Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:26 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

The Chair : I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. We are currently on the amendment to clause 13, which

has been raised by the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

On the amendment (continued) .

Rob Botterell : I want to begin this morning by taking a moment for all of us to thank the Hansard

team who work so hard behind the scenes to keep track of everything that we say and

to provide the Blues and all of it.

I’m reminded of this because this morning, far too early than should be the case,

I was at a coffee shop. Who should I meet but Susan from the Hansard team, who was

also getting a coffee and preparing for a day of helping us with our work in this

committee and in the Legislature generally. So I just wanted to note that for the

record.

In terms of the amendment, where we left yesterday was that the amendment adds the

“ministry of the minister responsible for this act.” My question to the minister was:

can you give me an example of information that would unreasonably interfere with the

operations of the ministry of the minister responsible for this act so British Columbians

can understand and have an example or examples to work with to understand how this

section would work and this particular amendment?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I’ve spoken to the amendment and the justification for it and have nothing further

to add. I look forward to discussing the details of the clause further when we have

dealt with the amendment and get back to discussing the bill.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister, for the answer to the question. I’m certainly happy to defer

discussion of the clause until after the amendment is dealt with. I will note that

my question was related directly to the amendment.

Just to assist the minister and her very capable and dedicated staff in preparation

for when we get there, in 2024-25 and ’23-24, there were a total of 5,867 FOI requests that were overseen by her ministry through the centralized process, so there’s

lots of material to draw on in order to provide specific answers at a later date.

The Chair : Shall the amendment to clause 13 pass?

Division has been called.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on May 19, the division on this amendment to clause 13 is deferred until the start

of orders of the day of the next sitting.

Clause 13 is, at this time, stood down pending the division, and we will move on to

clause 14.

Clause 13 stood down.

On clause 14.

Jody Toor : My concern with this clause is that it appears to operationally further expand the

information-sharing framework established under clause 12 by expressly authorizing disclosure under information-sharing agreements.

I believe that this committee must clearly understand what information may ultimately

be disclosed under these new agreements, what safeguards exist to prevent gradual

expansion over time and how government intends to maintain transparency, accountability

and public confidence as interjurisdictional information-sharing authorities increase.

My question to the minister: why was it necessary to expressly authorize disclosure

under information-sharing agreements?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The purpose of this clause is to ensure consistency across the bill and to enable

clause 12. Although a good question, the information-sharing limits and safeguards

are consistent and addressed in clause 12 and have been thoroughly canvassed already

by this committee.

Jody Toor : What categories of information may ultimately be disclosed under these agreements?

Could sensitive, investigative or personal information eventually circulate through

these agreements?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Limits of what kind of information can or cannot be shared under those agreements

and with whom have been thoroughly canvassed under clause 12.

Jody Toor : What safeguards limit disclosure authority under this clause, and who determines what

information may be disclosed?

And my final question to the minister is: will citizens know when information involving

them has been disclosed under an agreement?

The Chair : Can I ask members of the committee, when the minister or the member are speaking,

to not be speaking, please. It’s fine while they’re thinking but not while they’re

speaking.

Hon. Diana Gibson : Asked and answered.

Jody Toor : Are these disclosures subject to independent oversight or audit? Could future agreements

broaden disclosure practices beyond the current intended scope?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Asked and answered.

The Chair : The member is reminded that at a certain point it would be good to move on, please.

Jody Toor : But I have questions.

The Chair : I understand that. But as long as they are to the clause and have not….

Jody Toor : They are to the clause.

The Chair : Are you arguing with the Chair at this time?

Jody Toor : No, but I’m just trying to justify why I’m asking.

The Chair : Member, I’m asking you to remain with the clause and not go back over stuff that has

been previously canvassed in this committee. Thank you very much.

Jody Toor : Thank you, Chair.

Does government acknowledge concerns that clauses 12 and 14 together create broader

infrastructure for information circulation and coordination?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The limits to the kinds of information that can and cannot be shared and with whom,

as I have already said and am clearly on the record as saying, was thoroughly canvassed under clause 12.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Jody Toor : Clause 15, the extension of commissioner inquiry timelines. The proposed change reads as: “Clause 15 changes the timeline for inquiries under

review by allowing the commissioner to extend the 90-day completion period by specifying a later date and notifying the relevant parties.”

My concern with this clause is understanding how broadly inquiry timelines may now be extended, what objective standards will guide those extensions and whether these

amendments risk weakening timely oversight and accountability within the freedom-of-information process. While flexibility may sometimes be necessary, I believe that this committee

must carefully examine whether these changes could gradually normalize longer delays

within the review and inquiry system itself.

Why was it necessary to expand the commissioner’s ability to extend inquiry timelines?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite. The clause is about improving transparency for applicants

and helps set realistic expectations around the timelines for conducting inquiries

and reviews.

It’s important to note that this is coming from recommendations by previous FOIPPA

special committees. Three previous special committees have recommended this change.

It aligns FOIPPA with the existing provisions already in the personal information and protection of privacy act.

Rob Botterell : The reference that the minister makes is listed in the June 2022 report of the Special

Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The report is entitled FIPPA for the Future .

[11:45 a.m.]

On page 39, partway down the left column in the last paragraph, the committee states: “Additionally,

the special committee agreed that in instances where the Information and Privacy Commissioner

is delayed in completing a review, they must be able to extend the review period beyond

90 days without losing jurisdiction over the matter, as they can with the Personal

Information Protection Act.”

I have a number of questions. My first question is: what steps are the minister and

the ministry taking to ensure that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

is properly resourced in order that this does not become a routine event?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is an independent office. As such, the budget

is not set by the ministry. There is a separate budget process for such deliberations.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee stands adjourned. Thank you so much for your time this morning.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.