Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, May 4, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 171

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Christopher Lee

George Anderson

Tributes

Lillian Szpak

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

Mental Health Week

Amna Shah

Buddhist Culture Day

Teresa Wat

Brain Injury Awareness Month

Dana Lajeunesse

Princeton Posse Junior Hockey Team

Donegal Wilson

Music Monday and Music Education

George Chow

Carey Price Hockey Achievements and Community Contributions

Lorne Doerkson

Oral Questions

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Involvement of U.S. Indigenous Groups in Court Cases

Trevor Halford

Hon. Niki Sharma

Scott McInnis

Regional Transit Services for Sea to Sky Corridor

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Proposed Changes to DRIPA and Involvement of U.S. Indigenous Groups in Court Cases

Claire Rattée

Hon. Niki Sharma

Stakeholder Consultation on Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Burnaby Hospital Expansion Project and Cancer Care Centre

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Long-Term-Care Facility in Delta

Ian Paton

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Long-Term-Care Projects

Brennan Day

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Petitions

Scott McInnis

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Ward Stamer

Lawrence Mok

Á’a:líya Warbus

Sheldon Clare

Harman Bhangu

Peter Milobar

Reann Gasper

Sharon Hartwell

Brent Chapman

Reporting of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act (continued)

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation Course for MLAs (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour (continued)

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Josie Osborne

Elenore Sturko

Jordan Kealy

Anna Kindy

Brennan Day

Monday, May 4, 2026

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I have two sets of announcements.

One, I see Manjit and Tarannum up in this gallery today. They’re my CAs. They do incredible

work in my community. I hear from people all the time about how fantastic they have

been to work with. I’m really lucky to have them part of my team, and they’re here

today.

I have a second set of introductions. Right behind them is Dan Davies, former MLA

in this chamber, and Mary Mytting is here as well. She is the executive director of

Northern Innovation Network. My friend Dan is on the board, and they’re here talking

about innovation and opportunities in northern British Columbia.

I’m hoping the House can join me in making both of them very welcome.

Teresa Wat : It is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce some very special

guests who have joined us in support of the fourth annual B.C. Buddhist Day.

Joining us in the gallery is my dear friend, Madam Liu, along with distinguished members

of the North America Artists Association and the North America Calligraphy and Painting

Research Institute. The more-than-100-member delegation this morning all woke up at

4 a.m. to make sure that they could get on the two buses, the coaches, to come here

and take the 7 a.m. ferry not to miss the celebration of the fourth annual B.C. Buddhist

Culture Day in the Hall of Honour.

[1:35 p.m.]

Thank you for your amazing performances. Through your dedication to art, culture and

community, you have made meaningful contributions to promoting cultural diversity

and artistic expression across our province. Your presence here today is a reflection

of this vibrant multicultural spirit that defines British Columbia. We are so grateful

for your continued efforts in bringing communities together through culture and creativity.

Please join me in extending a very warm welcome to Madam Liu and all of the over 100

honoured guests of this delegation.

Hon. Josie Osborne : We have two special guests joining us in the gallery today from the Canadian Mental

Health Association, B.C. chapter. Kim Mackenzie is CMHA’s senior director of policy

and systems transformation, and Jonny Morris is the CEO. Both of these incredible

human beings have spent the entirety of their careers in service of others and, together

with their teams, developed groundbreaking programs like community-led crisis response

teams, which are changing the way we respond to mental health crises in our communities

with a more compassionate and effective approach.

Would the House please join me in making Kim and Jonny most welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I am delighted to introduce two incredible women behind me. I’ve got Megan Dykeman

and Kelli Paddon. They were my colleagues. They did incredible work for their communities

as MLAs, and they continue to do incredible work.

I just want the House to re-welcome them and make them feel very welcome.

Elenore Sturko : Yesterday was the BMO Vancouver Marathon. With 25,000 participants from countries

all over the world, 9,499 of them did the actual marathon, including my spouse, Melissa.

My kids and I got up early in the morning to get behind all the traffic closures to

be able to cheer her on. We’re incredibly proud of her.

Will the House join me in congratulating Melissa Sturko and everyone who participated

in the Vancouver Marathon.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Today is a very important day in the geek calendar, Star Wars Day. I thought I’d

just take a moment to really give a shout-out to the many hundreds of people that

have worked on these properties here in British Columbia, from The Mandalorian to Obi-Wan Kenobi and of course Andor — hundreds of talented British Columbians giving people a world-class experience

in entertainment.

Mr. Speaker, may the fourth be with you.

Gavin Dew : I join the Minister of Finance in celebrating May 4, but I would draw attention to

the fact that while the government has changed the ministry from Jobs, Economic Development

and Innovation to Jobs and Economic Growth, I have kept my critic title — Jobs, Economic

Development, Innovation and Artificial Intelligence. That makes me the last Jedi in

this House. Let me be clear. They can have my blue lightsabre when they pry it from

my cold, dead hands.

May the fourth be with you.

Dana Lajeunesse : Today I have two introductions I’d like to make.

One, I recognize the significance of this day, May 4, to all Star Wars fans, but in

my family it has a higher level of significance. It’s my mom’s birthday. If she were

with us today, she’d be celebrating her 100th birthday. So Mom, may the fourth be

with you.

Secondly, I have another. I’ll get it….

The Speaker : Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis : I’ll take a quick second and congratulate the Kimberley Dynamiters on being the ’25-26

Kootenay International Junior Hockey League champions for the year. Kimberley has

really been a powerhouse in junior hockey for the last number of years. This is their

second championship in the last four.

Would the House please help me congratulate the Dynamiters.

[1:40 p.m.]

The Speaker : Before I recognize other members, Juan de Fuca–Malahat has one more introduction

to make.

Dana Lajeunesse : Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce Steven Eckert, founder of Vancouver Island Bucket List, a

platform that reaches hundreds of thousands of travellers annually and highlights

Vancouver Island experiences, small tour operators, artists and local restaurants.

Through a strong local voice, his work helps ensure tourism dollars stay in Island

communities rather than flowing to global booking platforms.

Steve also previously served as president of the Sooke Region Tourism Association

and is joining us today along with his 15-year-old daughter Raine.

Please join me in giving them a warm House welcome.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : While we do our jobs here and when we’re back in our ridings doing our jobs, there

are some very important people who work in our offices, and they are our constituency

assistants. They do incredible work helping constituents day in, day out. Ours are

over here for a couple of days on their annual conference, and many of them are here

in the galleries.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Stephanie Higginson : It is not often, despite being an MLA on the Island, that I have constituents in the

House.

I would like everyone to help me welcome the mayor of Ladysmith, Deena Beeston; Couns.

Trish McKay, Duck Paterson and Jeff Virtanen.

I will say that Councillor Paterson has been a councillor in Ladysmith almost as long

as I’ve been alive. He deserves an extra round of applause for his time and dedication

to the town of Ladysmith.

Good things happen when we work well together, like our recent announcement about

a new school for the town of Ladysmith.

Would everybody please help me make them feel very welcome and welcome them if you

see them today.

Gavin Dew : It’s a pleasure to welcome to the Legislature the folks from CEFA Early Learning,

who I had the opportunity to meet with earlier. My family has a background in child

care, so I enjoyed speaking with them. I had a great pleasure meeting with CEO Arno

Krug Jr. as well as a team made up of Tatiane Vita, Paul Dean, Jane Kleisinger and

owner-operator Karen Chan.

Thank you very much for all you do to provide high-quality child care here in B.C.

Harwinder Sandhu : I am excited and thrilled to introduce my dear friends, my health care family and

colleagues, Cerah with a C and Vincent. They are here at the Legislature today. They’re

both a power couple. Vincent is a psychiatric nurse at Vernon Jubilee Hospital — also,

worked at Kelowna before that — and Cerah is an LPN for more than 11 years. Between

Vincent and Cerah, they both have served and helped people in health care for more

than two decades, and they’re so close to me.

I get very excited whenever I introduce people from the health care sector because

there’s reason. In Vernon Jubilee and in Mills Memorial, Terrace, those were the only

families…. They were with me and my family through thick and thin — through tough,

difficult times and happy times, so I hold them near and dear to my heart.

Would the House please join my friends to feel very welcomed here.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I just wanted to take a moment to congratulate a ministerial adviser in this place,

Kenton Duncan, for his successful completion of the BMO Marathon. He hit his numbers.

He had a great run.

Congratulations, Kenton.

Statements

Christopher Lee

George Anderson : I rise today to recognize an extraordinary young leader in British Columbia, Christopher

Lee. As the founder of Helping Hearts Youth Foundation, he has spent four years bringing

together student leaders to serve their communities and support local causes. His

impact has not gone unnoticed. He’s also a past recipient of the Medal of Good Citizenship.

About a week and a half ago I met with Christopher and gave him a tour of the Legislature.

It was clear that he carries himself with the same purpose here as he does in his

community. After building this organization from the ground up, he’s now stepped down

as the chair, leaving it stronger than how he found it.

If this is what leadership looks like at the age of 18, then the future isn’t ahead

of us; it’s already here.

I ask all members to join me in recognizing Christopher Lee.

[1:45 p.m.]

Tributes

Lillian Szpak

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Really difficult news to be able to share with this House. Earlier today…. My friend

and colleague, city of Langford councillor for over two decades, Lillian Szpak passed

away over the weekend. I’ve known Lillian my entire political career, as a school

board trustee and board chair to now being an MLA.

But I think, more importantly, outside of politics, she was a neighbour. My grandmother

often went on walks in the morning, and Lillian was one of the friendly neighbourhood

folks that would look after her. My grandmother does a 5K walk every morning, in her

90s, attached to oxygen, and we’re so thankful for our neighbourhood for looking after

her. Lillian was one of those people.

Lillian is an incredible public servant. She is someone who cared deeply about the

city of Langford. She was a Langfordian at its core. I know that this is a very difficult

time for her family, for her friends and for the broader Langford community. It is

a great loss for the city of Langford.

I want to offer my condolences on behalf of all of us to the city of Langford, to

the residents, but most importantly, to her loving husband, Bob, to their family,

to her grandchildren during this very difficult time.

Introductions by Members

Rohini Arora : I just want to take a moment to congratulate my baby sister Jasleen. She gave birth

to the very handsome Sehej James Singh Arora. He was due on Valentine’s Day, but he

was a day late, fashionably, like his brother Jeevan.

Please help me congratulate my sister and Sehej not just to the Legislature but to

this world. I’m super excited that we have two very rambunctious babies kicking around

at my sister’s place now. I love being an auntie, and I’m so thrilled he’s here.

Hon. Lisa Beare : I want to join the member from Kelowna in welcoming CEFA to the House today. He did

beat me to it, so I wish them all the best.

I also have guests from the city of Maple Ridge who are here today. We have the mayor,

His Worship Dan Ruimy, here along with intergovernmental, Katerina Anastasiadis, who

is here today.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I met Natasha Wodak 18 years ago. We were both waitresses at the Boathouse in Port

Moody. I was busy going back to school and raising my young family. Natasha was busy

running and racing.

This past weekend she came in first in the BMO half-marathon with a record of one

hour and 12 minutes. She is a hometown hero. I am in awe that I spent a period of

time in my life working away waitressing beside her.

Way to go, Natasha. We are so proud of you.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I’ve just learned, hon. Speaker, that you have two very important guests here, and

I am very pleased to introduce Praty Awasthi and her mom, Pushpa, who are joining

us in the gallery today.

Praty is a wonder who graduated university at 14 and is now in her third year at UBC

studying kinesiology and aspiring to be a surgeon. I have no doubt that with her intelligence

and drive she certainly will be able to achieve her goals.

Will the House please help me welcome her and her very proud mom amongst the gallery

today.

Ward Stamer : I would like to recognize our youth lobby days here at the Legislature. We were fortunate

enough to meet with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society group this morning —

a great bunch of folks.

One of them has actually got her master’s degree, and honestly, she looks like she

just got out of high school. Great, great questions, and it was so fortunate for us

to be able to meet with them.

Also, I wanted to mention that the Private Landowners Forest Group is here as well.

We know how important it is for our industry to be able to rely on private land as

well as public land and woodlots and community forests and everybody else across the

province to be able to help sustain this forest industry.

Will the House please give them a warm welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Members’ Statements

Mental Health Week

Amna Shah : I rise today to mark the beginning of Mental Health Week, taking place from May 4

to May 10, 2026. This year’s theme, “Come together, Canada,” reminds us that connection

is essential to our mental health and well-being. By strengthening relationships and

fostering a sense of belonging, we can build healthier communities all across British

Columbia.

Our government has made significant investments in mental health and substance use

care, investments that are expanding access to timely, community-based supports across

the province. Through our leadership and in partnership with organizations like the

Canadian Mental Health Association, these investments are making a meaningful difference.

Programs such as Bounce Back and CRCL’s community crisis response teams ensure that

more families, youth and individuals are receiving support when they need it.

Across British Columbia, we are seeing the impact. Parents are gaining tools to support

their children. Health care workers are finding connection and relief, and individuals

are accessing treatment and rebuilding their lives with dignity and with hope. These

are not small outcomes. These are life-changing and also life-saving, and they are

made possible through strong partnerships and sustained public investment.

Mental health care is essential to the well-being of our communities and the strength

of our province. Every time one person receives the mental health supports that they

need, the benefits ripple outwards, strengthening families, workplaces and communities

and reducing strain on health, social and emergency services for everyone.

As we mark Mental Health Week, we reaffirm our government’s commitment to ensuring

that everyone in British Columbia can access the care that they need when they need

it, and we recognize the shared responsibility we all hold in making that a reality.

Buddhist Culture Day

Teresa Wat : It is my great honour to join the celebration at the B.C. Legislature as we commemorate

the fourth Buddhist Culture Day in British Columbia.

I would like to begin by recognizing and thanking the North America Artists Association

and the North America Calligraphy and Painting Research Institute for their outstanding

leadership in supporting today’s celebration. This marks the first time that community-based

organizations have taken on the role of coordinating B.C. Buddhist Culture Day.

This year’s theme, “Expressing Buddhist values through art,” is both inspiring and

profound. Through exhibition of Buddhist calligraphy and painting; along with performances

such as Guzheng music, singing, dance; as well as Chinese shadow puppetry, a traditional

form of folk art, we are able to experience the essence of Buddhist teachings in a

vivid and accessible way.

Rooted in principles of compassion, equality and inclusiveness, Buddhism continues

to play an important role in shaping our communities. These values are not only spiritual

ideals but also guiding principles for building a more harmonious and respectful society.

I am especially proud, as the MLA who first introduced and championed B.C. Buddhist

Culture Day in this Legislature, to witness how this initiative has grown and flourished.

What began as a vision to recognize the rich contributions of Buddhist culture has

now become a meaningful platform that brings together people from all backgrounds

in shared understanding and celebration.

Today’s celebration is a beautiful example of how art and culture can bring Buddhist

values to life and how these values can resonate far beyond the Buddhist community.

As we mark this special occasion, let’s continue to embrace and practise spiritual

compassion and unity in our daily lives and work together to build a more peaceful

and inclusive British Columbia.

Brain Injury Awareness Month

Dana Lajeunesse : Today I want to raise awareness that next month, June, is Brain Injury Awareness

Month. This annual observance serves as a vital opportunity to bring attention to

an issue that affects thousands of Canadians, including, of course, families right

here in British Columbia.

[1:55 p.m.]

Brain injuries — whether caused by accidents, strokes, sports or other events — can

have life-altering consequences that ripple through every aspect of a person’s life.

who live with brain injuries, and their loved ones. The journey toward recovery is

often long and complex, requiring not only medical treatment but also access to rehabilitation,

community support and a compassionate understanding from all sectors of society.

It is our responsibility as government to ensure that resources are available, policies

are inclusive and barriers are removed so that everyone has the chance to thrive and

participate fully in their communities.

Brain Injury Awareness Month is not only about education. It’s about action. We must

work together to prevent brain injuries by promoting safety in our homes, schools,

workplaces and recreational spaces. At the same time, we must amplify the voices of

those affected, listen to their stories and advocate for meaningful improvements in

and encourage the development of innovative solutions that can transform lives.

Let us take the month of June as a call to action. Let us recommit ourselves to supporting

brain injury survivors, advocating for families and investing in research and community

but a shared value, one that ensures dignity, inclusion and hope for all.

Princeton Posse

Junior Hockey Team

Donegal Wilson : I rise today to recognize the incredible playoff run of our Princeton Posse. Over

the past few weeks, the excitement has been building. Our community watched with pride

as this team fought its way to the Kootenay International Junior A Hockey League finals,

then carried our region all the way to game 7 to a double-overtime finish. That’s

not just hockey. That is heart, that is resilience, and that is what small communities

do best.

On behalf of myself and the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I want to extend

a congratulations to the Kimberley Dynamiters on a win they truly earned. Over the

last few weeks, we’ve enjoyed connecting after every game to cheer our teams on in

a little fun. But kidding aside, a game 7 double-overtime finish reflects the determination

and the skill of both teams, and it was a series worth watching to the very end.

The Princeton Posse represented Princeton and the entire Boundary-Similkameen region

with determination and class right to the final shift. They carried forward a proud

hockey tradition in a town where our arena remains a gathering place for our whole

community.

Runs like this don’t happen by accident. They happen because of coaches who led, volunteers

who organized, billets who opened their homes, families who travel thousands of kilometres

and get up early, early hours, donations that help pay the bills and put gas in the

bus and fans who packed the arena to believe in their team. But most of all, they

happen because of players who chose to represent a small town with big pride.

To the Princeton Posse: thank you. I am proud to stand here today and say that across

Boundary-Similkameen, we are all proud of how you represented our region with grit,

with heart and with everything that defines small-town British Columbia.

Music Monday

and Music Education

George Chow : Mondays are usually slow, but today is different. Today we celebrate Music Monday,

a celebration of the power of music and the role it plays in connecting and strengthening

our communities.

Music Monday was created to highlight how music brings people together and how that

connection begins in our schools. Throughout British Columbia and across the country,

Music Monday is observed in classrooms, school assemblies, group concerts, community

bands and choirs with special events that unite students, educators, families and

local communities through music.

In our schools, music education offers far more than performance skills. It plays

a vital role in the holistic development of children and youth, nurturing creativity,

discipline and emotional expression. Through learning an instrument, singing in a

choir or engaging in musical composition, students develop skills that extend far

beyond the classroom.

[2:00 p.m.]

Studies have shown that music education can improve academic performance and support

mental well-being, making it a powerful tool for both personal and educational growth.

It provides students with the means to connect with their heritage, explore diverse

traditions and express their unique identities. This is why music continues to be

core learning in B.C.’s arts education curriculum.

From kindergarten to grade 12, students have the opportunity to learn about music,

whether in younger years where students can learn through purposeful play or as they

get older and take musical theatre or choir. All students can be artists. B.C.’s curriculum

supports the notion that all students, in becoming educated citizens, can develop

an artistic mindset in all aspects of their daily life, both during and beyond their

school years.

On Music Monday, we celebrate the teachers, students, volunteers and community partners

who make music education possible and who ensure that music remains a vibrant part

of learning and community life.

Carey Price Hockey Achievements

and Community Contributions

Lorne Doerkson : It appears that our hero will complete his NHL contract with the Montreal Canadiens,

closing the book on a remarkable 15-year career. Carey Price gave the Canadiens elite

goaltending and a chance to compete every single season. At his best, he was one of

the most dominant goaltenders of his generation.

His 2014-2015 season remains one of the greatest ever by any goalie — 44 wins and

a sweep of the game’s top honours: the Hart Memorial Trophy, the Vezina Trophy, the

William M. Jennings Trophy and the Ted Lindsay Award. He has also helped bring gold

home for Canada at the end of the 2014 Olympics, the World Cup of Hockey and the IIHF

World Junior Championship. His contract ends as the Canadiens’ all-time leader with

wins of 361 finishing his career and more than 700 games played.

But for those of us in my riding, his story is about more than just statistics. Carey

was raised in Anahim Lake in the heart of the Chilcotin, and to pursue hockey, he

travelled hundreds of kilometres to Williams Lake — long winter roads and even a plane

on occasion.

Carey is known throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin as a true gentleman. He’s remained

connected and continues to give back in meaningful ways. He’s donated game-worn gear

to local auctions and roped in the arena at the Williams Lake Stampede. He’s personally

sponsored the indoor rodeo and continues to support youth and community across British

Columbia. Those actions speak volumes about the kind of man he is and why so many

people in Cariboo-Chilcotin look up to him.

From the frozen ponds in the Chilcotin to the bright lights of Montreal, Carey is

absolutely the pride of Cariboo-Chilcotin. While members from Kelowna may like to

claim him as their own, those of us in Cariboo-Chilcotin know Carey Price will always

have a home right here.

Please help me congratulate No. 31, Carey Price, the Montreal Canadiens goaltender.

Oral Questions

Proposed Changes to DRIPA

and Involvement of U.S. Indigenous

Groups in Court Cases

Trevor Halford : How bad has it gotten under this NDP government’s recent decision to enter into co-governance

and failure to address DRIPA? Well, now the Eskay Creek project that has, as the Premier

says, potential to bring over 1,000 jobs into northwest B.C. is facing court action.

The Premier says that the mine is good for all British Columbians. He, in fact, brags

about this project every time he’s standing at a podium.

But here’s the problem. While this government flip-flops on DRIPA, an Alaskan-based

tribal organization is using the exact same legislation that this Premier brought

in, once in 2019 and then with the

Interpretation Act in 2020, to stop the project.

Can the AG confirm that the legislation to address DRIPA will be brought in this fall,

yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’ve had a chance to canvass this issue quite a bit in this House, about our commitment

to working through the issues of the Gitxaała decision, appealing to the Supreme Court

of Canada and sitting down to figure out what the fix is going to be to the challenges

we face. We are about taking action and understanding what needs to change and working

with our partners to arrive at that.

[2:05 p.m.]

The issue of U.S. tribes in Canada — well, we’re a government that came up with the

legislative fix here in the House for that. The Minister of Environment recently introduced

legislation to support the environmental assessment office’s ability to differentiate,

with consultation with First Nations in Canada and tribes in the United States.

This is what we do. We come up with solutions to fix challenges that we’re facing

in B.C.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford : She says “taking action.” Well, when this government was ready to take action on

what they were proposing regarding DRIPA, they went and hid because it was the Attorney

General that tapped the Premier on the shoulder and said: “Whoa, whoa, hold on. We

can’t do this. Let’s delay this months and months and enter into a system of co-governance.”

We now know that U.S. tribes have filed an unknown number of legal cases against the

province and are now using DRIPA to hold back B.C.’s economy. The Attorney General

favours “a durable solution.” Yet all these discussions that now apparently reflect

a co-governance model, according to First Nations leadership, are behind closed doors.

Will the province also be negotiating with American tribes over the coming months

to find “a durable solution”?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We focus on B.C.-based nations and the work that we have to do with them, and that’s

been our commitment throughout.

The issue arose in 2010. In 2010, when we were not in government, there was a case

that was started by a member of a U.S. tribe that made it all the way to the Supreme

Court of Canada. That was something that was well before our time in government.

What wasn’t well before our time in government was the piece of legislation that we

passed in this House that they voted against. That’s legislation brought by the Minister

of Environment to make it clear that B.C. First Nations have our attention and our

preference when it comes to our processes and that we will uphold the Supreme Court

of Canada decision and make it clear that U.S. tribes, although they have rights,

are different than B.C. nations. We’re going to continue to do that work.

The Speaker : Member, second supplemental.

Trevor Halford : Both the Premier and the Attorney General…. Let’s focus on what the Premier said

for a second. He has said numerous times that there was an extreme urgency to deal

with DRIPA this session because of, he said, 20 cases that were currently before the

courts. Now, when you ask the Premier — whether outside of this chamber or inside

of this chamber — or the Attorney General to name any of those cases, they don’t know.

They don’t want to answer.

So a simple question to the Attorney General. Is this one of the cases that the Premier

referenced, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ve been clear in this House that I won’t talk about cases that are before the courts.

That’s just the way it is in the public record.

But you know what? I want to talk a little bit about their record. They’re all about

slogans and not about solutions.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ve said over and over again in this House about the way that they’ve approached

what is a very serious issue through fundraising emails. That’s the record that we

have about the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Over and over again, they’ve taken political advantage over what is a very serious

issue, by asking people to donate money and fearmongering about what’s happening with

court cases in this province.

I could go on about…. I’ve already read some. Caroline Elliott, in an email: “DRIPA,

ostensibly passed to promote reconciliation, is being used as a radical land-back

agenda, and we’re already seeing the results — homeowners having their property rights

threatened.” Guess how much that one’s worth? “Pitch in $10 now to help protect your

property rights.”

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is all we’re getting from that side over there. We’re going to continue to focus

on solutions.

Scott McInnis : I’m glad at the responses I’m hearing from the Attorney General because they have

nothing to do with what we’re talking about here today.

How bad is this? We’re not asking for litigation strategies or details of the court.

We’re asking for the names so we can go into the registry and see how many cases there

are. That’s it.

[2:10 p.m.]

The Premier has referenced at least 20 cases which have been amended to reflect the

Gitxaała decision. He called this “an existential threat,” and it presents “significant

legal liability.”

One of these cases with the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy, an American tribe, is going to court tomorrow. The government, on top

of all that, consented in the beginning to allowing the sn̓ʕaýckstx into this litigation.

To the Attorney General: will the government be defending our sovereignty by arguing

against the sn̓ʕaýckstx having UNDRIP and DRIPA rights in B.C., yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : In fact, it’s our government that brought forward legislation that made it very clear

that B.C. First Nations are prioritized in our province, and they voted against it.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s our government that has been very clear about our priority of working with B.C.

First Nations. In fact, using DRIPA, it has locked billions of dollars of investment

in this province, including with Eskay Creek.

We’re going to continue to do the work that we know we need to do to lift up this

province and solve any issues through our court challenges that we need to with our

partners.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis : Another deflection. That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about — nothing.

The Premier knows how serious this is. He has said the changes to DRIPA were “non-negotiable,”

and he called them “urgent.” But he agreed to delay any changes to DRIPA at the advice

of the Attorney General.

To the Attorney General, again, why is she advocating for a delay that will potentially

impact the sovereignty of our province?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’m confused. If they were so concerned about this issue, why did they vote against

the legislation in this House that fixed that issue? Maybe they can explain themselves,

because I don’t understand it.

We’re going to continue to work through our durable solution to DRIPA and the challenges

we face through the court case, and we’re going to work with our partners to get there.

Regional Transit Services

for Sea to Sky Corridor

Jeremy Valeriote : Last week I asked about Sea to Sky regional transit, the most important issue in

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, and the minister said he agrees with the importance of

transit along the Sea to Sky corridor. I can tell you that there are 50,000 residents

that are glad he put that on the record.

Even in a fiscal bind, this government added public transit funding to this year’s

budget, showing some leadership, to their credit, and reflecting the importance of

this service that returns money to the economy roughly 4 to 1 for every dollar invested.

Setting aside the contributions of Squamish and Pemberton, the resort municipality

of Whistler alone attracts over 3 million annual visitors, generating $1.5 billion

in spending, roughly one-quarter of B.C.’s tourism export revenue, $1.4 million per

day in tax revenue.

The problem is businesses are looking at setting up in Whistler and saying: “We can’t

move forward. All our staff would need their own personal vehicles.” Especially in

the hospitality business, this isn’t feasible or practical.

The minister last week said it’s too early to order buses, but after 16 months, he

hasn’t even instructed B.C. Transit to start planning for this service he recognizes

is important. Local governments and First Nations have taken this as far as they can

on their own and have made a number of concessions to get this done.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Jeremy Valeriote : Given the work on this over the last decade, the few remaining details can be ironed

out. In the meantime, will the minister instruct B.C. Transit to plan for this service

in their 2027 budget?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I thank the member for the question. I’ll start off by saying, first off, the government

does not instruct B.C. Transit to plan for anything. TransLink is its own independent

body. In terms of B.C. Transit, we work with them in terms of what they’re looking

at in terms of plans for the coming years, much of which is determined at the local

level.

With regards to the Sea to Sky, as I laid out last time I answered the question, a

key component that has to be in place is: what is the governance structure going to

look like, and how is it going to be funded? That has to be in place before you say:

“Oh, let’s go get some buses.”

We’re more than committed to working with local government. We’ve been doing that.

I would like to see this advance forward, but that’s the stage it has to go. We’ve

had a number of meetings. The member knows what the issues are with the communities

in the area. We’ll continue to work on it, but it’s not a question of saying: “Oh,

just go order some buses.”

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote : Given this kind of answer, I’m starting to run out of patience. I’m going to continue

asking…. This may sound familiar. I’m going to continue asking, and I’m not going

to stop.

The minister said there’s still a debate about the funding model, but local governments

and First Nations represented by a regional transit committee have been clear since

they were turned down by the former minister in 2018, eight long years ago. Motor

fuel tax is the only way this works. A property tax increase is not feasible. They’re

already spending it on their 52 percent share of local transit service in Squamish,

Whistler and Pemberton.

This is not a premium service for tourists. This is for workers, people’s quality

of life and livelihoods — the workers that keep this resort running.

Given this return on investment, if the minister won’t instruct B.C. Transit, will

he at least commit to ending the dithering about a $3 million operating expense and

sign an MOU with the local governments and First Nations this summer?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the member’s question. But in terms of the funding mechanism and what

has been asked for by the communities along there, they want an 18-cents-a-litre gas

tax. What I have said is there needs to be a different model in place, one that recognizes

that there are…. We’ve got two models in place, one in Victoria and one in Nanaimo,

that would work in terms of the Sea to Sky Highway route.

I said we’re not prepared to put in place an 18-cents-a-litre gas tax. We are willing

to look at: are there other models to do that? We’ve agreed to work with the communities

to do just that, and we will continue to do that work.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA

and Involvement of U.S. Indigenous

Groups in Court Cases

Claire Rattée : It is becoming clear that DRIPA is now a direct threat to our sovereignty in B.C.

It has been weaponized by U.S.-based tribes and puts B.C. projects at risk.

After the Gitxaała decision, the Premier admitted that at least 20 cases against the

province have already been amended, and the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals

acknowledged last week that a coalition of Alaskan tribes has filed to challenge the

approvals of the Eskay Creek mine, a project that this government has repeatedly pointed

to as being a DRIPA success in partnership with the Tāłtān Nation.

Now, I understand we’ve canvassed this already and that the Attorney General has mentioned

bringing forward legislation that has been passed in this House that’s going to address

this issue. What was interesting is that the Attorney General said, very specifically,

that this is to focus their attention and preference on B.C.-based nations but “referring

to these Alaska-based tribes, while they have rights.”

So my question to the Attorney General is, did she misspeak, or is she admitting that

U.S.-based tribes have rights in British Columbia under DRIPA?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think the member misunderstands the difference between the constitution and provincial

legislation. DRIPA does not confer any rights on anybody outside of this country,

but the constitution and

section 35 rights are about the decision that I talked about

earlier that actually started in 2010, so before our government, that was based on

U.S. tribes seeking constitutional rights in this province. That went all the way

up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is the law of the country.

We have been very clear that our commitment is to work with B.C. First Nations. We

passed legislation to make it clear under the environmental assessment process that

B.C. First Nations are participatory Indigenous nations as part of that process and

that although U.S. tribes, because of the Supreme Court of Canada, have

section 35

rights, it’s much different than any rights of our local nations.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : I didn’t need to be patronized. I understand the difference. That wasn’t my question.

My question was whether or not the Attorney General…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Claire Rattée : …misspoke when she just said that they have rights. I’m trying to understand whether

or not we need to be concerned about this continuing.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Claire Rattée : So a very simple question to the Attorney General. If the legislation that the government

has passed in this House is to address this issue, can she confirm today that it will

address both of these issues that we have already canvassed here today involving Alaska-based,

U.S.-based tribes interfering in our court system with projects going on in British

Columbia, yes or no?

It’s very simple. Will this prevent this from moving any further forward, or is this

still going to be an issue regardless of the legislation that’s been passed?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : DRIPA does not confer any rights to Indigenous People. It’s the constitution and

section 35 that embed rights, and the way that those court cases work their way up,

like the Desautel case, to the Supreme Court of Canada is under

section 35 of the

constitution.

Stakeholder Consultation on

Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Kiel Giddens : This government’s attempt to update the Heritage Conservation Act needs to be abandoned.

Co-government, co-management, co-chaos. Union of B.C. Municipalities, Urban Development

Institute, Business Council of B.C. and Independent Contractors and Business Association

are just a few of the organizations calling for an abandonment of this train wreck

of an agenda.

Does the minister think that all of these stakeholders are wrong?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : It’s been a while since I’ve been back up in the House in question period. Thanks

to the member opposite for the question.

The Heritage Conservation Act is a very important piece of legislation for all British

Columbians, and throughout the last year, as we’ve been engaging on this with First

Nations, with industry, local governments, people of all walks of life, we have heard

loud and clear that this archaic piece of legislation is not serving the interests

of British Columbians. That’s why we’ve been working hard. We released a technical

policy position paper earlier this year. We received countless feedback.

I would note one feedback that we received from the B.C. Business Council that the

member may want to note, and I quote: “The shift to a single project-based permit

with a modular approach is the most consequential structural change proposed. If implemented

well, it would materially reduce time, costs and administrative burden.”

That is good feedback. We’ve got lots more feedback to go through as we review this

piece of legislation and the work.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens : Well, let me give the minister some more feedback.

Over the weekend, UBCM president Cori Ramsay talked about the Heritage Conservation

Act at the Southern Interior Local Government Association. She said: “This is not

a partnership. This is not good governance.”

This government seems dead set on hiking regulations, dragging out project timelines

and adding to the costs of building. If government’s expensive changes to the Heritage

Conservation Act are only because of DRIPA, it’s another reason to repeal the act

and abandon these changes.

Since every stakeholder appears to be against the HCA, how does the government determine

which stakeholders they’ll actually listen to?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : If I heard the member correctly, he talked about repealing the act that currently

is in place that’s not serving the interests of British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : If he’s referring to the Heritage Conservation Act….

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The mouthy opposition just said that they want to repeal the Heritage Conservation

Act. We are focused….

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, after. Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : We are focused on getting this right, and that is bringing everyone to the table.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The Union of B.C. Municipalities….

The Speaker : Members, the Chair is having a hard time listening to the answers. Please, be quiet.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The Union of B.C. Municipalities, their president, relayed that they wanted us to

bring in pilots. We are unable to do that without bringing in legislation. It’s very

important that we acknowledge how complicated this piece of legislation is and how

on this side of the House, we have $88 billion worth of major projects that we are

in favour of, that are going to create thousands of jobs in every community across

this province.

What we know is they’re opposed to those jobs. They’re opposed for jobs for British

Columbians. They’re opposed for jobs for communities. We’re going to build British

Columbia, and we’re going to get this right.

Burnaby Hospital Expansion

Project and Cancer Care Centre

Misty Van Popta : On Friday, the Premier confirmed that the Burnaby phase 2 redevelopment construction

contract has been cancelled. However, the Minister of Infrastructure continues to

tell the residents of Burnaby that their hospital, in fact, isn’t cancelled. But a

hospital with no construction, no contract, no timeline is no hospital at all.

Burnaby’s mayor, Mike Hurley, said: “I’m absolutely devastated and, frankly, horrified

by this decision.”

Why is this government incapable of taking responsibility for anything? Just admit

that this project is cancelled and back on the shelf.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We have been transparent and forthright from the beginning, since we released Budget

2026, that the Burnaby Hospital project has had to have its timeline reassessed because

of cost overruns.

However, we recognize how important phase 2 of the Burnaby Hospital project is to

the community and the region as a whole. It will continue on, recognizing that there

were some contracts that were cancelled because of the changes in timeline, making

them currently not required. There is still work happening with Fraser Health Authority

to get that project ready to go, and we’re committed to delivering it.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Misty Van Popta : Well, if you’ve always been upfront, does that mean that “re-paced” has always meant

“cancelled”? Residents of Burnaby don’t want to hear that it won’t go ahead as scheduled.

They want to know when they will have a hospital.

The Burnaby Hospital and Community Foundation CEO said: “We had gone through the approval

process. The community stepped up and raised over $55 million for our redevelopment.

It is time for the government to do what they promised and finish building Burnaby

Hospital.”

This government has mismanaged the economy and their finances so badly that the residents

of Burnaby are left with half a hospital. If this project isn’t cancelled, when will

it start? Give us a date today.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : The project is not cancelled. The only people saying that it is cancelled are the

members of the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Members, come to order, please.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We’ve been clear that there is work to do with the Fraser Health Authority to get

this project back on track, to reduce costs so that it can be delivered sustainably

for taxpayers and for the residents of Burnaby.

Long-Term-Care Facility in Delta

Ian Paton : This government claims that these seven long-term-care projects are just re-paced.

In Delta, this was an approved project. This isn’t a pause. This is an actual betrayal.

Delta Mayor George Harvie said: “Instead of just taking a pause, they’ve killed the

project. They can use whatever words they want. They have killed this project. It

has been cancelled.”

Seniors and families in this province don’t see a pause. They see fewer beds and longer

waits. This is not just a south Delta hospital; this is a hospital for all Delta residents.

Will the Jobs Minister from North Delta stand up and tell the people of Delta why

he has gone silent after such a grand ribbon cutting and project approval three years

ago?

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : This is an incredibly important project for the community of Delta. I appreciate

the member opposite advocating for it, as he should, and we agree that it needs to

go forward. This project is not cancelled. It is being reassessed under different

timelines, given cost escalations and the need for us to do the work that it will

take to drive down the cost per bed so that it can proceed for the people of Delta.

I want to take a moment, as well, to express my gratitude to the Delta Hospital and

Community Health Foundation. They are also reassuring their donors that this project

is moving forward, despite a temporary pause. They said: “As timelines are reassessed,

this essential project for Delta seniors continues to move forward, with strong community

support.”

That is exactly what is happening. We will do the work that it will take to deliver

the project.

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental.

Ian Paton : Well, to the date almost three years ago exactly, we stood on the lawn of the Delta

Hospital. The former Minister of Health was there and the media, the cameras and the

reporters. The Jobs Minister was there and celebrated the grand opening of our new

long-term extension for Delta Hospital.

Do you remember that? Do you remember that, Minister?

The Speaker : Member. Member, through the Chair. No direct questions.

[2:30 p.m.]

Ian Paton : Anyway, the people of Delta were so excited. We were going to go from an old 1970s

92-bed long-term-care facility to a beautiful, new 200-bed care facility in Delta.

Once again, I will ask, to the Minister of Infrastructure: is this project actually

cancelled? What is happening to Turner Construction, which have been told to pick

up their tools, move out their bulldozers, take out their excavators? When will this

project finally get back on track?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I want to thank the member for the question. He has asked it multiple times.

My colleague has shared the answer, which is that people understand that when prices

and quotes are coming back so high, we need to make sure that those costs are brought

down so that we can build more housing for seniors.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : But my friend across the way there seems to forget all of his contradictions. Every

time there’s an investment in South Delta, whether that’s affordable housing that

opens up or a new park that’s opened up, he’s in the front row, cutting the ribbon.

But when he’s in the House over here, he has voted against every single one of those

measures. He voted against the funding for KinVillage seniors housing, both projects.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : He was there with the golden shovel. He was there, ready to shovel the dirt and get

in the photos. There was a project for a covered lacrosse box. He was there.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Oh, it gets better. We had an event at the brewery. Hundreds and thousands of people

come in every single day. We provided funding. He voted against that but he had no

problem going on the stage.

We continue to make historic investments in Delta — historic investments — and I welcome

my friend across the way to cut ribbons and be there with his shovel anytime he likes.

Long-Term-Care Projects

Brennan Day : I’m glad the minister of ribbon cutting could get up and address his constituents,

because we haven’t heard a peep from him as a long-term-care facility in his riding

was shelved. It’s the first time the minister has spoken about that in this House

or about that subject — absolutely shameful from this government. Delta is just one

of six projects in this province that have been shelved. Was the minister that passionate

before this budget dropped and left seniors in the dust?

Dan Levitt, the seniors advocate, said: “There’s a cascading effect of not building

long-term care. It goes to the hospitals, emergency rooms, hospital beds. It impacts

on doctors’ offices, on ambulances and, ultimately, on family members.” Seven long-term-care

projects were promised. Now they’ve all been cancelled.

To the Minister of Infrastructure and the MLA: when will you stop hiding behind bureaucratic

spin and let us know when these cancelled projects will be completed for seniors in

B.C.?

The Speaker : Members, all questions and comments through the Chair.

Hon. Bowinn Ma : The seniors advocate is exactly right. We need to be able to deliver new and expanded

long-term-care facilities and seats at the scale that is required in communities,

a scale that has not been and is not possible when we’re paying upwards of $1.8 million

per bed. Taxpayers expect more from their investments, and we need to deliver more.

That’s why I’m very grateful to Dan Levitt, the seniors advocate, for his support

and his work with our ministry to find ways, actually, to deliver those long-term-care

beds for lower cost and at a greater scale.

[End of question period.]

Kiel Giddens : I rise on a point of order.

The Speaker : State it.

Point of Order

Kiel Giddens : During the course of question period, I clearly was talking about repealing DRIPA.

The Minister of Forests said that my remarks said that I was for repealing the Heritage

Conservation Act, and I would ask that he would withdraw, because he was deliberately

misrepresenting my remarks.

The Speaker : Members, certain comments are made through the debate while answering questions.

If that’s the case, then it will not be considered as a point of order, but let me

get further clarification on that.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar : For the member opposite, I’ll gladly review the transcript.

The Speaker : Thank you, Members. We’ll take it under advisement, and we’ll see the transcript.

Petitions

Scott McInnis : I rise to present a petition on behalf of nearly 1,000 residents of Revelstoke who

would like to have the boat launch at Martha Creek opened year-round.

Orders of the Day

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

Privacy Act.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of Supply for the estimates

of the Ministry of Labour.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Health.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Members. I will ask you to take your conversations into the

hallway so we can continue our business.

Today we’re going to contemplate Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Ward Stamer : I rise today to speak to Bill 9, legislation that reaches into one of the most fundamental

principles of our democracy: the public’s right to know. At its core, this debate

is not about process. It’s not about administrative efficiency. It’s about accountability.

It’s about trust, and it’s about whether the people of British Columbia can have confidence

in what is done in their name that can be seen, understood and questioned.

Everything that we do in this Legislature is grounded in a principle that defines

democratic governance. It is on the record. Our debates are in public, and our votes

are recorded. Our words are scrutinized, and rightfully so, because we are accountable

to the people.

Now, there are times when matters must be handled in camera — sensitive legal issues,

negotiations and personal privacy — but those instances are limited, structured and

justified. They are the exception, not the rule, and that distinction matters because

it reinforces a simple idea that transparency is the default, not secrecy.

Bill 9 risks shifting that balance — not dramatically and not all at once but incrementally,

quietly, through more discretion, more control, more barriers. And in doing so, it

risks normalizing a system where access to information becomes more difficult, more

delayed and less meaningful.

The context in which this bill is being introduced matters. We’re no longer operating

in a world where government is the primary gatekeeper of information.

Today information is everywhere. People are constantly connected, constantly consuming

information, constantly evaluating that information, and increasingly, they’re turning

prefer it but because they feel they have to. When official information is slow, incomplete

or unclear, people will look elsewhere.

[2:40 p.m.]

and opinion. It amplifies both equally, and when there’s a vacuum of reliable information,

it does not stay empty. It gets filled with speculation and

interpretation and, obviously,

sometimes with misinformation. The best defence against misinformation is not restriction;

it’s transparency. Clear, accessible, factual information is what people can trust.

British Columbians are not disengaged. They are more engaged than ever. They are asking

questions. They’re demanding answers. They are expecting transparency. Members of

the public want to know what decisions are being made, why they’re being made, how

they’re being made, who is responsible and what the impact will be. That’s not a burden.

That is democracy working exactly the way it was intended to.

There are always many questions when we have bills like this that come up before the

House. What are people actually looking for when we’re looking for freedom of information?

They’re not looking for spin. They’re not looking for messaging. They’re not looking

for carefully crafted narratives. They’re asking for something much simpler — the

truth.

How many times now, when we see publications by the government…? Instead of seeing

clear facts and figures, we’ve always got this spin. We’ve got: “It’s going to be

simpler. It’s going to be able to achieve all these wonderful things.” Instead of

being very specific on how we’re supposed to even be able to achieve these things,

all we seem to be getting is more and more spin.

We ask the tough questions, and we’ve asked in this Legislature about particular items

that should be very easily obtained with freedom of information. Ten years ago it

was a no-brainer, but now for some reason it’s a big secret. Why is that? At the end

of the day, that is why we’re here — to be accountable and to be transparent to the

people of British Columbia.

Most people just want plain and clear answers. They want to be understood. They don’t

want to be persuaded. They want transparency and not

interpretation. In today’s environment,

delivering just the facts is the most important responsibility our government has.

One of the most concerning trends that we are seeing is the increasing politicization

in that government information. Communications that should be informed are being framed.

They’re being positioned. They’re being packaged to highlight the positives; to minimize

the negatives; and, again, to shape the perception. Instead of being able to offer

examples, it’s now put in this pretty, cute, little box for people to be able to easily

digest. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that all the facts and figures are there.

It’s the way that this is being perceived. It’s the way that it’s being produced.

It’s the way it’s being sold to the public, and I would offer that it is not being

transparent. When that happens, trust suffers because people begin to question not

just what they’re hearing but what they’re not hearing. Once the doubt sets in, it’s

very difficult to reverse that. It’s very difficult to change the public’s perception

on what the government is even trying to achieve.

Now, let’s look at the current state of the freedom-of-information system in this

province, because before we even consider Bill 9, we must acknowledge the reality

people are already experiencing — freedom-of-information requests returning documents

with extensive redactions.

It sounds like something south of the 49th parallel, with what’s going on down there

where they passed a bill to be able to actually see the information and all they see

is a bunch of blank sheets with black written all over it — pages where key information

has been blocked out, context has been removed and then the meaning in the whole text

has been lost.

[2:45 p.m.]

Freedom-of-information requests that normally would take weeks are now taking months

and even longer. Then, of course, sometimes when the information is actually released,

it doesn’t matter because now it’s either gone to the next level or it’s gone to another

court hearing. Now all that information that was pertinent at that time is no longer

pertinent. Maybe if we would have seen that information in a timely fashion, not only

would it have been able to inform that decision, but it might have been the right

decision.

Also, at the same time, we lose the ability to make somebody accountable because of

that lack of information. Then there’s a growing perception in the system, which is

supposed to be designed to manage information, not just release it….

We’re also seeing an increased reliance on NDAs, or non-disclosure agreements, in

matters of public interest. Every time we turn around now, all we hear about are NDAs.

Why? On one hand, we hear that the government is being open and transparent with the

public at large, and then every other opportunity we look at, there has to be a non-disclosure

agreement. Why is that? Why is it that we have taken everything that used to be in

the political arena…? Now everything is done behind closed doors.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Non-disclosure agreements have a role. Being in municipal

government, I totally understand what that means. But expanding those uses raises

some serious concerns because they prevent that information from ever reaching the

public.

Many times when we have non-disclosure agreements, it’s in the process of legal liability

and workers. But in most cases, that information does get released to the public.

But we’re seeing, time and time again, that information never sees the light of day,

and that is not what that was designed for in the first place.

The NDAs also limit the transparency before it even begins, and they restrict that

accountability in ways that are difficult to challenge. Public business should not

be shielded behind private agreements, yet that is a growing reality.

Again, redactions are necessary, but only in certain cases — privacy, security, obviously,

legal protections. But when they are overused, they undermine the system, because

a document that reveals nothing has nothing to do with transparency. It’s just an

appearance. Believe me. People know the difference.

Another concern is the lack of clarity within the bureaucratic decision-making. People

are not just asking for the documents. They’re asking for the understanding. How was

that decision made? What was the background behind that decision? What were the factors

that were considered in making that decision? Who, ultimately, is responsible in making

that decision? Too often, the answers are unclear. That creates frustration, and it

creates that distance between government and the people we are here to serve.

Now we’re introducing Bill 9 into that environment of disinformation and lack of trust

when it comes to government. This environment is already being influenced and characterized

by redactions, delays, NDAs — non-disclosure agreements, we just mentioned — which

perceive politicization that should not be in our government documentation, and very

limited clarity when it comes to the specifics on that documentation.

Instead of addressing these concerns, this bill risks adding to them. It seems to

give more discretion to bureaucrats, more control, more limitation. Obviously, we’re

moving in the wrong direction.

I’d like to talk about one fundamental issue that’s important to all of us in this

chamber — trust, clarity, consistency. If people can access information in a timely

fashion, they can understand it. They can rely on it. That way, trust grows in not

only our democratic system but what we’re actually trying to achieve for our public.

[2:50 p.m.]

But when that access is restricted, when that clarity is lacking and when that information

feels managed, trust obviously declines. Once that trust declines, it’s very difficult

to rebuild.

People don’t want spin. They want straight answers. They want to feel that they’re

involved in the process, not just being sidelined, not just being told what to do.

Nobody likes being told what to do. But in so many cases, that’s exactly what’s happening.

And when we try to get to the bottom of things, we’ve usually found that it’s a solid

wall in front of us with almost no way of determining exactly how that decision was

made, who made that decision and why we’re even having this conversation in the first

place.

The biggest thing…. Transparency isn’t about optics. It’s about being honest in our

system. In a world of noise, facts should be very clear, not hidden.

Another one. When the public asks for truth, they deserve more than a process. They

deserve answers. That’s why we’re here. If we thought this was a clear bill, if we

thought that this was something that we can improve on, our Freedom of Information

Act, opportunities to streamline the process and make it easier for people to get

that freedom of information, this side of the House would be all for it. But this

is exactly what it doesn’t do. It puts the brakes on freedom of information.

There is a better path, and this path strengthens transparency instead of weakening

it. We could commit to de-politicizing our communication; making it very straightforward

in the literature that we put out; not trying to put a spin on it every time, trying

to convince people that it’s good when it’s really not.

We could limit the NDAs in public matters, get back to the basics on that and not

just keep on relying on NDAs so that negotiations, particularly negotiations in the

public interest, are consistently and constantly being behind closed doors. I think

we owe it to the public to bring it out in the open so it can be openly discussed

and debated.

We can ensure that our FOI responses are timely and meaningful and not make excuses

on why we can’t provide the information in the first place or have it so heavily redacted

it doesn’t have any meaning when you do finally realize that you actually receive

it.

We can also increase proactive disclosure. At the beginning, we could front-load and

say: “Okay. These are the concerns that we have. These are the things that we want

to talk about. These are the things that we’ve identified that we should probably

put under a non-disclosure agreement.” Then we can have that conversation, not let

somebody arbitrarily decide whether we should or shouldn’t be doing it. We should

have clear guidelines on how that occurs.

Possibly that would limit the amount of freedom-of-information requests that we are

receiving, because I think that’s part of it. It’s because we’ve complicated our non-disclosure

agreement process so badly that when people really want to get to the bottom of things,

it’s almost impossible for them to do it or feel that they’re part of the process,

because of the increased use of non-disclosure agreements.

This isn’t about changing the rules, because the rules are already in place. It just

seems that we keep complicating things more and more, when we really should be looking

at opportunities to simplify it. It’s about changing that approach. We should be embracing

those types of changes.

Again, I’m quite sure that when we get the opportunity, get to committee, there will

be opportunities for us to be able to bring forth amendments. I’m hoping that both

sides will be able to look at these amendments, because that’s the time when we can

make improvements to the bill, not just slap it on the table and say: “Yep, this is

great. Let’s pass it and move on.”

I’m quite sure that we’re going to hear, after my speech and everyone else’s speech,

that there are going to be fundamental problems and challenges in this legislation.

That’s where, when we get to the second reading and get to committee, we’ll get that

opportunity to be able to discuss that. Or if the wish of the House is to kill it,

then that will be up to the House to decide, when we get to that point.

[2:55 p.m.]

In closing, we were elected to serve the public, to represent them, to be accountable

to them, and everything we do here is on the record. That’s not optional. That’s just

the job. And that standard must extend beyond this chamber. We are living in a time

where information is everywhere, but trust is not. People are searching for answers.

They’re demanding transparency, and they’re asking for something very simple. “Just

the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”

Bill 9 does not meet that moment. It risks making access significantly harder. It

risks increasing skepticism in our openness and transparency in government, and it

risks eroding that trust even further.

We should be doing the opposite. As I mentioned earlier, we should be opening up the

access. We should be streamlining the process, like we did in the past. We shouldn’t

be putting barriers to having opportunities on information that should be readily

available.

We shouldn’t have to be hiding any of this information. We should be able to provide

clarity, reducing those barriers so we can access that information in a timely fashion.

We should be removing the politics from that public information, and we should be

strengthening that trust, because when people trust their access to that information,

they trust their government. And when they trust their government, democracy is stronger.

For those reasons, I cannot support Bill 9 in its present form.

Lawrence Mok : It is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. At its core, this legislation asks us to

confront a fundamental tension in modern governance — how we as British Columbians

balance efficiency with accountability and innovation with privacy.

For decades, British Columbia’s access-to-information framework has rested on a simple

yet powerful principle, and that is that government information belongs, ultimately,

to the public, except in clearly justified circumstances.

Bill 9 does not abandon that principle, but it undeniably reshapes it. As Thomas Jefferson

once said: “Information is the currency of democracy.” If that is true — and I believe

it is — then any change to how information is accessed or withheld is not just merely

technical. It is also constitutional in spirit. It affects not just how government

operates but how it is held to account.

As we examine Bill 9 clause by clause, we must do so not only with an eye to administrative

convenience but also with a deeper question in mind. What kind of relationship do

we want between citizens and their government in this digital age that we live in?

Let us begin with clause 1, which amends

section 3. This clause removes access rights

under FIPPA, the acronym for Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

for records that are required to be produced as part of legal proceedings, even if

those records are only broadly categorized.

On the surface, this may seem reasonable. After all, litigation processes already

include disclosure mechanisms. There is a legitimate argument that parallel FOI requests

could duplicate effort, increase cost or interfere with court processes.

Let us be clear about the consequence. This amendment creates a new exclusion category,

not just a procedural refinement but a substantive limitation on access rights. It

means that certain records, once tied to a proceeding, are no longer accessible through

FOI at all.

I can understand that the benefit here is efficiency. However, the risk is opacity.

Legal proceedings do not always guarantee the same breadth of public access as FOI

laws. In some cases, they may be narrower, slower or subject to strategic withholding.

[3:00 p.m.]

So while this clause may streamline government operations, it may also create a gap

in transparency — particularly for journalists, watchdogs or public interest researchers

who are not parties to the proceeding.

Moving on to clause 2, which amends

section 5. This change shifts the standard for

a valid request. It now requires that in the opinion of the head of the public body,

the request contains sufficient detail to locate the records in a reasonable time.

There is a practical logic here. Government institutions handle thousands of requests

every day, and vague or overly broad submissions can be burdensome. But this clause

does something subtle yet significant. It introduces a subjective threshold. The decision

is no longer purely objective. It rests within the institution itself.

That raises a real concern. What one official considers reasonable detail, another

may not. And for applicants, especially ordinary citizens without legal or technical

expertise, this may create uncertainty or even discourage participation. Yes, this

provision may reduce administrative strain, but it also risks tilting the balance

of power toward the gatekeeper.

Moving to clause 3, and clause 3 is perhaps one of the most consequential changes

in tone. The requirement to respond without delay is now replaced with “without unreasonable

delay.” At first glance, this may seem like minor wording, but I can assure you it

is not minor wording. “Without delay” is a clear directive. “Without unreasonable

delay” introduces

interpretation. What is unreasonable delay? Does it mean 30 days,

60 days or 90 days?

This change provides flexibility to public bodies dealing with complex or high-volume

requests. That is a legitimate administrative need. But from the applicant’s perspective,

it weakens a firm guarantee. In effect, it shifts the system from a duty-driven model

to a justification-driven one. The burden subtly moves from the government to explain

delay to the applicant to challenge it.

Clauses 4, 5 and 6 refine procedural elements. They clarify what constitutes a valid

request, allow extensions with applicant consent and remove lack of detail as a reason

for extending timelines.

I agree that there are genuine positives here. Allowing consent-based extensions introduces

flexibility and collaboration between applicants and public bodies. Removing lack

of detail as a reason for extension may encourage earlier clarification rather than

prolonged delay. But again, the pattern persists — greater discretion for institutions

coupled with less rigid timelines.

We now arrive at clause 7, which introduces

section 16.1. This provision allows public

bodies to refuse disclosure of communications from judicial officers regarding policies,

programs or legislation.

There is a defensible rationale. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our system,

and informal communications between judges and government could raise concerns if

disclosed. However, this clause creates a new and broad exemption. It does not merely

protect judicial decisions that are already well established but extends to communications

about policy and legislation.

This raises several important questions. Where is the line drawn between legitimate

confidentiality and the public’s right to understand how laws are shaped? Could this

provision shield discussions that ought to be subject to scrutiny? This is a clause

that, while grounded in principle, must be approached with great caution.

[3:05 p.m.]

Clauses 8 through 12 and, especially, clause 20 introduce perhaps the most transformative

element of the bill, the concept of a connected services provider. This is, in essence,

a framework for integrated digital government. Under these provisions, designated

entities can build centralized platforms, share personal information across public

bodies, identify eligibility for services and deliver programs more seamlessly.

Let us acknowledge the promise here. This could mean fewer forms, faster service delivery

and a more citizen-centred experience. Imagine a system where applying for one benefit

automatically assesses eligibility for others. That is not trivial. It is meaningful

progress.

But the same system also raises profound concerns. This is large-scale data sharing

authorized across institutions, potentially involving third-party service providers.

The minister is granted significant authority to direct what data is shared, how it

is shared and under what conditions. The Privacy Commissioner is notified and may

review but is not always required to approve. So we must ask the important question

here. Are the safeguards proportionate to the scale of the system?

Centralization increases efficiency, but it also amplifies risks — like the risk of

data breaches; the risk of misuse; the risk of function creep, where data collected

for one purpose is used for another. This is not an argument against modernization.

It is an argument for robust oversight to match technological ambition.

Clause 13 amends

section 43. It expands the grounds for disregarding requests to include

those deemed abusive or malicious, repetitious or excessively broad. That is a clear

benefit. Public bodies should not be overwhelmed by bad-faith requests that consume

disproportionate resources.

But the challenge lies in definition and application. What constitutes abusive? What

is excessively broad? These terms are so inherently subjective. Without careful oversight,

there is a risk that legitimate, persistent or investigative requests, particularly

from journalists, could be swept into these categories. The line between efficiency

and suppression is thin, and this clause walks that thin line.

Clauses 12 and 14 allow the Privacy Commissioner to share information with counterparts

in other jurisdictions and enter into information-sharing agreements. This reflects

a modern reality. Privacy issues often cross borders. It is in many ways a positive

development, enabling coordination, consistency and shared experience and expertise.

But again, it introduces complexity. Information that was once confined within a single

jurisdiction may now move beyond it. Safeguards must ensure that this does not dilute

protections.

Clause 15 allows the Privacy Commissioner to extend review timelines beyond 90 days.

This acknowledges operational realities. Complex cases take time, but from the applicant’s

perspective, it may mean longer waits for resolution, particularly in contentious

cases. Justice delayed, as the saying goes, can be justice denied.

Clauses 21 and 22 allow public bodies and ministries to proactively release categories

of records without requiring formal requests. This is in many ways one of the more

positive elements of the bill. Proactive disclosure reduces barriers, increases transparency

and aligns with best practices in open government.

[3:10 p.m.]

But even here, there is nuance. Public bodies may charge fees for access to these

records, and the decision of what to release remains within their control. So while

this may seem like a step forward, in my view, it is not a substitute for a robust

FOI system.

In conclusion, when we step back from the clause-by-clause analysis, a clear pattern

starts to emerge. This bill modernizes service delivery, increases administrative

flexibility and enables digital integration. But it also narrows access rights, expands

government discretion and introduces new privacy risks. Yes, it does not dismantle

FIPPA, but it certainly rebalances it. The centre of gravity has shifted from strict

accountability toward operational efficiency, from rigid timelines toward flexible

interpretation and from siloed data toward integrated systems.

The question is not whether these changes are entirely good or bad. They are neither.

The question is whether the balance is right. Do the efficiencies gained justify the

risk introduced? Are the safeguards strong enough to maintain public trust? Will British

Columbians feel more empowered, or do they feel more distant from the institutions

that serve them?

These are not abstract concerns. They go to the heart of democratic governance because

access to information is not merely a procedural right. It is the means by which citizens

hold power to account. Privacy is not merely a technical issue. It is the foundation

of personal autonomy in the digital world that we live in.

If we are to move forward with legislation of this scope, we must do so with caution

and vigilance. We must ensure that discretion does not become arbitrariness, efficiency

does not come at the cost of transparency and innovation does not outpace accountability,

because once public trust is eroded, it is not easily restored.

Let us therefore approach Bill 9 not as a routine update but as a defining moment

in how we govern information, privacy and power in this province. Let us ensure that

whatever reforms we adopt, they leave our institutions not only more efficient but

more accountable, more transparent and more worthy of the public’s confidence.

I rest my case.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026. Access-to-information legislation is not legislation that we

can simply let pass us by. We need to apply a very critical and detailed scrutiny

lens, and I believe that this legislation calls for just that. Upon examination of

this legislation, it is not simple technical housekeeping as it purports itself to

be. It is definitely not administrative modernization alone, and it is not something

that should ever be approached casually.

Our constituents and stakeholders rely on us to bring forward their concerns and to

fight for transparency to its fullest extent. Freedom-of-information laws form one

of the very foundations of government accountability in this province. These laws

are one of the primary ways that British Columbians can understand how decisions are

made, how resources are allocated and how government exercises authority on their

behalf. These laws provide the venue for citizens to ask questions and for journalists

to investigate.

[3:15 p.m.]

B.C. laws should allow researchers to evaluate policy. These laws allow elected officials

in this House and beyond to do our work on behalf of the people we represent. Regardless

of where you may sit, that access is critical to keeping government to account.

When access to information works well, it strengthens trust between government and

the public. We know throughout history that people have differed, and will, in their

position on government policy. But where the rubber hits the road is ensuring that

the commitments, processes and public funds are accessible and transparent to the

public for scrutiny. When the process or access becomes slower, more narrow, more

discretionary or more expensive, this can weaken trust.

This is why legislation affecting access to information must be examined carefully.

That is what we are here to do today. This bill makes a number of changes to the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Some of these changes are presented

as administrative improvements. Others are framed as modernization measures intended

to improve service delivery across government.

However, when we look closely at several of the provisions contained in Bill 9, we

see a pattern emerging — a pattern that raises real concerns about whether access

to information in British Columbia is becoming more accessible or less accessible.

That is a fine line that we have to walk. That is a fine line that this government,

and any government that we’re going to support on changes to legislation, must ensure

is fair — fair to the public, transparency for the public, because they deserve to

know how those tax dollars will be used and which programs they’re going to be allocated

towards.

Let’s dig into this a little bit. This legislation introduces new discretion for public

bodies to refuse requests, weakens reasonable expectations around response timelines,

expands categories under which requests may be disregarded and introduces the possibility

of fees for records that were previously available without charge.

Taken together, these changes call for all members to take notice and for proper debate

in this House to ensue. Access to information is not simply about records. It is about

accountability, and it is about the public’s right to understand the decisions that

directly affect their lives.

I’d like to share a quote that states: “There can be no faith in government if our

highest offices are excused from scrutiny. They should be setting the example of transparency.”

This is from a person who worked in the highest levels of government and stood up

to protect citizens when it was called upon him to do so.

This brings me to a pivot to the next point I’d like to make in the debate. For that,

we need to consider Bill 9 in context. Access-to-information legislation does not

operate in isolation. It reflects the direction a government chooses to take when

it comes to transparency and accountability.

Unfortunately, British Columbians have already seen a number of decisions in recent

years that have made it more difficult, not easier, to obtain information from their

government. Instead of focusing first on reducing response times, instead of addressing

the backlogs and instead of improving service standards for applicants, what we have

seen is the introduction of filing fees for access-to-information requests. What we

have seen, however, is that response timelines continue to grow longer.

If this fee is meant to deter or establish a threshold for how serious a request for

information may be to any one individual, I will tell you right now that what it actually

does is burden those who are sincere in their requests to jump another administrative

hoop to access information that is their right to access in the first place. I’m not

sure how any government in good conscience can now put a price on rights.

[3:20 p.m.]

Not only that, but we have seen applicants waiting, in some cases, months beyond statutory

deadlines to receive information they’re legally entitled to access. That puts their

own right to defend themselves, many times, under legal stress.

In fact, between 2022 and 2023, applicants were waiting an average of an additional

192 business days beyond expected timelines to receive responses. That is not a small

administrative delay. That’s a structural barrier to transparency. When we think about

192 days, we are talking about just under a year in which someone may be waiting for

information that is critical to them, moving forward.

When a bill is introduced that changes how requests may be rejected, changes how timelines

are interpreted and introduces the possibility of new fees for records that were previously

accessible without charge, it is reasonable for British Columbians to ask whether

access to information is being strengthened or restricted.

The purpose of access-to-information legislation should always be clear. It should

make government more open. It should make information easier to obtain. It should

reinforce the principle that public institutions are accountable to the people they

serve. Instead, several provisions in Bill 9 move in the opposite direction. Rather

than addressing delays, the bill weakens expectations around response timelines.

I understand that the government has put on the order papers several amendments, which,

I can only imagine, speak to the pressures and the debates that we’ve had in this

House toward that legislation so far. Although it is comforting that the government

may be listening to opposition on things that could have been improved on the first

draft of this legislation, I still see and believe that there are wordings left in

the legislation that make it highly problematic.

Now, looking at reinforcement on the principle that public institutions are accountable

to the people that they serve, again, several provisions in Bill 9 do not give us

confidence that that is what we see in front of us today.

Rather than improving access to proactively available records, it introduces the possibility

that British Columbians may now have to pay to obtain them. Taken together, these

changes represent a shift that deserves careful attention from this House as we consider

the implications of this legislation.

One of the more concerning changes in the legislation appears, at first glance, to

be small. I spoke about this in the fact that we see the government respond to fierce

opposition to very specific words in the original drafting of this legislation that

change a duty to respond “without delay” to a duty to respond “without unreasonable

delay.” The amendments that have been tabled by this government are to strike that

clause altogether.

Again, I can only assume that it is because when we interpret the words on the page,

they are convinced, just as we are, that those kinds of

interpretations, left in the

hands of a government, for citizens to access information, can be very dangerous grounds

to walk on.

Again, although I am pleased to see that the government has taken that into consideration

and has struck out any change of language to that very important wording and that

very important clause, I still have concerns about wording that is left in the legislation

that assumes that we can trust the discretion of a government who is going to be scrutinized

by the public.

It says right here, “responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the

operations of the public body,” striking out the words “the government of British

Columbia,” replaced with “ministry of the minister responsible for this act.”

[3:25 p.m.]

Again, what we see here are words that attempt to have flexibility for a government

to decide if something is unreasonably interfering with the work of that ministry.

There is nothing here that tells us what that looks like in practice.

Why this change would need to come forward is actually what we’re debating today and

what we are highlighting — that a government making those decisions on their own behalf

for information that citizens are trying to get from them makes no sense, and it peels

away really, really important layers of transparency. In fact, the opposite is actually

true. I think it adds more fog to the glass.

British Columbians rely on access to information when they’re trying to understand

the decisions that affect their communities; their livelihoods; and, in many cases,

their safety. They rely on it when they’re trying to understand why infrastructure

projects are delayed, why services are reduced, why permits take longer than expected

or why commitments that were made publicly do not appear to be reflected in government

action.

Access to information is most valuable when it is timely. Delayed transparency is

often indistinguishable from denied transparency. We know that because we’ve seen

in other instances, when information is requested and it takes so long for that information

to come forward, that now the issue has already moved past the point where anything

can be done about it.

That point has to be laboured here today. Access that is timely, access that is transparent,

access that is not going to create more barriers for anyone that is requesting information

is critical for any government to operate.

If the government’s objective is to improve the performance of the access-to-information

system, then the focus should be on reducing wait times and improving compliance with

existing timelines, not weakening the language that defines those timelines in the

first place. This change may appear technical, but in practice, it actually risks

normalizing delays in a system that is already struggling to deliver information to

British Columbians when they need it most.

I’d also like to take a moment to share some real examples of when constituents or

any person that is affected by government choices can tend to suffer under the delays

in an FOI process.

I have a constituent who has been very concerned about the real dangers in the Columbia

River Valley. Because of some government work that had happened in and around the

drainage, in and around changing some of the landscapes and clearing some of the backlogs

of literal logjams in the river that were making the river rise to a really dangerous

level, this constituent went ahead and did the hard work of attempting to access records

from the government on exactly what the costs were, what the delivery timelines were.

Were there to be specific language around if they didn’t complete the job to the satisfaction

of the residents in the area who have now, out of pocket and out of their own time,

gotten together to fix what was not put back properly in the first place….

My constituent has come up against barrier after barrier, trying to find answers from

this government. What he’s really trying to do is to help his community, to make sure

that government has very specific budgets and timelines that are adhered to and if

there was a mistake of some sort, that my constituent would be able to find grounds

to have them come back and finish the work properly.

This also has to do with some of the emergency management in and around that area

— very likely to flood. It could be very dangerous for these residents that live in

that area.

So if this process…. If he was to be seen as “unreasonable” by the government’s definition,

to be hindering work, who makes that decision? How do they make that decision, and

in what way?

[3:30 p.m.]

I know for a fact that many constituents, in order to get the help that they need

or to flag issues, require that information to be readily available to them, and that

information comes via the freedom of information and protection act.

I’d like to pivot now to another significant change in the bill. This happens at the

very beginning of the access-to-information process before a request is processed,

before records are searched and before disclosure is considered.

Clause 2 of the bill changes the requirement governing how access requests are evaluated

by public bodies. It provides that a request must, in the opinion of the head of the

public body, contain enough detail to allow an experienced employee, using reasonable

effort and within reasonable amounts of time, to identify the record being sought.

Again, in this part of the legislation, understanding that government has now circled

back and taken another look at clause 2 and the wording, I would like to highlight

that a proposed amendment is to actually take out that the request must, “in the opinion

of the head of public body….” That is a government-triggered amendment to the legislation

as it was written.

We understand that those may or could come at a later time and would be debated in

committee stage. But I have to highlight that change here because left in the rest

of the clause are “reasonable effort” and “reasonable amount of time.” Again, we have

these

definitions that are left, and we don’t know what reasonable means in terms

of effort.

Look, somebody’s effort to reasonably run a 100-metre dash could vary very much, person

to person. We all have different skills and different skill sets and different understandings

and different perspectives and different points of view on anything that we do, especially

if it’s going to be subjective. I feel that subjective language leaves us to want

and desire and to need exact. Or else, do not touch legislation, and leave it as it

is.

If we’re going to be putting on “a reasonable amount of time” and bake it right into

the legislation, then in terms of the opposition to this, we reasonably need to add

question to that and what that definition means and who gets to decide that definition.

Going back, then, to some more significant changes that we do see, I do want to highlight

that we talked about constituents, talked about journalists, and we talked about other

people that may need to seek clarity on something from the government. That includes

local governments as well. That includes researchers that need to evaluate programs.

The purpose of access-to-information legislation is not to test whether applicants

can perfectly describe internal government record structures. It is to ensure that

government information remains accessible to the people it serves.

When legislation increases discretion at the front end of the process, it actually

increases the risk that requests will be filtered out before transparency begins.

I really would like to highlight those words that say “reasonable,” but we don’t have

any definition of what that means. “Reasonable” can be a very subjective way to take

a look at any request.

Other changes that we see within the legislation that is before us, on the surface,

may seem to make sense. No one would argue that a system should be misused. No one

would suggest that public bodies should be required to respond to requests that are

clearly intended to disrupt operations rather than obtain information. But legislation

is not judged by how it sounds in principle. It is judged by how it operates in practice.

The concern here is that none of these new categories are defined in the act. There’s

no definition of what constitutes abusive behaviour. There’s no definition of what

constitutes a malicious request. There’s no definition of what level of effort would

qualify as interfering with the operations of government. Instead, these determinations

become matters of

interpretation. And as I said, subjective points of view can differ

person to person to person.

[3:35 p.m.]

When

interpretation expands, discretion expands with it. Access-to-information legislation

is supposed to create clarity for applicants. It’s supposed to establish predictable

expectations, and it is supposed to ensure that the right to request information is

not dependent on how a request is perceived by the institution receiving it.

When new categories are introduced without clear

definitions, the risk is that applicants

begin to wonder whether their request will be answered or set aside based on some

of the

definitions that I’ve highlighted here — words, I should say, that I’ve highlighted

here that do not have

definitions attached to them.

This matters not only for individual applicants. It matters for journalists. It matters

for researchers. It matters for local governments seeking information from the province.

And it matters for members of this Legislature attempting to understand how decisions

are being made, many times on behalf of the constituents that we serve. Access-to-information

systems work best when they encourage participation, when people feel confident asking

questions, when they believe their request will be considered fairly and consistently

with clear guidelines.

Expanding the circumstances under which requests may be disregarded sends the opposite

signal to the public. This introduces uncertainty. It introduces hesitation, and it

risks discouraging the very participation that access-to-information legislation was

designed to support. A right that can be set aside without clear criteria is no longer

a strong right. It becomes a conditional one. That’s why this change deserves careful

examination as this bill proceeds through the House.

Another provision in Bill 9 that deserves the careful attention from the House is

the introduction of the fees for the records. I canvassed this briefly in my introduction

to the debate, but I would like to get into some more detail around this.

Records are already available to the public without the need to file formal access-to-information

requests. But now we see the possibility of fees. Clause 21 allows the head of a public

body to require a person to pay a fee for a copy of a record that falls within a category

of records identified as available without a request under the act. That change may

appear technical. But in practice, it actually represents a significant shift in how

British Columbians access information that government has already determined can be

made publicly available.

Proactive disclosure exists for a reason. It exists because certain records are considered

appropriate for release without requiring individuals to navigate the formal access-to-information

process. It exists because transparency should not always require an application,

and it exists because government should make information easier, not harder, for the

public to obtain.

Introducing these fees at this stage moves us in the complete opposite direction.

It creates a new barrier where one did not previously exist. It introduces uncertainty

about what information will remain accessible without cost attached. This risks discouraging

applicants from seeking records that government has already determined should be available

to them.

Access-to-information legislation should not create paywalls around public records,

especially not around records that have already been identified as appropriate for

release. British Columbians should not have to wonder whether information that is

described as publicly available will now carry a fee that is attached to it.

This concern is particularly important right now when we consider the broader discretion

of access-to-information policy in recent years. We have already seen the introduction

of filing fees for access requests. Now we are seeing the possibility of fees being

applied to records that previously did not require a request at all. So these are

more barriers. These are not doorways.

Taken together, these changes raise a very reasonable question. Are we making access

to information easier for British Columbians or more expensive? Transparency should

not depend on someone’s ability to pay. Proactive disclosure should remain exactly

what it says it is — proactive. Because once barriers begin to appear around information

that was previously available without cost, the public’s confidence in the openness

of government begins to erode.

[3:40 p.m.]

That is not a direction this House should accept without careful scrutiny.

Another area of Bill 9 that deserves very careful consideration is the introduction

of a new framework allowing the minister to designate what is described as a connected

services provider. Under clause 20, the minister may designate a public body to establish

and maintain an online platform that facilitates access to services across multiple

public bodies and enables the sharing of personal information between them. This is

a significant structural change. The intent appears to be the creation of a centralized

platform capable of identifying services for which individuals may be eligible and

coordinating access to those services across government programs.

On its face, improving coordination between public bodies is a reasonable objective,

one that I would support. British Columbians benefit when services are easier to access

and when government systems communicate effectively with one another.

However, what this provision also does is expand the authority for personal information

to be shared between public bodies under ministerial discretion. The legislation allows

the minister to issue directions respecting the type and quantity of personal information

that may be shared, the format in which it’s shared and the circumstances under which

particular categories of information may or may not be shared. That is a very broad

authority.

I think many people, average citizens even, would consider this to be a breach of

personal autonomy and privacy. When we talk about information and records having to

do with someone’s health or changes that they’ve made and that at a minister’s discretion

can be unilaterally moved over to a different ministry, these questions become very,

very important.

The debate and the scrutiny that is required to highlight this for anyone that is

considering this legislation and what the changes and the implications of it may mean….

Again, I go back to…. We have to ask if we’re really looking at efficiencies that

become a broad authority for government.

It enables decisions about how personal information moves across these government

systems, as I said. For this to be made through direction rather than clearly defined

statutory limits….

When legislation creates new mechanisms for sharing personal information across institutions,

the safeguards must be equally clear. British Columbians should understand what information

may be shared. They should understand under what conditions it may be shared, and

they should understand how decisions about those categories are made.

Sheldon Clare : I want to begin my opposition to Bill 9 with a simple principle. There is a social

contract that exists that is the essence of legitimacy of government. In a democracy,

information produced by government does not belong to government. It belongs to the

public.

The people of British Columbia pay for government. They fund the decisions that are

made in ministries. They fund the infrastructure projects that are built. They fund

the policy work that shapes our province. Because they pay for it, they have a right.

They have a right — not a privilege; a right — to know how those decisions are made.

That is why freedom-of-information laws exist. They are not a bureaucratic inconvenience.

They are one of the most important accountability tools available to citizens. These

tools allow journalists to investigate. They allow citizens to hold government accountable.

They allow opposition members in this House to examine decisions that affect communities

throughout British Columbia.

[3:45 p.m.]

That is why legislation that weakens freedom of information should concern every member

of this chamber. Unfortunately, Bill 9 challenges that social contract. It moves us

in the wrong direction. Transparency is the foundation of accountability, and freedom-of-information

laws exist for a reason. They exist because governments control vast amounts of information

— information about spending, information about decision-making, information about

communications between ministers and bureaucrats. They contain information about projects

that affect communities across this province.

Without access to that information, accountability becomes impossible. And without

accountability, public trust erodes. Transparency builds trust; secrecy destroys it.

It breaks down that social contract, and that is really the fundamental issue before

us today, because Bill 9 lowers the standard for transparency.

One of the most troubling changes in this bill is the replacement of the duty to respond

to requests “without delay” with the much weaker standard of “without reasonable delay.”

Now, on the surface, that might seem like a small wording change. But as I’ve been

told over many years, words matter. Words matter. Grammar matters. All of it matters,

and it’s particularly important in legislation.

Freedom-of-information requests in British Columbia already take far too long. Applicants

routinely wait months, sometimes years. In fact, statistical data shows that in recent

years, applicants waited an average of 192 additional business days beyond the legislated

timeline to receive responses. That’s more than nine months. We all know that nine

months is a pretty long time, and a lot of things can happen in nine months. That’s

nine months beyond the deadline that already exists in law.

Instead of strengthening the requirement to respond promptly, the government is weakening

it. Instead of fixing the problem, they are lowering the standard. That is not improving

transparency. That is merely redefining delay.

I have some experience with the current system. As a sitting MLA representing the

area where the Quesnel Bridge is located, I submitted a freedom-of-information request

last year seeking documents related to that bridge. It was not an unusual request.

There’s nothing malicious about it. There’s nothing abusive, nothing frivolous. It

was merely an attempt by this member as a Member of the Legislative Assembly to understand

decisions surrounding a piece of infrastructure affecting not merely the community

I represent but the entire province.

Yet what happened next speaks volumes about the state of the system in British Columbia.

The request disappeared. It went into the abyss of requests. Months passed, then more

months, requests for extensions of time. Eventually, a full year later, the response

finally surfaced. But when it did, it came with a hefty bill attached. After waiting

for about a year for information about a project in my own riding, I was told that

if I wanted the documents, I had to first pay the bill.

Think about that for a moment. An elected Member of the Legislative Assembly trying

to obtain information about a public infrastructure project in their community has

to wait a year and then has to pay for the privilege of seeing it.

Now, this raises an obvious question. If a member of this assembly has to have this

kind of difficulty to get information, how difficult is it already for ordinary citizens?

How difficult is it for journalists or for researchers? As an academic, I submitted

other freedom-of-information act requests, and I had that request blocked. They didn’t

want to give me the information.

[3:50 p.m.]

I thought to myself: “Okay.” I look at this bill. This bill actually talks about that,

and it would make that kind of blocking even more easy to do. That is not okay.

How easy would this be for community advocates trying to understand decisions that

affect their lives? And that experience that I’ve had…. Those experiences, I should

say, raise even more troubling questions when we consider the legislation before us

today.

If my requests were to be resubmitted under the provisions of Bill 9, would they even

be processed? Would they be simply dismissed out of hand? Could somebody claim that

the requests lacked enough detail? Could someone say that it’s going to take too long

to locate the records? Could it be argued that responding would interfere with the

operations of government? Well, these are precisely the kinds of new powers this bill

introduces, and that is why this legislation is so concerning.

Freedom of information is already slow. It is already expensive. It already requires

persistence. But Bill 9 risks making it easier for government to delay requests, reject

requests or simply discourage someone from making a request altogether. That represents

a breakdown of that social contract. Accountability disappears, for it expands the

grounds to reject requests.

It doesn’t just expand them in a little way. It dramatically expands them. You can

disregard requests as being abusive, malicious, excessively broad or something that

would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government of British Columbia.

Let us pause for a moment on that. Interfere with the operations of government. Wow.

That’s an incredibly broad concept. Responding to any request requires staff time.

Searching records requires effort. Reviewing documents requires resources. By that

definition, almost any request could be said to interfere with operations.

What makes this change particularly concerning is that the language now refers to

interference with the operations of the government of British Columbia as a whole,

rather than the operations of a specific public body. That dramatically widens the

scope. When legislation creates vague categories like that, it inevitably raises the

question of how broadly they might be interpreted. This gives the government a tremendous

amount of power over requests.

Another change in this bill gives the head of a public body the authority to determine

whether a request contains “enough detail.” It also allows them to determine whether

records can be located within “a reasonable amount of time.” Again, those phrases

are not defined. What qualifies as enough detail? What qualifies as reasonable time?

Those determinations will now be made by the very institutions being asked to release

the information.

Well, that doesn’t make any sense. It makes that body of government both the judge

and the gatekeeper of access to information. That is precisely the concern raised

by people advocating for transparency.

Now, another problem here is that there were a number of expert recommendations made.

It’s puzzling to me that it ignores many of the recommendations made in the 2022 special

legislative committee report titled FIPPA for the Future . That committee produced 34 recommendations to improve and modernize the freedom-of-information

system.

Among those recommendations were creating a duty to document, requiring government

to properly record decisions and extending freedom-of-information rules to the administrative

functions of the Legislative Assembly.

[3:55 p.m.]

Those reforms would have strengthened transparency. Yet where do we see them in this

bill? Well, we don’t see them in this bill. Instead of strengthening accountability,

Bill 9 focuses on administrative convenience.

There are a lot of people talking about this bill. Folks advocating for transparency

have been incredibly clear about their concerns. The Freedom of Information and Privacy

Association has warned that this legislation fails to address the real problems in

the system. Their executive director, Jason Woywada, put it plainly. “Access delays

are often a symptom of recordkeeping failures. You cannot fix systemic information

management problems by weakening public access rights.” That statement goes to the

heart of the issue.

The solution to delays is not to weaken access. The solution is to improve recordkeeping

and provide adequate resources to process requests.

Deputy Speaker : Member, apology to interrupt you.

I’m going to recognize the Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker : Carry on.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brittny Anderson : Today in the House, we have Canada’s International School, TFS, from Toronto. They

are a French immersion school from primary to high school.

We welcome you to our Legislature. We hope that you learn a lot. Bienvenue.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Deputy Speaker : Welcome to beautiful B.C. Welcome to everyone.

Member for Prince George–North Cariboo, apologies for the interruption.

Debate Continued

Sheldon Clare : Merci, Monsieur le Président. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bienvenue.

Freedom-of-information laws are not obstacles. They are safeguards. They ensure that

government decisions can be examined. They ensure that taxpayers can understand how

their money is spent. They ensure that communities are able to ask questions about

projects that affect their future. This is the social contract between the people

and their government. It is the essence of government legitimacy.

My own experience with the Quesnel River Bridge FOI request demonstrates how difficult

that process can already be. It was lengthy, it was expensive, and it required persistence

simply to obtain information that belongs to the people who paid for it, our taxpaying

public. Bill 9 risks making that process considerably more difficult.

The broader question before us today is simple. Do we want a government that is easier

to scrutinize, or do we want one that is harder to scrutinize? Do we want a system

that encourages transparency, or do we want a system that discourages requests for

information?

Freedom of information should never depend on how convenient a request is for government.

It should depend on the public’s right to know.

What we have is a lowering of the bar for transparency. We have a weakening of the

duty to respond. We have this expansion of grounds for rejecting requests — requests

which are perfectly reasonable — and we are also failing to implement key recommendations

which would have strengthened accountability.

Transparency needs to move forward, not backward, and for those reasons, this caucus,

this Conservative caucus, cannot support this legislation. In a democracy, the public’s

right to know should never come second to government convenience.

When we’re looking at some of the other criticisms that have been out there regarding

this particular legislation, there are a number. “Without unreasonable delay” — that’s

not okay. I’ve mentioned this already.

[4:00 p.m.]

Granting the heads of public bodies the authority to decide in their opinion about

detail and reasonable amount of time…. Well, why don’t they just write the request

themselves and reject it themselves then?

“Abusive,” “malicious,” all of those terms — this used to be the focus on public bodies,

not on people’s requests. There are poten