British Columbia Hansard — 5 May 2026, p.m., Issue 173 (43rd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20260505pm-Hansard-n173

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 43rd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 5, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 173 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Wendy Cocchia, CM, OBC Second Session, 43rd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ................................................................................................... Hon. David Eby, KC Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities .......................................................... Hon.

Brittny Anderson Minister of Agriculture and Food ..............................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Deputy Premier ............................................................................................................... Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Minister of Children and Family Development ......................................................................................................Hon.

Jodie Wickens Minister of Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Diana Gibson Minister of Education and Child Care ............................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness ................................................................................ Hon.

Kelly Greene Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions .................................................................................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Environment and Parks .................................................................................................... Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson Minister of Finance ......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Brenda Bailey Minister of Forests .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Parmar Minister of Health ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Josie Osborne Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Christine Boyle Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Minister of Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Bowinn Ma Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth ...................................................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence and New Technologies .................................................................. Hon. Rick Glumac Minister of Labour .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals .....................................................................................................................Hon.

Jagrup Brar Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills ........................................................................................Hon. Jessie Sunner Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................ Hon. Nina Krieger Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services ........................................................................ Hon.

Terry Yung Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction ...............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport ............................................................................................................. Hon. Anne Kang Minister of Transportation and Transit ................................................................................................................ Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship ............................................................................................... Hon. Randene Neill Minister Without Portfolio ..............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Grace Lore LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ......................................................................................................................................Trevor Halford Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................Jeremy Valeriote Deputy Speaker ......................................................................................................................................................................

Mable Elmore Assistant Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................Lorne Doerkson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ......................................................................................................................George Anderson Clerk of the Legislative Assembly....................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel ......................................................................................................................Seunghee Suzie Seo Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees .............................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Committee Clerk ......................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Committee Clerk .........................................................................................................................................................................Darryl Hol Senior Legal Counsel .................................................................................................................................................................Hayley Hill Sergeant-at-Arms ..................................................................................................................................................................

Ray Robitaille Director of Hansard Services .......................................................................................................................................D’ Arcy McPherson Legislative Librarian ...............................................................................................................................................................Peter Gourlay

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS BY PARTY BC NDP Anderson, Hon. Brittny ........................................... Kootenay Central Anderson, George ................................................ Nanaimo-Lantzville Arora, Rohini ....................................................................Burnaby East Bailey, Hon. Brenda ................................Vancouver–South Granville Beare, Hon.

Lisa .......................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry .................................................................Surrey-Guildford Blatherwick, Jennifer ....................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Boyle, Hon. Christine .............................Vancouver–Little Mountain Brar, Hon. Jagrup ......................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Chandra Herbert, Hon. Spencer ..................... Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie .............................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Choi, Paul ..................................................Burnaby South–Metrotown Chouhan, Hon. Raj ................................. Burnaby–New Westminster Chow, George ....................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Davidson, Hon. Tamara / Laanas ...........North Coast–Haida Gwaii Dhir, Sunita .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Dix, Hon. Adrian .................................................. Vancouver-Renfrew Eby, Hon. David, KC .......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable ................................................. Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike .................................................Port Coquitlam Gibson, Hon. Diana ........................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Glumac, Hon. Rick ...................................... Port Moody–Burquitlam Greene, Hon. Kelly ..............................................Richmond-Steveston Higginson, Stephanie ........................................Ladysmith-Oceanside Kahlon, Hon. Ravi .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne ......................................................... Burnaby Centre Krieger, Hon. Nina ...............................................Victoria–Swan Lake Lajeunesse, Dana ..............................................Juan de Fuca–Malahat Lore, Hon. Grace .................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn ................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila .........................Nanaimo–Gabriola Island Morissette, Steve ...................................................Kootenay Monashee Neill, Hon. Randene ............................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Osborne, Hon. Josie ....................................... Mid Island–Pacific Rim Parmar, Hon. Ravi ...............................................Langford-Highlands Phillip, Joan / Amshen .....................................Vancouver-Strathcona Popham, Hon. Lana ........................................................ Saanich South Rotchford, Darlene ...............................................Esquimalt-Colwood Routledge, Janet .............................................................Burnaby North Sandhu, Harwinder ......................................................

Vernon-Lumby Shah, Amna ............................................................. Surrey City Centre Sharma, Hon. Niki, KC ....................................... Vancouver-Hastings Sunner, Hon. Jessie ....................................................... Surrey-Newton Toporowski, Debra / Qwulti’stunaat .......................Cowichan Valley Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer ...................New Westminster–Coquitlam Wickens, Hon. Jodie ............................. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Yung, Hon.

Terry .................................................Vancouver-Yaletown CONSERV ATIVE PARTY OF BC Banman, Bruce .......................................................... Abbotsford South Bhangu, Harman .................................................. Langley-Abbotsford Bird, Rosalyn ............................................. Prince George–Valemount Block, Lynne ..............................................West Vancouver–Capilano Chapman, Brent .................................................................Surrey South Clare, Sheldon ....................................

Prince George–North Cariboo Davis, Pete ..................................................................Kootenay Rockies Day, Brennan ........................................................... Courtenay-Comox Dew, Gavin ..................................................................Kelowna-Mission Dhaliwal, Mandeep .......................................................... Surrey North Doerkson, Lorne .....................................................

Cariboo-Chilcotin Gasper, Reann .......................................................Abbotsford-Mission Giddens, Kiel ..............................................Prince George–Mackenzie Halford, Trevor ......................................................Surrey–White Rock Hartwell, Sharon ..............................................Bulkley Valley–Stikine Hepner, Linda ................................................Surrey–Serpentine River Kindy, Anna ........................................................................North Island Kooner, Steve ............................................Richmond-Queensborough Loewen, Kristina ..........................................................

Kelowna Centre Luck, Tony ..........................................................................Fraser-Nicola Maahs, Heather ......................................................... Chilliwack North McCall, Macklin .........................................West Kelowna–Peachland McInnis, Scott ......................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke Milobar, Peter ............................................................

Kamloops Centre Mok, Lawrence ...........................................................Maple Ridge East Neufeld, Korky ............................................................Abbotsford West Neufeld, Larry ...........................................................Peace River South Paton, Ian ..............................................................................Delta South Rattée, Claire .................................................................................Skeena Rustad, John ...................................................................Nechako Lakes Stamer, Ward .........................................Kamloops–North Thompson Tepper, Br yan ............................................................

Surrey-Panorama Toor, Jody ............................................................Langley-Willowbrook Van Popta, Misty..............................................Langley–Walnut Grove Warbus, Á’a:líya ..............................................Chilliwack–Cultus Lake Wat, Teresa .........................................................Richmond-Bridgeport Williams, David ...............................................Salmon Arm–Shuswap Wilson, Donegal ............................................Boundary-Similkameen BC GREEN PARTY Botterell, Rob .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Valeriote, Jeremy .....................................

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky INDEPENDENT Armstrong, Tara .....................Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream Boultbee, Amelia .............................................Penticton-Summerland Brodie, Dallas .................................................... Vancouver-Quilchena Chan, Hon ..................................................................Richmond Centre Kealy, Jordan ............................................................. Peace River North Sturko, Elenore .........................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale PARTY STANDINGS Total seats – 93 BC NDP – 47 | Conservative Party of BC – 38 | BC Green Party – 2 | Independent – 6

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF RIDINGS A Abbotsford-Mission ........................................................Reann Gasper Abbotsford South ........................................................... Bruce Banman Abbotsford West .............................................................Korky Neufeld B Boundary-Similkameen .............................................Donegal Wilson Bulkley Valley–Stikine ............................................... Sharon Hartwell Burnaby Centre ...........................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Burnaby East ......................................................................Rohini Arora Burnaby–New Westminster .................................. Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby North ..............................................................Janet Routledge Burnaby South–Metrotown .................................................. Paul Choi C Cariboo-Chilcotin .......................................................Lorne Doerkson Chilliwack–Cultus Lake .............................................. Á’a:líya Warbus Chilliwack North ..........................................................

Heather Maahs Columbia River–Revelstoke ...........................................Scott McInnis Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .............................. Hon. Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville .................................... Jennifer Blatherwick Courtenay-Comox ............................................................ Brennan Day Cowichan Valley ....................... Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat D Delta North ................................................................Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ...............................................................................Ian Paton E Esquimalt-Colwood ................................................Darlene Rotchford F Fraser-Nicola .......................................................................... Tony Luck J Juan de Fuca–Malahat ...............................................Dana Lajeunesse K Kamloops Centre ............................................................. Peter Milobar Kamloops–North Thompson .........................................

Ward Stamer Kelowna Centre ........................................................... Kristina Loewen Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream ......................Tara Armstrong Kelowna-Mission ..................................................................Gavin Dew Kootenay Central ............................................ Hon. Brittny Anderson Kootenay Monashee ....................................................Steve Morissette Kootenay Rockies................................................................... Pete Davis L Ladysmith-Oceanside ........................................

Stephanie Higginson Langford-Highlands ................................................ Hon. Ravi Parmar Langley-Abbotsford ....................................................Harman Bhangu Langley–Walnut Grove ..............................................Misty Van Popta Langley-Willowbrook ............................................................ Jody Toor M Maple Ridge East ............................................................Lawrence Mok Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim ........................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne N Nanaimo–Gabriola Island ..........................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo-Lantzville ................................................. George Anderson Nechako Lakes ....................................................................John Rustad New Westminster–Coquitlam .................... Hon. Jennifer Whiteside North Coast–Haida Gwaii ............Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson North Island ........................................................................Anna Kindy North Vancouver–Lonsdale .....................................Hon.

Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ...............................................Susie Chant O Oak Bay–Gordon Head ......................................... Hon. Diana Gibson P Peace River North ..............................................................Jordan Kealy Peace River South ............................................................Larry Neufeld Penticton-Summerland .............................................. Amelia Boultbee Port Coquitlam ................................................. Hon. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Burquitlam ........................................Hon.

Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ............................. Hon. Randene Neill Prince George–Mackenzie ...............................................Kiel Giddens Prince George–North Cariboo ......................................Sheldon Clare Prince George–Valemount ...............................................Rosalyn Bird R Richmond-Bridgeport .......................................................... Teresa Wat Richmond Centre .................................................................. Hon Chan Richmond-Queensborough ............................................

Steve Kooner Richmond-Steveston ...............................................Hon. Kelly Greene S Saanich North and the Islands ....................................... Rob Botterell Saanich South ......................................................... Hon.

Lana Popham Salmon Arm–Shuswap ................................................David Williams Skeena ..................................................................................Claire Rattée Surrey City Centre ...............................................................Amna Shah Surrey-Cloverdale .......................................................... Elenore Sturko Surrey-Fleetwood ....................................................... Hon. Jagrup Brar Surrey-Guildford .................................................................

Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ........................................................ Hon. Jessie Sunner Surrey North ............................................................Mandeep Dhaliwal Surrey-Panorama ..............................................................Br yan Tepper Surrey–Serpentine River ................................................

Linda Hepner Surrey South ..................................................................Brent Chapman Surrey–White Rock .......................................................Trevor Halford V Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ........................................ Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Vancouver-Kensington ...................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Langara .............................................................Sunita Dhir Vancouver–Little Mountain ............................. Hon.

Christine Boyle Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................Hon. David Eby, KC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Dallas Brodie Vancouver-Renfrew ................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Vancouver–South Granville ................................ Hon. Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Strathcona ..................................... Amshen / Joan Phillip Vancouver–West End .......................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Vancouver-Yaletown ..................................................Hon.

Terry Yung Vernon-Lumby ....................................................... Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................. Hon. Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake ................................................Hon. Nina Krieger W West Kelowna–Peachland ..........................................Macklin McCall West Vancouver–Capilano ................................................Lynne Block West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ...................................... Jeremy Valeriote

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 5, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ............................................................................................................................................. 7289 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .................................................................................................................................................. 7289 Bill 9 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued) Mandeep Dhaliwal Trevor Halford On the amendment Trevor Halford Bruce Banman Jody Toor Brennan Day Korky Neufeld Sheldon Clare Rob Botterell Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 7328 Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship (continued) Hon.

Randene Neill Donegal Wilson Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 7345 Estimates: Ministry of Labour (continued) Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Kiel Giddens

7289 TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2026 The House met at 1:31 p.m. [The Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Harwinder Sandhu: Once again this year I am stand - ing here proudly to recognize our amazing community members and friends, Brian Misko and his wife, Corinne, as well as their entire team from House of Q in Vernon. They are here on the precinct, busy barbecuing for us. House of Q, as I shared in previous years, started by using mom’s stock pot, I believe, in 2005.

They make award-winning barbecue sauces and spices — one of the most awarded barbecue sauces and rub companies around, which has won over 200 prizes in 17 years. Brian and his team will barbecue again today. It’s their 14th year of do - ing this and making B.C. Beef Day very special. If you’re more curious to know about them, I highly encourage you to check houseofq.com. Would the House please join me to welcome Brian, Corinne and their team — not only to welcome but also to thank them. Harman Bhangu: I would also like to welcome Brian, from House of Q, to the House.

A few years ago, way before I got into politics, CFOX, the radio show, used to have drive-through barbecues. I was always an avid listener of the CFOX show and a huge fan of Brian. I actually have a lot of his rubs and barbecues at my house. I use them all the time. He has always put on great events and stuff for the drive-through barbecue, and it’s great to connect with him and have him actually come to the workplace, finally. It’s an honour having him here — a good friend, and he’s a great person. He does a lot for the community. Would the House make him feel welcome. Orders of the Day Hon.

Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call con - tinued second reading debate on Bill 9. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Re - source Stewardship. In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Ministry of Labour estimates. [Lorne Doerkson in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 9 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIV ACY AMENDMENT ACT, 2026 (continued) Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will con - tinue our debate of Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. [1:35 p.m.] Mandeep Dhaliwal: I rise today to speak on Bill 9, as someone who has used the Canadian public system, as an important…. I now represent the people of Surrey North.

I see access to information as a basic test of how open and accountable government is. This bill is being presented as an improvement, but it is not. It is a shift of power away from the public and to - wards the B.C. NDP government. This bill is not really about better access to information. It is about more con - trol over who can get information, when they can get it and how. Once this kind of change happens, it is very hard to reverse. Freedom of information is not just a rule or process. It is how the public checks what the government is doing.

If this system becomes weaker, accountability also becomes weaker. Let’s look at the facts. In 2024-2025, 7,063 FOI requests were received, and 6,818 requests were completed. This shows that thousands of people are using this system every year. These requests are not small. They involved about 2.18 million pages of government records. So this is a large detailing, dealing with a huge amount of information. Now let’s look at how the system is working. The aver - age time to complete a request is 65 business days, but the legal standard is 30 business days. So it takes more than double the expected time.

Also, 81 percent of requests can be completed on time. That means one out of five is late. This shows the system is already under pressure. Now let’s talk about Bill 9. It may be called a modern update, but the effect is what matters. It makes delay easier to justify, gives more power to refuse requests, adds more rules before people can ask, allows a fee in more situa - tions, gives more choice to government officials. Overall, it makes access harder. The bill changes “without delay” to “without unreason - able delay.” This means delays are more acceptable now.

People must now give more detailed requests, but what counts as enough detail is not clearly defined. So govern - ment officials can decide more easily to reject or delay re - quests. Government can refuse requests if they are called abusive, repetitive or too broad, but these words are not clearly defined. This gives a lot of power to reject requests. The bill also allows a fee, even for the records that are

7290 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 already public. So people may now have to pay for infor - mation that should already be available. In 2024-2025, 3,592 documents were shared publicly, but in earlier years, that number was higher. Fewer things are being shared automatically. This means the public must now file more FOI requests to get information. In 2024-2025, 6,186 privacy breaches were reported, and 5,641 were confirmed. But only a very small number were reported to the public. This raises concerns about transparency and data safety.

In 2024-2025, $70,000 was collected in processing fees, and 214 requests had extra charges. This shows access is becoming more expensive. Bill 9 continues this trend. [1:40 p.m.] Other provinces are moving forward — faster access, more open data, fewer barriers. But British Columbia is moving in the opposite direction — more delays, more rules, more fees, less access. Think about a parent. If someone goes wrong in the public system, they want answers. They file an FOI re - quest. Under this bill, they may be told: “Your request is too broad. It needs more detail.” It takes too long, or it may be refused.

Eventually many people will stop trying, not because they got answers but because the process is too hard. If this bill is about transparency, why make access harder? If it is about efficiency, why are delays still so long? If it is about openness, why add more features? I ask the government: will you remove this fee on pub - lic records, yes or no? This bill does improve more administrative parts, but it also makes access harder. A faster system that gives less information is not better. Good reform should make time - lines enforceable, clearly define refusal rules, reduce fees, improve oversight.

Bill 9 does not do this. Public trust depends on access to information. When access becomes harder, trust goes down. Freedom of in - formation is not a burden. It is a key part of government accountability. For these reasons, I cannot support Bill 9 in its current form. Trevor Halford: I want to thank my colleague for his remarks on Bill 9 and his comments that went with it. Listen. It’s going to be no secret. Obviously, I’m in op - position to Bill 9. I think that it’s a shortsighted piece of legislation that continues to set us back when it comes to the importance of freedom of information.

We have been in cases before where this government has completely failed to uphold the FOI system. In that structure, when you look at what FOI is intended to do, it is intended to actually give us the ability to seek informa - tion that is coming into government. I think one of the challenges that we have is that this is a system that has been basically overrun by political will. When you see things like the fee increases that have come into effect, the frustration of the system….

In fact, they’re doing that in different ways to circumvent the reality of actually providing British Columbians with information that they are, basically, entitled to. There are certain elements of this bill that I think are incredibly troubling. When you talk about the proactive release of personal information, yes, 60 percent of re - quests are for one’s own records. Streamlining that is fine on paper, but when the government bundles it with cen - tralized Connected Services B.C., a single gateway, that ac - tually means the data across the ministries.

The minister has the power to dictate the data standards, and we should all pause and take note of that. I think that that’s massively important there. I want to put forward a motion here that’s a hoist motion: [That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 9) intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and sub - stituting “six months hence. ”] Do you want to take a brief recess while we distribute? Deputy Speaker: We will take a brief recess to circulate the motion amongst our members.

The House recessed from 1:45 p.m. to 1:48 p.m. [Lorne Doerkson in the chair.] Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll call the chamber back to order where we have the Leader of the Official Opposition moving that the motion for second reading of Bill 9, intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.” Thank you very much for the motion, Member. Take it away. On the amendment. Trevor Halford: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that due diligence there. Listen, I understand that FOI….

I want to just illustrate what FOI has done, over the last little bit, in what we’ve learned. We learned through FOI that the Minister of Finance charged the taxpayers $6,000 for limo rides when she was in Boston. We got that information through FOI. We ac - tually know that tens of thousands of dollars were spent on gift cards. We actually know that spending $100,000 per year on a public servant to mail out EV stickers…. That’s what we got from FOI. We also got from FOI…. We noticed that the Premier’s office received the invitation to the xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm ceremony.

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 7291 That’s why I think we’ve got to get this legislation straight, because it allows us six months. I believe it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. But the fact that the Premier stood in this House and said that he just wandered into a ceremony without actually understand - ing what was going on.… [1:50 p.m.] It was through FOI that we were able to find out that he actually did get an invitation to his office. They signed off on it. That’s what FOI does. It’s also through FOI that we know about high-end vehicle leases for well-paid public servants.

We also know through FOI that this government spent $165 per cup on American health care, and this minister has still failed to educate us on how many of those health care workers are now coming up to British Columbia because she bought them a $165 cup of coffee. Kirk LaPointe — 3,000 FOIs filed — teaches media law at UBC. He says, regarding Bill 9: “strategic legislation to defer, delay and deny the public’s right to know.” I think it’s a pretty strong quote.

Vaughn Palmer says: “The NDP is quietly moving to weaken the public access provisions.” Again, when legislation comes before this House, I do often believe that it’s well-intended. I do understand what they are trying to do, but with doing that, they are actually weakening a system that they have already decimated. Even in mid-debate, the minister amended her own bill with, her words, “minor adjustments” for additional clar - ity. You don’t amend a bill that’s already ready. Two weeks of debate forced amendments, so I believe that six months will force a better bill or, even better, no bill at all.

When you look at the 2022 report, it called for an all- party committee. For four years it sat on the shelf. Then we know that Bill 9 was drafted behind closed doors. This is why, I believe, it’s so important that this government take the time to get this bill right. The 2020 report was built on consensus. If you look at the total requests, 10,205 down to 7,063 — over a 30 per - cent drop. General FOIs, 8,347 — now down to 4,691, al - most cut in half. In the government’s own FOIPPA report, the commissioner already blocks frivolous requests. So the government is already arguing against itself in there.

We have a problem here. Bill 9 has what I would call a transparency problem. No one term is defined, whether it’s “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,” “unreasonably inter - fere with the operations” or “reasonable amount of time.” Another couple of quotes here, again from our friend Vaughn Palmer: “The bill makes the officials themselves the judge of what is and is not reasonable.” Again, he says: “Imagine how that power could be abused to ashcan poten- tially embarrassing requests.” Assurances aren’t statutes.

Definitions are. I think it’s important here that we recognize that, yes, some things come out about government that are embar - rassing. At a time when you have a Finance Minister that is preaching austerity, that is now implementing addi - tional sales tax on businesses that have security, I can im - agine when freedom-of-information requests come out about her international travel that have her in a limo for $6,000, that would be embarrassing. I understand that. But the public does have a right to know how the min - isters, how the Premier, are spending their money. That’s what freedom of information does.

Can you imagine a world where government can actually say, “No, we’re not going to accept that request. We’re not going to do it that way”? I think that is a very, very dangerous precedent. [1:55 p.m.] I want to talk about some of the things the minister has said directly. She says there’s no timeline change; the bill changes “without delay” to “without unreasonable delay.” She says no refusal of legitimate requests; Bill 9 adds four undefined refusal grounds. She says no new fees; clause 21 adds one to proactive disclosure. So I don’t even know if the minister has actually read her own bill.

The intention of this hoist motion is pure. This is a government that, when you look at some of the most im - portant legislation that has come before us, or lack of…. Let’s take DRIPA for a second. Let’s take the fact that the Premier of this province and the Attorney General said that doing this legislation was imperative. It was our legal responsibility to do. It had to be done. He was going to at - tach confidence to it. That didn’t happen. Obviously, with the poll results to - day, we understand why. That’s fine. But what they said was, “We’re going to delay it.

We’re going to delay it six months,” because in the Premier’s words, they had to do more consultation. What we didn’t know is that they ac - tually signed into a co-governance. That’s their decision. Well, it wasn’t my…. I don’t know whose decision it was, but when it comes to this, this ac - tually makes a lot of sense to me. It makes sense that we would take the time and really look at this bill. I can tell you there’s nobody outside of that cabinet and that NDP caucus that is excited and calling for Bill 9. There’s none. Where is the battle cry for Bill 9?

It’s in the Premier’s office, because they want to stop the embarrass - ment. It’s in the Minister of Finance’s office, because she wants to stop the embarrassment. I don’t blame them, but maybe they should stop doing embarrassing things. That might help. Let’s take the time and get it right or not do it at all. I think that might work as well. Barbara McLintock’s rule, quoted by Palmer: “Don’t go by what the minister says in the House, and don’t be fooled by the news release. Read the bill itself.” Now, I have done both, and I can tell you the bill does not match the press release.

It’s another reason why I’ve introduced this hoist motion today. There are some simple things. In 2019, $2 million was

7292 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 spent fighting 615 opposition FOIs about ministers’ per - sonal email. In 2021, they added $10 application fees. Right now government has stopped publishing the Pre - mier’s calendar and no-bid contract lists. Last update was December 2025. Now Bill 9. April 2026, a companion bill letting min - isters personally hide cabinet records from judges. That’s in there. One session, two bills — the same pattern. This is a government that has now become carried away with secrecy.

Kirk LaPointe says: “A document released 18 months late is often indistinguishable from a document denied.” I think this one is actually really important, his next quote here. He says: “Transparency is the price of public trust. Bill 9 makes that price negotiable. Once transparency be - comes negotiable, accountability soon follows.” I think that that quote is bang-on. Six months isn’t delay. It’s the bare minimum I think this Legislature owes to British Columbians. I understand that this session has been tough for the government. It has been embarrassing for the government.

I would hope that we’re going to have a fall session. But at the end of the day, why would we not take the time to get this piece of legisla - tion right? If the government has nothing to hide, they should wel - come this kind of scrutiny. A government amending its own bill at second reading? Can you imagine? [2:00 p.m.] They’re not amending their own bill at committee stage. They’re doing it in the middle of second reading.

That tells you that this government clearly does not have its act together when it comes to even drafting their own legislation, or maybe they’re trying to get support with other members of this House. I don’t know. But I can tell you what they’re doing is completely undemocratic. It’s an affront on the system, and this legislation clearly speaks to that. The fact that the government even stops publishing the Premier’s calendar while writing new powers to refuse FOI demands scrutiny. We need to have a bill that British Columbians can trust. I do not believe that this is it.

I believe that this government, this cabinet, this minister and this Premier need to go back to the drawing board, rework Bill 9 into something that is actually palatable to British Columbians when it comes to freedom of information. I would expect that that’s the bare minimum to do. If they can put some - thing as important as DRIPA on hold for a minimum of six months, I actually don’t know why they could not do this. With that, I’ll let anyone else that wants to speak to my amendment. I thank you for the time. Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

This is, of course, a debatable motion, but I hope that comments made this afternoon will obviously relate to the motion itself. I know that we’ll be back and forth between the bill and the motion, but you have to demonstrate, of course, that link. Bruce B anman: It is actually an honour and a privilege to stand here as the designated speaker for this motion. I believe this is the first time I’ve been a designated speaker to respond to a motion, so I look forward to that, and I believe that I have up to two hours upon which to make some points. I’d like to start by explaining the motion in plain language.

I rise to speak to the amendment for the motion for the second reading of Bill 9. The amendment, which I have in front of me, says: “Delete the word ‘now’ and substitute the words ‘six months hence.’” For those that are watching at home or are unfamiliar or are watching late tonight and perhaps have insomnia, a hoist motion, as this is called, is one of the oldest tools in parliamentary tradition. I would explain to people that a hoist motion is not a motion to actually kill a bill. That’s not its purpose. A hoist motion is a chance….

Whenever there is legislation that comes on the floor that there have been problems with — as an example, in this case — a hoist motion is a motion to pause it, to send it back and get it right. Already there have been, which I will get into in a few moments, a number of changes by the minister herself where they’ve realized: “Oops. In our rush to get it here, there have been a couple of errors already.” A hoist motion is now, in this case, going to give us six months, which is the bare minimum.

We could have asked for longer, but FOIs are so important and getting freedom- of-information requests right is so important that this side of the House wants to make sure that…. The minimum amount of time allowed in a hoist to get it right is six months. What that will do is allow them, over the summertime, as an example, to be able to ponder this particular motion, look at it carefully, sort out the er - rors that are in it and actually get it right. I think that this Legislature owes this to the people we serve. Now, I was the critic for Citizens’ Services.

It was ac - tually my first critic role when elected back in 2020, and FOIs were one of the things that were hotly debated then. [2:05 p.m.] I think it’s important for the public to understand what’s at stake here. Freedom of information is a request that people put in to their government, and it allows them to get access either to the decisions that were made or how that decision came to be or what’s important when it comes to finding out how government has been acting. It is that safety net that has been put in there to ensure that government is acting responsibly.

It is that ability to make sure that government is not using funds in an inappropri - ate way.

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 7293 My interim leader just spoke of a few embarrassing things that were brought up from an FOI. Government’s natural tendency is to say: “No, no, we really don’t want to have anything embarrassing.” Sometimes it’s an inno - cent enough thing that has happened, but it’s embarrass - ing nonetheless. Now, I spoke in this House about a very embarrassing incident that happened to me personally when I was the mayor of Abbotsford, and that side of the House has used that example many times, used it as an example to try and embarrass me.

Well, I’m not embarrassed by it, because an FOI actually, in this case, exonerated me. Yeah, if you’ve done something inappropriate, it may not always exonerate you. I am sure the Minister of Fi - nance absolutely hates hearing about her $6,000 limo ride — which, she has pointed out, was actually an SUV, but it was a $6,000 bill nonetheless. In my case, what had happened was that chicken ma - nure had been used to deter a homeless encampment from coming back. It was FOI’d to death, because there’s noth - ing more juicy than that one. The press and people in the public wanted to make sure that….

I was the mayor, so they were convinced that I had ordered that to be done, that I knew about it and that I didn’t put a stop to it. Nothing could be further from the truth. My cell phone was taken. My computer was taken. Every shred of paper that they could get their hands on there was taken, because it made international news. An FOI actually is a double-edged sword. While people were looking to literally tar and paper me with this — not feather — they found out, at the end of the day, that I ac - tually did not know about it.

Upon further FOI requests, they found out that there was actually a bunch of inter - mediate staffers that had gotten together and come up with this horrific idea to do, to spread chicken manure on a homeless encampment after it had been cleaned up, be - cause they were frustrated with the cat-and-mouse game. It was a bad idea. I wore it because I was the mayor. I took responsibility for it because I was the mayor. In fact, then what I did to ensure that that would never happen again.… I implemented a committee to deal with the issues of homelessness in Abbotsford, so that it would never, ever, ever happen again.

My point on this is that an FOI, while embarrassing, ac- tually can prove that government did no wrongdoing. It’s not always going to embarrass government. It is a healthy tool that has been put in place to ensure that the press, the public and the opposition can request an FOI, a freedom- of-information document, get it in a timely manner and hold government accountable. It is, I believe, one of the foundations of democracy. [2:10 p.m.] Now, with regards to this hoist motion that is before this House at this moment, this debate currently is not about whether the FOI system needs reform. Well, it does.

Everybody agrees, on both sides of the House. That’s, in fact, why this bill is here and why this amendment is here now. We know that the FOI system is broken. It does not serve the public as well as it could, and it needs to be addressed. It’s not about whether the public bodies are facing pres- sure. Well, clearly, they do. Public bodies are under enor - mous pressure. FOIs, quite frankly, when I was the mayor of Abbotsford, were an absolute pain to deal with. It gob - bles up staff time. They have to find out where the infor - mation is. They have to photocopy it.

They have to retract certain things and certain names on it. It does take up time. You know what else takes up time? An absolute pain in some people’s minds that cities have to deal with are building inspections. They’re there for a good reason. We want to make sure they’re safe. We want to make sure that the buildings are done correctly. The reason that the Information and Privacy Commis - sioner agrees that reform is needed…. The BCFIPA agrees, and the 2022 all-party committee agreed unanimously.

There was already a committee that dealt with the bill that is in front of this House, and it came up with recommen - dations. The debate is not whether or not we need to re - form FOIs. That is clear, and that is why this bill is here. The secret now is that we must ensure that we get it right. We owe it to the public to get it right. We owe it to demo - cracy itself, in fact, to get this right.

What this debate is really about, and why we have put this hoist here, is to answer the question: does this bill weaken the public’s right to know, or does it strengthen the systems that deliver on that vital democratic right? On that question, the evidence is overwhelming. Bill 9 is the wrong answer. There have been mistakes that have been pointed out already, and that is why we are asking for a very legitimate pause to be able to strengthen it. Six months, the minimum time, because this is of the essence, is the time this Legislature needs to find the right solu - tions to this bill.

It is a reasonable request and, I believe, a very much required request, especially when one considers that in the democratic process, checks and balances are required. Government without checks and balances is not a healthy thing at all. That is why we are called His Royal Majesty’s Opposition. We’re not here to stop government. We are here to oppose bad legislation and suggest ways in which to improve it, to keep government accountable and to ac - tually come up with better legislation than what has been placed. This hoist will allow us that time to do this.

Now, part of why we’ve done this is because the minis - ter herself made the case for the hoist. Let me go over a few reasons as to why. [2:15 p.m.] The first thing is that the minister actually amended her own bill in mid-debate. That is worth repeating. The minister amended her own bill in mid-debate. The Min -

7294 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 ister of Citizens’ Services tabled amendments to her own legislation two weeks into the second reading. That clearly states that there were problems within the bill already. I didn’t say amendment. I said amendments. In her words, they were minor adjustments to provide additional clarity. Well, I think that this hoist will help, in fact, to define what those minor adjustments and that additional clarity will mean. I would say part of the reason why the minister has made the argument or the case for this hoist is….

If a bill is ready for this House, if it is clearly ready, if it has been well-thought-out, one does not need to amend a bill that is ready. The bill was not ready. The bill had errors and flaws in it when it was presented on this floor. You do not need to provide additional clarity on legislation that was clear when you tabled it. The minister realized that there were problems in the bill. She said: “We need to make some minor adjustments. It’s not clear. We’ve made a mistake already.” That is one area, so the act of tabling those amendments is itself an admission the bill just was not ready for debate.

That’s okay. It’s okay that the bill was not ready, be - cause this system has in its place this exact motion, a hoist, to be able to go: “You know what? Hang on a minute. We’ve messed up. Let’s think about this in a better term. Let’s allow a wholesome debate on this. Let’s send it to a committee to figure out what else may be wrong with this bill and go at it so that we can come back with a bill that is before this House that is ready.” Deputy Speaker: Member, could I get you to reserve your place in debate and adjourn ours.

Bruce Banman: I take this opportunity to adjourn the debate and reserve my right to continue. Bruce Banman moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Rohini Arora: Committee of Supply,

Section C, re - ports resolution and completeness of the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour and asks leave to sit again. Leave granted. Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’ll get back to the fun of my col- league’s speech. In this House, we’ll continue second read- ing on Bill 9. Second Reading of Bills BILL 9 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIV ACY AMENDMENT ACT, 2026 (continued) On the amendment (continued). Bruce Banman: On this rare occasion, I will agree with the minister that actually debating bills in this House is fun. It may be a perverse kind of fun, but it is fun none - theless. Democracy itself is fun.

While flawed, it’s the best system we have come up with thus far. I do appreciate the minister’s kind words. Now, getting back to this hoist, I had said earlier, just a minute before the interruption, that the minister herself had actually made the case for why this bill was not ready. She had introduced an amendment to it already. The first case she made was that there were minor ad - justments and additional clarity, and because of that, the bill was not right.

The act of tabling those amendments in itself was an admission the bill was not ready in its best form to be in front of this House, which is why this side of the House has asked for six months to go over this. The second admission is that she thanked, in her state - ment, MLAs who engaged in good faith on improving the legislation. Well, that, too, is an admission that this bill was not ready and it was flawed. [2:20 p.m.] The legislation as drafted, as presented to this House, needs improving. The minister basically said it herself.

So I believe that we should take the minister on her word, take the minister on her actions and say: “You know what? Six months is required, as is in hoist, to take a careful look at this bill to ensure that it is proper, clear and well- thought-out before it’s placed on the floor of this House.” What this bill needs is input from members willing to actually read the bill and identify not only the prob - lems that have been agreed to by the minister herself…. But there are others. Let’s go through it and make sure it’s right. Again, I talk about…. This is freedom of informa - tion.

It is one of the cornerstones of holding government accountable. This is not a bill that can be easily changed later. It is vital. I will go through in some detail as to why that is vital. One of the things, especially on a bill when it comes to things like freedom of information, is that wholesome, meaningful consultation is required. If two weeks of de - bate forced amendments — only two weeks — imagine what six months may do to improve it. And those amend - ments actually improve the bill. What could six months of wholesome, intentful debate…? Now, what could we do with six months of debate?

Well, we could have six months of public hearings if we wanted to. We could listen to those that actually pay for

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 7295 this building as to what they want to see when it comes to FOI requests. They would be able to hear government’s side of the story as to what the problems are and come up with suggestions on what would actually improve what they think freedom of information should be. I remember back in the day, as I said, when I was the critic for Citizens’ Services when FOIs came up, that some First Nations also had issues with the then new FOI rules that were being put in place.

They felt that sometimes even in their own negotiations, they wanted to know what deci - sions were made behind closed doors that they didn’t have privy to, so that they had better understanding of what was going on and what government’s intentions were. Six months of engagement with the BCFIPA, journal - ists, academics…. I know that we just had the University of British Columbia that was here just the other day, yes - terday. What about the journalistic schools that go on? I know that journalistic students are learning to do FOIs. This government put in a fee for FOIs.

We want to make it easier for our young minds and our students to be able to learn how this system works, and an FOI is a much- needed part of doing that. We also have the legal community. There are some - times legal reasons why you would want to have easy, timely access to a freedom-of-information request. First Nations are also, as I’ve mentioned…. Then there are municipalities.

Municipalities also have a valid reason for wanting a freedom-of-information re - quest to make sure that government is, in fact, doing what they promised they would do in meetings or not or spend - ing appropriate moneys in a community. They want to make sure that they have the ability to do that freedom of information. Six months gives time to implement the 2022 all-party committee recommendations that have been sitting on the shelf for four years. [2:25 p.m.] There’s another big problem.

Why in god’s name did we bother to implement an all-party committee to come up with ideas if we’re just going to take all that stuff, put it on a shelf and not bother to read it? What was the point? Maybe, just maybe, if we take a look at that report, we’ll find areas in this particular motion that’s in front of the House and go: “Oh yeah. What were we thinking? It was right here. Here’s the answer to our problems. We should have just read this. Well, we forgot because it was done…. Well, we knew best.” Or whatever the reason may be. Maybe I’m totally wrong.

Why go to all the trouble to have an all-party commit - tee to come up with ideas for something as important as an FOI if you’re not going to bother to read it? It’s insult - ing. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money. It is a waste of mem- bers’ time. It is a waste of staff’s time. If you’re going to ask them to do this, have the decency to implement those recommendations. This six months will give us a chance to go through there and read what the recommendations were and whether they’re actually in this legislation. Maybe some of them, many of them, are.

But maybe a few of the im - portant points were left out — either unintentionally or, worse, on purpose. That is this side of the House’s job, to make sure that something was not omitted to make gov - ernment’s job easy. Democracy ain’t easy. It shouldn’t be. It needs, what we like to say…. The scrutiny of sunlight sterilizes it. What that means is to open it up to public visualization and de - bate so that you make sure that what you’re getting are good laws that benefit everyone, not just government. If this just benefits government, that is a very dangerous, slippery slope.

It never turns out well for the public who are paying for it. It is government’s natural tendency to try and make things difficult because, as $6,000 limo rides have pointed out, it can be embarrassing. As chicken manure can point out, it can be embarrassing. I don’t care if someone’s em - barrassed. The public has a right to know how their money was spent. It has a right to know how legislation was drafted and the thought process that went behind it. It is not a recommendation. It should be a diehard right and a dead-hard rule of any legislation that gets put on the floor of this House.

That is this side of the House’s job. The hoist, getting back to that, will give six months to address the upstream records management problems that Jason Woywada, the executive director of the B.C. Free - dom of Information and Privacy Association, has identi - fied as the real cause of FOI delays. Now, this government has been complaining, and this bill is in part because FOI delays are a huge problem. Well, maybe the executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has the right an - swer.

Maybe he has got the key that we need, and this six months will give us a chance to wholesomely look at his recommendations and implement them if they’re good ones. We have six months to engage the people who actually use the FOI system every day — journalists, cities, law - yers, First Nations, academics and general citizens who are self-appointed watchdogs. We dismiss them as being problems. They’re not problems. They’re actually helping keep government accountable, which is every single tax - payer’s right. [2:30 p.m.] At the end of the day, we are accountable to them.

I believe we should be answerable to them, and I believe that something as important as an FOI should not just be rammed through this House because government finds it convenient. We’re not here to make it convenient. We’re here to make it just and right, and these six months will allow this to take place. I actually think it should be longer than six months

7296 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 to get it right. But in essence, I think we can get a much, much better bill by having wholesome, well-intended, non-partisan debate, because one day soon, if you take a look at the polls, we’re going to be on that side of the House, and the current government, who will become op - position, will be complaining about the very things that they put in place and that the next government actually can take advantage of. It’s about levelling the playing field. This isn’t about trying to make government look bad.

It’s about levelling the playing field and coming up with justifiable legisla - tion. The minister’s press release versus the bill — well, they don’t quite line up. Let me go over why. The minister also accused opposition MLAs of mak - ing false claims about the bill. She said the bill does not change FOI response timelines, does not allow refusal of legitimate requests and does not introduce new fees. Well, we’re going to boil that one down a little bit in a few min - utes. Every one of those claims is contradicted by the text of the bill on the floor — every one. Let me go over a few.

The bill changes “without delay.” Now, that’s import - ant. When you’re doing an FOI — if you’re a lawyer, as an example, and you are trying to defend your client — “without delay” is important. We already have complaints that the court system gets dragged out for way too long, and there could be some guidelines or some deadlines that you have to have your argument ready for the courts by, a certain timeline. They’ve changed that “without delay,” which expresses the urgency of a freedom-of-information request, to “with- out unreasonable delay.” Well, that is a change to time - lines.

The minister has contradicted herself, whether she intended to or not. The reality of it is that if you change “without delay” — that means post-haste: “You know what? We’ve got an FOI. Get on it” — to “without unreasonable delay….” Well, okay, what’s unreasonable? “I’ve got a haircut. I’ve got my nails that I’ve got to go in and get done for my manicure. It’s Friday afternoon, and I’m supposed to be meeting some friends, so I’ll get to it on Monday. I’ve got a pile of other stuff to do.” What does “unreasonable” mean? Unreasonable to whom? What’s unreasonable to me may be very unreasonable to someone else.

The minister herself has stated that there were false claims, when, in fact, there was a change to the timeline. The bill expands the grounds for disregarding requests to four…. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a general reminder that we’re not debating the bill. We’re debating the motion. Bruce Banman: No, Mr. Speaker, we’re not. This is why, within that, having the hoist to be able to identify these things is important. I want to thank you for re - minding me of that. Within this hoist, we’ll be able to say the bill expands grounds for disregarding requests to four new undefined categories.

That is an expansion of the refusal authority. In the hoist time frame of six months, we’ll be able to ac - tually go down, in depth, into what these are and figure out whether or not they are, in fact, reasonable or whether they should be modified. [2:35 p.m.] Rather than waste this House’s time, the time that we have left in this session, by going through this, amend - ment after amendment, the hoist will allow a non-partisan committee to go through that. Now, clause 21 authorizes a fee on proactive disclosures that currently require none. That’s a new fee.

The minis - ter.… What she said in her press release versus what’s in the text doesn’t jibe, and I believe that the hoist will help us figure out whether the minister misspoke. When you’re in front of a press release, and the cameras are there, I get it. You can misspeak. I’ve done it myself. I’ve probably misspoken a couple of words here already in this debate, because standing up here, talking about things, often you get a nuance wrong or you say words in an incorrect manner and what you thought you said is not actually what you said.

The hoist will allow us to boil down and find out whether that was the minister’s true intention or not. Based on the text, there’s clearly a problem with what she said versus what was written. The press release does not match the legislation she has tabled. Six months will give this House time to reconcile the differences. We are being asked to vote on a bill while the minister tells us via a press release that the things in the statute don’t really say…. I think it is reasonable to go into the hoist, take this six- month pause to sort that out.

The minister can sit there and explain for herself what she meant and figure out how to reconcile the differences between what she said versus what was written. That’s fair and reasonable. Now, the other thing is that during the hoist, we’ll be able to go through why the work has already been done, as I mentioned, yet ignored. Again, I said to you, it’s disin - genuous to have this House form a committee to come up with a solution to a problem and then to totally disregard the problem.

Now, I don’t know if she totally disregarded the prob - lem, but the hoist, the six months, will allow us to get to the bottom of that and take a look at it and figure out whether, in fact, there were some errors in the haste to get the bill forward, because government is in a panic some - times to get a bill on the floor. “What are we going to talk about? What are we going to get? What are we going to pass? What are we going to do? We brought everybody over here. What are…?” It’ll give that calm moment to be able to go: “You know what? Did we actually look at the 2022 all-party special

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 7297 committee that undertook a comprehensive FOIPPA re - view? Let’s take a breath and in a non-combative way, which is how committees work. I know we have people in the gallery here. They watch question period, and they think it’s combative all the time. It’s not in a committee. Much of the time, actually, com - mittee members have lunch together, and we sit and ac - tually talk about what good legislation is. Generally, we come to what’s called a meeting of the minds and you end up with better legislation. That’s exactly what this hoist will do.

Members from every recognized party in this House heard from stakeholders all across the province. They had dozens of submissions from journalists, advocates, pub - lic bodies, everyday British Columbians, some of my faves. They produced a report with dozens of recommendations to modernize this system. It is a problem. We’ve already admitted that it’s a prob- lem. Now, hoist will give us the opportunity to review those submissions, review those modernizations. It’ll also maybe answer why the heck this thing sat on a shelf for four years.

Again, I go back to: why ask people to do stuff if you’re not going to pay attention to what it is they did? It’s a waste of everybody’s time. It isn’t cheap to run committees. It’s disrespectful to disregard taxpayers’ money if you’re not going to use the work that they went to do. There’s a rea - son why that committee was struck. The contrast with Bill 9 in the hoist will also be able to go.

The 2022 report, cross-partisan consensus and pub - lic consultation was an open process, as opposed to what’s going on right now. [2:40 p.m.] By doing a hoist, it will allow this to be open again, be - cause Bill 9 was drafted behind closed doors without any consensus. It was all one side. Actually, worse than that, it was in a silo within the minister’s office. I don’t even know if there was cross-ministry consultation done on this. The hoist will allow us to find out whether that question had been answered. Bill 9, in many cases, goes in the opposite direction of what the committee recommended.

The hoist will allow the minister to sit there in the hot seat and explain her - self as to why…. There may be valid reasons. Why is it the committee recommended this and you put that in there? Explain to me — my favourite thing — like I’m a six-year- old why we didn’t do what the committee recommended. Why is it that the minister decided to go in a totally dif - ferent direction? The hoist will allow us to do that. I think that that is worthy. The other thing it will do is allow the architect, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, from the Green Party….

Now, for those that don’t know, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands is actually a lawyer. I listened to him speak not that long ago. It was epic, and he spoke on this very thing. He led the drafting of the original 1992 FOI law under Premier Mike Harcourt’s NDP govern - ment at the time. He was a staffer. Maybe the architect of FOI laws might have a thing or two to say, and maybe we should get him on the hoist as well, because I believe his comments could be very, very valuable. I know that I was taken away when I sat down. As a matter of fact, I stood up and applauded. It was that good.

His rationale and his reasons for why the committee had come to that, why an FOI law was put in place to begin with was, I found, not only from a history perspective, in - teresting, but the rationale behind it was also extraordin - arily wise. The hoist will give us a chance to revisit that and per - haps have a second sober thought, as we like to say, as to whether or not we have this Bill 9 going in the right direc - tion or whether it has totally missed the mark. Now, that bill…. I will remind this House and these members that I was not there at the time. I don’t think…. Maybe one of the members….

I don’t know if anyone was here. Well, I guess maybe on the other side, there might have been a couple. That bill was passed unanimously through this House, and it was lauded as the best in North America. It was the best that had ever been passed in North America. It was the gold standard. The MLA from Saanich North’s recommendation to - day, the MLA who built the gold standard, the best in North America…. His recommendation today: withdraw Bill 9 or, at a minimum, the sections that reduce openness and implement the 2022 recommendations.

The hoist will allow us to say, “What the heck went wrong?” where the very architect — the grandfather, so to speak — of the best legislation in North America when it comes to FOIs has now said: “Nah, nah, nah. This thing is garbage. It needs to be changed. There are serious flaws and problems with it.” I know I want to hear why, and I think the public has a right to hear why, and the hoist will give us that opportunity. It’s not a partisan demand.

The architect of B.C.’s ori - ginal FOI law is asking the government to actually do what government is supposed to do — its homework. [2:45 p.m.] He’s asking, rightfully so as opposition, for government to get it right, for government to take accountability. We often say right now that we live in a time when people re - fuse to take responsibility for their actions. Well, here’s an opportunity for government to set the stage, take respon - sibility for their actions, pass this hoist and get this right. It’s not a sign of weakness to say that you got it wrong. It’s actually a sign of strength.

It’s a sign of courage. It’s a sign of just. This hoist will allow government to do that very thing and say: “You know what? Our best of intentions some -

7298 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 how got off the track of what was originally intended, and we want to put it right.” The public deserves the best. The public deserves the gold standard to continue, which this House actually put in place. Six months would let this House honour that work. It would honour the ability to implement the 2022 recom - mendations this Legislature has already endorsed. What could be more noble than that? That’s what a hoist can do. It will allow this House to build on consensus and not just bulldoze through it.

Right now, at a time when government distrust is at an all-time high, this government could actually restore some of that trust by saying: “You know, the opposition has a point. Let’s get it right, let’s honour what was done in the past, and let’s pass some of the best legislation we possibly can.” We don’t want to bulldoze through this. Government has that opportunity in this hoist to say: “We don’t want to bulldoze through it. We know that this is important. We were stressed out with a problem because staff were complaining that FOIs were gobbling up all this time, and we weren’t able to meet our guidelines.

There are prob - lems within it that we don’t know how to fix, and we were just trying to get something on the floor to try and fix it.” The hoist will give us the time to get it right and pay respect to the gold standard of North America, which was implemented by this very House. Let’s continue that good work. That’s what a hoist will do. It will help restore the law’s original intent. The intent is that people have a right to how governments may make decisions. They have a right to know how their money is being spent. They have a right to hold government accountable, and they have a right to know.

When this House passed the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands’ law in 1992, every party voted yes. Every party. Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m going to just interrupt you for a moment. Janet Routledge: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Member. Introductions by Members Janet Routledge: I am thrilled to see a class from Cap - itol Hill Elementary School in Burnaby North here with us. They’ve come in, in the middle of a debate. We’re debating freedom of information. I hope you enjoy it.

I hope you’re here long enough that we have an opportunity to have a discussion about what you heard and what you saw. Again, welcome. Heather Maahs: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Member. Heather Maahs: I would like to thank and welcome the grade 10 students from Timothy Christian School. Nineteen of them are in the House today. I would just like the House to make them welcome. [2:50 p.m.] Deputy Speaker: Welcome to everyone in our gallery today.

Debate Continued Bruce Banman: I, too, would like to welcome those from Burnaby North, I think the member said, and from Timothy Christian School. I’m a Chilliwack boy myself. I remember going on a few events with those from that school, although they would be our rivals, I believe, on some sporting events. Nonetheless, I welcome them. What we are debating here is what’s called a hoist.

For those of you that are all around and up in there, a hoist motion is a motion to take a bill that is on the floor and basically put a pause on it because this side of the House and, actually, the minister — you missed that part — her - self, who put it on there, have come up with a few amend - ments, so the bill is not perfect or anywhere close to it. What we are doing is discussing a hoist, a six-month pause to actually go over the details of this bill so that both sides of the House can improve on it and get the pub- lic, who actually pay for this building, the best that they can get.

It’s a little on the boring side at times, because you’re going to hear me talk a lot. I am what’s called the designated speaker, and the designated speaker gets up to two hours to debate a hoist,

whereas for most motions that come on the floor, you get up to 30 minutes. Just so you know, the reason why I’m going to be talking for as long as I have is that, lucky me, I drew the short straw, and I get to bore this House for two hours, if I so wish. I do thank the Speaker for his indulgence on having listened through this. For the most part, hopefully I don’t bore you so bad that you nod off, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try and keep it a little lively. As I was saying. When this House passed the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands’ law in 1992, here is the amazing thing. Every party voted yes. Every party.

It’s a rare thing, as we know, to not have a contrary vote in this House. Every party said yes. That is the standard, and that is a very high bar indeed. This hoist will allow us to continue with the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands’ good work, keep this as the

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 7299 best in North America, as the gold standard. That should be the goal of all legislation, to become the gold standard of not just here but across jurisdictions, into other prov - inces and even other countries. That FOI bill did exactly that. It was considered to be the best. Here’s the next part. I want to talk a little bit about why the government’s central justification for Bill 9 requires the hoist. Currently this is what the government said — that the public bodies are absolutely overwhelmed by freedom-of-information volume.

Now, I can tell you, having been in the city, that when FOIs became popular, yeah, it almost created a separate department, because somebody has got to go through cell phones or laws or calendars. I remember Premier Har - court saying: “What? Do you want to go through my…? Do you want to see what games I play on my laptop?” I remember that. It is an annoyance and a cause of work for staff, and this is government’s point — that larger, more complex, far more resource-intensive requests are now coming in.

They also would say that they are struggling under the administrative pressure and that this is the cause for Bill 9 that it rests on. What we’re going to do in a few minutes is test some of those things. The first thing I would say is that I find it ironic that, in a time when we have seen the largest growth in the public sector ever, they can’t figure out how to get FOIs out the door faster. There are a few things that hoist could discuss to actually help with that problem. [2:55 p.m.] The numbers from the government’s own FOIPPA…. It’s interesting. We had to do an information, you know, FOIPPA….

We had to get it from the annual report that the total access requests received were 10,205 in 2020- 2021. That dropped to 7,063 in ’24-25. While government staff went up by 30 percent, the overall requests dropped by 30 percent. So the hoist will allow us to say: “Well, wait a minute. You’re saying there are more, yet that’s not what the numbers are telling us. The numbers are saying it’s less.” The general FOI requests alone were 8,347. That dropped to 4,691. That means that number was basically cut in half.

They’re saying that due to the uptick in de - mand, they need more time, when the numbers are saying: “Well, wait a minute. That’s a 50 percent reduction.” The hoist will allow wholesome discussion on that, because there could be extenuating circumstances as to why the overall work level went up. These are the government’s own numbers, in the gov - ernment’s own report, signed by the very minister that has brought this bill onto the floor. So it’s the same minister that said: “Hey, it’s taking us more time.

We’re doing less numbers and less work” — it would look like a 30 percent drop or 50 percent, in half — “yet we need to do some - thing because we’re overwhelmed.” I would say, at the very least, on that, that that should be reason enough alone to justify this hoist bill, to get it into committee and actually boil it down. It is too complex to be able to debate it on the floor in its current state. Now, the commissioner already has the power to de - bate the increase in work.

Section 43 of the existing act already lets the Information and Privacy Commissioner authorize public bodies to disregard frivolous, vexatious or unreasonably broad requests. That power exists today, and it has been used today. Maybe the power…. The hoist will say, “Well, are you actually using this, or do you just get a request in, and you just blindly do it? Are you really…? You’ve got a tool here. Are you actually using the tool that was put in place?” That’s fair. Maybe they are. Maybe they’re not. That’s why we want to go to a hoist.

There is no evidence being put forward in front of this House that the existing power is insufficient. I have a ten - dency to agree that I think that the commissioner already has enough leeway to say: “No, that is way too broad. No, send it back and narrow it down. No, this is frivolous.” There’s already power within the commissioner now, and I think the minister should explain to the commission why those rules, if they have or have not been used…. If they have been used, why they need to be improved upon. You want to also now go anticipate the counter — pages, not requests.

The government will say, and we’ve heard them, that pages processed grew from 1.64 million in 2021 to 2.18 million in 2025. The average general request grew from 146 pages to 508 pages. Okay. But the hoist will allow us to go: “Well, what difference does it make?” The photo - copier is working harder to produce them. If it’s a file in an email, the number of pages could be insignificant. Yes, the volume of requests has grown, and that is in fact real.

The hoist will allow the committee to look at it and say: “That’s a record management problem and not a transparency problem.” Maybe there’s a way to fix that, especially in our new modern technology with AI. AI is capable of doing all kinds of wonderful things that did not exist even six months ago, probably when this bill was even looked at to come forward. [3:00 p.m.] That’s another thing for the hoist, to be able to ask that question. The diagnosis from the experts. The executive direc - tor of BCFIPA says: “Access delays are often a symptom of recordkeeping failures.

You cannot fix systemic infor - mation management problems by weakening public access rights.” In other words, in English, just because your sys - tem sucks doesn’t mean that the public doesn’t have a right to have timely access to it already. It’s not the public that’s the problem; it’s you and your system. What are you go - ing to do to fix it? The hoist will allow us to ask questions like that. The 2022 committee that was struck, the all-party com -

7300 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 mittee that was struck, identified upstream records man - agement as the actual real fix. Let me go over that again, because it’s important. The all-party committee that was struck to deal with this very problem identified the up - stream records management as the real fix. The hoist would allow meaningful discussion: “Well, what did you do to fix the upstream problems? Here’s your bottleneck. What did you actually implement? Did you do a single darn thing?” It’s way too easy to restrict freedom of information, which is a public right, and we’ve gone over that.

Just because you haven’t been able to sort out your problem, doesn’t mean that you should then further restrict the public’s access to this information, that they already paid for and have a right to, in a timely manner. Your inability to fix the upstream problem is not everybody else’s prob - lem. Go fix your own problem, basically. This hoist will allow that discussion. Maybe the minister needs to direct their staff to ac - tually fix the problem, which is upstream management. It’s a fair question. It’s fair to ponder that. It’s fair to ask for a hoist to be able to figure out, in-depth: “Look.

You’ve said that there’s a problem. You’ve got these backlogs. You can’t get the information out the front door in a timely manner. Is the problem really you?” Clearly, based on the number of requests, it ain’t the public and the opposition and everybody else. The re - quests are way down, yet you still can’t get the job done. Maybe it’s your system. Maybe you need to fix the system. Maybe what we should be looking at is how to fix and improve the system versus denying access and making it more difficult for people to get the information they paid for and have a right to look at.

A hoist will allow that discussion to happen. Six months would actually, potentially, let this Legislature implement the fix, and there would be no need for this legislation in the first place. Maybe that’s the simple fix. Wouldn’t that be nice? Quite often the most simple explanation is gener - ally the solution. Bill 9 doesn’t address records management. It addresses the public’s right to ask. Never in a democratic process does it work out well when you make it more difficult for the public, the press, the opposition, First Nations, stu - dents, lawyers and municipalities to get freedom of infor - mation.

It does not work out well for democracy, it does not work out well for the citizens, and it does not work out well in the long term for government itself. Why would you fix anything if you put in laws that say you don’t have to? [3:05 p.m.] Our goal is to be better. Our goal is to go back to the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands’ gold-standard best in North America. We owe it to that member, who is an MLA of this House now, to continue to do his great work and improve upon his legislation, not make it worse. That should be the goal of this House.

That hoist will allow us to be able to look at that and say: “You know what? Here it was all along. This is the issue. This can fix it.” There is no need to make it more difficult, because really…. I go back to one day…. Again, if you take a look at the polls, we’re up by ten points. If the election were called today, it’s saying that there would be a massive Conservative victory. Deputy Speaker: Member, can we get back to the mo - tion that we are debating? Bruce Banman: I can, Mr.

Speaker, when the reason that the hoist is important is because, fair turnaround, this government will be yelling and screaming that we are delaying and dragging our feet and unnecessarily block - ing their right to information and the public’s right to in - formation. I use that example with intent, because govern - ments change all the time. That’s why this hoist will allow for better legislation. What the hoist will implement is ac - tually a non-partisan approach. As I said earlier, I was the mayor of the fifth-largest city of British Columbia.

Freedom of information was just starting, and they were horrendous to deal with from a staff perspective. But you want to make sure that the pub - lic has a right to those. In my case, it exonerated me, as I mentioned. In some cases, it doesn’t. It becomes imperative on this House that, during this hoist, we come up with the best legislation that we can to serve the citizens of this fine province. That should be the goal of every piece of legislation we do. This hoist is going to give us that chance to take a breath and come up with legislation that not only will work….

As the minister admitted herself, there were already a couple of problems. That is why she did the amendments. So it was already flawed. In the haste to get it here, it was already flawed. The hoist will allow us to go through that. Now, the other thing in this that the hoist will allow us to do is actually go through some rather disturbing words that are in this legislation. The hoist…. Let me go over those words. They’re undefined words, and words matter. My wife tells me that all the time. Words, language matters. Intent matters. The undefined words are….

The bill expands the grounds for discharging FOI requests. What that means to those that are watching from the public is that govern - ment has said: “You know what? We’re having trouble with this, so we need to come up with reasons to say no to a request. No. Sorry. You can’t have it.” Well, I don’t like that idea, and most of the public and the press don’t like it either. Like I said, the hoist will allow us to go back to the commissioner and find out whether or not that tool is enough. Let’s listen to what the com - missioner has to say. But here are the words: “We can now

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 7301 deny or disregard.” That’s even worse. I’m just going to disregard you. It’s horrible language. Anyway, they can disregard FOI requests for “abu - sive….” Well, what does that mean? I came in and I threat - ened somebody? You didn’t like the tone in my email? What does it mean? It’s just a word. It’s pretty broad. I mean, we could go look it up in the dictionary and find out what the definition of abusive is. They didn’t even bother to put that in there.

They just tossed a word in there, “abusive.” “I didn’t like the way you looked at me.” Is that abusive? “I didn’t like your tone.” “Well, it was an email.” “Well, I know, but I read something into the email that I just didn’t care for — the tone.” What does abusive mean? [3:10 p.m.] “Malicious.” Okay. Well, what do you mean by mali - cious? Give me a definition. You can’t just toss a word into something as important as FOIs and not have a definition with it. What the hoist will allow us to do is say: “Okay. Please give me examples of abusiveness, of maliciousness.

Can you please come up with a definition?” I think if you’re going to put a bill on this table, it should come with defin - itions of what those words mean. Don’t think I assume what you’re doing. We all know that old saying about assuming, and I won’t bother to get into it because I’ll probably get out of here, have to re - tract my language as being unparliamentary. But we’ve all heard what happens when you break down the word assume. Don’t assume that people understand what you mean.

Then there’s “repetitious.” Okay. “Well, you asked twice.” “What?” “Well, you’ve asked for the same thing twice.” Is that repetitious? Is three times repetitious, four, five, six, 106, 4.257 million? What’s considered repetitious? This is the basics 101. It should have been in this bill. This is why this bill is full of problems. The hoist will allow us to go through and reasonably say, and I think the minister has an obligation to say, please define for what repetitious is.

Give examples — clear, concise examples — and the committee will be able to go back and forth and come up with what everybody can agree is a reasonable explanation and definition for these words. If you don’t, you have a risk and, I would dare say, a very real risk. The other one was “unreasonably interfere with the operations” of the government of British Columbia. Again, there’s a bunch of word salad. Gee, we’re holding you ac - countable. “Well, that’s a little unreasonable, don’t you think? I don’t want them to know I had a $6,000 limo bill. I don’t like this. It’s going to make me look bad.

That’s just plain unreasonable.” Well, too bad. Too bad. This is why we all take this on. We know that it is a rea - sonable expectation that someone from the public is going to hold us accountable. To “unreasonably interfere with the operations” of the government of British Columbia — please tell me what that means. I guess if an FOI stops a major project of some kind, just in the mere asking of the FOI, that could be considered unreasonable. But come on. I think the hoist will give us the ability to define these words. Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. Hon.

S pencer C handra H erbert: I appreciate the mem- ber’s arguments. It was just really to be clear that this is really about the need for six months. It’s not about debat - ing the bill itself. Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your input on that, Member. Bruce Banman: I always appreciate when the minis - ter stands up to help make me better. I will endeavour to make his life easy and not unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government of British Columbia, what - ever the heck that means. This is what the hoist will do.

The very reason why the minister stood up is a clear, concise example of why def - initions matter and why this hoist is required. Had this bill been put forward in a proper way, the minister would not have needed to stand up. We would not be having this debate right now. It’s actually a bit of a black eye for government to have put stuff in here that misses the basics of a decent bill. That’s why we have got to go to the extreme of a hoist to actually fix the hodgepodge that’s put in front of this House. It’s, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

I digress. [3:15 p.m.] A hoist will actually help come up with decent defin - itions so that everybody knows and can stand on solid ground of “no, your request and the very nature of it was abusive. Let me explain to you why it was abusive, because — oh, that’s right — I have a definition right here of what ‘abusive’ is. I have a definition of what ‘malicious’ is.” The hoist will allow us to do that. The hoist will give us a number, of whether it’s repeti - tious or not. It will do that. Within that definition, during the hoist, opposition asks a lot of things.

Are we now go - ing to say, “Well, opposition, you’ve asked ten FOIs. You can never ask any more, because that’s now repetitious,” or “I’m sorry, CBC, but your reporter has asked 13. That now has gone surpassing…”? Is it that one particular item? Is it in government as a whole? We shouldn’t really be talking about this and really shouldn’t be talking about a hoist at all, had govern - ment actually implemented the recommendations from the 2022 committee and actually done their job properly. That’s why we are talking about a hoist.

7302 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 I get that it makes the minister uncomfortable, but had government thought through this legislation that’s before us, I would not be taking up two hours of this House’s time talking about why a hoist is required in the first place. Not a single one of these terms is defined in the bill. That is a massive oversight and, I would dare say, almost negli - gence of duty. A hoist is definitely required, just to deal with these

definitions alone. On that particular thing alone, this House should unanimously agree that a hoist is required to clean that up. The new sufficiency test adds even more vague lan - guage. I’d like to say that those few things were enough. But wait. There’s more. “In the opinion of the head of the public body.…” Well, you know what they say about opinions. Again, I will refrain from saying it in this House, because it’d be unparliamentary language, but I really don’t care what someone’s opinion is. Is it a legal opinion? Is it an opinion because they had a bad day at the office? What does that mean?

Is it just that it’s “in my opinion, I don’t want to do it, because it’s going to make us look bad”? A hoist will help clear that up. “A reasonable amount of time.” Well, there’s an absolute treasure trove on that one. “A reasonable amount of time.” You know, it’s reasonable that it could take 400 years to get your FOI request. What the heck is “reasonable”? What’s reasonable to you is not reasonable to me. What’s reasonable to me may not be reasonable to a repor- ter or a lawyer, as I’ve said in previous….

Or to a family that’s trying to figure out why the heck it is their loved one committed suicide, and they didn’t get a phone call saying they were being released, because they had mental issues. A reasonable amount of time — that has got to be the most vague, nonsense piece of garbage I have ever seen, and it is meaningless. You want to talk about “abusive.” That could be very abusive, depending on who it is that defines what “reasonable” is.

I think the reasonable thing to do would be to put this to the hoist, so that we can fig - ure out what the heck that means. “Reasonable effort.” Well, there’s another good one. “I did my best.” “Well, your best ain’t good enough, because, quite frankly, you don’t know the job, you’re no good at the job, and somebody who actually can do the job needs to replace you. I don’t care if you thought it was a reason - able effort. It wasn’t good enough.” We have courts that decide these kinds of things all the time — “a reasonable effort.” Explain to me in English what that means. I’m reading the word.

I know it’s in English, but what does it actually mean? The hoist will actually help define what the intent of that was. [3:20 p.m.] Maybe it’s a good intent, but it is ripe for abuse. It is ripe for an escape plan on all of these, and that’s why a hoist is needed. The problem with all of these is that the head of the public body becomes the judge of what is now deemed rea- sonable. Now, I’ve dealt with people in power before, and they can become very unreasonable because nobody can question what they do and they’re not held accountable.

We’re not talking about an MLA that every four years you get a chance to reasonably figure whether they’ve done a good job and say: “I don’t like that one anymore. Let’s have somebody else, please.” This could be someone that is put in a position that be - comes very, very unreasonable, because: “You know what? It is unreasonable that I’ve got to put up with all these FOIs. I don’t like them. They are a pain. I just don’t want to have to deal with them. So I am going to find every sin - gle reason I can not to do the job that the public demands of me.

I find it unreasonable.” I think it’s reasonable to put this to a hoist to figure out what all of this nonsense means. It is ripe for abuse. That is not reasonable. That is totally unreasonable, and it de - serves scrutiny and better definition. The response timeline is now weakened. The current law responds “without delay.” We now go “without un - reasonable delay.” The hoist needs to clean that up, define what that means. Officials themselves get to decide what’s unreasonable or not. Wow, what could go wrong with that, eh?

Some faceless bureaucrat can decide whether it’s rea - sonable or unreasonable with no repercussion, necessarily, because we’ve heard time and time again where ministers will say: “Hey, I can’t interfere with staff. It’s not my job. I can’t. The legislation says I can’t.” I think it is reasonable to assume that during the hoist, we will be able to figure out what is meant by these def - initions, whether or not they’re actually reasonable even being placed on the floor. This is why undefined terms matter. Let me tell you what. If you don’t….

Okay, I get that the other side of the House goes: “Oh yeah, it’s MLA Banman just trying to be obstructive, just wasting two hours of our time. We really don’t care what his opinion says. The MLA for Abbotsford South….” Deputy S peaker: Member, I ask you not to use any names. Bruce Banman: I’m not allowed to use my own name either, right? Deputy Speaker: I would prefer you didn’t. Bruce Banman: Okay, I talk to myself all the time, but I guess I shouldn’t name myself all the time either. Anyway: “The MLA for Abbotsford South is just get -

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 7303 ting up here pontificating. I really don’t care what his rea - sonable definition is or opinion.” Let’s talk about what some of the experts have said, shall we? Would you like to hear what the experts have said? Interjection. Bruce Banman: Yeah, let me tell you. Thank you for that. Why a hoist matters.

Vaughn Palmer from the Vancou- ver Sun, legislative columnist — he sits over there all the time in question period — says: “The bill makes the offi - cials themselves the judge of what is and is not reasonable.” Okay, if you don’t like what I have to say about it, how about somebody that has covered this House for many, many years? This is why a hoist…. He’s basically saying there are problems with this bill, and he is building the case as to why we need to put it to a hoist.

Palmer’s warning is: “Imagine how that power could be abused to ashcan potentially embarrassing requests at the time of a supposed fiscal restraint.” I will say that my experience with staff when I was the mayor was that staff didn’t want to embarrass the public figures, because they took it personal, as if it was a per - sonal lack of duty, and they would intentionally or, most of the time, unintentionally err on the side of caution be - cause they didn’t want to embarrass their boss. [3:25 p.m.] A hoist needs to sort these

definitions out to take that bias away from a non-elected official. Without

definitions, every disputed application becomes a fight before the commissioner. [Mable Elmore in the chair.] This is why the hoist is important. We need to figure out what these

definitions mean, because as I was saying earlier,

definitions matter, and the hoist will help sort this out. That six months will help sort these out. Welcome to the chair, Madam Speaker. We were just going over why the hoist is required in this case and why we have put it forward to the floor. We were talking about

definitions of words or the lack thereof. There are many…. Would you like me to go over the words for you, Madam Speaker? I know you were away. Shall I just continue? Deputy Speaker: I’ll try and pick up. Thank you, Member. Bruce Banman: I’ll just continue. Without these

definitions, the applicants for an FOI now face a constantly moving target based on whatever official it is they go to, whether they’re having a good day, a bad day or what one official deems to be reasonable and another not. It’s not like there’s going to be a TV replay to find out whether or not the official actually called the right call or not. The only replay we have in this House is to actually lock down what these

definitions mean so that there is no doubt as to whether an application is used. We don’t ever want to have a public official having to be a referee, except in extreme cases. The way the hoist will do…. It will help improve the

definitions of the words that I’ve mentioned and the terms that I’ve mentioned, and it will make it much clearer and therefore apply a way that the original intent, which is the gold standard, which was written by the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands…. It was deemed to be the gold standard, the best in North America, the original FOI law. It will actually improve upon it, not weaken it. Without

definitions, the commissioner reviews against exactly what? On what grounds? On what basis? I can tell you that if I was the commissioner, I would not be very happy with this, because I would be under review myself every time I said no. Government has set the commis - sioner up for failure, has set this entire bill up for failure because they have not bothered to define what words mean. I find it incredibly ironic coming from the side of the House that talks about how words mean things all the time and that words matter. That’s the irony of this. A hoist….

Six months will help us define these words, come up with scenarios for these words and actually im - prove the bill. It’s a simple, I believe, reasonable request. If the standard is whatever the official thinks, there’s noth - ing to review against it. So where’s the playbook? How do I know whether the commissioner is just trying to protect his boss, having a bad day, doesn’t like me because I’m a reporter that puts in a lot of requests or doesn’t like the op- position or may have a bias that’s undescribed? We need to define these words clearly so there’s cer - tainty.

They need to be done in public, not in the minis - ter’s closed doors, and the committee that this hoist will allow will get us to that exact point, where it will be done in an unbiased, all-party atmosphere. Here’s the risk. I talked about this prior to you coming here, Madam Speaker. One day this side of the House will be on that side of the House and form government. So just play with me for a second on that, Madam Speaker. What stops a future government from declaring that an FOI into the Premier’s office unreasonably interferes with operations?

Right now if I don’t like the sound of the re - quest, I get to make the call. I don’t like that person’s eye colour. I don’t like…. They were abusive with their tone of their email. Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member. [3:30 p.m.] Hon. Kelly Greene: I seek leave to make an introduc - tion.

7304 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. Kelly Greene: My husband is on the precinct right now. For some strange reason, he is not super en - thused to be in the chamber at this very moment. But I just wanted to say, if you see him around, please say hi. Make him welcome. It’s really amazing to be able to be supported by such an incredible human being. I never thought that I would ever be this lucky in my life. He is kind and strong and is the reason I can breathe. Please make him welcome when you see him.

Debate Continued Bruce B anman: I’ll try not to take that personally, be - cause I know he would have been riveted with this debate, I’m sure. Why he would not want to sit and look at the charming…? Never mind, I won’t have…. I’ll let it go, but thank you very much. What stops a future government from declaring that an FOI into the Premier’s office unreasonably interferes with operations? Here’s how a hoist is going to help with some of these. What stops a deputy minister from declaring that a journalist’s pattern of requests is repetitious?

What stops a public body from declaring that an advocate’s persis - tence is abusive? Or the tone of their email, whatever that means? “I didn’t like your tone.” “You read a tone in there that wasn’t implied.” “How do you know what’s in my head and what I was thinking?” “You’ve read in there something be- cause you’re defensive, potentially.” The bill’s text does not stop any of these scenarios. Six months of a hoist — what that would allow the House to do is calmly and clearly define each term. It’s going to set objective tests.

They’ll be able to have a scen - ario where there is actually a way of not only having a sub - jective test but maybe a way to appeal a decision. Same as I was mentioning, in a hockey game where you get to have a replay, a video replay…. It will build in safeguards for both sides. It will limit discretion to what is genuinely necessary. Right now this bill writes a blank cheque. It is way too ripe for abuse, not only for current government but for fu - ture governments.

Six months will allow us to make this bill better and to keep it the gold standard of North Amer - ica, the best FOI request in North America, which is what it was, originally done. I have a few more minutes left. I’d like to go through some of the clauses on this and why a hoist is important to these clauses. Clause 21, what it actually does…. Well, it allows pub - lic bodies to charge a fee for records made available with - out an FOI request. Well, wait a minute. Now we’re ask - ing people to pay for what they’ve already paid for. It’s the public’s information.

The records the government has al - ready decided should be public can now get a fee. Well, proactive disclosure is supposed to reduce FOI volume. Why a hoist is important is so we can discuss why it was felt necessary in clause 21 to now charge a fee to re - duce requests when we have shown by government’s own records that requests are actually dropping, in some cases 30 to 50 percent. The whole point is to make information freely available without the request. Let’s, in the six months, discuss why this has become a problem and even necessary.

It turns the proactive disclo - sure stream — worse than that — into a paid service. As I mentioned, the public has already paid for the informa - tion. What is the point of proactively disclosing it if you’re going to charge people for it in the end anyway? I think during that six months, these are questions that should be answered versus on the floor. [3:35 p.m.] The minister’s denial versus the actual bill. In the hoist, we’ll be able to talk. The minister can explain why she says the bill does not introduce any new fees, but when you look at clause 21, it explicitly authorizes a fee.

The hoist will allow the minister to explain whether she misspoke or, worse, maybe was misleading. I think, and I hope, she misspoke in the heat of the moment, but the bill itself is in direct opposition to the words that the minister used. The hoist will also be able to explain in detail and talk about who actually gets hurt with these new, sweeping changes. Will it affect a journalist’s job to routinely check up on government spending? If I was the Minister of Finance, I’m not so sure I’d be happy that they found a $6,000 SUV-limo bill. I would want to restrict that, too, because it’s embarrassing.

But the public has a right to know. The minister will probably get over it anyway. Two weeks in politics is a long time. They’ll soon forget. But journalists have a right to check up on our spending. So do others. Researchers tracking program outcomes. I think that those researchers have a right to know whether or not, for instance, things such as cancer outcomes are improving or not.

If they have to do an FOI request for this, we will need to know, and the hoist will allow us to see, whether or not researchers that are doing necessary work will in - advertently get caught in a meat grinder of a trap of this, and it ends up costing a bunch of money, and unable to do their jobs. Citizens asking how their tax dollars were spent. It’s annoying, but it’s their right. It’s beyond their right. Per - sonally, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a citizen to say: “You know, you charged me this much tax. Where did my money go?

Are you really spending my money wisely?” Sometimes both sides get pointed out where things can

Tuesday, May 5, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 7305 be done better. The hoist will help us go through some of these, whether or not that impairs citizens to do that. Indigenous governments tracking treaty implemen - tation — 100 percent legit. I don’t think we want to hurt them. The hoist will allow us to make sure that we don’t. Foster children seeking their own care records. Again, do we really want to stand in the way? We want to make sure we get that right. Employees seeking their own personnel files. I think we also have a right to be able to know whether or not those people will get hurt.

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me, just for a minute. Amelia Boultbee: I stand on a point of order. I have one point of order with two points. I would reiterate what my friend, the member across the aisle, has said, which is that the member, respectfully, continuously is debating the merits of the bill, which is actually what I thought committee was for. In addition, there are some factual inaccuracies in there, such as that there is no cost associated with proactive disclosure. I fear that in getting into the merits of the bill without being in committee, where these corrections can take place, that’s a problem.

We’re also not hearing a lot about why we need a delay of six months. My last point is just that, for my clarity, the parlia - mentary practice book says that it’s currently held that the adoption of a six-months hoist or the negativing of a mo - tion on second reading of a bill is fatal, as no future day is appointed for consideration of the bill at that stage, and the introduction of a new bill in substantially the same terms is out of order. So just a clarification with my point of order.

If there is a hoist motion successfully, is it actually a delay or is the bill over? [3:40 p.m.] Deputy Speaker: To answer your question, yes, a hoist motion is fatal. Just a reminder to the member to speak to the hoist motion explicitly. Notice there has been a wide degree of latitude. Bruce B anman: Thank you very much for the direc - tion, Madam Speaker. To reiterate, in the hoist, we’ll be able to answer some of the ambiguity of the

definitions or lack thereof. The hoist will give time for this House to actually improve upon this bill and make sure that this bill sticks to the standard that was originally set back in, I think it was, 1992. The hoist will be able to answer such questions as: who will this bill unintentionally hurt if passed as-is without any changes? The other thing that I think is important that will al - low this bill is whether or not there is a pattern of secrecy that is either intentionally or unintentionally put forward.

What the hoist will allow the debate and the discussion of is whether or not this document stands alone or is part of a multi-year pattern. In 2019, $2 million was spent fighting 615 opposition FOIs, as an example. That will be able to be talked about in the hoist. The opposition filed FOIs about ministers and staffers using personal email for government business. The then FOI minister, Jinny Sims of Citizens’ Services, had been caught doing exactly that.

Will this bill now, as it stands, create a hindrance for anyone to be able to make sure that inappropriateness was not being put in place, whether intentional or unintentional? The government deployed taxpayer-funded lawyers back in the day to fight the requests and argue that they were vexatious or frivolous. Back in the day, and this does relate to the hoist, they argued the opposition committed a privacy breach by using publicly available email addresses.

The adjudicator, Lisa Siew, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, ruled against the government on every count, and that cost the taxpayers $12 million. We want to avoid a case like that, and the hoist will al - low us to have wholesome discussions such as this and fig - ure out whether or not there are any unintended conse - quences that could actually put government in harm’s way in the future, to make sure that the bill actually does the intention. Again, I go back to the intention of this bill. Govern - ment is saying they were unable to be able to process the FOIs in a reasonable time.

The committee that was formed in 2022 said that the problem was upstream. This hoist will allow, whether or not that particular bottleneck had been addressed or not…. It’s not addressed, and it cannot be found in this bill. This bill may or may not be necessary in its current form. Perhaps government needs to just fix the bottleneck. That will then get rid of much of the undefined language that’s in this bill and be able to change the bill. Again, I go back to the taxpayers.

This is probably one of the most important things that taxpayers have in front of them, because they have a right to the knowledge that they’ve paid for. Rob Shaw’s verdict at the time of the one I mentioned in 2019: “The government deployed a series of time-hon - oured countermeasures — delay, obfuscation, stonewall — and eventually deployed the lawyers to try and slow down.” We don’t ever want to get back to that point, which is why we modified the bills to begin with.

Part of the hoist motion will be to make sure that, once again, we are not inadvertently or intentionally trying to put things in place so that we can obfuscate, stonewall and deploy lawyers to try and offset people from getting to the truth that they actually have a right to. [3:45 p.m.]

7306 B ritish Columbia Debates T uesday, May 5, 2026 The default principle of the law, that public documents are public, was in the case, and the onus is on government. There have been some issues which I think the hoist will allow us to discuss in their totality. There was a $10 user fee implemented. The late Premier John Horgan’s NDP government introduced the $10 non-refutable appli - cation fees on every FOI. Why it needs to be in the hoist is that it is part of the overall discussion of what is in - tended by the legislation.

It was opposed by the independ - ent Information and Privacy Commissioner, Indigenous governments, journalists and a coalition of civil society organizations. Yet the government did it anyway, and there is a prob - lem with how the government did it, which was not known at the time. This hoist will again be able to talk about the bill in its totality because it is tied to other freedom of in - formation. What happened is that, inadvertently, that $10 fee magically became $280.

How that happened is that the government realized that, technically, each ministry is a separate public body underneath the act, and, therefore, 28 ministries equal 28 separate $10 fees. The whole-gov - ernment fee for a simple request can now be $280 to apply. There are processing fees on top of that. So the cost of asking government, as an example, how much they spent on catered lunches is now $280, plus processing fees. This needs to be discussed in the hoist as, again: what is the in - tent of Bill 9?

Have we now put in place monetary restric - tions which are beyond the pale of reasonable, and should they be addressed and brought into Bill 9 to actually fix them? The commissioner’s verdict on the 28-minister prac - tice, which was Michael Harvey, Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia…. Can government do this? Yes. Should government do it? I’d argue that what they should do is take a close look at how they respond, find a way to respond t

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20260505pm-Hansard-n173
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20260505pm Hansard n173
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3e53cba7be07203df505cfd89f5080496fefc3a6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).