Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 1:53 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, folks. Welcome back. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

We’re on clause 13 as amended.

Would you like to ask questions on clause 13?

Rob Botterell : Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair : Please proceed.

On clause 13 as amended.

Rob Botterell : We now have clause 13 as amended in front of us. My first question to the minister

is: who requested this amendment? Who did government consult with regarding this amendment?

Did the government consult with users of the act on this amendment?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : As has been discussed previously, input from the general public was gathered through

the special committee process. For this clause, it addresses concerns raised by the

broader public sector, and the OIPC was consulted.

[2:00 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : I would just note for the record, on the consultation that the minister referenced, that 29 out of 34 of the special committee recommendations

made by the all-party committee in 2022 are not reflected in this legislation. The

five out of 29 recommendations and related consultation that are reflected in this

act as proposed do not include any reference to consultation on this amendment.

I’ll move to my next question, and that is…. As the minister responsible for the legislation

and responsible for seeking approval, with a request for legislation, to have the

legislation drafted, as the minister responsible for, as we’ve learned, consulting

with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and public servants within the B.C.

government and, ultimately, as the minister responsible for this legislation….

The clause we have in front of us, in its current form, provides for a public body

to apply to the commissioner to be able to disregard a request that would unreasonably

interfere with the operations of the public body or the ministry of the minister responsible

for the act.

I also note, in preparation for this question, that if clause 28 of Bill 9 passes, this

section will be retroactive and could encompass public bodies applying

to the commissioner to disregard requests as far back as time goes. My question relates

to the 5,867 requests made between 2024-25, ’23-24 — the FOI requests.

My question is: can the minister provide some examples to the public of British Columbia,

when the minister took forward the request for legislation, on the potential impact

of this amendment and the forecast number or hoped-for number of requests that would

be caught by this amendment?

[2:05 p.m.-2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : When someone abuses their access rights under FIPPA, it can have very serious consequences

for the access rights of others by overburdening a public body and impacting that

public body’s ability to respond to other requests. It can also harm the public interest

by unnecessarily adding to a public body’s cost of complying with FIPPA.

Just a reminder for the members opposite that the language we’re speaking of is existing

language. The OIPC has been adjudicating these kinds of requests for decades and holds

a very high bar as to when they approve a public body’s request to disregard an access

request. We anticipate very few cases.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

The minister just indicated that we expect very few cases. In fact, over the past

34 years, under the previous language before the amendment, there were two cases.

So the question arises: why make this amendment?

Two observations. First of all, the orders of the commissioner up until now will not

be applicable because the amendment to the legislation removes the guardrails that

the request needs to be systematic, repetitive or too broad and replaces it with simply

a test — that is, “unreasonable interference.”

So the test is going to be much broader than before, and the previous precedents don’t

answer the question of how it will be applied. The minister is suggesting that there

might only be a couple.

My question is: first of all, have I got that right? Then the second

part is: can

the minister give me an example of a request that would be unreasonable in the sense

of interfering with the operations of a public body but not systematic, repetitious

or too broad?

What is the new category that goes beyond systematic, repetitious or too broad? What

we are doing here is eliminating those three guardrails. So the drafters of this legislation,

under the direction of the minister and with the approval of a request for legislation,

must have thought that there was an additional category of requests that would not

be caught by “systematic,” “repetitious” or “too broad,” or there would be no reason

to amend the legislation in this way.

My question, once again, is: can the minister give me some examples, or give British

Columbians some examples, of requests that are unreasonable but not systematic, repetitious

or too broad?

[2:15 p.m.-2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : For the record, what I said was that we anticipate few cases.

Also, correcting for the record, the guardrails remain. While we have uncoupled the

tests, the tests in and of themselves remain the same, and the jurisprudence of the

OIPC would continue to guide

interpretation.

Overall, this clause has been narrowed through engagement with the MLA for Penticton-Summerland, and I thank the MLAs who engaged in dialogue to build a better bill.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

The minister just stated that the provisions that will guide the commissioner’s work

applying this

section as amended will be the same criteria. For the record, what I

take from what the minister has just indicated is that the amendment will have no

impact at all because the criteria that the commissioner will apply — instead of being

stated as systematic, repetitious and too broad, as defined in orders — will simply

be applied without being stated in this section.

That’s good news. That means that this

section will have no impact at all on operations

and will not in any way expand the types of requests that are eligible to be disregarded.

It’ll be the minister, it’ll be the Legislative Assembly that will be monitoring the

commissioner to ensure that the commissioner does not engage in scope creep.

I’ll move on. That’s great news.

[2:25 p.m.]

My final question is: what procedural safeguards are there that, in terms of the oversight

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s work, are available? Obviously, we want

to ensure that the procedural safeguards are in place. What are the procedural safeguards

that the commissioner will be subject to in his decision-making?

Hon. Diana Gibson : For the record, the statement by the member opposite of what I said in the previous

answer and his

interpretation are incorrect.

With regards to the question being asked, the procedural safeguard oversight of the

OIPC has been thoroughly canvassed in this committee.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

The minister can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, the minister is saying that

the commissioner will be guided by prior decisions in which the check and balance

on “unreasonably interfere with operations” was that the request also had to be systematic,

repetitive or too broad. That’s on the one hand. Now what we’re hearing from the minister

is: “No, no. I never said that.”

That’s fine. I accept that. I accept that assurance from the minister. But what that

means is that the clause does have impact and that it does allow the commissioner

to make rulings on authorizing a public body to disregard a question when it is not

systematic, repetitious or too broad.

My question is: what are the additional ways in which the commissioner is now enabled

to disregard a request?

Clearly, the change in the act, by the minister’s own comments just a moment ago,

is that “systematic,” “repetitious” and “too broad” are not the only criteria that

the commissioner will consider. When the request for legislation was done, when the

drafting instructions were created for this section, there must have been a sense

that systematic, repetitious and too broad was not enough.

Hon. Diana Gibson : For the record, I will read in again what I’m on the record as having said. While

we have uncoupled the tests, the tests in and of themselves remain the same.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister. “Asked and answered. The clause is the same.” That’s how I interpret

your answer, and that’s how British Columbias will interpret your answer — that the

commissioner will not be expanding the operation of this section.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’ll go to my final point, and I’ll then happily turn matters over for further questions

and so on to my colleague.

This is a statement for the record. It has been brought to my attention by an applicant

who has extensive legal background that he has evidence — this relates directly to

the review of decisions under this section, so this is germane — that the commissioner’s

office is repeatedly breaching administrative law principles of procedural fairness

related to the review and handling of FOI complaints.

I understand the applicant has raised these concerns with the Information and Privacy

Commissioner to no avail. Yesterday the applicant raised these concerns with other

arms of government.

This is a matter of very serious concern, because throughout these committee hearings

on Bill 9, the minister has assured British Columbians that they can rely on the Information

and Privacy Commissioner to ensure, both procedurally and substantively, that the

commissioner will uphold the right to access and protection of privacy set out in

section 2 of the act when interpreting and applying the Bill 9 amendments we are considering.

The applicant I am referring to is Dr. Dosmukhamedov. He is a legal scholar, an independent policy analyst and formerly a senior associate

member and research fellow at the University of Oxford.

What assurance can the minister provide the public of B.C. that the minister will

meet with this applicant and the commissioner to review and determine how these serious

procedural complaints can be addressed and provide a public statement, and until such

time as these concerns have been fully reviewed and addressed, there will be no further

consideration of Bill 9 at committee?

Hon. Diana Gibson : There are clear processes for review of the OIPC and appropriate pathways. I’d like

to keep the discussions to the clause in question.

[2:35 p.m.]

Jody Toor : I’d like to table two amendments for clause 13.

The Chair : Go ahead. Then, if you’d like, you can speak to the amendment now, while we look into

whether it’s in order.

Jody Toor : My first amendment that I’m tabling removes the terms “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,”

“systematic” and aggressively “broad.” These terms were vague, undefined and could

have been translated too broadly against journalists, researchers, advocacy groups

or ordinary citizens trying to obtain information from the government.

[ Clause 13 is amended by striking the following shown as struck:

Section 43 is amended

(

a) by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) the behaviour of the applicant is abusive or malicious, , and

(

b) by striking out “ or ” at the end of paragraph (

b) and by repealing paragraph (

c) and substituting the following:

(

c) responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of

(

i) the public body, or

(ii) the ministry of the minister responsible for this Act, or

(

d) the request is

(

i) an abuse of the right to make a request under

section 5 or 29 because the request

is repetitious or systematic, or

(ii) excessively broad. ]

The purpose of this amendment is not to stop government from dealing with requests

that genuinely create operational problems. The purpose is to make sure freedom-of-information

laws remain focused on transparency and public access rather than giving government

broad liberty to reject requests based on subjective language.

The Chair : We will take a brief recess, and we’ll call the committee back once we have a determination

of whether or not the amendment is in order.

The committee recessed from 2:36 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair : Welcome back to Committee of the Whole on Bill 9. We are reviewing the amendment to

the amended clause 13. The amendment has been ruled in order.

The mover has spoken to the motion. Would the minister like to respond to the amendment?

On the amendment as amended.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I’ll be speaking against the amendment. I disagree with the premise behind it, because

the guardrails are there with the high bar that is set by the independent Office of

the Privacy Commissioner, appointed by an all-party committee.

The terminologies that are in there continue to be tests in the language, as discussed

on the record.

Rob Botterell : I’ll be supporting this amendment, but I think it’s fairly important for the record

why I will be supporting this amendment.

Part (

b) of the amendment says: “by striking out ‘or’ at the end and by repealing

paragraph (

c) and substituting the following,” and “responding to the request would

unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body” and then the portion

that’s struck out is “the ministry of the minister responsible for this act” and also

“the request is an abuse of the right to make a request because the request is repetitious,

systematic or excessively broad.”

I just want it on the record. Apparently, the minister and I disagree. The indication

we have, based on…. The way I interpret what the minister has said is that “unreasonably

interfere” will be interpreted in the same way in the future as it was in the past,

whether or not the words “repetitious,” “systematic” or “excessively broad” are included.

On that basis, I support the amendment.

The Chair : On the question of the amendment to the amended clause 13, shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[2:55 p.m.-3:00 p.m.]

The Chair : Hello, Members. Thank you. Welcome back.

Seeing as how we are all assembled, can I get agreement to waive time?

Leave granted.

The Chair : Good. Excellent, thank you. All right. We’re good.

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of

Section A or

their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote. The question is on the amendment

to the amended clause 13.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5

Dew

Botterell

Maahs

Stamer

Luck

NAYS — 5

Routledge

Parmar

Begg

Dix

Gibson

The Chair : Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make

a casting vote. The Chair votes against the amendment, to keep the bill intact in

its amended form as adopted in the House.

We are returning to the question on clause 13. On the question of the amended clause

13, are there any further questions?

Seeing no further questions on the amended clause 13, I ask: shall clause 13 be carried?

Division has been called.

[3:05 p.m.]

Thank you, Members. Seeing that we are all assembled and that we have now reached five minutes, I ask for consent to waive time.

Leave granted.

The Chair : Fantastic. Thank you so much, Members.

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of

Section A or

their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote. The question is: shall the

amended clause 13 pass?

Clause 13 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5

Routledge

Parmar

Begg

Dix

Gibson

NAYS — 5

Dew

Botterell

Maahs

Stamer

Luck

[3:10 p.m.]

The Chair : Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make

a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of the amended clause 13 to keep the bill intact in its form as adopted in the House.

We have passed clause 13. Now we are moving on to clause 15, as clause 14 was passed

earlier.

However, we will take a five-minute recess and return at 3:15.

The committee recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair : Welcome back, Members.

We are now returning to Bill 9 on the question of clause 15.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Jody Toor : While this amendment may appear technical, its operation reinforces the expanded extension framework created earlier in the bill, including

the extension based on applicant consent. I believe it is important for this committee

to understand how these interconnected amendments may collectively affect timelines,

procedural fairness and the balance of power between applicants and the public bodies

within the FOI process.

Why was it necessary to amend this

section to incorporate

section 10(1.1)?

Hon. Diana Gibson : This change is just about making the act consistent with the changes in clause 10,

and the questions asked by the member opposite were canvassed thoroughly in the discussion

of that clause.

Jody Toor : Clause 16 may look technical because it only updates a reference, but the concern

is that it helps reinforce and embed the expanded extension system created in clause

Is this amendment helping strengthen the broader extension authorities government

introduced earlier in this legislation?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you to the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify that clause 16 does

not address extension provisions but is about maintaining the commissioner’s power

to review public body time limit extensions.

Jody Toor : Could these interconnected amendments collectively prolong to longer FOI processing

timelines, and, if they do, what safeguards ensure that applicants are not pressured

into consenting to extensions?

Hon. Diana Gibson : That issue was thoroughly canvassed when we discussed clause 5.

Jody Toor : Does government acknowledge that technical amendments can still have meaningful operational

consequences for applicants?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : It’s not appropriate for me to speak in big, general terms. With regards specifically

to this clause, that is not the case. This is about maintaining the power to review

public body time and extensions and confirming and affirming the oversight that helps

address the very concerns you’re raising.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Jody Toor : Clause 17 proposes changes to

section 69(5.2) so that the ministries must notify the

commissioner during development of integrated programs or activities and only provide

the privacy impact assessment if the commissioner requests it. My concern with this

clause is that it appears to reduce the automatic disclosure of privacy impact assessments

to the commissioner and instead shifts the responsibility onto the commissioner to

request access.

As government expands connected systems and information-sharing throughout this bill,

I believe that this committee must carefully examine whether this amendment reduces

proactive privacy oversight at the same time government is increasing coordinated

data collection and sharing powers. Why did government move from automatic provision

of privacy impact assessments towards a request-based model?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The change here is because the broad requirement means that even minor updates or

extensions of CIPAs, privacy impact assessments, must be submitted to the commissioner

for review and comment. The OIPC receives a large volume of these that is administratively

burdensome to review, many of which only have insignificant changes or extensions.

This notification process provides the OIPC the flexibility to review and comment

on the ones they identify as significant.

Jody Toor : Does this amendment reduce proactive oversight by the commissioner? Why would the

commissioner now have to request access to privacy impact assessments rather than

receiving them automatically?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : For the record, this does not apply to all privacy impact assessments broadly. It

only applies to common or integrated programs or activities, CIPAs, being proposed

by a ministry or ministries. Proactive oversight is not reduced, because there is

a requirement to notify the OIPC.

Jody Toor : Could important privacy concerns be missed if assessments are not normally provided?

What criteria will determine whether the commissioner requests a particular assessment?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The Privacy Commissioner will continue to review these as they always have.

[3:35 p.m.]

Jody Toor : As the minister just said that the commissioner will continue to review the assessments,

were any concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner regarding this change? If so,

how were those concerns addressed?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The OIPC was consulted in the process of this clause, and no concerns were raised.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Jody Toor : Clause 18 applies a similar framework to non-ministry public bodies, requiring notifications

to the commissioner while only providing privacy impact assessments upon request.

This clause appears to apply the same shift in privacy oversight to non-ministry public

bodies by moving from more proactive review towards a request-based model for privacy

impact assessments.

Given the increasing complexity of connected systems, integrated programs and interagency

information-sharing throughout this bill, I believe that this committee should carefully

examine whether this amendment weakens the independent oversight at a point and at

a time when stronger safeguards may actually be required.

Why was the same request-based oversight model extended to non-ministry public bodies?

What operational problem was government attempting to solve?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The purpose for this change and the oversight remain the same as discussed in the

previous clause.

Jody Toor : Why should the burden now rest on the commissioner to request privacy impact assessments

rather than automatically receiving them? Was the previous automatic review process

considered too restrictive or inconvenient? Does government acknowledge that there

is a major difference between proactive oversight and oversight that depends on the

commissioner first identifying a concern?

How can the commissioner identify concerns requiring deeper scrutiny without usually

receiving the assessment in the first place? Is government effectively shifting privacy

oversight from automatic review towards selective review now?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The answer to the premise and the question is no. This does not reduce proactive oversight

because of the notification requirement in this clause.

Jody Toor : Could this create inconsistency oversight depending on whether assessments are requested?

Could similar projects receive different levels of scrutiny, then?

Hon. Diana Gibson : I want to remind the member opposite that this only refers to proposed common or integrated

programs or activities and that the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner

continues to determine the appropriate level for review.

Jody Toor : Does government acknowledge that integrated systems operated by non-ministry public

bodies may still involve highly sensitive personal information, including health,

housing, education, disability or income-related information?

Why is the government expanding connected systems while reducing automatic privacy

review? Does government acknowledge concerns that these changes are moving in the

opposite direction?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The answer is no. We’ve already spoken multiple times to the automatic notification

provision that continues to maintain that proactive oversight.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

Jody Toor : The proposed change for clause 19 to repeal

section 69(5.5). Whenever government repeals

an existing safeguard or oversight provision…. I believe it is important for this committee to clearly understand what protection or

requirement is being removed, why it is being removed and what practical effect that

repeal may have within the broader privacy and information-sharing framework created

throughout this bill.

What particular did

section 69(5.5) previously require or protect, and why did government decide

to repeal this provision?

Hon. Diana Gibson : This clause simply removes notification requirements made redundant by amendments

introduced earlier, which will require public bodies or the minister responsible for

the act to notify the commissioner of proposed common or integrated programs or activities.

Jody Toor : What operational or legal effects does this repeal create, and was the previous subsection

creating limitation government no longer wanted?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Asked and answered.

Jody Toor : Does government acknowledge that repealing even technical safeguards may still have

major practical consequences over time?

Hon. Diana Gibson : This is addressed in another

section of the act, so the answer is no.

Jody Toor : Were any concerns raised during the removal of this subsection during consultation

or drafting? Was any consultation done outside, or was it just within the ministry?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : As we have canvassed already quite thoroughly, this language is not necessary because

it is addressed elsewhere in other sections.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

Jody Toor : I just want to have some things on the record.

Clause 20 creates an entirely new connected service provider framework. This clause allows government to designate public bodies as connected

service providers and establish centralized online service platforms, facilitates

sharing of personal information between public bodies, identifies services individuals

may qualify for and authorizes the minister to direct how personal information is

shared, categorized, formatted and coordinated across systems. This clause defines

sharing as “collection, use and disclosure of personal information.”

My concern with this clause is that it appears to create the framework for centralized

coordination and sharing of personal information across connected government systems,

ministries and public bodies. While government may describe this as modernization

or improved service delivery, I believe this committee must carefully examine the

scope of these powers and the level of ministerial direction involved, the safeguards

protecting personal information and how government intends to maintain transparency

and public trust, as more personal information moves between connected systems.

Why is an FOI bill being used to create an entirely new connected service and centralized

information-sharing framework? Why was a stand-alone legislation not introduced for

a framework of this kind of scope?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite.

We have canvassed this previously in this committee, but it’s a good opportunity to

remind the member opposite that this is not just freedom of information, but it’s

a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[3:55 p.m.]

That is precisely the place where we can ensure the maintenance of safety and oversight

for people’s personal information that this deserves.

Jody Toor : As I had previously mentioned, the clause also defines “sharing” and “collection.”

I just want to ask: why does the definition of “sharing” include collection, use and

disclosure, rather than simple disclosure alone?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The term “collection, use and disclosure” is common language in the act.

Jody Toor : Could future governments expand these systems’ operations through regulation, ministerial direction or policy without legislative amendment? What

safeguard prevents function creep, where systems gradually expand beyond their original

purpose over time?

Hon. Diana Gibson : We have thoroughly canvassed the oversight and safeguards of this bill in other sections.

[4:00]

Just a note to add that, in fact, we’ve added additional proactive oversight under

section 6 of this clause.

The Chair : Thank you. We will take a five-minute recess and then return in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:00 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair : We are returning back from a brief recess. We are on Bill 9, Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. I am calling the committee back to

order.

Jody Toor : How will the government ensure operational convenience does not gradually outweigh

privacy protection and informed public consent?

Has government conducted a comprehensive privacy and cybersecurity risk assessment

for this framework, and if they have, will those findings be publicly available?

Hon. Diana Gibson : In answer to the question, again, to reaffirm, the reason Connected Services is in

this act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, is because this

is where we maintain the protection of personal information.

Connected Services will also of course be required to comply with government privacy

and security requirements.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jody Toor : I see that the minister didn’t answer one of my questions, so I’d like to ask again.

Will those findings be publicly available?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Summaries of all privacy impact assessments are published on the government website,

and that will continue.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

Elenore Sturko : On clause 21, I’d like to propose an amendment. I move, in committee on Bill 9, Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, to amend as follows:

[ CLAUSE 21, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text

as shown:

Section 71 is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the head of a public body

(

a) must establish categories of records that are in the custody or under the control of the public body and are available to the public without a request for access under this Act, and

(

b) in the case of records in the custody or under the control of the public body that contain personal information about an individual, may establish categories of those records that the public body may make available to the individual without a request for access under this Act. , and

(

b) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) The head of a public body may must not require a person who asks for a copy of a record available under subsection (1) (

a) to pay a fee to the public body.]

The Chair : Would you like to speak to your amendment?

On the amendment.

Elenore Sturko : I would, Chair. I appreciate this opportunity.

For my constituents that might be watching, I think it’s important that you know that

in committee, I don’t have a vote. I’m not a designated voter of this committee, but

I thought it was important to bring forward this amendment. I hope that others in

this room who are voters will consider it, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring

my point of view on this amendment and on this clause forward.

[4:20 p.m.]

The amendment that I’m proposing is that we continue to allow the public bodies to,

without a request, disclose information that they might have about the individual

but that we actually don’t charge people money for that.

I think that there’s been some controversy over this bill, that the public has doubted

the transparency or the willingness of government to be transparent. Transparency

between government and the public of British Columbia is one of the foundations of

our democracy. Building that trust and establishing that the public feel that they

have access, particularly to information that affects them personally, I think is

one of the most important parts of dealing with freedom-of-information requests and

the protection of privacy in this province.

I think that

an act of good faith and willingness on the part of this government,

particularly in a time when people are struggling financially…. We’re having economic struggles in our province right

now. One of the ways that we can do this is, in this new portion of our legislation, to not allow public bodies to charge people for

that, whether they’re going to get a driver’s abstract or whether they’re going to

get any other information that this might pertain to, that we don’t allow, at this time, fees to be placed upon individuals for getting that information that really pertains

to the individual.

I have a couple of quotes here that I want to read that I think are actually pretty

important to illustrate what I’m bringing forward in this amendment. I’m going to

read a quote by Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey from September 22, 2025.

He says: “A healthy democracy relies on engaged and informed citizens. A robust and

well-functioning access-to-information system builds trust between public bodies and

the people they serve. It’s our single strongest defence in the face of a bombardment

of misinformation and disinformation and growing mistrust of institutions. All public

bodies in the province benefit when they are transparent to the people they serve.”

I’ll also read one more quote from Commissioner Harvey and it comes, actually, from

a Business in Vancouver

article that was published earlier. It’s talking about the cost to the media and

others when they apply for access-to-information, freedom-of-information requests.

While I recognize that that charge comes from a different

section of the act and a

different application of these requests, I think that it’s so pertinent, because it

really does show how, over time and depending on the scope of a person’s request,

the amount of money that they could be expected to pay is actually quite substantial.

This is from an

article in Business in Vancouver . It says:

“How about $10, $20, $30? No. Thanks to some clever little changes made by the good

folks at the B.C. government recently, the true cost to apply for information on what

the government is doing has spiked to an eye-watering $280. The reason is simple.

Government no longer helps people get information from across its many ministries.

“So if you want to know how much the provincial government spent on, say, catered

meals for its executives, rent for its offices, travel for its upper managers or consultants

for sensitive files, you are required to file 28 different freedom-of-information

requests to 28 different ministries, offices and secretariats, each with separate

$10 application fees.

“It’s an escalation that has caught the attention of Information and Privacy Commissioner

Michael Harvey, who says that while it’s technically not illegal, it’s not the right

thing to do either. ‘Can the government do this? Yes,’ he said in an interview. ‘Should

the government do it? I’d argue what they should do is take a closer look at how they

respond and find a way to respond to freedom-of-information requests that sends a

message to the public about transparency.’”

I’d like to say that this amendment that I’m proposing, to not allow for the further

fee to be charged under this new amendment to clause 21, is a way for the government

to show that it wants to be transparent.

I recognize that there are costs to the government when it comes to having to find

information for people. We have people who are being paid wages, who are taking time

away, perhaps, from regular duties to find information that the public is requesting.

But we want to also make sure that information is accessible. We want to make sure

that we’re sending a message to British Columbians about the willingness of its government

to communicate with people, to be transparent, even about things that the media might

portray as being sensitive or embarrassing.

[4:25 p.m.]

Therefore, I hope that people will have a serious look at this amendment. I hope that

they will, the government…. Recognizing that I’ve already had discussions with the minister

and her staff about some of my previous concerns, which…. The government has made

some amendments, and I was supportive of those amendments. I hope that they’ll take

a look at this amendment too.

It’s not something that we discussed in detail, but it goes beyond just a simple $10

fee. I think that what I really wanted to articulate in this committee was the fact

that even bringing this legislation forward, causing some of the controversy that

it did, this is an opportunity for government to show its commitment to transparency, its commitment

to ensuring that British Columbians can afford to access information that they are

entitled to, particularly in this clause, where it’s actually information about the individual.

Thank you for the opportunity, and I hope that my colleagues here in this committee

will speak to you and support this amendment.

The Chair : We will need to take a brief recess, and we will return at 4:35 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:36 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. We have returned back from recess on Bill 9, Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

The amendment is in order.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I want to clarify that clause 21(2) is specifically about preventing a public body

from charging a fee for the proactive disclosure of someone’s own personal information.

In fact, the reason this clause is here is to prevent fees from being charged on somebody’s

own personal information being provided to them.

However, with regards to the amendment being proposed, we’d like to stand down clause

21 in order to give it due consideration.

The Chair : The request of the minister is that this clause be stood down.

Is there consent of the committee?

Division has been called.

[4:40 p.m.-4:45 p.m.]

There is currently a request by the minister to stand down clause 21 for further consideration.

The committee initially did not give consent, and so here we are at division.

Clause 21 stood down on the following division:

YEAS — 5

Routledge

Higginson

Sandhu

Gibson

Chow

NAYS — 5

Clare

Botterell

Maahs

Stamer

Luck

The Chair : Members, there being, essentially, a tie on this vote, the Chair has to break the

tie. As such, I will be voting in favour to allow additional consideration of the

clause.

We will take a brief recess of five minutes and return back at 4:55.

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair : Members, we’re returning from recess on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

On clause 22.

Jody Toor : Clause 22 gives the minister authority to establish categories of records across ministries

that may be made available without an FOI request. My concern with this clause is

the extent of ministerial authority being created over determining what categories

of record may be made publicly available without a formal access request.

While proactive disclosure may improve transparency, I believe this committee must

carefully examine who controls these decisions, what safeguards exist and whether

this framework may gradually centralize control over how government information is

accessed and distributed.

Why is ministry authority necessary to determine categories of records available without

FOI requests? What limits exist on the minister’s authority under this section?

Hon. Diana Gibson : This change is about ensuring the proactive disclosure of records containing an individual’s

own personal information directly to them without requiring an FOI.

We’ve talked a little bit but maybe not enough about the proactive disclosure as a

concept. This is about us being able to provide information to individuals without

an FOI. Our government’s commitment to getting information to individuals that they

seek and our priority for ensuring access to information has led us to create 17 categories

already of proactive disclosure that enable us to provide information we know people

frequently ask for, without them having to file an FOI.

Bill 9 creates an additional category which is proactively disclosing a person’s personal

information to them without having to request an FOI, which is what this clause does.

Jody Toor : My question to the minister. Does government acknowledge concerns this centralizes

control over how public information is accessed? How will citizens challenge decisions

regarding what categories are or are not made available?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The language that the member opposite is referring to, in terms of the minister responsible

for the act establishing categories of records, is already in the act, and so the

oversight of that does not change. What this does is add one new category for personal

information disclosure.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

Jody Toor : The proposed change for clause 23 as it reads says that it clarifies that

section

73 applies to records referred to in sections 3(3) and 3(5), including certain records

excluded from the act.

Although this clause may appear to be a clarification provision, I believe it is important

for this committee to understand precisely what records are affected, what legal effect

this clarification creates and whether it changes how excluded records are treated

under the act in practice.

Why was this clarification considered necessary? What operational or legal issue was

government attempting to address?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Because of changes made in sections 3(3) and (5) that deal with exceptions, it was important in this clause to clarify

that potential mistaken disclosure records that are not subject to FOIPPA are still included in the protection

from legal suit under

section 73.

Jody Toor : Could this clarification broaden the application of

section 73 beyond previous clarification?

If this is purely technical, why was this legislative amendment necessary, then?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : No, it doesn’t broaden the scope.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

Jody Toor : Clause 24 has a proposed change that adds the formal definition of “connected service

provider” to

schedule 1 of the act. While this clause appears definitional, it formally

incorporates the connected service provider framework into the act and therefore links

directly to the broader power surrounding information-sharing, collection, disclosure

and centralized coordination established elsewhere in this bill.

I believe it is important for this committee to understand the practical implementation

of formally embedding this framework into this bill.

Why was it necessary to formally define “connected service provider” within this act?

Does this definition operationally entrench the broader connected service framework established earlier in the bill?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The purpose of connected services — the scope, the oversight and protection — has

been well canvassed already in previous clauses.

Sheldon Clare : Is it possible that the meaning or role of connected services providers could be expanded

through designation powers?

How broadly does the government intend to interpret this definition in an operational

sense? Does the government acknowledge, for example, that

definitions often shape

future statutory

interpretation and operational authority?

What safeguards has the ministry put in, or does this bill contain, that would limit

expansion of the connected services provider model over time?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The answer is no. The guardrails, safeguards, scope and oversight for connected services

and Bill 9 have been thoroughly canvassed in this committee already.

Clause 24 approved.

On clause 25.

Jody Toor : Clause 25 makes the amended

section 3(5) apply retroactively to requests received before, on or after the

section comes into

force.

My concern with this clause is that it applies amended provisions retroactively to

requests already in existence before this bill comes into force. I believe this committee

must carefully examine why retroactive application was considered necessary, what

effect it may have on existing access requests or proceedings and whether changes

to the rules after requests have already been made raise fairness and accountability

concerns.

Why did government believe retroactive application was necessary in this clause? What

concern existed with applying the amendment only? Why was government considered about ongoing proceedings continuing under the previous framework?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you for the question. It’s important to recognize that this clause applies to

duplicate processing, so where an individual would be getting or able to access information

through another process like a legal process. Then making this retroactive would help

with reducing FOI strain and eliminating extraneous legal costs in what is a duplication

of effort.

Sheldon Clare : Thank you for the response to the question. Now, as the minister stated, this is about duplication.

However, I’m wondering if this amendment could affect requests already underway under

the previous legal framework and if applicants could be experiencing different rules

if they’re involved in a dispute, rules that have changed partway through the process.

Is this not a concern that the government may have, that applicants may have relied

on the existing rules when making requests? And would they not have had a reasonable

expectation that the rules in place at the time of filing would continue to apply?

Could it be that retroactive application disadvantages applicants who are currently

engaged in proceedings or access disputes? Could they be harmed by this change? Would

they be losing procedural advantages or any rights under the new framework? Are there

safeguards that exist to ensure that retroactive application is used narrowly and

fairly in this instance?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : We canvassed this issue very thoroughly when we were discussing clause 3. Other processes

are more appropriate avenues and even could provide greater disclosure.

Clauses 25 to 29 inclusive approved.

The Chair : As such, the committee is going to take a short recess and return back at 5:35 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:23 p.m. to 5:36 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. We’re calling the committee back to order on Bill 9, Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. We are now going to

consider clause 21 and the amendment brought forward by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

On clause 21.

On the amendment (continued) .

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you to the member opposite for bringing forward the amendment suggestion and

for the commitment to access to information the member opposite has shown in the discussions

we’ve had about maximizing access to information under this bill.

Clause 21 is about ensuring that no fees can be charged for proactive disclosure of

personal information, which I made clear earlier. It’s really important to ensure

that people understand that for somebody who’s accessing their own information, this

clause is about ensuring that those can be disclosed without a freedom-of-information

request and that that will be done without fees being charged.

It does allow fees in some cases. It may allow fees, it says, for proactive disclosure

of general information. This provision applies to over 2,900 public bodies subject

to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. While ministries don’t

charge for proactive disclosure in general, information disclosures, other bodies

may. We haven’t consulted with those 2,900 public bodies that are impacted by this

amendment.

Just to clarify what this applies to, this isn’t the fees for processing FOI and creating

the proactive disclosure. This is about, say, a small municipality that has a request

for information that they’ve made available through proactive disclosure that, perhaps,

has a policy to have photocopy fees for provision of the documents. So it could be

that kind of fee.

We won’t be able to support the amendment at this time but do, again, appreciate the

member opposite’s commitment to access to information, which we share.

Elenore Sturko : I just want to ensure that I’m allowed to participate again. I already did speak once.

Is it in order for…?

Thank you, Chair.

Just in regard to the statement from the minister, I appreciate her taking the time

to do further consideration on clause 21. I went back myself during the recess to

review

section 71, which is what is covered in clause 21, these changes being brought

forward by the government.

[5:40 p.m.]

What we’re talking about is information that is generally proactively available to

the public without having to put forward a freedom-of-information formal application.

When I went back and read what

section 71 is about — what is the spirit of

section

71 and the information that would be provided to the public? — it really is about things that would normally be accessible to the public. These

are things that they’re not making any special requests for. These are things that,

really, would be considered accessible.

We know that people are having a hard time economically. I also just read an

article

about how people are actually changing their eating habits because of a lack of available

funds for people. So I understand that more consultation would need to perhaps happen

with the large number of organizations that the minister referenced, but we’re talking

about something that would be normally available to people.

Even charging a small fee for individuals, for example for a photocopying fee…. I mean, these are things that actually don’t make information accessible. Even a small

fee for a senior or someone on a fixed income or someone struggling to make ends meet

in this province right now — $5, $10, $20 — could be the difference between accessing

information that under

section 71 is already available or would be proactively disclosed

to individuals in British Columbia. Even adding a small fee can make that information

out of reach.

I really do think that at a time when, you know, as I quoted earlier today, our Privacy Commissioner notes that we’re battling misinformation

and people have lost trust in their public institutions, it’s vitally important for

us to consider the message that we’re sending to the public. This is an opportunity

to send that message that we do care about transparency. We care about allowing people

to have access to information at the same time as we want to protect people’s privacy.

Yes, they may just be small fees that, as in the example that the minister gave, would be for things like photocopies or accessing

a publication. But if this is information under this

section which is meant to be

accessible without freedom-of-information request things, that would be proactively…. We want to ensure that we’re

not reducing people’s access.

I think that at this time, when budgets are so tight, even a small fee, even a number,

a handful of dollars, is making the difference here. And it would be really a great

message for this minister, this government to send to the public of British Columbia,

that they want to not put an extra cost burden.

If we really are only talking about photocopy fees…. I mean, I don’t know about anybody else, but municipal taxes are already very high. If

we’re talking about the amount of money that people are actually paying for what they’re

getting back, I would think that the cost of a photocopy wouldn’t be more than what

other governments would be able to absorb. That’s something that the government will

need to consult with them — and have them justify why they would need to be charging

extra fees for these types of requests.

I get it, that there are people who make repeated requests, but if I understand this

bill correctly, and even some of the amendments that have been made that I discussed

with the minister and her staff, the other amendments to get rid of things that are

vexatious or things that are repetitive or things that are considered to be too broad

of scope or, perhaps, not enough information are going to deal with those type of

complaints that people might be taking advantage of the system where there isn’t,

for example, a fee charged.

While I respect that the minister says she can’t support this amendment, I really

think that every one of us in this room needs to think about the message beyond just

the scope of this,

section 71, clause 21, and think about the cost overall of getting

access to information in this province, the importance of transparency to our democracy

and how adding on even nominal fees chips slowly away, chips away at people’s ability

to access the information that they should rightly have.

[5:45 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : I rise to speak in support of this amendment. I will say that it struck me to the

core of my being when this bill passed second reading, and it was very disappointing

to see the independents voting in support of second reading.

But I’m setting that aside, because in the 1990s, when this legislation was passed,

the NDP government at the time, the Attorney General of the time, Colin Gabelmann, stated on the record that fees would not be a barrier to access. And here we are.

I won’t recite the history of the $10 fee, but here is an opportunity to respect the

original architect, the Attorney General, of the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act and his commitment at the time that fees would not be a barrier to

access.

So this is a simple, straightforward amendment. There was never a discussion that

fees would be a barrier to access for local governments but not a barrier to access

for ministries, or the other way around, or some public bodies and not others. It’s a question of showing

leadership, and leadership is that fees are not a barrier to access.

This amendment by my colleague is something that I think we should all get behind.

The Chair : We’re on the amendment to clause 21. Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the question.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 21 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.