lot more details to get into in a smaller room when we’re debating at committee stage. But I’m asking my colleagues on the other side of the House to really, really reconsider what this legislation means.

We only find out what government is actually up to with their time, with their use of the public dollars, through freedom-of-information requests. It is necessary that we make that as easy as possible, for the public to see that and to hold us all accountable in here, not when we choose when it’s convenient.

There’s absolutely no way I’m going to support this legislation.

Donegal Wilson: I rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Access-to-information legislation is not ordinary legislation. I don’t believe it is technical housekeeping. I don’t think it’s just modernization alone. It’s not something that we should ever approach casually, and I feel like this bill does approach it fairly casually.

I believe that freedom-of-information laws form one of the foundations of public accountability in our province. They’re one of the primary ways British Columbians understand how decisions are made, how resources are allocated and how government exercises authority on their behalf.

I honestly believe that everything in government should be open and that we should only be putting under freedom of information things that we need to keep secret for the government. But right now we have to try to figure out what these things are and dig them out through freedom-of-information requests.

These FOI requests allow citizens to ask questions, they allow journalists to investigate, and they allow researchers to evaluate policy and how it’s actually happening in implementation after it leaves this House. They allow elected officials in this House to do our work on behalf of the people we represent. Quite often we have to use the freedom-of-information request system to be able to get information out of government in order to do our jobs.

When access to information works well, it strengthens trust between government and the public. I think this comes at a time when that trust is at an all-time low. I believe that this is not the time to try to get more secretive and to do less things in the freedom of information. When it becomes slower and narrower, more discretionary or more expensive, it weakens that trust even further. I think that’s why this legislation affecting access to information must always be examined carefully and thoughtfully.

This bill makes a number of changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Some of those changes are presented as just administrative improvements. Others are framed as modernization measures intended to improve service delivery across government. But I think when we look closely at several of the provisions contained in this bill, we see a pattern emerging.

It’s a pattern that we’ve been highlighting, I think, across this session and, honestly, since I’ve been elected. It is a pattern of finding ways to hide information. It’s a pattern that raises real concerns about whether access to information in British Columbia is becoming more accessible or less. This legislation is about becoming less.

[4:15 p.m.]

This legislation introduces new discretion for public bodies to refuse requests. It weakens expectations around response times and expands categories under which requests may be disregarded completely. It introduces the possibility of fees for records that were previously available without charge.

I will echo the statement of my colleague previous and ask this government to really look at this legislation and see if it meets the needs of British Columbia before they advance it any further, because I don’t support where this is going. Taken together, these changes deserve a lot of scrutiny from this House. As I said, I would prefer that we pulled it altogether.

I feel like the people of B.C. are looking for accountability. They’re looking for transparency. They’re looking for this government to open up their books and show everybody what’s happening, why they’re in the mess they’re in. This legislation goes the other direction.

I think that we need to look at this in context as well. Access-to-information legislation doesn’t operate in isolation. This reflects the direction of government that it chooses to take when it comes to transparency and accountability. It signals to the people of B.C. how important it is for government to share the information with them.

I think British Columbians have seen a number of decisions in recent years that have made it even more difficult, not easier, to obtain that information from their government. I actually believe this government will go down in history as the most secretive government in this province, maybe even in Canada.

Based on the need to hide, they reach decisions…. How they reach those decisions should not be surprising. I think focusing first on reducing response times instead of addressing backlogs is flawed legislation. I think instead of improving service standards for applicants, making it harder is flawed legislation.

We are seeing the introduction of filing fees for access-to-information requests that were free before — again, creating barriers and flawed legislation.

We see response times continue to grow longer. I’m going to share a little insert from my own community. In my riding, Okanagan Falls is in the process of incorporating. On September 16, 2025, one of my constituents submitted a freedom-of-information request related to communications surrounding the incorporation process for the proposed municipality of Okanagan Falls.

Under the act, the response was originally due on October 20. Instead, the applicant received a series of extensions. On December 2, they got a 30-day extension. On January 16, they got another 30 days. On February 13, 20 days. On March 9, 15 days. All the way to today, April 21. They just got another extension. They’re now not expected to receive that until June 4. That’s nearly nine months after the original request was submitted.

Access to information is most valuable when it’s timely. This is key, because this decision around the incorporation of Okanagan Falls will now be completed before the freedom of information gets out to my constituents.

This means the information arrives late. Yes, we’ll know how the decision was made, but it can’t be included in their decision on how to move forward. I think when information arrives after decisions are finalized, it undermines transparency, and this legislation change really could do some harm, I believe.

I do not see anything in Bill 9 that would strengthen the ability of constituents in my riding to receive information in a timely way. All I see are barriers, time extensions, vague language and financial barriers to getting information. I think this is the difference between participation and hindsight, and I believe that the people of Okanagan Falls would like to participate but are being forced to do it in hindsight.

In fact, between 2022 and 2023, applicants were waiting an average of 192 business days. I think that my community would almost be happy with 192 days at this point, but that is the average. The changing in the language is not going to be a small administrative delay. It is a structural barrier to transparency.

When a bill is introduced that changes how requests may be rejected, changes how timelines are interpreted and introduces the possibility of new fees for records that were previously accessible without charge, it is reasonable for British Columbians to ask whether access to information is being strengthened or restricted. My constituents feel this is restricting them.

The purpose of access-to-information legislation should always be clear. It should make government more open. It should make information easier to obtain. It should reinforce the principle that public institutions are accountable to the people they serve.

[4:20 p.m.]

Instead, several provisions in this bill head in the opposite direction. I’ve addressed some of them before, but I really think that it’s worth talking about. This bill just continues to weaken this legislation around response timelines. It’s narrowing that discretion.

What is considered a reasonable request? Having bureaucrats be able to discuss what’s reasonable is concerning. I think that it introduces the possibility that British Columbians may have to pay to obtain records that are publicly available today, that aren’t even under freedom-of-information requests.

I think, taken together, these changes represent a shift in the wrong direction.

I think one of the most concerning changes in this legislation actually appears, at first glance, to be pretty small. It’s only a few words that we’ve changed, but I think that in legislation, particularly legislation that governs how we have access to information, those small wording changes can have very large consequences.

Bill 9 changes the obligation on public bodies to respond to access requests from a duty to respond “without delay” to a duty to respond “without unreasonable delay.” There’s no definition of what “unreasonable” is, and I don’t understand why we’re inserting this vague language, which can be interpreted, into actual statute. That is very concerning, and I think that change matters.

The phrase “without delay” sets a clear expectation. It establishes that those requests should be handled as quickly as possible, consistent within the intent of the act. The phrase “without unreasonable delay” introduces that interpretation. It introduces flexibility. It introduces uncertainty for applicants who are already waiting far too long to receive responses, similar to my constituents in Okanagan Falls.

At a time when response timelines are already exceeding statutory expectations, as I shared the story, by months in many cases, I think this change risks signalling even longer delays are acceptable, so long as they can be justified after the fact. I think that that is very concerning and not a direction that we want to take our access-to-information legislation.

The purpose of this act is not making it easier to explain delays. It should be to get information to people as timely as possible. If we say it’s 90 days, why isn’t it 90 days? The letters they receive about the extensions don’t explain why there’s an extension — that there’s an exceeding number of pages being requested or they’re having a hard time finding it. Or maybe they need to go to the library and get paper copies of this. There’s no explanation for why the delay.

I believe that this, now creating unreasonable delay, also allows us to jump around in the queue of FOI requests and just do the low-hanging fruit, the really easy ones that are right on top. The rest can just wait because there’s no longer that urgency to get it done.

British Columbians rely on the access to information when they’re trying to understand decisions that affect their communities; their livelihoods; and, in many cases, their safety. They rely on it when they’re trying to understand why infrastructure projects are delayed.

I had a meeting today about a CT scanner in Grand Forks. We thought it was moving ahead. Possibly delayed. The only way we can find out why it’s being delayed or what’s going to happen with it is likely, at some point down the road, doing a freedom-of-information request.

We want to make sure that legislation is there and that our answers are timely when we get them.

I know, in my own portfolio, we have a lot of discussions about permits and a lot of correspondence around those permits. I know a lot of the FOI requests received by Water, Land and Resource Stewardship relate to the permitting process. Why are decisions not happening? What correspondence is happening in the background around these permits? Why is the queue not going down? People are doing a lot of information…. They have the right to access the information. They have a right to know why their permit is stalled.

I think that delayed transparency is often indistinguishable from denied transparency. I think that that’s a very fine line that this bill is almost introducing.

If the government’s objective is to improve the performance of the access to information, then the focus should be on reducing wait times, improving compliance, opening up more data without need for request, not weakening our language that defines those timelines in the first place. In practice, I think it risks normalizing delays in a system that is already struggling to deliver information to British Columbians when they need it most.

[4:25 p.m.]

Another significant change in Bill 9 affects what happens at the very beginning of the access-to-information process. Before a request is even processed, before records are searched, before disclosure is considered, clause 2 of this bill changes the requirement governing how access requests are evaluated by public bodies. It provides that a request must, in the opinion of the head of the public body, contain enough detail to allow an experienced employee, using reasonable effort and within a reasonable amount of time, to identify the record being sought.

It sounds practical, but if you really look at the words in there, there’s a lot of vague terminology — “in the opinion of,” “reasonable effort,” “reasonable time,” “no longer defined limitations within the statute.” It represents a meaningful shift in how access requests are assessed.

Previously the focus of the legislation was whether the request described the record clearly enough to be identified, and now it seems like the determination of whether the request contains sufficient detail rests explicitly with the head of the public body. I think that change really matters, and it moves discretion away from the applicant and toward the institution holding the information.

It also introduces two additional concepts that are not defined in this act — that is, what constitutes a reasonable effort or what constitutes a reasonable amount of time. Again, that vague language. I think those phrases are perhaps intended to be neutral but, in my opinion, do not belong in statute.

In practice, they create uncertainty for applicants and flexibility for the institution. They make it easier for a request to be rejected before the search for records even begins. Access-to-information legislation is meant to reduce barriers at the front end of the process. It should make it easier for people to ask questions of their government. Instead, this amendment risks creating a higher threshold that applicants must meet simply to have their requests considered.

It’s important to remember that many applicants are not legal professionals. They don’t read these statutes and these laws for fun, like we do in this House. So it’s important to make this as barrier-free as possible. These are not policy analysts. They’re not specialists in government record systems. Quite often they don’t even know what ministry they’re trying to get the records from. They just know the issue that they have and the information that they would like around that issue.

I think that it’s important, because we saw recently that journalists are following the public spending. It’s an important part of holding this government to account. There are local governments seeking clarity on provincial direction. They do freedom-of-information requests around decisions that impact their communities as well.

We have researchers across B.C. trying to evaluate our programs and look at outcomes. That involves freedom of information. Getting that data is really important to their research.

I don’t think it should be a test on whether applicants can perfectly describe internal record structures or ministerial relationships and figure out the different silos within our government. If you had a question about hospitals, most people wouldn’t know that you need to go to the Minister of Infrastructure. They would think they were going to the Minister of Health.

These things matter, and I think that we should be working to make this as easy as possible for the public to get the information they deserve about where their money is going, what our government is doing and how our province is moving forward.

It’s meant to remain accessible to the people it serves. When this legislation increases discretion at the front end of a process, I think it really increases the risk that requests will be filtered out before transparency can even begin.

I also think that another significant change in Bill 9, and certainly one that deserves some attention from this House, is the expansion of the circumstances under which access-to-information requests may be disregarded.

Clause 13 introduces new language allowing a public body to apply to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard a request if the behaviour of the applicant is considered abusive or malicious, if the request is repetitious or systematic, if it is excessively broad or if responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of government.

[4:30 p.m.]

Again, individually I think these terms probably had an intent, but they are very vague and undefined. What would be considered repetitious? If somebody made an FOI request last week and I make the same FOI request this week, is that repetitious, and, therefore, mine won’t be completed? It should be easier for government to respond to those because they should be able to just respond with the same information they responded with last week.

I think that some of these terms are…. Even with “unreasonably interfere with the operations of government,” who defines what is unreasonably interfering? Is disclosing how much was spent on a single event unreasonably interfering with the operations because the opposition or the media may come out and disclose this to the public and it makes it uncomfortable for the minister who made the decision? What is unreasonable interference? That’s not defined within here. I think it’ll be judged by how it operates in practice.

I think that this is a slippery slope that we’re on with this bill. Again, I would ask government to withdraw the bill and work with the opposition to find a different path forward if there are things in here they need. I’m seriously concerned about this bill and hope they will withdraw it.

There’s also no definition of what level of effort would qualify as interfering. What level of effort is it? Is it pulling 25 documents? Is that considered interference? If ten people are requesting 25 documents, is that tenth person considered interference? I don’t know, and I’m sure that the people of B.C. won’t know either, what that means and what it will apply to when in implementation.

I believe that it is supposed to establish predictable expectations. That’s what this particular legislation is supposed to do. It’s supposed to ensure that the right to request information is not dependent on how a request is perceived by the institution receiving it.

It’s supposed to be a direct request for information. It’s not supposed to have feelings. It’s not supposed to be up for debate on whether I feel like I should give this to you. It should be clear. It matters for journalists, it matters for researchers, and I think it matters for all of British Columbia and this Legislature to really consider what’s included in this bill.

I think that people should feel confident asking questions, and this government should be happy to share the work they’re doing if they’re proud of it. This legislation tells me that they’re not proud of their work; that they’re looking for ways to lighten the load, for lack of a better term, on the number of requests that are coming into their office, being able to screen them out before they even have to look at them.

I believe this introduces uncertainty, it introduces hesitation, and it risks discouraging the very participation that this was designed to support. I think it’s a right that can’t be set aside without those clear criteria and a strong direction forward. This bill does not have it. It goes the wrong way.

I’m going to skip a couple of sections because I can see that my time is burning up here.

I’m going to go to the centralized data sharing through a connected service provider. Another area of Bill 9 deserves careful consideration, and it’s the introduction of a new framework allowing the minister to designate what is described as a connected service provider. Under this clause, the minister may designate a public body to establish and maintain an online platform that facilitates access to services across multiple public bodies and enables the sharing of personal information between them. This is a significant structural change.

I think the intent is positive. I think people in B.C. want the ability to access information in one place, not to have to go ministry by ministry. So I understand what they’re trying to do here, but I think the lacking detail in this particular piece is: what information are we sharing? How are people going to be notified how their information is being shared from one ministry to another? Are they able to opt in, opt out? Are they able to manage their records themselves? How does that look?

[4:35 p.m.]

I think there’s some privacy legislation that needs to be considered in this. I think that as somebody who lives here in British Columbia, I want to know how my data is being used, what ministry has access to it and what specific data they have access to. Do they just have my name? Do they have my name and my email? Do they also have my health records? What’s moving from ministry to ministry? I think that deserves some scrutiny, and, if this bill gets to committee, I hope that we can pick into that.

Again, I would hope the government would pull it before that happened. I think modernization can never come at the expense of clarity, and I think that how personal information is collected, shared and protected has to be looked at within this legislation.

I’m going to go to this one next. I’m going to go to extending the review timelines beyond 90 days. I already shared a story from my own riding around how the 90 days isn’t real anyway. I do understand why the government is trying to extend the timelines, but I also think that it’s more appropriate for government to find a way to meet their timelines instead of finding ways to make excuses for why they can’t meet them.

Currently this legislation sets a clear expectation that an inquiry must be completed within 90 days after receiving the request for a review. We did see, previous in my speech…. I think we’re at an average of 192 days, and my particular FOI request is well over that timeline. Bill 9 removes that firm timeline and allows the commissioner to specify a later completion date, provided that the parties involved are notified.

Great. It’s going to take two years to get my FOI request. As long as you tell me that, that’s okay? I don’t think that’s a reasonable or practical adjustment or meets the expectations of what British Columbians are expecting of their government.

I think there will certainly be circumstances where complex reviews require additional time, but timelines and access-to-information legislation exist for a reason. They provide certainty for applicants, they create discipline within the system, and they reinforce the principle that access to information must occur within a reasonable and predictable period of time. When statutory timelines become flexible rather than fixed, the risk is that delays become normalized rather than resolved.

British Columbians who request a review from the commissioner are often doing so because they’ve already experienced a delay earlier in the process. They are seeking clarity, they are seeking resolution, and they are seeking a decision that allows them to move forward. Extending timelines at this stage does not improve access to information. It extends uncertainty. If the goal is to strengthen confidence in the access-to-information system, then the focus should be on improving capacity and reducing backlog pressures, not weakening the expectations that define how quickly these reviews should be completed.

I believe that Bill 9 also deserves some attention on section 69 of the act, specifically the removal of the requirement for early notification to the Information and Privacy Commissioner during the development of a common or integrated program or activity.

I think I mentioned a little bit before in my speech about my concern about how ministries will be sharing data in their single data centre. I think that this change takes my concerns even further because this says that they can do those things without having to check in with the Information and Privacy Commissioner during that development. I don’t know why you would not bring them in immediately when you’re working on this, to make sure these initiatives are there.

Bill 9 repeals that requirement. At first glance, it might be a technical adjustment, but I think those early notification requirements exist for an important reason. They ensure that privacy considerations are examined before systems are finalized. Let’s not get the whole thing built and then find out that we have a data issue or that people aren’t able to opt in and opt out in the proper way. By repealing that clause, it definitely has the potential to do that.

I believe that when legislation amends access-to-information law, it is rarely a single provision that determines its impact. In closing, it is the cumulative effect of many changes working together. When we look at Bill 9 as a whole, what we see is a series of amendments that expand discretion, introduce uncertainty and create new barriers within a system that British Columbia has already experienced as a slow and difficult-to-navigate process.

[4:40 p.m.]

We see timelines weakened. We see thresholds introduced at the front end of a request process. We see expanded categories under which requests may be disregarded. We see new authorities for personal information-sharing defined through ministerial direction rather than the statute, and we see the introduction of potential fees for records that were previously available without charge.

Each of these changes on its own may appear modest, but together they represent a shift in the direction of access to information in this province.

We need greater clarity toward greater accessibility, toward greater transparency, because access to information is not simply about records held by government. It is about accountability to the people of British Columbia. It is their money. This House sits at their pleasure. We need to make sure that we honour the people of British Columbia by allowing them access to their information and the information on how decisions are made in this government.

There are elements of this bill that may improve administrative coordination, but I think that the negatives that it proposes far outweigh any positives. British Columbians deserve access to an information system that is faster, clearer and more open. It is the responsibility of this Legislature to ensure that any changes to that system strengthen it, not narrow it.

Brennan Day: I have very much been looking forward to speaking to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, because I have a passion for freedom of information and transparency in the province of British Columbia.

I want to begin not with legalese, not with process and not with the sort of soft language governments use when they’re trying to smuggle something past the public. Let’s be clear. This is exactly what this bill is trying to do.

I’d like to begin with the truth, because this bill reflects a government that is getting very short on ideas. It reflects a government whose record is starting to catch up to it. It reflects a government that has made so many mistakes and fumbles, offered so many inflated claims and buried so much under delay and deflection that it isn’t trying to fix the underlying problems anymore. It’s trying to hide from them.

That is exactly what Bill 9 is. This is not a government bursting with confidence in its own record. A confident government does not make access to information harder. A confident government does not lower the standard from responding without delay to responding only without unreasonable delay. A confident government does not broaden the grounds to disregard requests by calling applicants abusive or malicious or by saying requests may interfere with the operations of government.

A confident government does not start attaching fees to records that are supposed to be proactively available, open and transparent to the public. A confident government certainly does not make new disregard powers apply retroactively to requests that are already in the system. No, those are the actions of a government that knows its record is extremely vulnerable. Those are the actions of a government that knows the gap between what it says and what the documents show is getting harder and harder to manage. Those are the actions of a government that has learned painfully that the truth always has a way of surfacing.

Far too often in this province the truth has surfaced not because government volunteered it, not because they proactively disclosed it, but because somebody fought for it, because somebody filed the request, because somebody appealed the delay, because somebody refused to take what the government said in a press release as gospel.

That is why freedom of information matters. It matters because without it, governments get to narrate their own performance unchecked, and this government is shameless about that narration. With it, the public gets a chance to compare the sales pitch of the press release to the actual numbers, and that comparison has not been kind recently to this government.

Let’s talk about health care, because that is where this pattern has become impossible to ignore. We have watched ministers stand up and announce headline numbers on recruitment and access daily. We’ve watched flashy claims, broad declarations of progress and carefully curated figures rolled out for public consumption. Time and again, when you drill into the numbers, when you ask what the figures actually mean, when you compare one release to another, the story gets far murkier.

Take primary care. The government wants applause when it can point to attachment rates or percentages. But when we have done the math, when we have taken the province’s own population and compared it to the share of British Columbians still without a primary care provider, the number remains flat. Twenty-three percent of British Columbians still don’t have a care provider. That’s 1.3 million British Columbians.

[4:45 p.m.]

The reason this matters to FOI is because without FOI disclosures, the government would be happy to stand behind their claim of 750,000 British Columbians attached since 2017 — a bold claim but a claim that doesn’t even keep up with population growth in this province. It’s not a rounding error. It’s not a minor gap. That is a system failure at a massive scale, only recovered through information and transparency.

What made that so politically revealing was not only the number itself but the discrepancy. It was the fact that the number sat only 70,000 below the reported figure from the primary care report from a year ago, even as the government continued trying to present the story as though the crisis were being decisively turned around.

Just today the minister and the Premier waxed poetic in question period about 600,000 primary care attachments — absolutely head-breaking headline numbers. But those aren’t just attachments; those are attempted attachments. Those numbers don’t include all of the British Columbians across this province who lost their primary care provider to retirement or relocation.

That is why transparency matters, because you cannot run a government on press releases. You run a government on results. If you only listen to the podium, you hear progress. If you examine the numbers, you see stagnation dressed up as progress. If you press a little harder, you start asking the question the government hates most: what are they not telling us from this flashy press release?

The same pattern shows up in health care recruitment. The minister wants headlines for accepted job offers — accepted job offers. But British Columbians don’t receive care from press releases of job offers. They receive care from workers actually hired, actually onboarded, actually accredited, actually practising and actually retained in our system.

That’s where the shine comes off, because the real question is not how many expressions of interest there were. It’s not how many people entered a pipeline. It’s not even how many offers were accepted. The real question is net capacity. How many health care workers are actually in the system after departures, retirements, burnout, interprovincial movement, administrative bottlenecks, licensing lag and attrition are all taken into account?

How do we find those numbers? With this government, it’s through freedom of information, or it was, until the government tabled this damaging bill. How many more people are actually at the bedside in the ER, in rural communities, in long-term care, in diagnostics, in home care and in the places where patients feel shortages in real life? The reality of British Columbians does not match the press releases.

Time and again this government has preferred the gross headline to the net truth. Why? Because gross numbers are for announcements: $2.7 billion more in the health care system — a flat investment, in real terms, when you account for inflation and wage growth. That’s the pattern Bill 9 is designed to protect.

Then we can go into long-term care. For all the government’s rhetoric, families are still waiting. Seniors are still stuck, hospitals are still clogged with patients who shouldn’t be there, because the next level of care doesn’t exist in this province or was cancelled. We have pressed this government over and over on long-term-care wait-lists, on bed shortages and the relationship between long-term-care failure and acute care gridlock. What do we run into again and again? Delay, deflection, partial disclosure, fragments of the story and press release headlines that obfuscate the truth.

That is exactly why freedom of information matters more now than ever to British Columbians, because without it, government gets to hide inside aggregate talking points. Without it, it can announce a project here, a couple billion dollars in funding there or a future commitment somewhere else down the road and hope nobody compares that language to the government’s actual delivery record.

And this government’s delivery record is abysmal. Without it, they can sell movement where what mostly exists is simply government drift. When documents do emerge, when internal concerns do surface, when staff level warnings become visible, suddenly the government is forced to answer for what it knew and when it knew it.

That’s what transparency does and is why FOI is so important. It drags reality back into the room. And this government, increasingly, does not like reality. It does not like being asked why wait-lists remain so high. It does not like being asked how many beds are truly available because of staffing. It does not like being asked how many patients are stuck in hospital as alternative-level-of-care patients because the continuing-care system is falling behind.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you. We have a report from the committee. Can I ask you to reserve your right and adjourn the debate?

Brennan Day: I reserve my right to continue, and I adjourn debate.

Brennan Day moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[4:50 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

George Anderson: Section A reports Bill 14 complete without amendment.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Now, Madam Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Division has been called.

[4:55 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Member for Peace River North, participating remotely, the Chair would ask him to please remove his hat. Thank you, Member.

The question is third reading of Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The Speaker: Members, take a seat. Take a seat. It’s not complete yet. Have a seat.

Bill 14 has been read a third time and has passed.

Trevor Halford: I know a lot has been debated in the past couple of days, but I just want to say, from our caucus and probably everybody in this House…. The fact that we just had a vote…. I’m not sure how this vote happened, but it did happen.

To see the member for Vancouver-Strathcona on that screen…. It’s nothing short of an inspiration that she shows up and does that work. I just want to let her know that we’re thinking about her, and I want to thank her for all that she has done. It is inspiring to see her on that screen.

[Applause.]

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

[5:05 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: It looks like we’re ready to get rolling here.

Member for Courtenay-Comox, continue your remarks on Bill 9.

Brennan Day: I will continue my remarks on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

This government increasingly doesn’t like to deal in reality. It doesn’t like being asked why wait-lists remain so high. It doesn’t like being asked how many beds are truly unavailable because of staffing shortages. It certainly doesn’t like being asked how many patients are stuck in hospital as alternative-level-of-care patients because the continuing-care system is falling behind. It doesn’t like being asked to reconcile bold public claims with much more modest administrative fact.

Instead of confronting those failures head-on, instead of improving disclosure, instead of publishing usable data, instead of getting ahead of the problem, it brings forward Bill 9. That’s the context behind this bill, and I believe it is the motive behind this bill as well. Once you understand that, this bill reads very differently.

Let’s start with the change in section 6. The duty to respond “without delay” becomes a duty to respond “without unreasonable delay.” That sounds technical, but it is not. Governments do not loosen language accidentally. Without delay means “move.” Without unreasonable delay means “explain.” Without delay creates urgency. Without unreasonable delay creates administrative wiggle room.

This government loves wiggle room, and they sure do need it now. It loves the grey area between what people were promised and what was actually delivered. It loves the soft space where numbers can be technically true but politically misleading. It loves the zone where accountability can be slowed until the story cools off.

That is why this clause matters, because delay is not neutral. Delay is absolutely political. Delay protects bad records. Delay protects shaky announcements based on partial fact. Delay protects discrepancies that only become visible when documents arrive in time for someone to compare them to what was publicly said.

In today’s 24-7 news cycle, with Twitter and Facebook driving headlines, it also leads to the ability to hide behind press releases and fact. We know that because the press gobbles up press releases and reports on the big number and does no digging. I don’t blame the press. They are underfunded and underappreciated, but they are critically important to the functioning of democracy, and so is the information that drives their articles. The government knows that, and that is why it’s changing the wording in this section.

We move to section 5, where the request must now, in the opinion of the head of the public body, provide enough detail to enable an experienced employee to identify a record with reasonable effort and in a reasonable amount of time.

Again, more discretion for the body holding the records and more subjectivity by the bureaucrats that are desperate to keep that information locked behind closed doors. More power for the government to decide whether the public has asked properly. I think that should concern people.

Natural language search isn’t even available on the typical records we see in FOI. It is a major problem. You can only search the headline, the number and the brief description. The body of the information provided in FOI releases now is dripped out in poorly scanned documents, photocopied three times with a picture of a spreadsheet in the most unusable format possible, at great cost and great administrative burden on the people preparing them, rather than having the government give the person what they asked for.

It is purposeful obfuscation. It is purposeful opaqueness being applied to a system that is there to assist the taxpayer to have eyes on what is going on in government. It is truly shameful.

What’s so revealing about this is the attitude behind it. The attitude is not, “How do we help the public get the information?” which should be the default setting of a public bureaucracy. The attitude with this government and previous governments is: “How do we create more procedural off-ramps to duck? How do we make the request itself part of the fight?”

[5:10 p.m.]

It is not enough to have to fight for the information and wait for the delay. Now we have to fight to rewrite the initial request multiple times to make sure that we get it into the proper bureaucratic language that allows the government to disclose.

A simpler change would’ve been to change it to a back-and-forth system where the person requesting and the person providing the data could have an exchange of information and a back-and-forth so that they weren’t on a wild goose chase.

But the wild goose chase is part of the way our FOI system is designed. They love the wild goose chase because then they get to dump thousands of documents on you, charge you hundreds of dollars to access them, take eight months to deliver it and hope you can’t read the whole thing or digest where the fact you are looking for is hidden. It is done on purpose. It is absolutely a shame to democracy and the open functioning of government.

What is the government’s position? How do we shift attention from the record being sought to whether the applicant has jumped through enough hoops for our liking?

I think anybody that has dealt with government…. And now that I am in government, I can tell you it does not get better from this side of the floor. Hopefully, it will when we get over there shortly.

The hoops are part of the problem. It makes the bureaucracy run slower. It makes the requirement for amendments like this to come into place because the government can’t just be honest, give you the information and leave it at that. They have to find off-ramps. That’s not openness; that is more managed access. And that is a bureaucratic shield.

Then let’s get to the heart of it, section 43. That’s where this bill stops pretending. Bill 9 expands the grounds on which a public body can seek authorization to disregard a request. It adds abusive or malicious behaviour by the applicant as a reason. It says responding may unreasonably interfere with the operations of not just the public body but of the government of British Columbia.

That is purposely broad information. It purposely gives cabinet and the bureaucracy discretion to deny requests because they don’t want you to see them, because you may not like what you see.

That is not careful drafting. That is absolutely political drafting. That is drafting by a government that has grown resentful of scrutiny. Who files systematic requests? Journalists do, researchers do, opposition caucuses certainly do, and citizens trying to uncover a pattern do. Who files broad requests? People who suspect the issue is bigger than the government is admitting. And my god, have we seen FOIs reveal that in spades over the last 18 months of my sitting on this side of the House.

People who have already learned that narrow requests are often answered narrowly, strategically and selectively open the net to make sure that they get the answer they were looking for. And who appears repetitious? People who keep asking because they didn’t get the correct answer or the full answer the first time. In other words, the very people doing the democratic work of pressure and persistence are the people this language in this bill puts under a cloud.

That is not accidental. This government is not broadening these categories because it is overwhelmed by good governance. It is broadening them because it’s tired of being cornered by its own record and forced to disclose failure.

In health care, it has every reason to be worried, because health care is where the discrepancy between rhetoric and reality has become one of the defining features of this government. We have seen big claims on access, with millions still without a family doctor. We have seen recruitment headlines with unanswered questions about retention and how many people dropped out of the system, net versus gross. I’ll continue to repeat that until I’m blue in the face because it is important that British Columbians and the press understand that distinction.

We’ve seen announcements on care capacity while seniors wait, patients languish and hospitals continue to absorb failures from elsewhere in the system. We’ve seen local concerns, regional concerns, staff concerns and front-line warnings that only gain real force when documents back them up. Trust but verify.

That is why this bill matters so much. It is not about one single clause in a vacuum; it’s about a government learning the wrong lesson from being caught out multiple times. The right lesson would have been: be more transparent. The right lesson would have been: publish the data ahead of time, dump all of the data, and let the citizens go through the data and make distinctions for themselves. The right lesson would have been: stop overselling modest progress. The right lesson would have been: answer straight, own the failure, propose a solution, and bring British Columbians along with you.

This government has chosen a very different lesson. Its lesson is to make access harder, make requests more vulnerable to attack, make delay easier to justify and make scrutiny costlier on the taxpayers of British Columbia. That is Bill 9.

[5:15 p.m.]

Then there’s section 71 of Bill 9, which allows the head of a public body to require a fee for a copy of a record that is already available under a proactive disclosure section.

Now, that’s extraordinary. That is effectively charging a user fee on a government website. And if the government cannot figure out how to run a website, I highly encourage them to reach out to the tech sector in British Columbia and figure it out, because it is not that difficult to do. The cost is not that high, but the cost of inaction is staggering.

Not only does this government want broader power to slow and disregard requests; it also wants the power to charge for FOI requests that are supposed to be available in the first place. That is not proactive disclosure. That is disclosure with a cover charge. It is a nightclub. That’s not modern access. It’s a tollbooth, and it tells you everything you need to know about this government’s mindset.

This is a government that cannot imagine transparency except as something to be rationed, controlled and monetized. It cannot imagine a citizen simply being entitled to the record in the first place, the person that pays all of our salaries. It cannot imagine that openness itself has an intrinsic value to the functioning of democracy. Everything here must be filtered through administrative convenience and political risk. I don’t think this government knows how to do it any other way.

Again, when you’ve watched this government long enough, the reason becomes painfully obvious, because a government with a clean record and honest transparency does not fear broad access of the public. A government whose numbers line up to the press releases does not fear comparison. A government whose announcements withstand scrutiny doesn’t fear the documentation to back it up. A government whose delivery matches its rhetoric does not fear FOI. But a government short on ideas and long on spin absolutely does.

Then we come to one of the most damning sections of the bill, the transitional provision in section 28. The changes to section 43 apply to requests received before, on or after the date this section comes into force — retroactive. This is an announcement to Bob Mackin, who uses this system often. “Get them in soon, because once this passes, you’re on notice.”

That’s an astonishing admission, because it says the government is not content merely to weaken access for future requests on future mistakes. It wants these broader disregard tools available against requests that are already in queue. Why? What is it in the system that makes them so eager for that power? What existing requests make this government nervous enough to reach backwards?

I think those are fair questions to ask when a bill like this is on the table, and I think they are necessary questions to answer for British Columbians, because retroactive law-making in this context does not look like good-faith housekeeping. It looks like a government desperately trying to change the conditions of scrutiny while scrutiny is already underway. That should trouble every single member of this House and every single citizen of British Columbia.

Now, to be fair, there are provisions in this bill touching on connected services and certain privacy administration matters that may be intended to streamline service delivery. That can be debated as well, but those administrative pieces only make the bad parts of this bill more revealing, not less, because the government could have brought forward a narrow modernization bill that fixed the system. Instead, it chose to bring forward a bill that also weakens access rights. That was a conscious, revealing, political choice.

I think we all know why. This government’s record is catching up to it. Its health care claims are catching up to it. Its long-term-care failures are catching up to it. Its recruitment claims are catching up to it. And its attachment numbers are catching up to it. Its habit of announcing the top line while hiding the underlying reality is catching up to this government, because you can’t hide behind spin forever.

Bill 9 chooses the second path, and that’s why I oppose it. I would say this to members opposite: be very, very careful when using the language of abuse to describe democratic scrutiny. Be very careful when you begin pricing access to public records. Be very, very careful when you begin weakening the timeline standards and letting the bureaucracy off the hook, because the precedent you set today will not belong only to you. It will belong to every future government.

If you teach governments that embarrassment is a reason to narrow access, then sooner or later, no government will feel any obligation to be genuinely open. That is how trust erodes. That is how cynicism and mistrust in the system deepens. That’s how people come to believe, with some justification, that the system is being rigged to protect the powerful — and the system from the consequences of their own record.

[5:20 p.m.]

Let us be plain about what freedom of information is for. It’s for finding the discrepancy. It’s for finding the memo that does not match the minister’s answer. It’s for finding the internal concern that never made it to the press release. It’s for finding out whether the glossy announcement was backed by actual system performance.

It’s for finding out whether a recruitment claim meant real bodies in workplaces or just movement into a pipeline, into a bucket with a hole in the bottom. It’s for finding out whether wait-lists are improving, stagnating or not. That’s what the government is really legislating against here — not abuse, not maliciousness, not inefficiency. It’s legislating against discomfort, against persistence, against exposure, against the press, against the opposition and against British Columbians.

That’s why this House should reject Bill 9 unless the government is prepared to fundamentally back down on the damaging sections of this bill. Strip out the vague expansion of disregard power. Strip out the retroactive application. Strip out the fee authority for proactively available records. Restore the duty to respond without delay. Stop trying to turn a right into a maze. Stop trying to turn scrutiny into a nuisance category. Stop trying to solve a political credibility problem with procedural barriers, because that is all this bill is.

A government with a record rapidly catching up to it has decided that the answer is not better performance, not straight answers, not better disclosure but less visibility. That is weak leadership by this government, that is a tired government, and that is what governments do when they are running out of road.

Let me be clear. The members on the other side of this House should be extremely careful at abusing their power and limiting transparency and the ability of the press, the opposition and British Columbians to operate, because soon enough they’re going to be sitting on this side of the room, wondering where it all went wrong. For British Columbians, that day cannot come soon enough, so be very careful what you wish for.

Freedom of information is not a courtesy extended by the powerful. It is a democratic safeguard against the powerful — a safeguard against the legion of partisan communication specialists in government office basements figuring out the right colour of shoe polish for the road apples of government failure.

In British Columbia, that safeguard matters now more than ever. The public has watched too many claims wobble under scrutiny, too many headline numbers collapse under basic follow-up questioning, too many rosy narratives giving way, once the documents surface, to something much less flattering to the original press release. That is not a reason to restrict access. That is the absolute strongest reason to defend it.

I say to this government, if your record can stand, let it stand in the light. If your numbers hold, let them be tested. If your claims are sound, let the paper prove it. But do not come into the House after years of inflated claims and defensive and divisive politics and ask us to help you make scrutiny slower, costlier and easier to disregard.

We were not sent here to help the government hide from its own record. We were sent here to drag the truth into the open, and that is exactly why I will vote against Bill 9.

Shame on any government member that votes for this affront to transparency. You will absolutely regret this decision when you’re sitting on this side of the House, wondering where it all went wrong.

Larry Neufeld: I’m here today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

There are a few things I’d like to make comments on with respect to this bill.

One is that there’s the fear that we can lose sight of some of our principles in this place of honour. I would suggest that freedom of information is one of them.

This is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. It’s not an administrative burden. It’s not something that should be considered to be managed or filtered. It truly is the foundation of democratic accountability. It’s what our democracy is based on. It’s the mechanism that allows citizens to ask their government: “What are you doing in my name?”

We sometimes…. Well, I wouldn’t say “we.” Perhaps there’s a fear by some in the public that some people in this place could sometimes forget why we’re here and who we’re representing. I think not being completely transparent runs the risk of confusing those who are concerned with what we’re doing. If we’re doing things that are in the best interest of the public, I don’t understand why we would be fearful for them to understand what we are doing.

[5:25 p.m.]

With that, my concern would be that as we begin to erode the right, even incrementally, which some would argue…. I have been listening. I would say some have argued that this is incremental. I would suggest that we clearly begin to erode the very foundation of public trust. That’s the concern here.

I would also suggest that I’ve heard it being said that this bill, Bill 9, is being presented as modernization. There are terms used such as “efficiency,” “streamlining” and “digital adaptation.” But when we move past this language and examine the substance of the bill, we do see something different, those of us that have read it. We will see expanded discretion. We will see reduced access. We will see a shift in power. That, to me, is one of the concerns that I think many should have when they critically review Bill 9.

Bill 9 expands the government’s authority to refuse or disregard access requests. The bill introduces broader definitions of what constitutes things such as frivolous, vexatious or abusive. On the surface, to a reasonable person, that does sound reasonable.

I can’t think of the word for having said the same word twice. Who’s an English major that can help me out with that one?

I’ve lost the whole crowd, so I’ll just move on.

On the surface, it may sound reasonable, the problem being that those terms are clearly not objective. They are in fact subjective. Two people hearing the same word are not necessarily going to interpret those words in the same manner.

When you give government subjective authority, you give it power. I would suggest that even different members would exercise that power differently. I would say Bill 9 forces us to ask, as I’ve already alluded to, who decides what is frivolous, who decides what is abusive and who decides when a request is too burdensome.

Are those decisions made at one o’clock on a Friday afternoon? Is that decision, perhaps, the same decision that would have been made had the request been reviewed at eight o’clock on a Monday morning?

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Under this bill, the answer is increasingly and obviously government and government representatives, which would also include non-elected individuals who are not directly circumspect to the will of the public or accountable to the public.

This is not a minor change. It represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power from the public to the state. And without going into too much detail, I think it’s clear what history has taught us with respect to shifting power, excessive power, to the state.

This government argues that the system is overloaded, and perhaps it is. I’m not in a position to suggest otherwise. What I would suggest is that we look at the root cause as to why it’s overloaded.

The government says that there are too many requests and that digital records are increasing. Again, I’m not in a position to dispute that. I would suggest that the solution is not restriction; the solution is improvement. And we need to look at why those pressures are increasing. Why are the public…? Why is there so much need for that information to be shared, and why isn’t it being shared openly and freely?

If timelines are too long, perhaps we should be looking at fixing the timelines. If the systems are outdated, it would be reasonable to anyone to suggest that modernizing the systems would be in order. If resources are insufficient, I would suggest investing in resources is in order.

I would suggest the wrong answer is to reduce access. The moment we start limiting access in the name of efficiency, many could argue that we are no longer strengthening democracy but that, in fact, we are weakening it.

[5:30 p.m.]

History teaches us something very important. The information that matters most is oftentimes the most difficult to obtain. It is often the most sensitive information, the most controversial information and, in fact, the most politically inconvenient information. Under Bill 9, these requests for that type of information are, perhaps, exactly the requests that are becoming easier to deny, the most important requests.

Freedom of information is not used when everything is working perfectly. It is used when people have questions, when they are questioning what we are doing in this House, when journalists investigate, when citizens raise concerns and, ultimately, when the decisions made by those of us that have the honour to stand here do, in fact, require scrutiny. If we are doing things openly and in the best interests of the public, one could easily question why we would be concerned about scrutiny.

We have seen, time and time again, that some of the most important revelations in this province have come through freedom-of-information requests. When we weaken that system, we are not fixing inefficiency; we are limiting accountability.

There’s another concern in this legislation that popped out at me, and that’s centralization. Bill 9 expands structures that consolidate control over data and information systems. It introduces expanded authority around shared services and digital infrastructure. Once again, I would suggest that we must ask what happens when control is centralized. Many would respond that oversight is reduced, that transparency is weakened and that, ultimately, checks and balances are diminished. Those are all terms that are not conducive to a strong democracy, in my opinion.

I would go on to suggest that a broader pattern exists here, not just with Bill 9 but across policy direction overall. What we have seen is more discretion in the hands of government, less independence in oversight and a greater ability to manage information flow, particularly when the information is inconvenient.

I would never suggest that I’m not one for efficiency. I adore efficiency. When we justify these types of changes under the name of efficiency, I think we run the risk of losing the power of that word. Democracy is not always efficient. Accountability is not always efficient. And ultimately, transparency is not always efficient. Perhaps some would argue that it’s not supposed to be.

I would suggest that Bill 9 is not just about process but that, ultimately, it’s about trust. Can the public trust in what this House is doing? I would go further to state that public trust is built on openness. It is built on access. It is built on the ability of citizens to see clearly what their government is doing. When access is granted and access is free, trust grows. When access is restricted or prevented, trust erodes. Once trust is lost, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild.

The government, in Bill 9, is asking us to accept this trade-off of more efficiency in exchange for less access. I would ask: is that a trade-off that this House and the members of this House are willing to make? Once we expand the power to deny, that power does not easily shrink. Future governments of any stripe inherit that authority.

[5:35 p.m.]

I certainly am not, nor are any on my side, opposed to modernization. We are not opposed to improving systems. Without question, we are certainly not opposed to addressing challenges. I would suggest that modernization must strengthen access. It must not weaken it. If the government had truly wanted to improve the system, one could suggest that options include increase staffing for FOI processing, reduce response timelines, expand proactive disclosure, and find a method to digitize records more efficiently. Those are real solutions.

This bill, Bill 9, does something different. It gives the government additional tools to say: “No, not now, not this request.” I would suggest that this is not modernization but restriction. In my mind, that is why Bill 9 raises concerns and, in some cases, serious concerns.

At its core, this bill changes how information flows in the province of British Columbia. It is not a small change; it is a fundamental change. I would ask the members of this House: are we comfortable moving in this direction? I am not. Transparency is not something we scale back. It is something that we expand. Accountability is not something that we reduce. It is something that we strengthen. Public trust is not something that we gamble with. It is something that we are obligated to protect.

In conclusion, at the end of the day, this comes down to a simple principle. Information does not belong to the government; it belongs to the people that we represent. Any law that moves away from that principle should give this House, and it gives me, pause.

Teresa Wat: I rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

At its core, this legislation touches something fundamental to a functioning democracy, the balance between government transparency and the protection of citizens’ personal information. That balance is not abstract. It directly affects public trust, accountability and the relationship between people and the institutions that serve them.

This bill must be evaluated against a simple but rigorous standard. Does it strengthen transparency, protect individual privacy and limit unnecessary government overreach? Or does it tilt the balance toward centralized control, reduced accountability and diminished public access to information? If we get this wrong, the consequences are serious. A government that cannot be scrutinized is a government that cannot be trusted. A system that does not safeguard personal data is one that risks exposing citizens to misuse, breaches or exploitation.

Let me begin with transparency. Freedom-of-information legislation exists for a reason. It is not a bureaucratic inconvenience; it is a democratic necessity. It ensures that journalists can investigate, that citizens can ask questions and that opposition members can hold government to account. However, over time, we have seen a steady erosion of that principle. Delays in responses, excessive redactions, rising fees and the increasing use of exemptions have made it harder, not easier, for people to access information.

[5:40 p.m.]

The question before us is this: does Bill 9 reverse that trend, or does it entrench it? From what we can see, there are serious concerns. While the bill introduces certain administrative updates, it does not meaningfully address the systemic barriers that people face when filing freedom-of-information requests. In fact, there is a risk that some provisions may further complicate access rather than simplify it.

For example, timelines are only meaningful if they are enforced. Without real accountability mechanisms, deadlines become suggestions rather than obligations. British Columbians deserve a system where requests are answered promptly and fully, not delayed indefinitely or returned with pages of blacked-out text.

We believe reforms should prioritize faster response times, fewer unnecessary exemptions and stronger oversight. If this bill does not deliver on those fronts, then it falls short of what the public expects and deserves.

Now let me turn to privacy, an equally important pillar of this legislation. In today’s digital age, personal information is one of the most valuable and vulnerable assets people have. Governments collect vast amounts of data, from health records to financial details to personal identifiers. With that responsibility comes an obligation to protect that information with the highest possible standards.

Bill 9 includes provisions related to how data is stored, accessed and potentially shared. Here again we must proceed with caution. There is always a temptation for governments to expand data-sharing capabilities in the name of efficiency or modernization. But efficiency cannot come at the expense of privacy. Once personal information is collected and centralized, the risks increase, whether from cyberattacks, internal misuse or unintended disclosure.

We must ask: are there clear limits on how data can be used? Are there robust safeguards to prevent breaches, and are individuals fully informed about how their information is handled? If the answer to any of those questions is unclear, then the legislation needs to be strengthened.

We also need to consider the principle of data minimization. Government should only collect what it truly needs and retain it only for as long as necessary. Expanding data collection without clear justification is not modernization. It is overreach.

Another key issue is oversight. Strong laws are only as effective as the mechanisms that enforce them. Independent oversight bodies must have the authority, resources and independence to investigate complaints, audit compliance and hold government accountable.

If Bill 9 increases responsibilities without strengthening oversight, then it creates a gap between intention and reality, and that gap is where public trust is lost. We must ensure that oversight bodies are not only reactive but proactive, that they can identify risks before they become problems, rather than after damage has been done.

There is also a broader philosophical question at play here. What kind of government do we want? Do we want a government that defaults to openness, where information is accessible unless there is a compelling reason to withhold it, or do we want a system where information is controlled, filtered and released only when convenient? Do we want a government that treats personal data as something to be protected at all costs or one that views it as a resource to be managed and leveraged?

[5:45 p.m.]

From our perspective, the answers are clear. We believe in open government. We believe in limited, responsible use of personal data. And we believe that citizens, not institutions, should ultimately have control over their own information.

That is why we approach Bill 9 with skepticism. It’s not because we oppose reform. In fact, reform is needed. But reform must move us in the right direction. It must enhance transparency, strengthen privacy protections and rebuild public confidence. If this bill does not clearly achieve those goals, then it must be amended.

Let me outline a few areas where improvements could be made.

First, enforceable timelines. Requests should be processed within clear, reasonable time frames, with consequences for unjustified delays.

Second, reduce barriers. Fees should not discourage legitimate requests, and the process should be accessible to all, not just those with legal expertise or financial resources.

Third, stronger limits on exemptions. While some information must remain confidential, exemptions should be narrowly defined and carefully applied.

Fourth, enhance privacy safeguards. Clear rules must govern data collection, storage and sharing, with strict penalties for misuse.

Fifth, independent oversight. The body responsible for enforcing this legislation must have real authority and sufficient resources to do its job effectively.

These are not radical ideas. They are commonsense principles that reflect the expectations of British Columbians.

Trust in government is not built through words alone. It is built through actions, through transparency, accountability and respect for individual rights. Legislation like Bill 9 plays a critical role in that process. It sets the rules that govern how information flows and how privacy is protected. It shapes how citizens interact with their government and how they perceive its integrity.

If we get it right, we strengthen democracy. But if we get it wrong, we weaken it. So I urge this House to carefully consider the implication of this bill; to listen to stakeholders, including privacy experts, journalists and members of the public, as well as members of the opposition; and to ensure that any changes we make truly serve the interests of the people we represent.

In closing, let me be clear. We are ready to work constructively. We are ready to support measures that improve transparency and protect privacy. But we will not support legislation that moves us in the opposite direction. British Columbians deserve a government that is open, accountable and respecting of their rights. That should be the standard we hold ourselves to and the standard by which we judge Bill 9.

Misty Van Popta: I rise to address Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

This legislation is not routine. It’s not procedural. It is not a minor administrative update. It goes to the core of how power is exercised and how it is scrutinized.

[5:50 p.m.]

Freedom-of-information laws are not optional features of a democratic system; they are structural safeguards. They determine whether the public can see how decisions are made, how public funds are used and how authority is exercised. When these laws are strong, government is visible. When they are weakened, government recedes from view. This bill must be evaluated on that basis alone. Does it expand meaningful access to information, or does it restrict it? That is the only question that matters.

At its foundation, access to information serves a simple but essential function. It allows the public to verify what its government does. It enables journalists to investigate decisions that would otherwise remain opaque. It allows researchers to assess policy outcomes with evidence. It gives opposition members the tools necessary to hold the government to account. Most importantly, it gives citizens the ability to understand the actions taken in their name.

Without access, accountability becomes theoretical, oversight becomes performative and trust becomes fragile. The strength of this system depends not on what is promised but on what is permitted in practice.

Bill 9 introduces changes that must be examined carefully and critically. The government has framed these amendments as modernization. It has suggested they will improve efficiency, streamline processes and adapt the system to contemporary realities. Those are reasonable objectives. But efficiency cannot come at the expense of access. Streamlining cannot become narrowing. Modernization cannot become restriction.

Every amendment must be tested against a simple standard. Does it make it easier or harder for the public to obtain information? If the answer is harder, then the justification must be overwhelming. If it is not, then the change should not proceed.

One of the central concerns with this bill is the expansion of conditions under which access requests can be limited, delayed or denied. Any increase in discretion for public bodies must be treated with caution. Discretion, by its nature, creates variability. It introduces inconsistency. It opens the door to selective interpretation. And when discretion expands without equally strong oversight, the balance shifts away from transparency.

The risk is not hypothetical; the risk is structural. When officials are given broader authority to determine what is released and what is withheld, the system relies more heavily on internal judgment and less on enforceable standards. That is a shift in power, and it is a shift that must be justified clearly and convincingly.

Another area of concern is the potential for increased delays in processing access requests. Timelines are not a secondary issue; they are central to the effectiveness of access to information. Information delayed is often information denied. If records are released after decisions are finalized, after debates have concluded or after public attention has moved on, their value diminishes significantly.

Accountability requires relevance. Relevance requires timelines. Any legislative change that risks extending timelines, whether directly or indirectly, must be scrutinized with particular care. A system that produces information too late does not function as an accountability mechanism. It functions as a historical archive, and that is not its purpose.

[5:55 p.m.]

Fees and cost structures also play a critical role in determining whether access is meaningful. If the cost of requesting information becomes prohibitive, access becomes theoretical rather than practical. Barriers do not need to be absolute to be effective. They only need to be high enough to discourage use. This is especially true for individuals, small organizations and independent journalists who do not have the resources of large institutions.

Access to information should not depend on financial capacity. It should depend on the principle that public information belongs to the public. Any adjustment to fees or cost recovery mechanisms must be evaluated through that lens. Does it preserve access, or does it restrict access?

The bill also raises questions about the scope of what is considered accessible information. Well, definitions matter. Scope matters. Language matters. Small changes in wording can have large consequences in application. If categories of records are narrowed, if exemptions are broadened or if interpretations are left ambiguous, the cumulative effect can be significant.

Transparency does not disappear all at once. It erodes incrementally, through exceptions, exclusions and reinterpretations. That is why precision in legislative language is essential, and that is why vague or overly broad provisions must be challenged.

Oversight mechanisms are another critical component of any access-to-information regime. Without independent oversight, rules are only as strong as their enforcement. The role of oversight bodies is to ensure that access rights are not only defined but upheld. If this bill alters the capacity, authority or effectiveness of oversight, that change must clearly be understood.

Weak oversight leads to weak compliance. Strong oversight ensures consistency, fairness and accountability. Any reform that affects this balance must be strengthened, not weakened — the ability to enforce access rights.

It is also necessary to consider the cumulative impact of these changes. Each individual amendment may appear limited. Each change may be presented as reasonable in isolation. But legislation must be assessed as a whole because systems do not operate in fragments. They operate as integrated frameworks. If multiple small restrictions are introduced simultaneously, their combined effect can be substantial. What appears incremental can become transformative, and not in a way that enhances transparency.

The government has argued that these changes are necessary to manage volume, improve efficiency and address administrative pressures. Those challenges are real, but they are not unique. Every jurisdiction with access-to-information laws faces similar pressures. The question is not whether the system requires improvement. It does. The question is how those improvements are achieved.

There are two paths. One path strengthens capacity with more resources, better systems, improved processes. The other path reduces demand. It narrows the scope, creates higher barriers, greater discretion. Only one of these paths preserves the integrity of access; the other compromises it.

[6:00 p.m.]

A modern access-to-information system should be proactive, not reactive. It should focus on disclosure by default, not disclosure on request. That’s pretty reasonable. That is what the public demands of us. It should reduce the need for formal requests by making information available in the first place.

I know all of us on this side have had struggles even within our own capacity as MLAs getting information that we need to do our job. If those of us who do this job are having challenges with getting information, imagine what it’s like for the public. So let’s just make information more accessible.

That is what modernization looks like. It’s not about limiting requests. It is about eliminating the need for requests. If Bill 9 does not advance proactive disclosure in a meaningful way, then its claim to modernization is actually incomplete.

Trust is often cited in discussions about government transparency. But trust is not built through messaging. It is built through verifiable action. Access to information is one of the primary mechanisms through which that verification occurs. When information is accessible, trust can be earned. When information is restricted, trust is weakened, not because of perception but because of structure. Transparency is not symbolic; it is functional.

It is also important to recognize that access to information serves not only critics of government but government itself. Strong access systems improve decision-making. They encourage better recordkeeping. They promote clarity in communication. They create an environment where actions are taken with the expectation of scrutiny. That is not a weakness. That is a strength, and any reform should reinforce that principle, not undermine it.

There is also a broader context to consider. Public expectations around transparency have evolved. Digital systems have increased the capacity to store, share and analyze information. At the same time, they have increased expectations for accessibility. People expect timely, clear and comprehensive information. They expect systems to reflect the capabilities of the present, not the limitations of the past. Legislation must meet that expectation, not by restricting access but by enabling it.

If there are concerns about misuse of the system, those concerns should be addressed with targeted solutions. If there are issues with volume, they should be addressed with capacity. If there are inefficiencies, they should be addressed with process improvements. But broad restrictions are not precise solutions. They are blunt instruments, and blunt instruments often cause more damage than they resolve.

The role of this House is not simply to pass legislation. It is to test it, to challenge it, to improve it. That responsibility is especially important when dealing with laws that define the boundaries of transparency. Once those boundaries are set, they shape the behaviour of the entire system for years, for decades.

This bill, as presented, raises significant concerns about access, concerns about timeliness, concerns about oversight, concerns about scope. These are not minor issues. They are foundational, and they require more than reassurance. They require evidence. They require clarity. They require amendment where necessary.

The path forward should be guided by a clear principle. Access to information should be expanded, not restricted. Where barriers exist, they should be removed. Where delays occur, they should be reduced. Where ambiguity exists, it should be clarified. Where oversight is needed, it should be strengthened. That is the standard, and that is the expectation.

[6:05 p.m.]

If this bill is to proceed, it must meet that standard, not the intent. As we can tell, in the last couple of weeks, the intent with some previous legislation has not been upheld by the court. It needs to be very precise. It’s not about intent. It’s not in the framing but in its substance. The effectiveness of access to information is not determined by what is said about it. It is determined by how it operates in practice every day, for every request.

In its current form, this legislation does not clearly demonstrate that it will strengthen access. It does not clearly demonstrate that it will improve timelines. It does not clearly demonstrate that it will enhance accountability. Without that clarity, it cannot be supported without significant revisions.

This is not about opposing change. It is about ensuring that change moves in the right direction. It is about preserving the integrity of a system that underpins democratic accountability. It is about ensuring that transparency is not reduced under the guise of modernization.

The public does not benefit from a system that is easier for government to manage if it becomes harder for the public to use. Efficiency for government cannot outweigh accessibility for citizens. That trade-off is absolutely not acceptable, and it should not be embedded in this law.

Ultimately, this comes down to a choice — a choice between openness and restriction, a choice between strengthening accountability and weakening it, a choice between a system that serves the public and one that serves administrative convenience. That choice must be made deliberately, and it must be made correctly.

For these reasons, this bill requires careful reconsideration. It requires amendments. It requires a clear demonstration that it enhances rather than limits access to information. Until that standard is met, I can’t support it in its current form. I want us to take away this information and decide what path we’re going to take and really address how we become more accountable to the citizens which have elected us here in this House.

We all take this job seriously. Let’s make access to information better through providing the information that should just be standard. We shouldn’t have to be digging and begging and emailing and following up just to get access to what this government does on a daily basis.

I want to thank you for allowing me to have this time, and I look forward to hearing further conversation.

Ward Stamer: I rise today to speak to Bill 9, legislation that strikes at the very core of our democratic system, the public’s right to know. At the end of the day, everything we do in this legislature is supposed to stand on a simple principle. It’s on the record. It’s accountable. And when it must be confidential, it’s conducted in camera, with clear rules, clear justification and clear limits. That balance between transparency and necessary confidentiality is what sustains public trust.

Bill 9 disrupts that balance. It does so in a way that should concern every member in this House and every British Columbian we represent. Freedom of information is not just another policy term. It is the mechanism that ensures government remains accountable to the people. It’s how citizens verify what we say. It’s how journalists uncover what is not said. It’s how democracy functions beyond election day.

[6:10 p.m.]

Without information, accountability becomes performative, transparency becomes selective, and trust begins to erode.

In this Legislature, we understand the importance of being on the record. Debates like this one are in public. Votes are recorded. Statements are scrutinized. And rightfully so, because we are accountable to the people of British Columbia.

Now, there are times when matters must be discussed in camera — sensitive negotiations, legal considerations, personal privacy. But those instances are the exception, not the rule. They are structured, they are justified, and they are not meant to become a blanket approach to governance. What Bill 9 risks doing is shifting that balance, moving more and more decision-making, more and more information into spaces that are effectively out of reach — not formally in camera, as we understand it here, but functionally just as closed.

This bill is presented as modernization, as efficiency, as administrative reform. But when we examine the details and, more importantly, when we compare it to what is already happening in practice, a different picture emerges: more barriers to process, more discretion for government to decide what is released, more delays and more opportunities to say no or “not yet.” When you combine that with increased NDAs, heavily redacted documents and declining bureaucracy transparency, the concern becomes clear. We are not strengthening access to legislation or information. We are weakening it.

Before we even consider the impacts of this bill, we must acknowledge the current state of the system. British Columbians are already experiencing serious challenges when it comes to accessing information: freedom-of-information requests that come back with pages almost entirely blacked out; documents where the context is removed, the meaning lost and the purpose defeated; timelines that stretch far beyond what is reasonable, where information arrives long after decisions have been made and consequences have taken hold; and, increasingly, a sense that the system is not designed to provide answers but to manage them.

Bill 9 does not exist in isolation. It builds on this reality. That’s what’s becoming so concerning.

One of the most troubling trends we’re seeing is in the growing use of non-disclosure agreements in the areas of public interest. Let’s be clear. NDAs can serve a legitimate purpose in specific, limited contexts. But their expanding use in government-related matters raises serious questions, because when NDAs are applied too broadly, they prevent information from even entering the public domain. They restrict what participants can say, they limit what can be scrutinized, and they create an environment where accountability is constrained before it even has a chance to operate.

Public business should not be shielded behind private agreements, yet this is increasingly what we see with this government. Bill 9 does nothing to address this trend, and if anything, it risks reinforcing it.

Let’s talk about redactions, because this is where the rubber hits the road for many British Columbians. A freedom-of-information system is only as good as the information it provides, and right now too often what people receive is not information. It’s fragments — pages covered in black ink, sections removed entirely, key details withheld. At some point, we must ask: when does redaction stop being about protection and start being about avoidance? When entire sections of documents are removed, the public is left with more questions than answers. This is not about transparency; this is obstruction.

Bill 9 does not restore confidence in our system. It risks entrenching the very practices that are currently undermining it.

[6:15 p.m.]

Another growing issue is the paucity within the bureaucracy itself. Decisions are increasingly made at levels that are difficult to access, difficult to understand and difficult to challenge. Processes rarely lack clarity, the rationale is often not disclosed, and responsibility becomes diffused across departments and agencies. So when something goes wrong, the question becomes: who made that decision? And too often, there is no clear answer.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This is not acceptable. Transparency is not just about releasing documents. It’s about understanding decisions. And right now that understanding is slipping away.

I move to adjourn the debate and reserve my place.

Ward Stamer moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and the Ministry of Environment and Parks and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Josie Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:16 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 5 (continued).

[1:35 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Where we picked up on the last conversation, with the contractor obligation…. We talked about this yesterday a little bit, but when we talked multiphases, are we still going to be looking at…? When we talk about prime contractors, are we still going to be basically determining, because it’s under safety auspices, that that will still remain the same, whether it’s the largest company that’s on the site that’s going to be responsible for prime?

The other part of it is: when we get back to the operational plan, are these concurrent operational plans or will they be separate operational plans in this multiphase? Again, whether we have a contract that does all the work, on that example of stump-to-dump.… As the minister alluded to, there may be opportunities to phase that out. That might be for value extraction, those kinds of things. Just a little bit of clarity on how that actually would be rolled out.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Good afternoon, everyone.

To the member’s first question around the largest company, the answer is yes. Ultimately, it’s the signatories on the contract, but typically it’s the largest company.

Then in regard to the operational-plan piece, it’s one operational plan. But of course, as the member can imagine, with the introduction of this legislation and past royal assent, operational plans would be amended to include the opportunities for contract logging.

Ward Stamer: Also for clarification, if there is a B.C. licensee currently capped at three on the licences that they’re able to have under their disposal with the program, what is the maximum that the minister has in his mind that you would have, either concurrently or separately, in the amount of licences that you would be able to retain at the same time?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We touched a bit on this yesterday. That decision hasn’t been made yet. It’ll be decided in policy.

I wouldn’t necessarily say at this point that we’d be looking at having the same process as TSLs, with the three quota, given that with contract logging the actual volume opportunities might be smaller. This is another example where we’ll be working with the contracting community past royal assent to be able to engage with them and ensure that we have a fair and equitable process.

Ward Stamer: What about the distinction between cat 1 and cat 4? Is cat 4 still going to be able to participate in this, or is it going to be 1 and 4?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Good question, for the member.

The contract logging piece, again, is the cost associated with going and getting the logs. Once we get the logs, we could put out a bid, a TSL in category 1 or category 4.

Ward Stamer: At the same time, would there be any other licensees that would be willing to do the work with, say, a community forest? Would they be eligible to bid in this process, or is it just strictly for the harvesting side of things, with a logging company or somebody that has the ability to do the work?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Anyone who is qualified as a logging contractor can participate in the contract logging. Maybe this is where the member might be a bit more knowledgeable than me. I’m sure there are some community forests out there that might have their own contracting crews, especially, I think, at Burns Lake. I think they might have one, given that they’re one of the largest in the province.

Then, of course, in the case of those that are purchasing the logs, it’s ultimately anyone who’s eligible to participate in those BCTS opportunities.

Ward Stamer: As it also refers back to clause 5, can the minister explain a little bit more on the new qualifications? It looks like some of this work will be different than possibly what has been experienced in the past. Part of that is in the commercial thinning side of things. The minister is aware that that’s a specialized type of work.

Does the minister have any ideas on what that would look like, going forward in that process, to qualify contractors, supervise those contractors and then make them eligible for additional opportunities to bid in the future?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Similar to what we talked about yesterday, this is where, in order for us to be able to get the policy work done, we’re going to need to be able to work with the TLA, the ILA, the North West Loggers Association and the broader forest sector, as well, to ensure that when we’re looking at providing these opportunities, contractors and loggers can take advantage of it.

Again, starting off slow, exploring, making tweaks along the way is going to be key. Ultimately, as I noted before, it really comes down to contractual obligations and just making sure that when we put out these bids and these opportunities, they’re in a way that individuals can take advantage.

I would note for the member that commercial thinning is not a new practice in British Columbia, but it is increasing. We hope that there’ll be opportunities for contractors and loggers to be able to purchase the equipment, given the work through BCTS that is happening. We hope to be able to shift from more of a volume-based forestry model to an area-based forestry model. Hopefully, more loggers and contractors will be able to take advantage of this opportunity.

Ward Stamer: Then, I guess, to add to that, would that also include those opportunities with a wildfire fuel reduction and mitigation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Correct.

Ward Stamer: I just wanted the clarification that we were in the same area.

Also, on the contract logging authorization, I think we’ve covered most of the scenarios that would occur. Does the minister foresee any other changes to the existing structure in BCTS when it comes to the overall supervision of these new parameters of the contract logging authorization? Is there anything that we haven’t covered in this process to be able to explain exactly what the scope of the work is going to be, possibly the opportunities in the bidding or direct award?

Is there something else that the minister feels should be added to the file in regards to this new opportunity for contract logging on behalf of BCTS?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite. We feel like we are well resourced. We have the staff in place. There may be opportunities with BCTS. We’ll be doing some professional development work over the course of the next year to be able to ensure that this legislation can be properly implemented and the opportunities and tools can be properly utilized by staff.

Otherwise, if I understand the member’s question correctly, from a resourcing perspective, we feel like we are more than well prepared to be able to take on this work.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Ward Stamer: Now, looking through my notes that I have on clause 6, a couple of things come to mind. I’m just trying to determine if the minister can explain a little bit more.

There will be amendments in section 52, and the addition of subsections (2.1) and (2.2) apply new terms and conditions on employees acting in the course of their duties and agents of the government acting in accordance with the terms of the agency to harvest the timber.

Can the minister explain why these terms and conditions are needed for the government employees and their agents?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Very similar to the conversations that we had yesterday around “stringent” and the use…. The harvest authority, under section 52, is typically used for harvest of trees when harvest is the main purpose of the work. This might include clearing an area of land for use as a gravel pit or clearing trees for a road.

The amendment enables the minister or the timber sales manager to include terms and conditions that are more stringent than the requirements and restrictions that apply under the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, the Wildfire Act or any standards made under those acts.

It’s very similar to the discussion we had yesterday around the ability to be able to specify and be more detailed in terms of this perspective, from a contract logging perspective.

Ward Stamer: A couple of things were flagged on this section when we were going through it, and I’m wondering if the minister can expand a little bit on that. Part of clause 6 also deals with greater management control. There are a couple of questions that are raised from that.

If that’s true, if those are some of the terms and conditions that are going to be occurring because of the changes to section 52, can I ask: who asked for these greater management controls? Was it the public? Was it First Nations? Was it staff? Who actually asked for these greater management controls?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite. When he says “management control,” I presume he’s referring to the “stringent” piece in the legislation. As part of the engagement process that we led with B.C. Timber Sales…. Our third-party certifiers with SFI; staff within the ministry, in particular B.C. Timber Sales; the unions that we engaged with; the contracting community; First Nations; as well as community forests are just examples of the folks that engaged and saw that there is a need for more opportunities and more tools.

This tool, in particular, has the ability to move more fibre if used in a way that allows for more partnerships, and that’s really the driving intent behind this.

Ward Stamer: To expand on that if we may, it also talks about…. I think it goes back to those rules, but it’s a little bit different. Again, it’s being brought to our attention when we’re trying to go through the crosses in legislation. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it also involves localized rules, and that goes back to the area-based tenure process.

[1:50 p.m.]

Again, are those localized rules…? Are they going to be superseding existing regulations, or is that something that is going to be changed, also, going forward? Maybe explain to me why that is going to be necessary on that portion of this clause.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: You know, the intent of this…. It is a discretionary tool for staff within the ministry and, again, a tool to be able to take advantage of the opportunity to develop partnerships and move more fibre.

When the member uses the terminology “localized rules,” I would just remind him that the discretion rests with, in this case, the timber sales manager, but it still must align with FRPA. That’s still the expectation, by law, that I have of my team.

Ward Stamer: Again, to expand a little bit further, if we can. If we end up putting more, let’s say, constraint on the land base and the expectation is to be able to drive more fibre but the opposite effect happens and then the revenues drop in the same fashion, is that also going to mean that when we start talking about those revenue-sharing agreements…? That, again, is pertinent to this clause. Does that mean that — those revenue-sharing agreements — that revenue will drop as well?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ll just remind the member that this is an additional tool. It doesn’t replace the timber sale licence process that we have. I would remind the member that the intent of when we want to use this tool is to work in areas where we’re stuck, where we’re having difficulty moving fibre. There are countless examples across the province where we’re facing this challenge right now. The member could just look at my inbox and sometimes the complaints and items that come forward….

We hope that this can be a tool used to bring people together, to provide the team the discretionary ability to be able to move fibre. It doesn’t mean that it’s going to replace opportunities where the very current process of TSLs going out for bid is successful. That will continue.

Ward Stamer: To add to that, if I may, can the minister offer a couple of examples of where this new tool will actually be beneficial in the BCTS program, going forward, with these initiatives?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: A couple of examples that I would use I touched on before lunch, one of them being the relationship that the province has with Nicola Valley Chiefs in the Fraser-Nicola area, in particular Chief Tighe, who, I believe, the member opposite has spoken to. That’s an area that was hit hard by the pine beetle. The nations have a larger access to the volume there, so we see huge opportunities to be able to partner and work with them.

The other area of the province where I think there’s huge potential and we’re having some initial conversations is in the northeast. The member will know that there are some decisions that were made in regards to caribou habitat protection. At the same time as we’re looking to protect our caribou stocks, we also are seeing the impacts of fires. So the ability to do more light-touch forestry in the northeast is going to be critical for biodiversity integrity and also for protecting our wildlife.

Ward Stamer: Does that also affect the TSA and the timber-harvesting agreements in those areas if that occurs? Does that give the government more flexibility to be able to react to catastrophic events, or is it still the same rule in play where existing licensees still have the opportunity to be able to develop those catastrophic areas first?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member is correct.

[1:55 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Again, to add a little bit on the cost thing, if we can. I believe it’s in relationship to some of the changes that we can be seeing in the process, inasmuch as we’re encouraged in the ability of BCTS to be able to increase not only fibre supply but also the opportunities to make more revenue for the province.

However, if that doesn’t occur, and I just alluded to it a few moments ago with the revenue-sharing agreements…. Currently if revenues go down, the revenue-sharing agreements will go down as well. However, this year there was a top-up in that revenue-sharing process.

Does the minister foresee any more of these opportunities coming forward where, if the revenues go down, those revenue-sharing agreements are going to go down? Or does it look like that’s more of a baseline and we’re going to be trying to improve it from there?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: My apologies, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure I’ve got the most accurate information for the member.

The member speaks about revenue sharing and the FCRSA program that we have. We are reviewing that program. I would also note that we’ve heard from industry the need to review this program, as well as from First Nations. So I want to advise the member that that’s a priority mandate that I’ve received from the Premier and from government, to do this work.

I would note in addition to that, the member will know that in the 54 recommendations, the task force advised that reviewing BCTS revenue sharing is a critical part. It’s not something that we’re necessarily actioning off in this legislation. It wouldn’t require a legislative amendment, but I would say it’s something that we’re looking at in the future.

In simple answer to the member’s question, when you’re harvesting less, there’s less revenue to share. So when we increase more harvesting, there will be more opportunities for nations to get access to those dollars.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for that explanation.

Just to add to that, if the minister may, because, again, it has direct relationship to costing in this. When are those expected changes to that revenue-sharing model to take place? Is it this year, next year? When are the plans for that?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I don’t have any timelines in place for the member. I would just say that it’s early days, in terms of our conversation. We want to ensure that we do meaningful consultation and cooperation with nations. We don’t have any updates for the member at this point.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Ward Stamer: Section 58.1 is amended so the minister can solely decide whether or not to waive fees on an extension request. This used to be one of the responsibilities of the timber sales manager. Can the minister explain why the minister needs to be responsible for waiving of the fees?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The reason we have made this amendment is to be able to ensure that there’s a route for an appeal. So the member will note that currently the legislation notes “the timber sales manager.” The reason we say “the minister” is the ability for me to delegate it down to the executive director.

I should note the executive director of B.C. Timber Sales to my left, Al Powelson.

Apologies, Al, for not introducing you earlier.

This allows for a proper route for appeal if there is a need for an appeal to a decision.

[2:00 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: The added subsection to 58.1, which I think is (6.1), outlines a timeline for when extension requests need to be made, that being 30 days after the date of an application for an extension under subsection (1) is made. Can the minister explain how the ministry decided upon the 30-day timeline?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We believe 30 days is a reasonable time frame. We understand the importance of acting in an efficient way. From an efficiency perspective, from a timeline perspective, we felt that 30 days was more than appropriate.

Ward Stamer: Since this will now be the responsibility of the minister, can the minister outline how long it will take for a decision to be made on these extension requests?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just would reiterate for the member’s benefit that it’s my decision I delegate down to the executive director of B.C. Timber Sales.

Hard to say. Depends on the situation and the example, but we always try to ensure that we’re acting in the most efficient way possible. I don’t have a time frame per se for the member, but it really does depend on the situation.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister explain what the length of these extensions will be and what the circumstances could be in that length of extensions?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The legislation notes that it can’t exceed more than four years. I’ve been advised by the team that often the extensions are for one year or two more harvest seasons, as an example, but the legislation specifically says it can’t be more than four years.

Just a couple of examples most recently for the member where this has been used are for the atmospheric rivers that have happened in the Fraser Valley as well as wildfires. Just a couple of examples of when that tool could be used.

I also would note for the member that if someone just doesn’t do the work, then they’re not necessarily going to be successful in getting their ability to appeal that fee.

Ward Stamer: Are there any other reasons that would be under the same list of criteria for those requests, other than the two examples that the minister provided?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Really, it comes down to anything that is outside of the control of the contractor and logger. Certainly willing to work with them, give consideration. If it’s a situation in which they just didn’t do the work, obviously, they’re not going to be successful. But if it’s something outside of their control, that’s why we have this opportunity and tool in place for them.

Ward Stamer: Will there be similar penalties written into these contracts in the same way as there are with the licences? Inasmuch as if the work isn’t done in a timely fashion or extenuating circumstances, are there going to be similar penalties, and can the minister give us an example of what those penalties would be?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I touched a bit on this yesterday. The answer is yes, contract rules are in place. There’s the order that I referred to yesterday that speaks to the ability for the province to collect and, obviously, an investigation process that would occur.

Ward Stamer: With these changes, does that, as always, still have the opportunity for the minister to be able to not only delegate the authority in these contracts but also be able to take responsibility, inasmuch as, if there is something else that needs to be done, the minister has the control to be able to do that under the existing statutory legislation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This section only applies to timber sale licences. It is my intent and has been best practice previously for me to delegate this decision down to the appropriate staff person — in this case, the executive director. Given they become the statutory decision–maker, it would be inappropriate for me to fetter their decision.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister explain why they removed “and that are incidental to operations that yield B.C. Timber Sales revenue” from section 109(3)(b)?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This part of the clause refers to silviculture. The reason we removed the connection is for the ability for BCTS to do our silviculture free-growing practices after contract logging.

Ward Stamer: According to my notes, there may be an opportunity that this change is being made to allow BCTS to transfer free-growing stands without the requirement for BCTS to earn money on the transfer. What obligations are required for the transfer of free-growing stands?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re not looking at transferring free-growing stands. This is about management and long-term silviculture, which I think will be touched on in a future clause.

Ward Stamer: Also in section 8, there’s a part on section (a) that says: “In subsection (3)(b) by striking out ‘and that are incidental operations that can yield B.C. Timber Sales revenue’ and substituting ‘that are incidental to BCTS operations.’” Can the minister explain why we wouldn’t have both?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The reason for that — it’s a good question — is to ensure that our dollars are being used for BCTS operations and not for other timber sale areas.

Ward Stamer: Also in section 8(b), it says: “In subsection (3)(c) by striking out ‘protection of forests and administration’ and substituting ‘protection of forests, administration.’” Can the minister explain why that was changed in the language?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The incredible folks that work in the Ministry of Forests as well as the Ministry of Attorney General, who work hard every single day to draft legislation, felt this was an appropriate change — housekeeping.

Ward Stamer: It says, also, that with the addition of subsection (d.4), BCTS can defray the costs associated with contract logging operations. Can the minister confirm whether or not there is a maximum or minimum amount that BCTS can spend on these contracts?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would say overall, to the member’s question, it’s tied to the budget and the plan that we submit to the Ministry of Finance annually. Similarly, as it relates to each individual contract, it’s tied to our ability to collect when we sell the logs as well. We would not want to be in a situation where, necessarily, we spend more money contracting and make less money selling those logs.

Ward Stamer: That leads me to another question, and I’m glad the minister has brought that to our attention. Where in the current budget is the money that’s going to be used in this program…? Where is that money going to be coming from?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I wish the member had asked me that question during estimates, but I guess I hadn’t introduced the legislation by then. So I’ll gladly answer it, even though this really doesn’t have anything to do with the legislation. Just to say that it is within BCTS’s budget.

Ward Stamer: Yes, there was no opportunity to talk about the changes to forest stewardship that originally were brought up a year ago and then were brought up again in estimates. Lo and behold, the day after estimates Bill 14 came to the House. I’m not sure if that was a coincidence or not, but that’s just the way it transpired.

The reason why I asked the question about minimums and maximums is that they have a direct correlation to those existing budgets. I know the minister alluded earlier yesterday to special funds.

Is there an amount that the ministry has determined could or could not be spent this year in this program, or is this just going to be trying to move the dollars around in the existing accounts to be able to pay for this program?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: A quick response to the member’s question is no. It would be work that would happen following royal assent given to this legislation, to allow the team to be able to do the work in preparation for the next fiscal year.

[2:15 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Then to add to that, would those expenditures and that additional budgeting come up in the next — I believe Q2 — financial report for the Ministry of Finance? When would that information be made readily available?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It would be next budget, but that’s not going to stop the ministry from doing the work to prepare for the opportunity next fiscal, given that, as we talked about before lunch, there’s a lot of work that goes into developing these blocks, whether for the current process of timber sale licences or to be able to take advantage of this new tool, contract logging.

Ward Stamer: Subsection (d.4)(i) states that BCTS can defray the costs for preparing or purchasing operational plans. Could BCTS not already do so under section (3)(a)(i)?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: So (3)(a)(i), which the member refers to, would yield revenue. Then the other part that he refers to, the contract logging piece, would be delinked from revenue.

Ward Stamer: In (d.4)(ii), BCTS can defray costs for the carrying out of purchasing assessments to formulate operating costs. Is it B.C.’s intention to contract out the formalization of these operational plans?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member will know, coming from this community, that BCTS does the work of developing those blocks, but we do rely on the support of biologists, agrologists, hydrologists. That’s what this particular clause refers to.

Ward Stamer: That leads me to another couple of questions. How much money is BCTS allowed to spend on these contractual operational plans?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It depends on how much money we can make. The intent is to be net revenue positive, so it depends on the price of lumber, the price of the wood and what we can get for the product.

Ward Stamer: In (d.4)(iii), BCTS has the ability to construct and maintain logging roads and bridges. Given that it is tied to contract logging, is BCTS going to be providing logging authorization contracts in regions that do not have existing logging infrastructure?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Potentially, yes. It allows us to be able to go into areas maybe where BCTS hasn’t been operating in the past.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister give us some examples of where in the province this work may take place?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Responsible for a very large land base here. The member knows it well, having spent much of his life working in the bush.

One example I would use is we’ve got a bit of an issue right now. I believe it came up in question period or estimates from the Green Party recently. That’s the spruce budworm in the Fraser Valley, as well as in the Lillooet area, as well as near Whistler. That would be an example of an area where we could use this tool.

Ward Stamer: In section (d.4)(iv), if BCTS can purchase, rent or lease a logging road or a bridge, how much money is BCTS planning on spending on purchasing these bridges and roads? Can we have just little bit more of an explanation on where that’s going to actually occur? Is that a direct relationship to the contract logging obligations and, as we mentioned before, more infrastructure costing going into BCTS?

I’ll have further questions to that.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The reason we’ve added this in is for the purposes of contract logging, but we already purchase, rent or lease logging roads or bridges.

In answer to the member’s question around the costs, I’d be happy to check in with the team at B.C. Timber Sales on what they’ve spent on this last year and get back to the member in terms of the answer to that.

Ward Stamer: Then just to be clear on some of the continuation of those infrastructure improvements, what is going to happen in those areas? Is BCTS still going to retain the use of those bridges? Are the bridges going to be removed? Can we get a little bit more of an indication of what actually is going to be happening through that process?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I guess it depends on the situation. If there’s still a use for those roads and those bridges, then we would continue to use those FSRs. But if there’s no need, then we would decommission them.

Ward Stamer: Is there an opportunity for other users to be able to purchase that infrastructure? If there’s a First Nation or there is a user group that wants to assume responsibility on that, is there an opportunity for that process?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The answer is yes, and that’s under subsection (5)(a).

Ward Stamer: If we’re going to be talking about the improvements that are going to be taking place in this section, can the minister explain who is actually going to be doing these improvements? Is it going to be a separate arm of the contract logging licences, or is that going to be, as we mentioned before, infrastructure that’s going to be put in separately by BCTS? Can I get an indication, again, of where the money is going to be coming from in the budget for this work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Not a new practice. We already do this under the current process with timber sale licences, and it would just come from the BCTS budget.

Ward Stamer: Can the minister give us any other examples on where there would be opportunities to transfer infrastructure either in the costing or the…?

Let’s say there were roads that were built and then BCTS didn’t believe that there was an opportunity to use them. Would there be an opportunity to be able to transfer that infrastructure over as well?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yes, just like I said two answers ago.

Ward Stamer: On clause 8, it says right here that it clarifies a provision of the Financial Administration Act. It does not apply in relationship to the expenditures for the B.C. Timber Sales account.

Can the minister explain a little bit more if this is one of the mechanisms that we’re talking about, where that allows the government or his ministry to be able to expend money in new areas? Is that what this is alluding to?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member is referring to (3.1) in clause 8. This is in order for BCTS to spend out of the special account where a voted appropriation exists.

An example of that would be the ability for us to be able to do work out of BCTS in line with B.C. wildfire service, given that they have their own special account for wildfire mitigation–type work.

Ward Stamer: The reason I bring this to the minister’s attention is that many of us on our side are concerned with this change because this allows BCTS to bypass the standard provincial financial checks that currently exist in other ministries. What it allows BCTS to do is to have more flexibility and to be able to spend the money without itemizing exactly what the money is for.

That is why we’re having these opportunities to ask these questions. BCTS originally was designed to, basically, have a very structured system where they had areas of the province that were going to be logged, the timber was going to be sold and the revenue from that was going to be going directly into the taxpayers’ coffers, into the main revenue stream of the government.

[2:30 p.m.]

BCTS is not set up like a lot of other organizations that have more stringent financial rigidity when it comes to how money is being spent. So that’s why I’m asking the minister what checks and balances are going to be provided if the ministry starts changing the parameters on not only how they contract work but how they’re actually going to be spending money in that work.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would disagree with the member’s interpretation of this one. I would argue, given the member’s advocacy on the need for us to move quicker and get more fibre going, that this is a tool that will allow us to be able to actually meet those goals and objectives that he and I share. We need to ensure that B.C. Timber Sales can be more nimble and efficient. That is exactly what this is about.

BCTS already has a rigorous budgeting process. We have an itemized list of approval processes with the Ministry of Finance. We have quarterly public reporting and then, obviously, report on our annual plan as well. Very transparent process.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answers.

Once this program gets going and it starts running, let’s say, smoothly in all facets of the process, does the minister believe that there should be additional opportunities to improve the budget lines in this organization so that BCTS can have more of a direct costing — whether it’s a three-year budget, going forward, in some of these areas — so that there will be more transparency opportunities for not only the public but also for the ministry itself to be able to determine exactly where they are in a point of time and not just rely on a larger pool of money to be able to draw from?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would agree with the member’s interpretation. Yes, the intent is for us to do this work and to be able to do it in line with the Ministry of Finance so we can be quick and efficient in our ability to move fibre.

Ward Stamer: A couple other challenges come up. I’m hoping the minister can shed a little bit of light on this. By changing the scope of some of the stewardship plans, there is a concern that moneys that were originally set up for core stewardship will now end up being diluted, doing other things with the same pool of money.

Can the minister explain how these other opportunities in reforestation and forest stewardship are going to take place, assuming that we have the same budget for that? Or does the minister believe that he’ll be able to grow that budget to be able to pay for these additional works that are going to be done through BCTS?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: There’s no intent of the ministry and B.C. Timber Sales to dilute our legal obligations as noted in the Forest Act and FRPA. The intent is that any additional dollars to be spent towards stewardship and forest health would ensure that in the long term, it would net positive return to the province and to taxpayers.

Ward Stamer: Some of the other challenges that have been brought up…. I’m just, hopefully, going to bring it to the minister’s attention, and he can respond.

[2:35 p.m.]

This is on the same clause, 8. On one hand, BCTS is a logging agency or a forest tenure agency, and then, on the other hand, it’s also a very powerful land steward, as the minister alluded to. It represents 20 percent, the largest licensee in the province, if we go along with the lines of whether it’s 20 percent of the AAC or 20 percent of the overall annual harvesting levels.

Does the minister believe that there could be a conflict of interest between having a revenue-generating side of the business and a stewardship side of the business, or does the minister believe that they coexist?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: They have to coexist. Revenue is an important tool, but timber value can’t be the only thing that we look at as a province. I would argue that no company should look at just extracting value for profit.

We have to look at the work of wildfire risk reduction in terms of supporting communities. We have to look at long-term forest health. We have to look at our biodiversity, supporting the wildlife.

There are countless values on our land base, so to the member’s question, that’s the important work of B.C. Timber Sales. That’s the important work that I have as the Minister of Forests.

Ward Stamer: Sorry for the softball question. That’s exactly what I was hoping the minister was going to say, because, again, I think we all believe that forest stewardship, sustainability and health are what drive our economy. It drives our forest industry, and it is what makes us proud of who we are today in this province.

The reason I bring it up is that there’s still going to be a challenge, I believe, in BCTS being able to change some of the dynamics when it comes to the costing side of things in the marketing of value-added products. That’s why I and many on our side have concerns to that. As we alluded to earlier in the presentation, margins are incredibly tight in the forest industry these days.

When we look at all the steps that are necessary in the initial determination of where fibre is, where it’s available, does it meet the parameters of our reforestation guidelines, our environmental guidelines? Then all the steps that it has now taken to even get to the point where we’re going to be able to offer this fibre up either for sale on the open market or whether it’s going to be purchased solely by a contractor who’s going to do the logging and then sell the wood….

Many of the concerns that our side has are in the way that the money is going to be spent, making sure that the checks and balances are going to be there and understanding that in this clause there is a change in the way BCTS will be able to operate than from other ministries because of the way BCTS is structured.

That’s why I’m asking the questions to the minister. We do not have a budget, per se, on this work. We don’t have a scope on what the actual work is going to entail. We don’t understand what the actual work is going to consist of. We don’t know all the steps that are going to be taking place in this work.

The fact is that every time you touch something, it’s going to cost more money. It doesn’t necessarily mean that every time you touch something you get more value from it. In a lot of cases, the more times you touch it, the more it costs. That’s why I’m trying to make sure that we get the answers necessary from BCTS to be able to determine not only what the operational plan is going to look like and the actual working plan but also the opportunities to be able to discuss how that money is going to be spent.

Again, as the minister alluded to, we didn’t have the opportunity in estimates to even ask the questions of what this year’s budget will be in this area. I mean, it could be tens of millions of dollars. The minister is saying it’s coming out of an existing budget.

If that’s the case, where is that money going to be coming from, and is it going to be detrimental to the other parts of the budget that were already determined to be in there and important in that process?

[2:40 p.m.]

Can the minister at least give us an idea of approximately what the infrastructure costs? Are there any short-term plans on the main roadbuilding, bridge infrastructure — any of those things — that he can see coming in the next six months? Again, you would need to have much of that infrastructure already in place to be able to offer this work.

Or does the minister believe that his organization has enough STI, standing timber inventory, to be able to just transition over to some of this contract logging and to be able to already have the infrastructure in place?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m going to take that last question, but I just want to provide the answer to.… A couple of questions ago, the member asked for the budget around road access. It’s $42 million for ’26-27.

We’ll get back to the member on the next one.

Ward Stamer: Can we also…? Do we have an estimate on…? Are there going to be any additional costs on the administration and the development side of things, or is that, again, to be assumed that it’s going to be under the existing work that’s already there?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s hard to answer the member’s question, given the fact that we’re not allowed to spend this money. This legislative change would allow us to do so. I think it would be entirely appropriate for the member to ask me this question at the next estimates.

Ward Stamer: There was a little bit of other language in here I’d like the minister and staff to be able to explain. We talked about that Financial Administration Act. It says: “Subsection (3) of the section applies despite section 21 of the Financial Administration Act.”

Can you elaborate why that section was added? It’s actually (d)(3.1).

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I think I’ve already answered this question. Section (3), the member will know, is all the things that BCTS can spend money on. And (3.1) is the ability to access a special account devoted to appropriation.

Ward Stamer: One of the other ones that it mentioned just before that was…. This was an addition to section 8(c). It says: “To defray the costs associated with silviculture carried out after an obligation to establish a free-growing stand is fulfilled.” Is that just in addition to what was already in the pre-existing legislation? It allows the BCTS to do what?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The way the legislation was written was to allow for us to meet our free-growing obligation. Now it is extended to additional things outside of free-growing, other types of forest health and silviculture matters.

[2:45 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Maybe the minister can help me understand.

If we’re using the parameters in the existing legislation in free-growing, we know that not only are there financial obligations that have to be set aside on all licensees in the province to be able to achieve those free-growing obligations…. Once that is predetermined by a registered professional forester, then those moneys can be used in other areas, because it’s determined, or it’s perceived, that that stand is now able to be free to grow and there isn’t additional maintenance necessary on that regenerative block.

Can the minister elaborate a little bit more on what he perceives as enhanced reforestation? Can he explain some of the additional work and costs that would be associated with that?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The intent is for us to ensure that B.C. Timber Sales…. As was noted a few questions ago when we talked about the future of forestry, the future of forestry is moving away from volume- to area-based. As part of area-based, we need to ensure that we’re making the necessary investments in forest health — as an example, spacing for the ability to do commercial thinning in the future.

Let me be very clear. We believe that these are necessary steps that will result in a positive net return for the province, for taxpayers and for our forests and all the other values that exist on the land base.

Ward Stamer: Does the minister believe that we haven’t been following that level of forest stewardship in the past in this province?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I think we can always do better.

Ward Stamer: That leads me to another question. Whose direction is this going to be under?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: B.C. Timber Sales will be working very closely with the office of the chief forester. I think it aligns broadly with the direction that I’ve provided to the ministry and that the member will have heard in my remarks at COFI a couple of weeks ago and to the truck loggers in early January.

Ward Stamer: Does the minister have a specific timeline on how much longer this is going to take place if our standard free-to-grow in our province is usually between 12 and 15 years, if not a little bit less, on the coast? Does the minister have a timeline in mind of how long this additional enhancement of forest stewardship will occur?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Full-rotation harvesting and management starts when you’re planting the seed, to harvesting, to getting the log to the right mill, to the market. It’s the full cycle.

Ward Stamer: Again, this comes back to costing. That’s why, I believe, it’s pertinent to clause 8. Does that mean that going forward, the chief forester is going to be changing the parameters not only of what is identified as full rotation from a licensee’s responsibility perspective?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m getting a little bit away from the legislation, but I’m happy to entertain this question. The office of the chief forester is working on guidance. They have a Forest and Range Practices Advisory Council that advises me, and some of the direction and work that I’ve given to that committee is to look at how we can move from volume-based to area-based.

There’s no specific timeline on this work. This is ongoing work. This will be generational work. I think B.C. Timber Sales, as we’re showing through Bill 14, can be a big partner in this, given that we are the largest licence holder in the province.

Ward Stamer: This does relate to clause 8 inasmuch as the minister talks about the difference between volume-based and area-based, but there are many people that believe that area-based is still the predominant number that you arrive upon because you have a timber supply area. That’s what a TSA is all about.

I think there seems to be a little bit of a miscommunication, or maybe it’s on purpose, where, when they talk about volume-based versus area-based, we’re still trying to derive a sustainable volume from an area.

Maybe my question was more along the lines of: how many more years does the minister believe that we have to achieve this new full-rotation, free-to-grow model? Again, when we start looking at all the additional work that could be provided under this new contract obligation, some of it can be very expensive.

What is driving this ability to be able to increase this forest enhancement? Are we going to get not only the environmental benefits, but are we going to get the economic benefits as well? Where is the data to be able to show that this is necessary at this time?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member is absolutely right. Net positive return is the direction that I’ve received from the Premier and the work that I do with my colleague the Minister of Finance.

I would note for the member that we have decades of research that shows that when you are good stewards of the land, you’ll return higher yield rates. That’s why I’m so gung-ho about commercial thinning and increased yield rates. We’re seeing that in different parts of the world. I think of Nordic countries, in particular.

Ward Stamer: The one point I think the minister and I can also agree upon is that there’s also been data showing that by fertilization, particularly on the seedling side of the equation, not just the aerial fertilization, which can be very expensive…. I believe the minister knows about the concurrent data from the last 20 to 25 years of the importance of having seedlings initially fertilized with a teabag when those trees are planted.

Yes, there’s an additional cost, but there’s a huge drop-off in mortality. The tree grows much healthier, stronger, less cost for additional brushing and other techniques to be able to get to that free-to-grow time and also getting past that, as the minister alluded to.

Does the minister see any changes? Even though this contract logging obligation is in this bill, is there anything else that the minister can see in the reforestation side of things that would also apply to this bill?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: A few things that I’ll just note for the member. A lot of the things that the member touches on are basic practices that BCTS is already doing and doing very well in terms of species mix, density and being good stewards of the land.

What this clause in particular, clause 8, looks at is the post-regrowing opportunities. The member will know…. I believe he knows about the forest investment program within the ministry. An example would be the work that B.C. Timber Sales does with the forest investment program to look at reforestation after a natural disturbance like a wildfire.

Ward Stamer: As the heading alludes to in the bill, this clause adds purpose for the money that can be spent in this area. I’m glad that we’re able to have these conversations. This is the only way that we’re able to get information on how these programs that have been identified, not only in the BCTS task force review but also in the ongoing forest stewardship plans that BCTS has, to be able to determine how this money is going to be spent and where it’s going to be spent….

That’s why I’m asking the questions. There’s quite a bunch of new work that’s going to be transferred over to BCTS. That’s where I’m trying to get an understanding of how much money we’re going to be spending, how long we’re going to be spending the money, how we’re going to be able to increase our revenues to be able to pay for much of this work that in the past has had to be subsidized from a different source.

A lot of this work that the minister and I are talking about, even on the reforestation side of things, is usually cost-negative. But if you can show the data that you’re actually going to get more at the end of it, where not only the trees are going to be healthier but they’re going to grow faster, grow stronger — that there’s going to be more volume there, a healthier forest and less opportunities for additional management of those forests, at the end of the day, the math works.

Can the minister explain a little bit more on when we get into the commercial thinning and also on the fuel mitigation? Can the minister see alignments in that level of work and in that supervision of the work?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: A little bit more detail would be helpful in terms of what the member means by that.

Ward Stamer: What I was suggesting is: if we’re going to be having commercial thinning projects going forward, is the anticipation from the minister that in most cases, that will still be a bidding process, with the expectation that there will be enough value being able to be derived from the work to be able to pay for the work? So it’s not like we’re subsidizing the work.

The minister can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s what the minister is alluding to — that as we move forward with these programs, hopefully there’s enough value in those commercial thinning projects that they will pretty much pay for themselves with, maybe, limited subsidization.

I guess, my question to the minister is: when we talk about risk aversion, how much is the BCTS willing to subsidize these types of programs if they are not cost-effective?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I want to be very clear for the member across the way that we do not subsidize forestry operations here in B.C. I know he knows that well, given the conversation we had during estimates.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

The intent is for us to always net a positive return on our investment. It may just be that that positive return on our investment may take a few years.

Ward Stamer: The minister was very careful in how he finished his comments where he said that it may take a few years for that process to actually start paying for itself. I’m pretty sure that’s what I heard. The reason why I brought this up is because in the past, most of our commercial thinning projects in the province have been subsidized.

[3:00 p.m.]

The FESBC has been fairly successful in doing many enhancement forest projects, both through community forests and First Nations. There have been areas in the interface where that work has taken place.

I would suggest that both the minister and I are very impressed with much of the work that’s been done. But it has also come at a cost of approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a hectare. So in most cases, it’s been very expensive. It’s only been in the last, I would say, six months to a year that some of these commercial thinning projects are actually on a break-even point. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the data that I have and the examples that I’ve seen are kind of where we are right now.

Part of that is that there’s a big difference between commercially thinning a block that was logged 40, 45 years ago and was replanted and now the trees are at approximately, say, ten inches, 12 inches, depending on where in the province they are. But those trees have obviously slowed down in their regeneration and, in some cases, may be only an inch in growth in the last ten years. Hence the reason why there is a need for commercial thinning.

In some of the other areas where we’ve done interface work, that’s a larger diameter tree. The prescription is to reduce the fuel load, reduce the ladder fuels, reduce the amount of crowns but still be able to retain trees that are there for shade, for other opportunities — hiking, biking, all these other recreational activities — which are close to where we have houses but, at the same time, recognize that we still have risk.

My question to the minister is and was: what level of risk are we going to be able to absorb? I understand that there was just a commercial thinning workshop here in Victoria last week. It’s unfortunate that the minister and I weren’t able to go to that workshop, because I’m sure there’d be some very good information in there.

Comments that I had given to me from people that had been there…. The first comment that they made was that it’ll have to be subsidized. So maybe the minister can expand on that statement of mine and assure myself and others that there will be ways, going forward, that the expectation will be that these commercial thinning projects will actually start paying for themselves sooner rather than later.

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Welcome to the fun, exciting debate on Bill 14, Madam Chair. I know you care deeply about forestry. Not as exciting as Energy and Climate Solutions sometimes, but forestry….

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yeah, I would agree, absolutely. I don’t want to hurt the minister’s feelings. You know, it is better than the mining discussions that happen in this place. That’s for sure.

The member and I will agree, having both worked with the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., when you’re investing dollars for societal benefits that….

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Peanut gallery.

The Chair: Members, I’m going to call order, please.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Peanut gallery back there. If you want a response like I do in question period, you just go right ahead, Minister of Mining. We’ll both work together on that. There’s cross-partisanship here.

Forestry is better than mining, isn’t that right?

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Absolutely.

I can’t remember what I was saying, but I’m going to start again.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yeah, I do have 14 minutes. Maybe I’ll use the 14 minutes on this one.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: FESBC, exactly. So I don’t have to repeat myself there.

In relation to the work that we have to do, I actually had an opportunity to speak very briefly at that workshop last week prior to it getting started, for the member.

[3:05 p.m.]

We believe very strongly that the pricing work and recognizing some of the costs associated with commercial thinning is going to be the way that we make this into a profitable adventure. I would argue that based off of many of the conversations that I’m having, there is a great desire….

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Other peanut gallery.

Goodness. As soon as you came into the chair, Madam Chair, they weren’t following the rules.

What a weird few minutes just now. I’m going to sit down. I feel like I’ve answered the question.

Ward Stamer: I’m a little disappointed. The minister had 13 minutes left. Having said that, I would still like to be able to have more conversations when it comes to the commercial thinning side of things.

Also, at the same time, maybe…. Again, clause 8 specifically talks about the changes in the act to be able to spend money in other areas. Clause 5 talked about the contract logging obligations. There had to be changes to the legislation to allow BCTS to spend money that they aren’t legislatively determined to do. This is the other part in clause 8 that talks about some of the changes in the timber sales account and how it directly relates to that.

I think it’s important for us to be able to get to the bottom of some of the details because this work is going to be totally different than what BCTS has done in the past. It’s different in the scope of the level of not only experience but supervision in this work. There are questions on who actually will be doing the supervision on the ground with this work. And with all of this work are costs. Who is paying for what?

That’s what I’m hoping, in the next few minutes, to be able to ascertain, how that is a breakdown in that work, because this is the only opportunity that I’m going to get to ask these questions. Again, as the minister alluded to, this wasn’t part of estimates because it wasn’t part of a budget because it hadn’t been actually brought to the House to have the opportunity to make the statutory changes necessary to be able to spend the money in the first place. So that’s great.

If we may, I’d like to be able to talk about some of the other things that the minister is hoping that BCTS is going to be responsible for doing, and that is possibly wildfire fuel reduction and mitigation.

I’d like a little bit more of an understanding on how the steps are going to be, where today we have FESBC that’s doing much of this work in our communities, First Nation communities, in the interface in our municipal areas, sometimes out in areas that may be protected and/or environmentally sensitive. So it’s kind of like a full range of areas of the province under their purview.

I believe their budget is $25 million this year, as it has been in previous years. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s where we’re at.

I also know that with our fire smarting program, as we talked about, there are going to be changes. The minister is going to be reviewing those changes. And the reason why I’m bringing this up is because it directly impacts the tools that the minister mentioned in Bill 14 to allow BCTS to possibly take a more proactive role in some of the work that was being done from previous organizations.

Wildfire fuel reduction and mitigation are under the purview again. FESBC is doing some of this work. Community forests are doing this work. First Nations are doing this work. B.C. wildfire service is doing the work.

Maybe the minister can explain how now BCTS would enter the game in that arena for the work that has just been described in wildfire fuel reduction and mitigation.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The changes allow, in this clause, BCTS to invest in silviculture treatments such as commercial thinning and fertilization, like we talked about a couple of questions ago, beyond free-growing obligations, to improve stand value and better align with modern public expectations around forestry.

My expectation is for B.C. Timber Sales to be a partner with the B.C. wildfire service, with the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. and other organizations that are doing this work. I think BCTS is more than willing to do this work. I think BCTS is set up in a way to be a leader in forestry, just like we work with licensee holders all across the land base.

[3:10 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: To that, can the minister explain, then, if there going to be more of the work that was currently being done from one of the other entities, whether it’s taking over much of the B.C. wildfire service that’s actually doing the work. Is it going to be in collaboration with it? Is the BCTS now going to be the umbrella operation for much of this work, or is it going to be a co-ministry responsibility?

Can the minister explain a little bit how this work is going to be planned and executed?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s a good question. My expectation is for B.C. Timber Sales to be a partner, not necessarily taking on the work of other entities within my ministry or external organizations like FESBC but for it to be a partner to work alongside all of those organizations.

B.C. Timber Sales and the B.C. wildfire service are both under the Ministry of Forests, and I think there are huge opportunities for them — given the conversation we’ve had for about the last hour — in relation to being more efficient. There is work that the B.C. wildfire service is often doing that I think B.C. Timber Sales will now be better situated to work alongside with because of the changes that we’re implementing in this bill.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answers.

Does the minister see, going forward, that in these interface areas in many of our communities that are surrounded with Crown forests, Crown land, there will be opportunities to be able to expand the BCTS programs, possibly in the bidding process, where much of this mitigation work could actually start taking place on the land base? And could the minister explain a little bit more on some of the steps that would be necessary for that to actually occur?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: B.C. wildfire service as well as our regional operations, three area ADMs and their respective teams, are the ones that are really looking after these wildland-urban interface areas. They would be working alongside B.C. Timber Sales, community forests, First Nations woodland licence and other licensees to ensure that the right tool is being utilized to be able to conduct the work that the member is referring to.

Ward Stamer: Would this also include municipal boundaries and the possible Crown lands that are within those municipal boundaries?

If that’s true, would the municipal officials also be involved in that process and the elected officials?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We do work with communities, but we don’t technically operate and do our commercial operations within areas that are not Crown land.

Ward Stamer: The reason I asked the question is because many municipal boundaries have Crown land in amongst their boundaries. I’m just curious if the minister…. As we talked about with fire smarting, it also involves some of the official community planning and all the good work that our fire departments and our volunteer fire departments are doing in recognizing the hazards.

Is there going to be an opportunity with BCTS to be able to work with these municipalities in some of these interface areas that have Crown land within their municipal boundaries, to be able to do this work there in those municipalities?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: B.C. wildfire service is really the leading entity in this work, but B.C. Timber Sales without a doubt is a tool that we can use in regards to that.

Ward Stamer: On the additional work side of things, when we talked about…. We’ve touched bases on reforestation and enhancement. We also talked about the opportunities with wildfire fuel reduction and mitigation work.

[3:15 p.m.]

There’s another area that the minister touched on briefly, and maybe he can elaborate a little bit more. Again, it comes into the costing. Some of this additional planning that is being asked — whether it’s upon the public, environmental groups, First Nations — on some of the additional works that are going to be asked of the government to continue to do on the land base…. Can the minister explain a bit more in detail what these actual requests are going to be?

Again, it sounds like there’s that much more expected to do on the land base. Those will be additional costs that may not be originally under the Forest Act or what BCTS is allowed to spend money on. Are there other areas that the minister can share that he can see that will now open up opportunities by having the statutory changes in the law to allow BCTS to spend money in other areas?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We heard loud and clear, through the review process of B.C. Timber Sales, for the need for B.C. Timber Sales to modernize to be able to meet the needs of British Columbians in a whole host of areas, like protecting wildlife, old forests and a whole host of other things.

I believe, given the work that licensees do across the province, they’re adapting. They’re working in partnership with First Nations. I believe, given the work that we’ve done over the course of the last year through the review and development of this legislation, that B.C. Timber Sales did not have the ability to be able to really lead in this work.

I think, given the amendments that we have proposed…. In particular, this clause and some parts of this clause have given us the ability to be able to be more efficient and be a bigger and better partner of choice on the land base.

Ward Stamer: I’m actually just looking through…. If I may, I’m referencing back to the task force recommendations. Many of the implementations of the task force are in the literature that BCTS has provided as supplement documents to Bill 14 and the need for us to be able to change the statutory requirements when it comes to the way money is being spent.

One of the questions that I had earlier, and maybe the minister can elaborate a little bit more on that, is: does the minister see that the intention of BCTS, which was a bidding program, an auction program…? It’s in the recommendations to maintain the integrity of the organization to have that process. Does the minister see that that is the model that BCTS is going to continue to follow, where there are competitive bids in the process for this work?

[3:20 p.m.]

The reason why it goes back to clause 8 is that, whether there’s money going to be spent or there’s money going to be recovered, ideally you want to be on a cash-positive, not a cash-negative perspective. There also needs to be, I believe, in most cases, competition in the marketplace to be able to make sure that those costs are not only certain but also are the opportunity to make sure that those expenses don’t get out of hand.

Does the minister believe that in all this work that we’re describing right now, this will be more of a bidding process to take place, or does he see that it’s going to be an even mix with direct awards? How does he see it rolling forward in the next foreseeable future?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The simple answer is yes, absolutely. I think it’s really important. As I’m reminded by my team, one of the strongest roles that B.C. Timber Sales has besides providing logs to local mills and jobs for contractors is also maintaining our market pricing system as well.

Ward Stamer: The minister is on the same wavelength as I am because that’s one of the questions that I had.

At what level or at what point will our largest trading partner have an opportunity to argue that we are possibly subsidizing our industry if we start providing the work, additional work, to our forests that we don’t currently do now?

Again, it revolves around BCTS set up as approximately 20 percent of either the AAC, or the annual allowable cut, and using those benchmarks to determine the market-based pricing system, MPS, for the rest of our fibre in the province with our stumpage rates and not being unfairly subsidized, as the Americans have said in the past, which we all know to be totally false.

What are the parameters to make sure that that is not going to be affected if BCTS takes more of this work on themselves and not have the market doing it, the way it is today?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The U.S. Commerce Secretary is out to lunch on a lot of issues, and this is one of them. We are working hard every single day to protect the integrity of our market system. We stand by our market pricing system, and the U.S. Commerce Secretary…. While they publicly have never acknowledged it, continuous NATO trade panel cases have once again said, including two just in the last couple of months, that the United States and its Commerce Secretary are not even following U.S. law.

Just to reiterate for the member that B.C. Timber Sales will be a strong, powerful partner in getting local logs to local mills for the right price. We see huge opportunities for us to be able to use the tools that we have to get more fibre to those local mills for the right price to be able to return benefits to British Columbians for the services and infrastructure every British Columbian relies on.

Ward Stamer: Also, when we talk about some of the additional work that’s going to be in this bill and how it gives BCTS more flexibility in their business plan, does the minister foresee an increase in developing of these plans because of the more stringent nature of the requirements, the terms, the conditions, the rules and the regulations?

[3:25 p.m.]

Does the minister see cost savings, as well, in having the ministry do this work all under their own umbrella, or do they see other opportunities to branch out that work and still be able to be cost-effective at the same time?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The intent is for us to use the most cost-effective way, because B.C. Timber Sales very much operates like a business, with the intent of making money for the purposes of paying a dividend to the province.

I would note that much of the work that we do in terms of development, in many cases, can be contracted out, taking opportunities to be able to help support job opportunities with those that work as specialists in those fields.

Ward Stamer: Does the minister also see any other opportunities, which may not be previously under the authority of BCTS — I asked this question a couple of questions back — in other areas to be able to use the funds in their existing 2026 budget — whether that is increased AI technology, lidar, inventories or those kinds of things?

I know that they should be already statutorily under that purview, but are there other additional works that could be done on the land base that aren’t currently statutorily allowed? Is there anything else in the ministry to be able to spend money to achieve some of these goals, as he talks about enhancing forest stewardship and more environmental work on the land base?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Madam Chair, I’m just trying to think how the question relates to clause 8.

I’ll just say that the BCTS review did talk about the need for B.C. Timber Sales to utilize technology, AI and other forms of innovation. I can report for the member that he’ll see in the review in front of him some recommendations in regard to that.

Certainly, BCTS has been doing some work to be able to adopt technology, in addition to the work that the province has already been doing in regards to lidar, as an example, on the ground, to be able to source the right data sets, to be able to make the best-informed decisions.

The Chair: I’m going to ask the member to make sure that his questions are specific to clause 8. If he could tie them into clause 8, that would be beneficial.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clause 8 specifically talks about purposes, how money can be spent in the B.C. Timber Sales account and what was originally allowed in the past. It also ties into the Financial Administration Act, where there’s more flexibility in the way BCTS spends money than in some of the other ministries. I think that’s why it’s pertinent to section 8.

One of the other questions I had to the minister is on wildfire. Maybe the minister can explain. That was also another announcement by BCTS. By having Bill 14, that was going to enhance the opportunity for wildfire salvage.

Can maybe the minister describe additional works that are now going to be provided under Bill 14 that were not originally provided under the original statutory acts? There are going to be some questions on costing with that as well.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m happy to speak to this as it relates to clause 8, which is the contract logging piece, the addition of contract logging to section 109, which enables BCTS to spend money to conduct contract logging; and, of course, amendments to more broadly authorize silviculture expendments from B.C. Timber Sales’ account as well.

So I would say that, without a doubt, there are opportunities. I’m sure we’ll get into more of the work in terms of speeding up wildfire salvage later into the bill.

The Chair: Okay folks, we’re going to take a five-minute break. Everybody please be back in the room by 3:35 p.m. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, folks. I summon us back to continue the conversation on the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. We are on clause 8.

Ward Stamer: I had another question to the minister on the wildfire work, because it’s in direct relationship to the costing. Does the minister believe that there will be either additional costs or less costs when we now have Bill 14 to be able to use as a tool in the toolbox, as the minister has alluded to, in being able to advance wildfire salvage?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We believe that the tools that are provided to us allow us to be able to use these tools to expend the public dollars in a more efficient manner, meeting the interests of British Columbians.

Ward Stamer: Can I ask the minister to give me an example of how that’s going to happen?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yeah, by marketing the wood that we procure from wildfire risk reduction. That allows us to be able to generate the revenue to be able to continue doing this work.

Ward Stamer: Does the minister believe that the additional tools in Bill 14 will be able to speed up the process with the wildfire salvage manual and the timelines that are in that manual?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This question actually pertains more to clause 2 than it does clause 8. Clause 8 is, as I’ve noted before, amendments to more broadly authorized silviculture expenditures, so salvaging really wouldn’t necessarily fall within that. Wildfire risk reduction would be more appropriate.

Ward Stamer: Then to maybe add to the minister’s response, does this allow…? Because it’s more on a silviculture perspective, does this allow BCTS to have more flexibility when it comes to reforestation in our B.C. wildfires?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I don’t believe there are really any changes here in regards to that because we would still have to meet our free-to-grow requirements and obligations as noted in the legislation.

Ward Stamer: The reason I’m asking the question is that…. Are there other opportunities…? Currently we aren’t doing reforestation in B.C. wildfire-burnt areas unless we’re doing some kind of industrialization on the land base.

My question is: with new enhanced forest stewardship in BCTS, does that open up other opportunities for enhanced reforestation in our wildfire-affected areas?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member is right. BCTS primarily operates in areas where there has been logging, so we would work in partnership with the forest investment program, which is located in the assistant deputy minister for provincial operations’ branch, and have the ability to be able to work to help support, where feasible and where economic, the opportunity to do reforestation in areas where you’ve had a wildfire in an area where there hasn’t necessarily been logging that has occurred.

Ward Stamer: Then, to add to that, does the minister believe that with changes to our forest stewardship plans and our new FLPs…? Does he believe that there will be new operational plans that will require additional reforestation in wildfire-affected areas?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Could the member help me understand how that’s related to clause 8?

Ward Stamer: What I’m suggesting is that if we have a requirement of changes to more stringent rules and regulation, and that may also be reflective to changes in our operational plans, is there going to be a tie-in? The BCTS may end up having additional reforestation requirements because of these new additional requirements.

Whether it’s through new forest stewardship plans, forest landscape plans, does it look like there are going to be additional moneys that are going to have to be spent on reforestation obligations in these affected areas?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m definitely not trying to be difficult. I’m trying to understand and give a little bit of grace to the member across the way in how this is relevant to clause 8.

Ward Stamer: If I may, the minister talked about some of the reforestation costs. Normally, even in these burnt areas, as the minister alluded to, unless there’s any industrialization, that doesn’t get reforested.

[3:45 p.m.]

My question was: if there are going to be changes, possibly, to our operational plans in contracted work and we start going into some of these areas, are there going to be additional requirements on the reforestation side to be able to implement those operational plans? That’s what I’m asking.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We have an obligation to plant after a harvest. While I appreciate the member’s question, I just don’t see how it’s relevant to clause 8.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Ward Stamer: I have a couple of questions right off the bat, and I’m hoping this pertains to it.

This amendment applies to section 114 of part 8, “Roads and Right-of-Way.” This amendment classifies a contract logging authorization as an “eligible holder,” which is defined as a person who has the right to harvest timber. This definition would allow a contract logging authorization to be issued a road permit, apply for a road permit and road and trail construction.

In the event where a contract logger who has contract logging authorization applies to construct a road on Crown land, would BCTS pay for the construction of the road with its new spending powers, or would the contractor be responsible?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: If I understand the member’s question correctly, if it’s under contract, then, of course, BCTS would pay for it.

Ward Stamer: I believe that we had a conversation earlier in regards to the contractor obligation, and it’s flagged again in my notes. I’m hoping that it does have pertinency to the clause, inasmuch as when we talked about legal responsibility from the contractor that’s being hired by BCTS, this creates ambiguity regarding liability for environmental damage and wildfire suppression.

If a contractor is an eligible holder but does not own the timber, it becomes more complex to determine who is financially responsible if operations violate the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Wildfire Act.

So in these new contracts, will there be specific language for determining the rights and responsibilities of these contract loggers and what they may or may not be liable for?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Noting the member’s question, no real changes here. There were amendments to the Forest Act and FRPA in 2024 to add more stringent rules and actions as relates to cutting permits and road permits. Those changes were made in 2024.

[3:50 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: To be clear, if the contractor is doing the work specifically for BCTS and they’re under the supervision of BCTS, if there’s any environmental damage that’s created over and above that could be possibly identified in the scope of the work, BCTS is liable for that damage?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We touched on this a few hours ago. Yes, unless the contractor violated the terms and conditions of their contract.

Ward Stamer: One of the other challenges that I’m going to ask about, and maybe the minister can help expand on this as well, is that part of the reasoning behind Bill 14 is to streamline the process and to be able to offer more fibre to the marketplace.

One of the questions that arises from this is: will this eliminate some of the smaller mom-and-pop-type operations that may not be able to adjust quickly enough to the changes being proposed by the minister and BCTS? Does the minister believe that this is a streamlining process and that this is going to increase the opportunity for fibre but, at the same time, not necessarily disadvantage some of the smaller operators from participating in this program?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yes, that’s correct. Our intention would not be to disinclude anyone from participating. We would have set criteria, as we talked about a few clauses ago.

Ward Stamer: Just to be clear, because this has specific attachments to roads and road right-of-way… I believe the minister answered this question before. This is work that can be totally separate from the actual harvesting of a particular block, similar to what work was done in the past, and really, all it’s doing is reinforcing some of the work that was done in the past through BCTS?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: If we understand the member’s question correctly, yes, but the member may want to rephrase his question.

Ward Stamer: We talked earlier about having phasing and whether those are still going to be the opportunities. Because this talks about the eligible holder on the road, are there opportunities where a contractor could be the eligible holder in building that road but there is a different contractor that will be using that road in the contracting logging authorization?

Is there a set way of not only transferring that authority over but making sure that those liabilities, if there are any liabilities, transfer as well?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: BCTS would hold the authority, and that authority would go towards anyone who is contracted to do the work. I think I understood the member’s question correctly. I think he is correct in the intention that that work and that authority would move towards who’s doing the work and that there could be multiple individuals, multiple contractors doing the work.

Ward Stamer: If there was a scenario…. Again, it talks about, in clause 9, the definition of an “eligible holder” to include the holder of a contract logging authorization. Is this specifically just for the contract logging authorization licensee per se, or is this eligible holder also used in other examples throughout BCTS? Is it still the same definition?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Under the definitions piece in 114, in this part, “eligible holder” means a person who has the right to harvest timber under a (a) forest licence; (b) timber licence; (c) area-based licence; (d) Christmas tree permit; (e) timber sale licence; (f) forestry licence to cut; or (g), the addition, contract logging authorization.

Ward Stamer: Because this section is, I would say, more housekeeping because of the roads and right-of-way, is there still an opportunity…? In these contracts, if there are going to be additional works being prescribed in these areas, will there be the opportunity for the flexibility to make those changes?

The reason I’m asking the question is if somebody ends up, again, bidding on a project and the project changes, is it the anticipation of the minister to be able to have language available so if it’s mutual on both parties, those changes can be made, if there’s anything in the scope of this project?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: That doesn’t really relate to the legislation or this clause. That’s just contract law.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Ward Stamer: One of the questions that I have is: can the minister confirm that the addition of a contract logging authorization in section 2.35 and then the three subsections of (b), (c) and (d) are so that contract logging authorizations are legally the same as the holder of a timber sale licence in terms of a forest operational plan?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to make sure I understand the member’s question correctly. Section 2.35(3) currently prohibits a timber sales manager from issuing timber sale licences or authorizing road construction within a forest landscape area unless an area is approved — a forest operations plan is in place. This amendment extends the requirement issuing contract logging authorizations and associated roadbuilding.

Ward Stamer: I know we’ve covered this ground a little bit, but it gives me another opportunity to ask a couple of questions because…. We are on clause 10?

The Chair: You’re correct. You are on clause 10.

[4:00 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Again, the notes supplied say that clause 10 requires a timber sales manager to hold an approved forest operational plan before taking specific actions related to the contract logging authorization. In previous clauses, we’ve talked about the operational plan, and, I think, there were a couple of questions….

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: Yeah, my questions are on the floor.

The question I have is…. It relates back to what we just talked about in the previous couple of clauses about changes to the operational plan. It seems like there’s going to be…. There seems to be emphasis on making sure that the contractor that is doing the work cannot actually start the work unless they have an operational plan from the timber sales manager. I’m pretty sure that…. I’m trying to understand why it’s repeated so many times in the bill, why it’s so critical for that process to happen.

The reason I’m asking the question is because in the BCTS world now when there’s a licence that has been awarded, there are steps that are taken both on the reviewing of the documentation, the pre-work or pre-works that have to take place and the understanding of the rights and responsibilities of everyone included on the work that’s going to be taking place on the land base.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

There are discussions around and rights and responsibilities with environmental concerns, operational concerns, safety concerns. It’s all spelled out in the documentation in the sale. So it’s basically a legal document.

The minister and I have talked at length about BCTS believing there’s a need for more stringent rules and regulations when it comes to the contract logging authorization work that’s going to be taking place that is new to BCTS, because this work has never been described or prescribed or done in the past.

What I’m trying to understand and I’m trying to get information for is what else is in these operational plans that makes them so much more special than what we had previously in other works, unless they are very similar to what BCTS was doing when they were making operational plans with roadbuilding.

That’s why I’m trying to understand why it keeps being repetitive throughout this, unless it’s just a legislative requirement to make sure that that contractor has the operational plan, everything has been described and that work is not going to be able to start without that operational plan.

My question is: what makes this so necessary that no works can be started without the plan?

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Forests.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Mr. Chair, welcome. So used to saying Madam Chair. I apologize in advance if I accidentally say Madam Chair. But Mr. Chair, it is very nice to see you. Thanks very much for joining this fun debate and discussion on Bill 14.

The Chair: It’s always a good thing to listen to what’s happening with Forests. Excited to be here.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We appreciate that very much.

To the member opposite’s question, as we noted yesterday in a number of questions, the member is correct to an extent. B.C. Timber Sales currently is not able to proceed with any timber sale licences for bidding unless it has an operations plan. The same goes for contract logging.

The reason we do this, and the reason it’s mentioned in this legislation the way that it is, is this is for public transparency. This is for the importance of ensuring the public knows exactly where B.C. Timber Sales, in a year, is going to be doing its work, in terms of harvesting opportunities, and provides an opportunity for members of the public to be able to participate and provide comments on those operations plans.

Ward Stamer: To just add to that, then, on these operational plans that the timber sales manager is putting together, does the minister foresee any challenges coming forward in the development of these plans with BCTS now being responsible for not only developing the logging plans but also the supervision of those plans different than what they currently do today?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would just note the member is, I think, confusing the terminology and the words “operational” with “operations.” This is where we are going to harvest.

To really answer the member’s question, no, I don’t have any of those concerns.

Ward Stamer: Okay, so then the operational plan, if I hear that correctly, is just where the area is, where the work is going to be described.

It is not an operational plan for the actual work to be done on the ground. If that’s the case, then under what parameters does the operational plan come into play with the contract logging obligations and the rules and responsibilities in that contract?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I think some of the questions that the member is leading us down were actually addressed in earlier clauses, so I just remind the member that, yes, what he’s saying is correct in relation to forest operations plans.

This is talking about where we’re going to go and harvest and our intention to go and harvest. That’s why it’s important we have this in place. B.C. Timber Sales needs to be held accountable and be a transparent organization in providing that level of detail to the public and to our stakeholders.

Ward Stamer: Also, in the language, can the minister just clarify that we’re really just basically adding in the contract logging authorization in this section because it’s not in the existing statutory law currently with BCTS?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yes, that’s correct.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Ward Stamer: Some of the questions that I had in clause 11…. Again, some of this stuff is housekeeping, but I just want a little bit more descriptions on that. We didn’t get the opportunity to talk about the operational plan because it wasn’t really brought up. In the previous clauses, it was operations plan, not operational plan.

[4:10 p.m.]

In this part, it says that it’s going to require a map for that purpose. So can the minister explain why that is included in the operational plan?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I think the member opposite is still confusing operations and operational. This clause specifically speaks to operations plans and, again, aligns with the process that already exists with timber sale licences. Essentially, the map needs to be published alongside the operations plan, which outlines where exactly we’re going to be building our roads and harvesting.

Clauses 11 and 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Ward Stamer: Since the change to section 2.46 is to add contract logging authorizations so they are treated the same as a timber sale licence, why wasn’t the section simply amended instead of repealed and substituted?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It was a choice during drafting. We felt that the wording that we’ve outlined in this clause is clear and direct and easily understandable.

Ward Stamer: Just trying to read through the language where it says: “Section 2.41(1) is amended by striking out ‘a cutting permit, road permit or timber sale licence’ and substituting ‘a cutting permit, road permit, timber sale licence or contract logging authorization.’” That is just an addition to the current language.

As the minister is alluding to — this is just a check, and this is just for information — it was easier to repeal it and replace it than it was to amend it?

The Chair: We’re on clause 13. Shall clause 13 pass? So ordered.

Ward Stamer: I’m standing for 13.

The Chair: Okay, well then not so ordered.

Recognizing the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and sorry for that. I didn’t cross that out.

In section 13, section 2.46(2) is repealed and the following is substituted. It sounds like it’s just a housekeeping item as well, inasmuch to make sure that…. As in: “(a) a timber sale licence for which the timber sales manager intends to invite applications in the next calendar year; and (b) a contract logging authorization that the timber sales manager intends to issue in this next calendar year.”

Is there anything in here that needs to be added in regards to direct award or any of those kinds of things, or is this totally separate? This is just strictly on the opportunity and the development schedule to be able to know when that development is coming up. Is that just really what we’re talking about? It’s adding the portion of the authorization for contract logging in that next development period? Is that really what we’re talking about in this section?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The purpose of clause 13 is that it repeals and substitutes section 2.46(2) to add anticipated contract logging authorizations to the map locations that timber sales managers are required to publish in the annual forest development schedule.

[4:15 p.m.]

I would also note to the member that the purpose of the annual forest development schedule is to provide the public with an opportunity to review the location of proposed logging, and the amendment provides that logging will be occurring under the new contract logging authorizations and that it is subject to public review through the annual forest development schedule.

Ward Stamer: On these development schedules, is that the responsibility of the timber sales managers to be able to develop those schedules, or is that more of the…? Does the ministry have input to that, or is that at the purview of the timber sales manager to be able to develop with his team these development schedules?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member is correct. It would be the timber sales manager that is responsible for putting together the document and then publishing it.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Ward Stamer: Is there any difference in the rules or prerequisites between a timber sale licence holder and a contract logging authorization holder to get a permit to construct a road in a forest landscape area?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The intent is to align the contract logging authority the same with the timber sale licence authority, just as we would be under the TSL.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Ward Stamer: I know this should be fairly straightforward, but can the minister explain why this section was repealed and substituted instead of being amended to include the requirements on contract logging authorizations?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This purpose in clause 15 amends section 15.2(2) to ensure the requirements outlined for the forest operations map apply to contract logging operations, including roads in support of contract logging. The reason for this is the addition of the contract logging authorization to the forest operations maps ensures the public has the opportunity to review the locations for proposed cutblocks and roads proposed for contract logging.

And to answer the member’s question, this was a choice made during drafting.

Ward Stamer: I know the minister was mentioning about the maps. When these operation maps are distributed, is there a window of opportunity to be able to change, whether it’s the description of the map or the size of the map or the location of the map, in that period of time that we’ve been talking about?

The map…. It does talk about the approximate location of the cutblocks during that operating period, but is there an opportunity for that to change? Where in the legislation is there an ability to have BCTS change that?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Yes, the intent is for these maps to be published for review and comment.

[4:20 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: I’m just looking through some of the changes in the language, and again, it should be fairly straightforward, but by repealing subsection (3) in the Forest Act, we’re substituting — this is (b) — (3)(a), (b) and (c).

It says, “Nothing in this section is intended to limit the authority of a timber sales manager,” but by repealing that section, does it in any way change the scope of the intent of the original act in the Forest Act?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: No, it does not change the intent. It just adds to the scope of contract logging.

Ward Stamer: One of the other subheadings that it talks about is to construct a road. So wouldn’t that…. I know that was in the existing scope of the Forest Act, but is there anything else like…. When it says “to construct a road” should there be anything added to that, whether that’s any improvements to the road, whether it’s a bridge or anything like that? Should that be added to that language, or does the ministry believe that that is covered in the existing statute?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It would be a different statute. This, again, just to reiterate, is for us to be able to show in a transparent manner where exactly we would be building roads and doing our harvesting work.

Ward Stamer: I know this is not an operational map; it’s an operations map. Will these maps also, because they’re shown to the public, show the work that is going to be done on these blocks? Are they going to be showing the road locations? Are they going to be talking about whether they are permanently constructed or they’re going to be deactivated? Is there any of that information on those maps at this time?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It shows where the roads are going to be and where we’re going to be harvesting, but not to the extent that you would have in an operational plan, showing the different types of harvesting.

Ward Stamer: Where I’m leading with this is that throughout these discussions, we’ve talked about public engagement and opportunities for the public to be able to see the transparency in the organization in exactly what’s going forward on the land base. That’s why I was asking the question. Is that something the minister and the ministry would be looking forward to going into the future?

If they’re going to be sending out these development plans and we’re changing the law so that encompasses additional works, is that something that the ministry should be looking at when it’s trying to advertise and to be able to show exactly what’s going on in these areas?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member noted in his question in the preamble the importance of public transparency. I’m proud of the work that B.C. Timber Sales does on a daily basis through its obligations to FRPA to develop these operational plans and the maps that go alongside them.

Without a doubt, we invite members of the public to provide feedback and commentary and invite them to provide not only their feedback and commentary but specific questions they may have for the timber sales manager and their team.

The Chair: Members, we will take a short five-minute break and return at 4:33 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:25 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order on Bill 14, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. We are on clause 15.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Ward Stamer: Can the Forests Minister or somebody on his staff explain this section? It seems like it’s fairly convoluted in a couple of the changes. The explanation on the other side specifies which version of a forest operation plan or forest stewardship plan applies in relationship to the activities carried out under a contract logging authorization. There are a couple of subsections in here. Can I get an explanation on exactly what this says?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: You sure can, member across the way.

Clause 16 adds section 20.23(3) to provide that if an operational plan applies to a contract logging authorization on the date the licence is advertised, the plan, as it read on that date, continues to apply to the licence area, despite any subsequent amendment, replacement or expiration of the plan.

So the importance of this, obviously, is that contract logging authorization areas within forest operations plans or forest stewardship plans continue to apply to a licence area despite subsequent amendments to the plan, replacements of the plan or the expiration of the plan. This is to ensure that existing licences remain valid under their original approved plans, preventing disruption and ensuring stability for ongoing operations.

[4:35 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Then are there opportunities for extensions in this subsection? We talked about extensions before in a previous clause. Is there a need for an extension if, through extenuating circumstances, that original date is extended further on than was originally planned? Is there a necessary reason for that to be extended, or does the ministry believe that that is not necessary?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This, as I noted in my previous response, refers to operations plans, not operational plans, which I think is maybe where the member was going with his question. This just allows us, as I noted, the ability to continue to apply to the licence area, despite any amendments or replacements or expirations of the plan.

Ward Stamer: Just for clarification, what is the timeline in this plan? Is there an expiry date? Is it three years, four years, five years? Can I get a sense of what the current guidelines will be in the exploration of the operations plan?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The correct answer would be five years.

[4:40 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: I know that we have a little bit of time, so I’m hoping that we can cover another part of this. Where in the law, whether it’s current or being revised, can an operations plan be cancelled?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I think the member is referring to another statute in FRPA that isn’t relevant to this clause.

Ward Stamer: If I’m getting the answer correctly, it’s a policy or regulation. It’s not a law.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It would be a law under FRPA.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Ward Stamer: It talks about the specified requirements of amendments to a forest operational plan or a forest stewardship plan, but they do not apply to the portion of the plan if the portion is an area subject to a contract logging authorization. Can I get an explanation on that? What are the specific requirements?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Under section 20.24, if a timber sale licence or other authorization has been issued by a timber sales manager and an operational plan is subjected to a mandatory amendment that would otherwise apply to that area after issuance, the portion of that operational plan covered by the licence or permit does not need to be amended to reflect the changes.

As a contract logging authorization has a similar impact as a timber sale licence, the same framework is to be applied.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Ward Stamer: Clause 18 provides that a minister may construct a road to provide access to an area to be harvested under a contract logging authorization despite the approval or the refusal to approve a plan. Can I get an explanation to that as well, please?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The purpose of clause 18 is to amend section 20.27 to add roads constructed to access harvest areas under contract logging authorizations. The reason we’re doing this is so the minister may construct a road under section 121 of the Forest Act to access an area to be harvested under a timber sale licence, whether a forest operation plan or forest stewardship plan is approved or refused, despite the requirement that a timber sales manager has an approved forest operations plan or forest stewardship plan.

Harvest under a contract logging authorization requires the timber sales manager to have an approved FOP or FSP. Despite this requirement, the minister may construct a road to access the contract logging authorization, whether a forest operations plan or forest stewardship plan is approved or refused.

Clauses 18 and 19 approved.

On clause 20.

Ward Stamer: Since the legislation will come into effect with royal assent, can the minister provide us a timeline when the first contract authorization will be authorized?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Really great question from the member opposite. The intent would be for us to continue our planning work in Q2, 3 and 4, with the intent of bringing forward these sales in the next fiscal year, ’27-28.

Clause 20 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:46 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Emergency
Management and Climate Readiness
(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 Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $74,403,000 (continued).

Sheldon Clare: I had planned on getting into the climate aspect of this ministry a little bit earlier, but I still find myself with a couple of questions that I want to clear up before we continue in that vein.

[1:35 p.m.]

My first one. We talked a little bit about arrangements with other states and provinces before, but I wanted to nail that down a little bit more solidly. I wonder if the ministry has created any reciprocal agreements with other provinces or states in the event of disasters.

I understand that McBride is very good at handing out cream puffs to everyone who comes there for a disaster. However, I’m just wondering what kind of financial arrangements are in place to do the sharing of costs when there are disasters that need to be dealt with cross-province or internationally, in the case of the States.

Hon. Kelly Greene: In terms of emergencies, we agree that emergencies don’t necessarily respect boundaries. Sometimes there are evacuation routes that need to be utilized through other jurisdictions, those kinds of things. We work very closely with partners across our borders but also across Canada.

We have, nationally, a coordinating agency, SOREM. That’s senior officials responsible for emergency management. Deputy ministers across Canada sit on this coordinating body and are responsible for the coordination and collaboration across Canada to respond to emergencies.

In terms of ministerial engagement, our FPT, the federal-provincial-territorial meeting for Emergency Management Ministers, is coming up next week. I will be attending. We have FPT meetings regularly to discuss issues that we’re facing in our respective places in Canada.

[1:40 p.m.]

Emergencies are felt in different ways in Canada. I’d just like to say it’s been very difficult in B.C. with the number of climate-fuelled emergencies that we’ve been having. But that has given us, certainly, a lot more operational understanding and capacity to be able to deal with emergencies compared to some jurisdictions where this learning curve is incredibly difficult, and they’re in a difficult place right now.

Provincially we have an agreement, EMMA, that I had noted before. It’s the emergency management and mutual aid agreement, and that’s for us to work across provincial lines to make sure that we’re supporting jurisdictions in their moment of need. In terms of paying for costs, the jurisdiction that has the emergency would be responsible for costs. Vice versa, if we were to send aid to another province or territory, we would be reimbursed for those costs of emergency response.

That agreement, the EMMA agreement, can be activated at any time. We do have staff that work 24-7, 365 days a year, because we have to always be ready to be able to respond, depending on what’s happening out in our province and in other provinces.

In terms of coordination during events, that’s done at a staff level. The coordination happens in a way that where the emergency is originating from, they would be a lead on the coordination and activity of emergency response.

For evacuated people, we would seek direction from the jurisdiction where those people originate, and that happens vice versa. Should any evacuees be coming through B.C. on their way to somewhere else — a province, territory or state — we would ask for guidance from that originating jurisdiction. During an event, the most important thing is that we’re responding in a way that matches the need of the moment.

Then post-event, we work very closely to coordinate payments. The originating jurisdiction, where the emergency is, would be reimbursing us for costs associated with us managing their emergency. If there were an emergency contemplated that straddled both sides of a border, we would work at the staff level to sort out a proportional, equitable division of costs — for example, emergencies that could straddle borders would be floods or wildfires, those kinds of things.

Hopefully, that sheds some light on the line of questioning that you have.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the answer to the question.

My next question has to do with prioritizing risk reduction and cost transparency around risk reduction. Now, in the questions I’ve been asking, we were often hearing about how this ministry has a coordinating role and that costs are assumed by other ministries. On many parts of the answers, I’m hearing that the costs are taken down to the municipalities and, I guess, sometimes, the regional district. If I’m mistaken, please correct me when you have the answer, but I’ll elaborate a bit more to make sure I’m making myself clear.

As I understand it, the Emergency Management and Climate Readiness Ministry does not approve projects or have any ownership of timelines around projects. However, would you agree that your ministry does affect other ministries with regulatory influence upon hazard mapping, floodplain standards and resilience requirements?

I’m hoping that you’ll be able to elaborate on that and we can have that put on the record, so that we understand exactly how that happens.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I’d like to note that EDMA assigns hazards to different ministries. The reason for that is there’s the expertise and knowledge within those ministries to be able to work on the risk assessment and emergency management plan for those different emergencies.

It’s very important that government be efficient and effective in the delivery of emergency management activities. By assigning ministries different hazards, we very much align with that.

These requirements for different ministries are outlined in the Emergency and Disaster Management Regulation, and there are no prescriptive operational requirements. It’s very much a results-based requirement, because different hazards look like different plans. If you’re too prescriptive, what happens is that you get less effective emergency management plans and risk assessments, so we leave that to the ministries to assess what they need to do internally.

[1:50 p.m.]

Of course, our staff are always available and willing to be able to help out other ministries with understanding the process and how to deliver the work that they need to do.

The focus is always on those four phases of emergency management — preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery — because we know that they’re all interconnected. And very much a part of emergency management is that you really can’t contemplate one of those phases without the integration of the other phases.

Then there are some examples that I’d like to offer of hazards that are assigned to different ministries. I think that when I do that, it’ll make it become more clear why that work has happened.

For example, Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is responsible for the flood hazard. I think that makes it very clear that the expertise and knowledge for flood hazard is most appropriately within WLRS. Forests is responsible for wildfire hazard. Health — an example of a hazard they’re responsible for is a pandemic. Some hazards are shared between ministries, like a heat hazard is shared between Health and EMCR, but those are very clearly articulated in the regulation.

EMCR, for example, is the lead agency for tsunami, earthquake and volcano. I know that when I first came to this role, I was a bit surprised by the volcano hazard, but had I perhaps thought more deeply about the tectonic plates and the earthquake risk, I would realize that volcano and earthquake hazard are very much related.

Those are the hazards that we have, some examples of the hazards that are assigned to different ministries. Hopefully, that explains the necessity of working across government and ensuring that we have the right people doing the right jobs.

Sheldon Clare: I thank the minister for the response to the question.

I think the thing I’m still missing is how this is all costed. How does one determine where the costing of these efforts lies? When it’s the responsibility of different ministries but it’s still emergency planning or emergency management, how do we get a handle on exactly what an emergency costs?

If it’s divided up into multiple ministries, it’s not very easy to ask a question that gets to the bottom of what exactly the cost of a particular emergency might be. How is that determined? How do we sort that out? How do we get some transparency on what the cost is?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you for the interesting question. We approach emergency management from that lens of an all-of-society approach, and, within government, it’s an all-of-government approach. So in ministries, the ministries that are assigned specific hazards are responsible for the risk assessments and those emergency management plans, and those hazards are part of those ministries’ mandates. The work that they’re doing is part of their expected and normal work as that ministry that delivers on those mandates.

In terms of costs for response and costs for recovery, ministries that incur response or recovery costs from an emergency — those costs are transferred to us. They would be assigned to our Vote 22, our emergency response fund, as part of the work that we do responding to emergencies and ensuring that people and communities are kept safe.

We also cover the costs for response and recovery that are incurred by First Nations and local governments. I think we talked quite a bit about that before in terms of emergency support services, standing up EOCs, all those affiliated actions that are necessary during an emergency to ensure that we are supporting communities and making sure that, regardless of where you are in the province, we are ensuring that our emergency management plans and protocols are implemented in a way that supports people.

We also have, in terms of that expertise in other ministries, our DRIF fund. That’s the disaster resilience and innovation fund. That’s projects that reduce risk in communities.

Those projects are evaluated on their technical merits, often by expertise that is found in other ministries, to help inform the value of these projects, to ensure that when we’re funding projects through our DRIF fund, they are delivering real results for communities, whether they are a foundational work — for example, doing detailed flood mapping so that they can deliver a project in the built environment that meets the need — or whether we’re looking at projects that are in the built environment or green solutions that do reduce risk for communities.

A really great example of a DRIF project was in Ladysmith. I had the opportunity to go visit Ladysmith and meet with the mayor and councillors and Chief Elliot to see the removal of three historic dams that had effectively turned into weirs.

The Mackie dam removal, in particular, was really interesting. The engineer noted that the original timbers that built a dam — you would probably expect to not be building a dam out of timber — had turned into squircles. That is when a timber has the original characteristic of squares, so they lock together, and then the water erosion turns it into a shape between a circle and a square.

It posed a significant hazard to the community. We supported them with $2.75 million to remove those three dams/weirs. It significantly reduced flood risk for the community and had the benefit of restoring habitat for spawning salmon and other environmental benefits.

So certainly, we work across ministry and also in community through our DRIF fund.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

I think, given the limited time that we have left, I’m going to talk a bit about the climate aspect of this and put some questions on the record, and then we’ll see how we can get through all of that from that way.

[2:00 p.m.]

I do want to say to the minister and her team that I really appreciate you being here with your team, and I also want to thank my team for the opportunity to probe the entire package and the climate readiness aspect of my official opposition critic responsibilities.

I think we all agree that there are real risks around the changing climate and that British Columbia must be better prepared for floods, wildfires and other natural hazards. The question before us today is not whether climate readiness matters. The question is whether this ministry is delivering it in a way that is effective, accountable and economically sustainable.

What I’m wondering about in Budget 2026 is whether the ministry is growing or shrinking. Is it spending more or less? Is there more staff or less staff? Are we having more programs or fewer programs? Through all of this, is the ministry demonstrating clear, measurable results?

With any funding increases, there is influence of this ministry on infrastructure design, land use decisions, development conditions. Yet I’m still having trouble seeing the transparency around cumulative costs of these requirements and the effect on timelines and project delivery, as I mentioned in my earlier question. I’m feeling that we have a system here where costs are increasing, the complexity of the requirements to resolve in the ministry are also increasing, and timelines, of course, are uncertain due to the nature of the particular issues.

Outcomes may be difficult to measure, but it’s not a recipe for confidence when you’re trying to determine outcomes. It can be quite frustrating both for communities trying to build resilience and for those taxpayers who are trying to understand what they’re getting in return for their investment in these projects. I guess, the focus of my questions on this aspect of the ministry is: what is the ministry actually delivering in terms of climate readiness, and how is success being measured?

I think when we’re looking at initiatives and expanding initiatives and changing things, I’m not really sure we’re seeing what risk has actually been reduced, what costs we are avoiding and whether or not British Columbians are getting good value for the money. When we’re talking with local governments, what we’re hearing is something a little bit different than some of the messaging. What I’m hearing is that requirements are getting increasingly complex, the administrative burden is growing and timelines are difficult to navigate.

We’ve had some discussion about timelines, and I get that. But all of this has an effect on the capacity, particularly of smaller communities, First Nations communities, and so on. Many of these costs are not borne by the province but are, in effect, borne by those smaller communities. So when we talk about resilience, we have the issue of municipalities left trying to figure out how to pay for that resilience.

I think there’s a broader concern here. This has to do with how climate readiness policies, while being very well-intentioned, certainly cannot exist in isolation. The real costs, both direct and indirect, are important to know. What are those costs? How is government ensuring that climate readiness is not just well-intentioned but actually effective, efficient and accountable?

At the end of the day, resilience is not just about spending money. It’s about results, and results are what British Columbians expect and what they deserve to see.

I have a few questions in there generally, and then I have additional questions that I will follow up with, based on your initial response.

[2:05 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Certainly, we are facing a changing climate, and emergencies that we would normally have expected have escalated to the point where they’re very clearly climate emergencies. We tackle this, and I mentioned this before, from the all-of-society approach, meaning that there is not any one solution to the problems that we face.

I thank the member for understanding the complexity of climate change and how it is interacting with our areas of human habitation and employment and that our cities and our towns have become more complex, not less. That has an impact on the way that we work together to reduce impact to communities.

We certainly are seeing a return on investment. In my opening remarks…. It’s many dollars of saved cost for every dollar put into mitigation. There’s a range of returns on those investments, between $8 to — I’ve also heard — $15. I just do want to point out, though, that measuring avoided costs in very specific dollars is often very difficult, if not impossible. But we do know that mitigation does work.

It’s not just the return on investment in dollar values; it’s also intangible benefits. It’s that peace of mind that people have so that they can make improvements to their home, put down roots. They can invest in their businesses. They can sleep well at night, knowing that mitigation works had been undertaken in their community and are keeping them safe.

That all-of-society approach also applies to many different aspects, including what we build and where. So there’s a role to play for local governments and First Nations and builders when we’re looking at our decisions around land use. Local governments have tools in their toolkit to be able to account for different risk levels of different hazards in their communities, such as development permit areas.

These are decisions that we’re happy to coordinate and happy to support local governments or First Nations. If they have any questions or need any support, we’re happy to step in and have those conversations with them.

We also have changed the building codes so that there now is the requirement of…. There needs to be an interior room in any dwelling that does not exceed 26 degrees Celsius, noting that climate change has very severe effects for rising heat levels and that they can be life-threatening to many people. So ensuring that there’s a space in the home that doesn’t exceed 26 degrees Celsius is important.

We also make sure that the opportunity for climate action is available to everybody. That’s why this information is available on ClimateReadyBC. It’s accessible for everyone — practitioners, communities, First Nations, even interested businesses or organizations.

And of course, working with community. We do have a couple programs, the DRIF program that I’d mentioned before and CEPF, that deliver funding to communities so that they can mitigate risk in their community. For example, with the DRIF program, over three years, we have supported communities with $70 million. We have an expression of interest open right now for interested communities until May 1.

We’ve also reduced the barriers for applying for this fund. We know that smaller communities, rural communities and First Nations might not have somebody on staff to be writing for grants. The expression of interest can be as simple as an email saying: “We’d like to apply. This is the thing we have in mind.” It can even be a phone call.

[2:15 p.m.]

If successful expressions of interest are submitted by a community that has had one of these less formal options, we do support them with $10,000 to fully flesh out and develop their formal application, because we know that small communities just don’t necessarily have those staff on board. We want them to be able to access it because small communities face significant risk in B.C.

I think one of the realities of climate change is that rural and remote communities experience it in a different way. I had the opportunity to visit a completed project that reduces risk for people in Fernie. There are upgrades there to Mountain View dike and the Coal Creek retaining wall where the Coal Creek joins the Elk River.

It was really great to be able to visit that project with Mayor Milligan and councillors to understand how that neighbourhood is better protected because of the work that we did with them through CEPF. That was a $2.8 million project, and, certainly, residents are feeling reassured that both their community and the province are there to support them in their resilience.

Sheldon Clare: Thanks for the response to the question.

I have a few other questions, and given the time, I want to make sure I put them on the record. I’ll fire off a bunch of questions, and, hopefully, there’s something that we can get some answers on at some point.

What portion of Budget 2026 is specifically allocated to climate readiness within this ministry? How does that allocation compare to Budget 2025 on a year-over-year basis?

What primary program areas are included under climate readiness spending?

How many full-time-equivalent staff are assigned specifically to climate readiness functions? How has this number of FTEs changed from the previous year?

What measurable outputs are expected from climate readiness spending in 2026? Probably one of the bigger questions is: how does the ministry define success for its climate readiness mandate? Are there key performance indicators used to measure progress?

How much of the climate readiness budget is directed to administration versus on-the-ground mitigation, and what proportion of funding is allocated to prevention rather than post-disaster recovery?

We’ve talked about the four pillars a number of times here — prepare, mitigate, respond and recover. How are those budgeted for?

I do completely understand the dynamic nature of emergencies. It’s not something you say: “Okay. Well, we’re going to have this emergency. We know exactly what that’s going to be, how big it is and what it’s going to cost.” I think we all understand that. However, we have seen some patterns in some disasters and emergencies in recent years, and it is almost, sadly, becoming something you can start budgeting for. That’s an unfortunate circumstance that I hope we will see improve.

Along with these, what specific climate readiness programs are being expanded in Budget 2026? Are there any new ones being introduced? How many communities are going to receive funding under climate readiness in 2026? What criteria determine eligibility for those programs and the funding allocated?

Again, measurable outcomes. How does the ministry determine whether or not funded projects actually reduce climate risk? Have these projects in previous years been completed, or are they in progress? How many are outstanding? How many are in delay?

I’ll leave that for now and see if I have more time in a moment.

[2:20 p.m. - 2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I will attempt to answer the ten questions in the member’s question.

In terms of FTEs, last year was 54 FTEs. This year is 52 FTEs. Last year was $36.884 million. This year is $33.081 million. The difference between the two is primarily for external contracts and not attributable, largely, to personnel.

In terms of business lines within climate readiness, we work on preparedness, emergency management planning, training and exercises, business continuity and resilience funding programs. I have to give a shout-out to the resilience funding programs. That’s not just for programs that we administer. It’s for us to be able to maximize our federal dollar contributions. I’m happy to report that we have the highest, or near the highest, in all of Canada in achieving federal dollar contributions from emergencies. So that work is really important in ensuring that our budget is supported by senior levels of government.

In terms of outcomes that we want to see, we really want to see reduced losses in community. That’s what this is about, right? When we’re talking about mitigation and planning, it’s about reducing losses. It’s about making sure that communities aren’t hit, or aren’t hit as hard, by these climate-fuelled emergencies.

The flip side of that is reducing our recovery dollars. They are not needed because we avoided needing them. That’s really key.

We also ensure that we are always looking at the quality and effectiveness of our partnerships, because we do rely so much on partnerships — local governments, First Nations, volunteer organizations, NGOs. It’s an entire ecosystem that we’re looking at.

A great example of outcomes that we want to see, I think, is Grand Forks. In Grand Forks, in 2017, they were hit by a severe flood. We worked with the federal government to find funding for many different projects, including diking, after that emergency.

Then, in 2023, they again had a major flood. This time there was little flooding in the community. The downtown core was protected. That means not just reducing recovery dollars. That’s not just reducing losses in the community. That’s ensuring that economic growth can continue without being impacted. The sense of confidence from the business community not being interrupted is really important. So that, I think, is a really great success story.

[2:30 p.m.]

In terms of the exact number of communities that have been supported in the last year through both DRIF and CEPF, I can get that number to you if you’re interested in that number. I don’t have it at hand, but it is many, many communities. I’m really glad that we’re able to support them in their resilience.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I just want to thank the member for the many interesting questions. I think that we canvassed very thoroughly how important emergency management is for the people of B.C., for protecting them during an emergency but also working to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

We know that emergency management is all of our responsibilities. The province, of course, takes that responsibility very seriously, and we partner with many organizations and other levels of government to deliver real results for people.

I also want to thank everybody who works in emergency management, who volunteers in emergency services like emergency service delivery for evacuations, or search and rescue. There are so many people doing incredible work, and it certainly is an all-of-society approach.

This is my last shameless plug of preparedbc.ca. It’s so that you and your family can be more resilient and safe in an emergency, getting your grab-and-go bag ready, getting your emergency kit ready. When people and communities are prepared, we all have better outcomes.

Finally, I want to thank my amazing staff who have supported me through the estimates here, but, as well, doing the critical work of emergency management every day in British Columbia, ensuring that when emergencies happen, we’re always there to help.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 21: ministry operations, $74,403,000 — approved.

Vote 22: Emergency and Disaster Management Act, $36,420,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will take a brief recess from now until 2:45 for folks to shift over.

The committee recessed from 2:33 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Environment and Parks

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $149,340,000.

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

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to offer a few remarks before we begin.

I’ll start by recognizing the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən Peoples, known as Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, where we’re gathered today. Their continued stewardship of this land and the waters that surround it reminds us of the deep responsibility we all share to care for the environment now and for future generations.

It’s an honour to stand here today as the Minister of Environment and Parks to debate our budget estimates. I’ve been in this role for about a year and a half now, and I’m incredibly proud of the work that we’ve accomplished in that time, and the work continues.

Instrumental to that work are the people seated here with me today, and I’d like to introduce a few of them: Deputy Minister Kevin Jardine; associate deputy minister for the environmental assessment office, Alex MacLennan; Danielle Smyth, assistant deputy minister of operations at the environmental assessment office; Julie Chace, senior executive director of strategic policy and compliance at the environmental assessment office; Alyson Blackstock, ADM for our environmental protection division; Jim Standen, ADM for the conservation and recreation division, which includes B.C. Parks and Recreation Sites and Trails B.C.; John Hawkings, our executive lead for our parks and recreation program; Kathryn Forge, ADM for our integrated service delivery division; and Ranbir Parmar, ADM for corporate services for the natural resource ministries and the executive financial officer.

I’m lucky to have these incredible staff on my team. I may be biased, but I really do think that they’re the best of the best.

I’ll also take this opportunity to recognize members across the way for their continued interest in the environment and learning about the work that we do to protect it. I know that we have a shared goal of doing what’s best for people and places that make B.C. home.

I take my role as minister very seriously because the health of the lands, waters and the wildlife in this province is something that deserves our full attention and care. That’s why, in a time when our government is stepping up efforts to grow our economy and leverage our natural resources, my top priority is ensuring that this work goes hand in hand with the strong environmental protections that are so important to the people of B.C.

[2:50 p.m.]

Responsible development and getting the most out of our province’s natural resources creates good, family-supporting jobs that British Columbians can rely on. It’s why we’re focused across government on accelerating government reviews of major natural resource projects by making our assessments more efficient and getting to decisions sooner. This creates greater predictability for industry, but it does not come at the expense of strong environmental protections or upholding our commitments to meaningful consultation with First Nations.

Earlier this year we approved the Eskay Creek revitalization project, marking B.C.’s first environmental assessment guided by a consent-based decision-making agreement under the rights of Indigenous Peoples act and the Environmental Assessment Act. This was a groundbreaking agreement and a reflection of strong government-to-government partnership between the province and the Tāłtān Nation. It shows the world how we can move forward together with First Nations.

Partnerships like the one we have with the Tāłtān mean that not only are we consulting but we’re actively collaborating, and we’re starting that collaboration early because we want to work together from the outset. This makes the environmental assessment process more efficient and ensures it upholds key values that are important to all of us. The Eskay Creek revitalization project benefits Tāłtān Nation and all British Columbians. It’s expected to create 1,000 jobs during construction and 770 more once the mine is up and running.

We also expect to make a decision soon on the Red Chris mine expansion, another significant project being assessed in close collaboration with the Tāłtān Nation under a consent agreement. We’ve also started negotiations with the Simpcw First Nation so that we can develop a similar decision-making framework for the proposed Yellowhead copper mine project. We know that joint decision-making is the right path forward for B.C. communities and for the environment.

When we talk about protecting the environment in B.C., our parks, protected areas and recreation sites and trails are a big part of that story. That’s evident in our renewed focus on provincial parks and recreation sites, which continue to rise in popularity as people choose to travel within Canada and explore our own backyard.

Since 2017, we’ve added more than 2,000 new campsites in high-demand parks and recreation sites throughout the province — this includes about 500 in the Lower Mainland parks, including Cultus Lake, Golden Ears, Chilliwack Lake and Garibaldi — because we know that connecting with nature is essential for our well-being.

The outdoor recreation sector contributes billions of dollars into our economy here in British Columbia. That means valuable revenue for businesses and their staff across the province. We work hard to not only maintain but to continually upgrade and expand our park system and our recreation sites and trails. With over 1,000 provincial parks, recreation areas, conservancies, ecological reserves and protected areas and over 2,000 recreation sites and trails, it’s truly an extraordinary network.

This past fall construction started on an exciting project on Hornby Island. We’re redeveloping the existing campground at Tribune Bay park because we know that it’s a well-loved spot for many British Columbians and visitors to B.C. The first phase of the redesigned campground is scheduled to open in June and includes a variety of camping options, including small cabins. This past year, in addition to campsites, we also expanded parking areas and upgraded trails with a focus on increased accessibility.

In Alice Lake Park, we opened a new, beginner-friendly, adaptive mountain biking trail in partnership with the Squamish Off-Road Cycling Association. The trail was carefully designed to support adaptive mountain bike users with diverse mobility needs because everyone belongs in nature. That’s why we have so many more projects planned or already underway across the province.

Our parks and recreation sites and trails are also at the forefront of climate change with things like atmospheric rivers causing serious damage. This has led to temporary closures at popular parks that are important to local economies, like the Berg Lake Trail and Mount Robson Park. But I’m proud to say that we were able to repair and reopen the entire Berg Lake Trail last year.

[2:55 p.m.]

Damage to the Berg Lake Trail was extensive. About 90 percent of infrastructure was destroyed, and during construction, we experienced even more setbacks due to extreme weather. Berg Lake Trail is a world-class hiking destination, and we’re so happy to have been able to welcome people back following the rebuild.

Any time we build back, we take the time to do it better. We realign trails to reduce and even eliminate river crossings where possible, and we continue to work with experts, ensuring that we take a thoughtful, research-based approach so that our parks and trails can be better and withstand extreme weather.

But those weather events, along with an increase in visitors and operating costs, have placed considerable pressures on our park system. We’ve spent nearly $27 million repairing damage from extreme weather events, and we’ve seen an increase of about 30 percent in the number of people visiting B.C. park sites over the past six years, with an average of more than 27 million visits every year.

We’ve responded to those pressures by investing approximately $200 million into campground expansions, accessibility improvements and upgrades to trails, parking and facilities. This is in addition to the $27 million that I mentioned a moment ago.

To build on these investments and further support the parks and recreation system, we recently introduced a new camping surcharge for people living outside of B.C. and updated camping fees for the first time in ten years. This is the start of an anticipated multi-year effort to renew the parks and recreation system and create more stable, predictable funding for maintaining and improving the services and experiences people expect in B.C. parks. It’s also an important step in strengthening long-term stewardship of the campgrounds, trails and day use areas people visit, use and connect with nature.

But stewardship doesn’t stop at our parks. A big part of the work that my ministry does involves some incredible people who work on the ground, across the province, every day to protect the environment.

Our B.C. conservation officers play a vital role in protecting wildlife, enforcing environmental laws and ensuring the safety of both people and natural spaces in B.C. During the 2025 boating season, inspectors, field sergeants and specialized invasive-mussel detection dogs performed more than 27,000 watercraft inspections, which is a critical step for early detection of invasive mussels. That’s just one small example of the work that the conservation office service does.

We also have environmental emergency response officers who spring into action at a moment’s notice. They coordinate rapid, on-the-ground responses to environmental spills, safeguarding the health of communities and ecosystems. They make sure that polluters take responsibility and that the cleanup efforts meet the highest environmental standards, because protecting the environment is a shared responsibility that requires action from many fronts.

That’s why we’re also steadfast in our work to reduce waste so that people can live in clean, healthy communities. That work contributes to lower emissions and relieves pressure on our landfills.

I’m so proud of this ministry’s work through the CleanBC action plan to help people and businesses move away from single-use plastics towards more sustainable options. We continue to work directly with First Nations, local governments and industry partners to move forward in a way that works for everyone.

Through the CleanBC plastics action fund, we provided more than $8 million last year alone to give a boost to innovators across the province who share our goal of reducing plastic pollution. We know this action is good for the environment and the economy because the plastic actions fund launch…. Hundreds of direct, long-term, full-time jobs have been created. I’m so proud of this progress that we’re making to grow the circular economy in B.C.

Recently we introduced a range of new products in our extended producer responsibility framework. This means things like medical sharps, batteries, hairspray bottles, camping fuel and electronic accessories such as chargers and extension cords will soon be much easier to recycle. It also means we’re shifting more recycling costs away from local and Indigenous governments and taxpayers and on to producers.

Composting is another important piece of the puzzle when we’re talking about recycling and building a strong circular economy. Diverting organics from our landfills not only reduces emissions, but it turns waste into a valuable resource.

[3:00 p.m.]

Since 2020, we’ve invested over $70 million through organics infrastructure and collections programs. This directly supports B.C. communities, and it reduces waste management costs for local governments and First Nations.

This is important work, which is why we are continuing, through the CleanBC organics funding program. Through our first round of funding, we’re already seeing new and expanded organics processing facilities and collection systems, and there’s more to come.

British Columbians should be proud of the leadership our province has shown in recycling; 99 percent of the plastic collected in our blue bins is sent to recycling end markets. We work closely with incredible partners who help make this happen, like Recycle B.C. and innovators who turn plastic waste into things like planters, patio furniture and construction materials. That’s the circular economy in action.

As you can see, I’m excited about what we’ve accomplished and the direction we’re heading in. We’ll continue taking steps to protect the environment from all angles and expand on the actions we’re taking to ensure British Columbians continue to have a clean and healthy environment that they can enjoy for generations to come.

With that, I look forward to some fruitful conversations with the members across the way.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Prince George–North Cariboo. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Sheldon Clare: I’ll make a few short opening remarks. Thank you, Madam Chair. Then I’ll get right into my questions.

Thank you to the minister and her team, which is resplendent in this tiny room.

I appreciate your efforts in being here and preparing the minister and making sure that she’s prepared to answer the questions that I and others may have.

I look forward to getting to a greater understanding of how this ministry is operating, the kinds of things that are prioritized in its spending and the various issues that are on the minds of British Columbians at the current time with regards to Environment and Parks. There are many issues, and I think that it’s important that we take the concerns of British Columbians very seriously.

The licence plates all say it: “Beautiful British Columbia.” It’s a beautiful place. It has to be beautiful for everyone, and it has to be something that’s attractive and important to everyone. I believe the minister shares the view I have, that this is one of the best places in the world to live. I want to make sure that we are able to understand how we can make that so and keep it so for generations yet to come.

So with that, if I could go right into my questions.

Could the minister please advise how many days Joffre Lakes Provincial Park was closed to the public in the years 2024 and 2025 and how many days she anticipates Joffre Lakes Provincial Park being closed in 2026?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. I can confirm that the number of days that Joffre Lakes Park was closed was 60 days in 2024, 69 days in 2025, and no decision has yet been made for 2026.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

As of today, how many days have the Líl̓wat and N’Quatqua Nations requested Joffre Lakes be closed for in 2026? What is the maximum number of days that the province is willing to close Joffre Lakes Provincial Park to the public in 2026?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. As of today, no request has been received from Líl̓wat or N’Quatqua for 2026 closures. As I stated in my previous question, no decision has yet been made for 2026.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response to the question.

My next question is: do either Líl̓wat or N’Quatqua Nations hold Aboriginal title to the lands on which Joffre Lakes Provincial Park sits? Is the park within treaty settlement lands of either nation?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. I am not aware of any declaration of Aboriginal title from Líl̓wat or N’Quatqua.

As for the treaty settlement lands, that question would be better directed to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the answer to the question.

Could the minister please explain, on record, the justification for closing a public provincial park to the public? How is the public to accept a closure of their space when access is allowed to members of the local First Nations but not others?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. I’ve had an opportunity to visit Joffre Lake, and it’s a highly valued land area, valued by the Líl̓wat and N’Quatqua as a place to connect with the land and carry out traditional sustenance, cultural and spiritual practices, as well as food gathering.

In both 2024 and 2025, Joffre Lakes Park was closed for approximately 60 days and 69 days to enable Líl̓wat and N’Quatqua access to the park for cultural celebrations, harvesting and to let the park rest from overuse. The Ministry of Environment and Parks has built a collaborative relationship with the Líl̓wat Nation and N’Quatqua and have been working since 2018 to develop a plan that ensures the park’s natural and cultural values are protected while providing public access in a responsible and sustainable way.

The province is continuing to work with Líl̓wat Nation and N’Quatqua this year to determine the 2026 closure dates.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response to the question. I heard in the minister’s answer that there are ongoing discussions about closure dates, but that was a little different than what I understood, the question regarding how many days have been requested that I asked. If there is discussion, then they must have requested a number of days.

However, notwithstanding that, does the minister believe that these types of policies of closing off access to a provincial park are helpful for any type of reconciliation and moving forward with reconciliation between First Nations and non–First Nations?

I wonder, concurrently with that, what other public provincial parks are being considered to be closed to the public in 2026 at the request of local First Nations, given the precedent set by the Joffre Lake closures.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. There are more than 1,023 parks in British Columbia, of which Joffrey Lakes Park is only one park. When we look at our requests for this year, the 2026 season, we’ve received two other requests — one for Juan de Fuca Park for three days around the summer solstice and one for Dunn Lake recreation site.

The Ministry of Environment and Parks takes a very collaborative and case-by-case approach, first exploring alternatives such as partial closures, shorter timelines or low-use and off-season arrangements. We try to assure the public regarding temporary closures that we are committing to sharing the closure information as early as possible to help visitors plan their visits.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister.

The Chair: Member, I remind you to wait until I recognize you.

Recognizing the member.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister for the response to the question.

Are members of First Nations communities also to be considered as members of the public, or is there some sort of barrier between First Nations and the public with regards to access to the parks and the environment?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I’m not really sure I understand the question that the member is asking. I guess First Nations are also considered public members of British Columbia.

Bruce Banman: I was encouraged to hear that the minister and part of this ministry are involved in urban stream composting. Abbotsford has been doing this for a number of years. It’s a fantastic program. You take your food scraps, you take your lawn scraps, you take everything you can, and it goes in to be composted, and it gets turned into Mother Earth again.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s a fantastic thing, and it removes it from the urban garbage stream, which has to be trucked, in many cases, a long ways outside of the Lower Mainland.

That gets broken down into two things. One would be a large commercial thing where you get a dump truck load of compost, which turns into soil, this rich organic soil. In Abbotsford’s case, it’s trucked as far away as Whistler to be put in around homes and gardens and….

Easy question, though. The second one is that some of this also ends up going to local nurseries or a place where you go buy your plants, and it’s put in bags. Does the minister support the putting of this urban stream that gets turned into soil being bagged and being able to be sold in garden centres across the province?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the interesting question. I’m happy to see that he’s very excited about organic recycling and the positive effects it has on our environment.

We do support organic matter recycling regulation. We support this through that regulation. It can be distributed. How it is distributed or in what manner is actually a question for local government.

Bruce Banman: Thank you very much to the minister. I didn’t expect it to take that long in a huddle to get an answer to that. I would’ve thought it would’ve been an immediate: “Yeah, we think this is a great idea.”

It may surprise the minister that this goes on all the time. And yes, it is up to local government. But actually, no, it’s not. There is a catch here. Most of this happens on ALR land. It’s turned into soil again, so it’s actually in a suitable use for ALR land. There doesn’t seem to be an issue with it. The food that we grow on ALR land ends up going back to ALR land to be composted. It seems pretty straightforward.

The issue that we now have, however, is that I can drive up with a pickup truck to a compost site and they’ll load up my pickup truck and I can go back and I can put that all over my yard, all over my gardens, as intended and as it should be.

However, if they go to bag that product on ALR land…. You don’t want to have a composting cycle in a residential zone because it has a tendency to stink. That’s what composting does. But if they want to bag it so it can be distributed to garden centres, so that we can actually use this product again as it’s intended, they are unable to do that because it’s now considered to be an industrial component.

Has this minister had any discussions with the Agriculture Minister or the ALC or any individual companies that are stuck in this bureaucratic red-tape nightmare to come to a solution so that the commonsense idea of being able to reuse this product by simply bagging it…? Have there been any discussions with her? Have there been any conversations with her? Does she support the idea of actually allowing this bagging of this product to happen at a compost facility, be that on ALR land or not?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for raising this important question. I can confirm that we have not had any discussions with the Agriculture Ministry or with the ALC, and neither has any of my staff. But this is a really important question, and I will bring this back to my staff.

Sheldon Clare: Given that on the 24th of March, 2026, the federal government classified PFAS, polyfluoroalkyl forever chemicals, as toxic substances, and recognizing that these substances persist in wastewater and biosolids, I have some questions regarding environmental health and public safety in that regard.

Why does the Ministry of Environment continue to have no plans, at least that I’m aware of, to act on this in British Columbia in Budget 2026, considering that the Ministry of Environment appears to have approved, for example, the CRD’s new sewage treatment plant and regime, in the full knowledge that it does nothing to stop the discharge of forever chemicals into the ocean, thereby affecting local aquaculture?

Why has the Ministry of Environment and Parks continued to allow the CRD to breach its permits for disposal of liquid waste, affecting groundwater and the airshed, not just with forever chemicals but with a broader array of harmful toxins?

With that in mind, are there any funding provisions or capacity in Budget 2026 to immediately suspend the land application of biosolids until a full risk assessment on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, contamination in British Columbia is completed in the public interest?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. The federal government released a state-of-PFAS report in March 2025, which recommends designating PFAS as toxic under federal legislation. The federal government is proposing new management actions through a phased prohibition.

The provincial Organic Matter Recycling Regulation regulates production and land application of compost and biosolids. PFAS and wastewater generated from households and industrial users can be present in biosolids generated at the end of treatment.

The Minister of Environment and Parks intends to add authority to require producers of biosolids to monitor and report contaminants of emerging concern, including PFAS. In 2024, the Ministry of Environment and Parks published recommendations from a technical working group on compost and biosolids quality, including a focus on PFAS. Results will inform policy and sampling requirements for the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation.

B.C.’s landfill criteria require a qualified professional to recommend appropriate water quality criteria and compliance locations. For leachate, the requirement is to meet the standards of the receiving environment or wastewater system, following soil and water quality guidelines, with PFAS limits.

B.C. has set standards for three PFAS chemicals and the CSR. These apply to the small subset of industrial and commercial uses but not to uses that may be of public concern, such as municipal waste facilities or sewage lagoons. Where a director considers it necessary for protection of human health or the environment, an interim standard may be established for substances such as PFAS.

The Ministry of Environment and Parks will continue to evaluate and adapt the CSR as more research emerges.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

A few months ago I was grateful to be able to take an examination of Dockside Green, which is a remarkable sewage treatment facility located in Victoria, British Columbia, an area where we are. I was astounded to see that the water that they were treating was released right back into the environment, perfectly clean, with fish and ducks and even otters coming in to eat the fish, I think.

The Americans have said to British Columbia: “Hey, you’re dumping untreated sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound.” We made the commitment to do something about that. Yet we haven’t done something about that because what’s going into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound is not being screened properly. It’s still putting forever chemicals and harmful toxins into the environment.

Are there any steps being taken by the Ministry of Environment and Parks to clean up that problem? What is being done to prevent dumping this untreated sewage into our oceans?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. We’re unaware, and we don’t know of any raw sewage that is currently being sent out into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. We are aware, however, that the Minister of Environment required the treatment, which led to the construction of the McLoughlin Point wastewater treatment and the investment of $775 million back in 2020 towards this project.

The CRD has recently sent in their liquid waste management plan, and it’s currently being reviewed by my staff.

[3:45 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

What is the fiscal plan in Budget 2026, because I’m afraid I couldn’t see it, for the ministry to discontinue to permit the spreading of insufficiently screened biosolids on agricultural land when those biosolids may contain persistent carcinogenic compounds?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member. The regulation of contaminated soil and organic matter sits within the environmental protection division and is supported by the general appropriation.

Sheldon Clare: What steps has the ministry taken to examine biosolid contamination despite not removing PFAS and other emerging contaminants?

I’m wondering if there is a way to make sure that what is being put on agricultural land is safe when it possibly contains non-degradable toxins. Are there any funds in Budget 2026 to do testing and research regarding class A fertilizers in relation to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. We review any biosolid use applications and require extensive monitoring. We continue to work with local government and operators on the implementation of technology to address PFAS on biosolids. Local governments are required to sample as part of their operating certificates.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Given that the capital regional district in Victoria has explored gasification technology and given that technology such as gasification can destroy PFAS compounds, is the ministry intending to look at that process as a means of eliminating these compounds and supporting safe biosolid land application? Will there be any kind of evaluation on the cost benefit or cost-benefit analysis of that particular process? Is it something the ministry is looking at doing?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The Minister of Environment is a regulator. We are aware of this technology, and we’ll consider all aspects of the CRD’s plans when it is submitted for review and approval.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response to the question.

Given that regional districts require ministerial approval for wastewater treatment plans, I’m wondering what accountability mechanisms exist or are funded in this budget for when approved systems fail to meet environmental or health expectations.

[3:55 p.m.]

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. We have a very high-level compliance and enforcement regime in the Ministry of Environment. The ministry maintains the high compliance directly, as the member has talked about.

Last fiscal year almost 900 inspections were conducted and completed under the Environmental Management Act. The results from these inspections included 532 EMA inspections, and 70 percent were out of compliance, resulting in 133 advisories, 200 warnings, 39 administrative penalties and one investigation referral. Our hope in the Ministry of Environment is that compliance is the key part of the compliance and enforcement.

Last fiscal year the Ministry of Environment responded to 966 complaints, with 96 percent being responded to within seven business days of being received. Last year 68 administrative monetary penalties were completed, totalling over $1.2 million in fines.

Sheldon Clare: Since 2017, funding for environmental protection has increased while enforcement staffing numbers have remained largely static. How many front-line enforcement officers are currently employed compared to 2017, and what measurable enforcement outcomes have improved as a result of the spending?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the questions. As these are the estimates for this fiscal year, I don’t have the numbers dating back to 2017, as you had asked, but I’m happy to provide that information to you at a later date.

We do continue to improve our processes and outcomes. We have seen an increase in the administrative monetary penalties, and we also have increased our staffing for the last three years from 52 to 55.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

What proportion of the environmental protection budget is currently allocated to administration versus front-line law enforcement activities? Has the administrative share of the budget grown since 2017? If so, why?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. Approximately 25 percent of the positions in the ministry are administrative, but they are a very important part and a critical foundation to our team and very important to our front-line staff.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response to the question.

I’m unclear. Has the administrative share of this budget grown since 2017, and if so, why? I didn’t hear the answer to that in your response.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. Again, these estimates are for this fiscal year.

I’m happy to have my staff report back to you on administrative numbers since 2017. My staff has also advised me that the administrative budget has, if anything, reduced.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

How many environmental compliance inspections are typically conducted annually? What is the earliest…? You have the background information for this. I would like from about 2017 forward, but if you don’t have that, I’d be happy to know what’s been going on for the last few years. I can wait for the other information when you get back to me after this.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. In 2024, 900 inspections were conducted under EMA and IPMA.

Then, to date for this fiscal year, up to February 28, 2026, there have been 453 inspections under EMA and IPMA, and there were specifically 317 EMA inspections.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

Has there been any decline in the numbers of inspections per officer in that period of time? Have we seen a decline in these, and, if so, what is the reason for that?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. Staff advise me that there has not been a decline in the number of inspections, with the exception of the job action which was in 2025.

All the inspections are publicly available on the natural resource compliance and enforcement database.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

What systems exist for publicly reporting environmental compliance inspections and enforcement outcomes? You indicated they’re published, but they don’t appear to be published in a consistent way. I’m wondering why that might be the case.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. As I stated in my last answer, all the inspections are publicly available on the natural resource compliance and enforcement database, which covers all of the natural resource ministries. They are published consistently.

There’s also the environmental project information centre, EPIC, which consistently reports on the environmental assessment projects.

Then the B.C. Energy Regulator also maintains a similar system.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

I’m of the understanding that natural resource officers are to be transferred from the Ministry of Forests to the Ministry of Environment. Will these be sworn law enforcement officers? What will their duties and responsibilities be? And will they be armed?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. We are always looking to find more effective ways of delivering our programs and getting a greater value across the programs. Consolidation across the natural resource sector is under consideration. If it were to proceed, the natural resource officers would still retain all of their duties that they have today.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

How many environmental infractions were identified in the last fiscal year, and what percentage of these resulted in fines, remediation orders or prosecutions?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. The statistics in 2025 that were impacted by the job action activities…. To date, the completed inspections are 453 under EMA and IPMA. Of the 317 EMA inspections, 91 percent were out of compliance, resulting in 103 advisories, 137 warnings, 47 administrative penalty referrals and one investigation referral. Of the 136 IPMA inspections, 78 percent were out of compliance, resulting in 84 advisories, 20 warnings and two administrative penalty referrals.

From April 1, 2025, to March 9, 2026, there were 128 administrative monetary penalties issued, totalling over $5.7 million, on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. This work includes AMP referrals from and in collaboration with outside agencies under multiple program areas of EMA, including contaminated sites, waste discharge and environmental emergencies, and under IPMA.

[4:25 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

My next question is about environmental program grants. What is the total value of these grants issued to NGOs? I wanted to go back to since 2017, but I’ll take what you have in the last several years, and then if you wanted to respond later, that would be great.

I’m wondering what kind of evaluation process is used to ensure that those funds produce measurable environmental outcomes.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. We are unaware of any grants to any non-governmental organizations that the ministry has made in the last year or for this year. If the member wishes, we can certainly go back to staff and confirm this.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Prince George–North Cariboo.

Sheldon Clare: I appreciate the reference to my most excellent riding.

To the minister, I’d be glad to have that information. Thank you very much.

[4:30 p.m.]

My next question is: how many environmental complaints from the public were received last year, and what percentage were investigated within the established service timelines?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. From April 1, 2025, to March 9, 2026, we responded to 1,222 complaints, and 83 percent of these were responded to within seven business days of being received.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you. That sounds like a pretty reasonable response rate in many circumstances.

Has the ministry conducted a workload analysis of environmental enforcement officers, and, if so, what did it reveal about staffing shortages?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. Staff resources are allocated to the most significant, highest-priority areas based on risk. Risk, the actual or potential impact to the environment, human health or safety and the likelihood of occurrence are the primary considerations in directing compliance resources to a file.

[4:35 p.m.]

We annually review our workload and challenges and make adjustments to anticipated needs on an ongoing basis.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

What percentage of the environmental protection budget is now spent on contracted services, and how does the ministry ensure that contracted work does not replace necessary permanent staff capacity?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. We regularly contract for things such as heavy equipment machinery to assist with environmental restoration as well as specialized services such as engineering and professional services in unique circumstances.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

I want to ask some questions about parks and conservation. I already asked about Joffre, and you did give me some broader answers to other questions that I have in this regard. So there may seem to be a little duplication, but that’s not intentional.

What is the current staff-to-park ratio for the provincial park system, and how does that ratio compare with ratios in earlier years?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We have approximately 1,048 parks, and that number includes all of the designations under the Park Act. Also, approximately 445 staff. That remains largely unchanged since 2017, with perhaps just a slight increase in subsequent years.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

What is the total deferred maintenance backlog across the provincial parks system, and what timeline exists to address that backlog?

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

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called in the main chamber. We will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 4:51 p.m. to 5:08 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We’re meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

Is the minister waiting to answer?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair. Happy to see you there.

Thank you to the member for the question. Our current parks maintenance backlog is estimated at $125 million. Annual maintenance and operational funding is built into our general appropriation. Capital funding for this year is $28.2 million, and this is against an asset pool of $1.7 billion.

Sheldon Clare: What percentage of the park budget is spent on visitor services and park maintenance, and how has that proportion changed over the recent years?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. We are still undergoing the planning for this year. Approximately two-thirds of the budget goes towards visitor services and park maintenance once we subtract our staffing and amortization.

[5:15 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

What is the total annual revenue generated through park fees and reservations, and how much of that revenue is reinvested directly into park infrastructure?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member. So $37.7 million is the total revenue that is projected for this year, and 100 percent is directed back to front-line services.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

How many new park facilities or infrastructure projects were completed in the last fiscal year, and how many projects were delayed due to funding constraints or other considerations? If so, what were those other considerations?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. In 2021-22, B.C. Parks began a five-year, $21.5 million recreation expansion program to add new campsites, new and renewed trails, and new day use improvements at popular park locations across the province. The recreation expansion program and funding will conclude at the end of fiscal year 2025-2026, and all projects are expected to be substantially completed by spring or summer of 2026.

At completion, the recreation expansion program will have delivered more than 20 projects, resulting in approximately 379 new campsites, 40 kilometres of new trail, 45 kilometres of renewed trail and 340 new parking spaces.

As a part of this initiative, key land acquisitions were also added to parks, including two parcels at Tribune Bay, a campground and a waterfront parcel, as well as a waterfront parcel at Okanagan Lake Park. None of the projects were delayed due to funding.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

It seems that visitation in provincial parks has been on the upswing, and I’m wondering what the ministry’s plan is to accommodate increasing visitation to provincial parks and how capacity planning has been incorporated into Budget 2026.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

[5:25 p.m.]

As we all know and…. I myself am very proud of the B.C. parks that we have here in British Columbia, and we love to welcome all visitors to visit our B.C. parks, as well as our recreation sites and trails.

The number of visitors and associated management issues are increasing across the province, especially in several key parks, with inevitable impacts on visitor experience, safety, conservation values and First Nations access and relationships with the land.

In response to the pressures of the increased use, the Minister of Environment and Parks has developed and implemented visitor use management tools and planning processes. Visitor use management supports appropriate public access to recreation opportunities while ensuring the long-term viability of the resources and values that are unique to an area.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

What percentage of parks funding is distributed through grants or partnership agreements with external organizations, and what performance metrics determine whether or not those partnerships are successful and meeting the needs of Environment and Parks?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. As we know, it’s really, really important, especially in our B.C. parks…. I really just want to acknowledge our partners that we have through the park operators and other organizations that help us with this.

We have a very extensive list. I’m happy to provide the member a briefing on this extensive list of projects and grants through the park enhancement fund, which is gathered through the B.C. Parks licence plate program.

[5:30 p.m.]

I certainly hope all members here have gotten their B.C. Parks licence plates.

Also, the rigorous fiscal management, which we’re complied to, falls under corporate policy. We also have a contractor model for the park operator partners.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response, and I would be glad to take you up on that invitation.

While I support the parks licence plate program, I must confess my own licence plates are veteran plates, which also carry with them some particular benefits with regards to visiting parks and other places. I appreciate that very much, as do all former and serving members.

My next question is: what is the ministry’s policy with regards to the conservation officer service and posting infractions or alleged infractions upon social media?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. The social media posts that we have posted, by the conservation officer service, are noteworthy files. That includes charges and convictions. It’s really dependent on the basis of the incident being high profile, the charges being significant or serving a public awareness and education function.

Also, info that is released needs to be accurate, factual and reflect publicly available court records. A legal disclaimer is included on any case before the courts so that the public is aware the allegations have not yet been proven.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question. I think the concern that I would want to highlight in terms of a question in that regard is…. When an offence is alleged and not yet proven, the potential damage to business around that and its effect upon other people who may not be directly charged with a particular offence….

[5:40 p.m.]

I’m certain that the minister shares the concern for due process of law that would be required in deciding whether or not to post something online regarding an allegation or a charge that has not been proven in court. Putting it on social media, rather than in other appropriate venues, seems on the face of it to be something that would be quite inappropriate.

I just wanted to highlight that before I get to my next question, which is about how many conservation officers are currently assigned to supporting park protection duties. And, conversely, how many park rangers have conservation officer duties and status as part of their roles? Are these arrangements considered sufficient to enforce the different acts that those particular law enforcement officers enforce, which are the Wildlife Act and the Park Act? I look forward to the response.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: The two, the conservation officer service and the park rangers, serve two different functions, with the exception of one officer who resides in Bella Coola, who has cross-authority as both a conservation office service officer and park ranger.

The two organizations operate separately. However, each has cross-delegation, and they do have the ability to support each other when circumstances demand it.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her response.

It was my understanding that park rangers enforce the hunting regulations when they’re on duty in the parks, and they have that role and are equivalent to a conservation officer. I’m not sure that that was clear in the minister’s response, but I believe that to be the case. Am I correct in that assumption?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member. Yes, as I stated in the previous answer, they have cross-delegation.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response.

My next question is about another old bugbear, the Cowichan dump sites and the mitigation of the Cowichan dumpsites. I’d like to know what the province’s responsibility is for site cleanup and what steps are being undertaken to limit environmental damage, including but not limited to possible drinking water safety in the surrounding communities. I look forward to the response about those dumpsites.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question. I believe that the member is talking about 5544 Indian Road, the Peter site. At this location, the ministry has issued a pollution prevention order to stop dumping and require a remediation plan. This is the largest site and is subject to an active enforcement investigation.

A recent update is that the Ministry of Environment has received a remediation plan, and we are in communication with the responsible party on the next steps for that site. Our environmental report and recent monitoring show no evidence of leachate reaching the river and no evidence of any impacts on the river, and any claims otherwise are unproven.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response. I very much appreciate the update on that unfortunate and egregious situation.

We’re getting towards the end of time, and I do have a couple of quick comments I want to make before we close and maybe ask a question or two on the way out.

First of all, I want to thank the minister and her staff for taking these questions and giving me good answers and committing to following up with other answers when the information was not readily available.

I very much appreciate your diligence and the effort of all of you, even though some of you weren’t able to come up and be full participants in all of my questions.

I do look forward to further engagement with the ministry, gaining more information and being able to make sure that all of us are able to serve the people of British Columbia well in terms of our beautiful environment and our wonderful parks.

I have one or two quick questions left that I thought I would ask as parting closes, and they have to do with the CleanBC program. I’m wondering what the total cost is of the CleanBC program since its inception, if there is any independent verification for emissions reduction claims under CleanBC and if there is anything under CleanBC that has been discontinued or restructured for any reason. I look forward to your response.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the very nice comments to the staff and the appreciation that you showed today.

In 2024, the CleanBC program and the cost and the emissions were transferred from the Minister of Environment and Climate Solutions over to the new Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, so those questions would be better directed to that ministry.

Sheldon Clare: Well, that’s great. Then I can ask another question.

I think probably my last question would be: given rising budgets and some persistent service gaps, what measurable improvements should British Columbians expect from this budget? What timeline does the minister commit to for demonstrating good, solid, positive results for British Columbians?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I did give quite an extensive introduction today during the estimates. So I really just want to talk a little bit about…. We’ve better defined a lot of the efficiencies that we’re looking at. We’ve had a really good discussion this afternoon. Something that I just want to say is that I believe all of the ministry staff are really proud of the work they do every single day.

Specific things and new announcements that are exciting will be coming up. We will be helping to deliver those in this fiscal year and really making sure that beautiful British Columbia is still an incredible place to work and to live and to get into our B.C. parks and our recreation sites and trails.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 24: ministry operations, $149,340,000 — approved.

Vote 25: environmental assessment office, $16,781,000 — approved.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and of the Ministry of Environment and Parks and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:55 p.m.