Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:31 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information

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

Clause 2 was stood down pending the outcome of the division on the amendment proposed

by the minister. As the division was taken earlier today, we will return to consideration

of clause 2.

On clause 2 as amended.

Rob Botterell : My first of a number of questions on clause 2 as amended: how many orders have been

made under

section 5(1)(a)?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you to the member opposite.

There is a sectional index on the website of the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner where that can be found.

[11:35 a.m.]

Rob Botterell : The purpose of committee hearings isn’t to give the MLA asking the question a reading

list for late-night perusing. The purpose of committee is to answer the questions.

With the greatest of respect, I find the answer provided on this question somewhat

dismissive.

The fact is that there has only been one order on this section. I wanted to ask to

find out if the minister was aware of that and could actually answer a simple question.

Instead, I’m given a reading list, which I find less than helpful.

Let me help the minister. There is an order, F2415, district of Summerland, Celia

Francis, adjudicator, who has long experience at the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner. I know that because I hired her in 1991. The date on this order

is February 29, 2024. There is only one. This is what we call in the legal field “obiter”,

where the adjudicator points out, in paragraph 75, guidance for the district, and

for anybody who takes the time to read this order, on how to handle current and future

requests.

The reference in the order is that requests for records must comply with

section 5(1)(a),

which says that a request must provide enough detail to enable an experienced employee

of the public body, with a reasonable effort, to identify the record sought.

My question is: if there has only been one order in relation to this

section over

the last 34 years and that order does not squarely deal with a dispute about the application

section 5(1)(

a) and simply references it as a consideration in the processing request,

why change this section, the

section as amended, when there is no evidence in the

orders over — let me just repeat that — 30-plus years?

I have to do the math again. Let me just check my notes. I just want to get it right.

What was it? Oh, 34 years. There hasn’t been a problem for 34 years. Why change this

section?

The Chair : Member, I just would like, before the minister continues to answer the question, as

we sit in committee, that we be respectful. You may not like the response that’s given

by the ministry, but I’d ask that your tone be measured in relation to the work that

we’re trying to do here. Thank you.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The clause here is about a reasonable amount of time, referring to the provision of

additional detail to help identify the requested records. This is to incentivize applicants

to respond with clarifying details so that the officers can help the applicant get

the record they need.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.