Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 1:41 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation and Transit

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, folks. Welcome back to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,196,576,000 (continued) .

Harman Bhangu : Thank you, Chair. We’re getting to the end of the estimates here and we’re in the

red zone, and I’m not kicking a field goal. We’re going for the touchdown there, Minister.

I want to return to the question of rail expansion in Fraser Valley. The last time

the issue was raised in the House, the minister expressed support for commuter rail

in principle while noting that if it were to be delivered today, it would depend on

access to existing freight corridors and negotiations with rail operators. The minister

also indicated that current investments do not preclude future rail options and referenced

the possibility of light rail within the corridor.

Over a week ago, the minister was asked again about rail expansion at a public announcement

related to the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project. In that response, the minister confirmed

that the work has been undertaken to examine rail corridors further up the valley

but emphasized that the current focus remains on Highway 1 and major road investments.

The minister also pointed to the SkyTrain extension as a key improvement to regional

mobility while noting that the rail remains something being looked at within the ministry.

Taken together, those responses point to a consistent position. Rail remains something

that has been studied and discussed but not something that is currently being advanced

with a defined path forward. At the same time, there is an important distinction.

Commuter rail connecting communities like Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Langley requires

dedicated space, direct alignment and long-distance capacity.

If it is fundamentally different from urban SkyTrain service or rail operations that

rely on shared freight corridors, that raises more of a specific question: whether

the Highway 1 corridor, which runs directly through these communities, is being preserved

in a way that could realistically support that kind of commuter rail in the future.

If that opportunity is not built into the corridor today, it may not be recoverable

later.

Does the ministry acknowledge that commuter rail connecting communities such as Chilliwack,

Abbotsford and Langley requires a different type of infrastructure than light rail

or urban SkyTrain?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make a couple of observations. One,

in terms of Highway 1, the expansion is underway. It is designed in such a way that,

for example, light rail could be placed along that. The member has mentioned commuter

rail and also SkyTrain.

Again, I’ll repeat, the focus of the ministry is on the Highway 1 expansion that’s

currently underway, along with the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project. Both are two significant,

huge infrastructure projects that are taking place.

At the same time, in terms of how you add onto that — if you were looking at commuter

rail, for example, or light rail or SkyTrain — a lot will depend on the nature of

the growth that takes place in communities up the valley. Commuter rail is significantly

different from light rail, so commuter rail tends to have fewer stops in between and

tends to run longer distances, as a train does, as opposed to light rail, which can

have a multiplicity of stops along the way.

All of those factors.… You need to undertake work in terms of determining what the

most effective way to move people is. Where are people going to and from? What are

the growth patterns taking place in the local communities like Abbotsford, Chilliwack

and Langley? How would they potentially fit into the existing transit infrastructure

— the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, for example, that’s being built? Then you’ve got the

existing commuter rail line that goes out to Mission. All of those things are part

and parcel of decisions that would have to be undertaken to advance rail in the way

that the member is talking about.

Right now, the focus of the ministry is very much on those two major projects, which

are significant in their own right and, obviously, taking time to come to completion.

Harman Bhangu : Can the minister confirm whether a sufficient right-of-way has been preserved within

the Highway 1 corridor to support commuter rail services or light rail running directly

through Chilliwack, Abbotsford and into Langley?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Certainly, Highway 1 is being built with the capacity to be able to take light rail.

In terms of commuter rail, that’s a different thing altogether, in the sense that

it’s not just: would you be using Highway 1? You’d have to find a way, on commuter

rail, to then be able to link up to the existing railway line and the existing commuter

rail service. The work that we’ve got underway is that whole progression of expanding

transit out the valley through numerous modes. We have existing commuter rail. We

have SkyTrain being built. The no. 1 is being built with a way that it could accommodate,

in the future, light rail.

Harman Bhangu : Can the minister confirm whether the province can deliver a direct commuter rail service

through the Fraser Valley connecting Abbotsford and Langley without relying on existing

freight corridors?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the question. I’ll answer it this way. First, in terms of a commuter

rail line, you’d have to find the route, okay? Second, there’s already an existing

one that uses the line, on CP Rail line, from Mission through Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows,

Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Port Moody, then right through to Vancouver.

I will tell you this. As the MLA for Port Coquitlam, if anyone thinks that they’re

going to then move the line from Port Coquitlam along the Barnett Highway to some

other route, it will be a cold day in hell before I allow that to happen.

Harman Bhangu : Well, Minister, what about the valley side? Can’t we get a route of our own?

Was commuter rail through Fraser Valley — specifically, connecting Chilliwack, Abbotsford,

Langley — even formally considered as a part of the design for the Highway 1 corridor

improvements, and what conclusions were reached? Also, was there any analysis or cost

incorporating commuter rail capacity into Highway 1 considered?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll put it this way. Highway 1 has been

designed to be able to move vehicles and people and transit. In the future, it can

take light rail. Then there’s the existing right-of-way, what they call the old B.C.

Electric route, through there. That could also be used for moving people from Chilliwack

through Abbotsford through Langley.

Commuter rail is a different beast altogether. It relies on a rail track. Currently,

the one we have is the one that’s with the negotiation to CP Rail that goes to Mission.

That’s where things are at the moment. Anything future to extend that would require negotiation with CP Rail.

But on the Highway 1 side, it’s designed for vehicles, for traffic and, in the future,

light rail.

Harman Bhangu : Why I remind you of that, Minister — it was a former NDP campaign promise. So you

build in Highway 1 now, not even considering a previous promise that you had planned

to deliver on, in a way.

I want to turn to TransLink here. The province provided operating funding to stabilize

the system and prevent service reductions. That funding, $312 million over three years,

was intended to protect services and support near-term priorities.

At the time the funding was announced, TransLink was facing a significant structural

deficit projected at more than $600 million annually, beginning in 2026. We are now

in that period.

The province has taken steps to provide short-term stability. However, underlying

financial challenge has not disappeared. Long-term revenue solutions were to be developed

with collaboration with TransLink and regional partners. But those solutions have

not yet been finalized.

At the same time, TransLink’s long-term capital needs remain substantial, with tens

of billions of dollars in proposed investment requirements to meet future demand.

So the situation today is clear. Short-term funding is in place, but the long-term

plan remains unclear.

My question. What specific revenue tools is the province considering to address TransLink’s

long-term funding needs, including whether road pricing or vehicle levies are being

actively evaluated?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the question.

We did supply the short-term financing to assist TransLink with their operating functions.

At the same time, we’re aware that there needs to be a longer-term solution. We’re

looking to see if we can have something in place by 2027, and the work on what that

may be is undertaken, actually, by the Ministry of Finance, not this ministry.

I can also repeat what I have said in the House, and that is that we are certainly

not in favour of road pricing.

Harman Bhangu : When does the minister expect a final decision to be made on a long-term TransLink

funding model?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Through the 2027 investment plan.

Harman Bhangu : Minister, I know we’ve talked about this. It’s the port trucking issue with the truck

tags.

Right now what analysis, I want to know, was done with truckers and the commissioner

that’s there? I realize there’s a private little separation there, but to….

I’ve been in the trucking industry. When you’re buying a new vehicle, it’s a five-year

minimum finance, and they’re actually trying to move that to seven, eight or ten years,

in some cases, to help with inflation. Chassis start at close to 300 to 400 depending

on what kind of spec of truck you want.

Now, for the ports, I know that it went from a two-year to a three-year tag. Is there

any consideration to match it with how financing works at all? That’s the question

I’d like to know. Is there any consideration of extending that tag not just from two

to three years but to four to five years? And what consultation was done with the

trucking industry and also truck providers, manufacturers and sales?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the question from the member.

I can tell you I have raised that issue with him. But as you also acknowledge, he

is independent, and I don’t get to tell him what to do. But I also know that he has

been engaging with the industry on that issue.

Harman Bhangu : In those conversations, have you brought up the fact, with the financing, how the

trucks work…? Right now I know there is a push to even…. There was the 12-year rolling

truck age program which was paused that had a level of federal in there, but now I’m

hearing a lot about electrification, electric trucks. They want to come up with….

You know, you get a little bit of returns on it. You can get lower pricing and everything

else.

Right now, for truckers, if they’re going to make that investment, it is going to

be very key that they know if they’re getting truck tags of three years. No one’s

really going to be looking to buy a truck that it takes five years….

So I just want to know. What level of groups has he actually met with? If you can,

maybe…. If you don’t know, on hand, if you can get me a written report about it….

Which groups has he consulted?

[2:00 p.m.]

I think it’s very important that a commissioner of the port trucks actually does the

engagement and figures out what the reality on the ground is. I know, stepping into

a field that you don’t have any experience in, you might think you’re making good

decisions. But right now, that has been a huge reason why a lot of people are putting

the pause on truck sales. I get truck sales companies reaching out to me, saying:

“Hey, what’s going on here?”

Now there’s a new program being rolled out, and a lot of people aren’t coming back

with their fleet renewals because they don’t know if they’re going to have the tags.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I think we can get you a list, and we’ll arrange for a briefing for you with the commissioner.

The Chair : Seeing no further questions, would the minister like to make some closing remarks?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I appreciate the questions from the critic and other members of the chamber. Commitments

that we’ve made, in terms of getting information…. We’ll follow through with that.

The Chair : Thank you, Minister, and all members. Seeing no further questions, I will now call

the vote.

Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,196,576,000 — approved.

The Chair : Thank you, Members.

We will now consider the votes for the Legislative Assembly and the officers of the

Legislature.

Estimates:

Legislative Assembly

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $140,386,000 — approved.

Estimates:

Officers of the Legislature

Vote 2: Auditor General, $26,855,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $910,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $28,706,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Human Rights Commissioner, $7,978,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $12,254,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Merit Commissioner, $1,751,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Ombudsperson, $17,133,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Police Complaint Commissioner, $11,751,000 — approved.

Vote 10: Representative for Children and Youth, $13,763,000 — approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates

of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and further report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Legislative

Assembly and officers of the Legislature and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:05 p.m.

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 2:15 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

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

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

On clause 1.

The Chair : Now, would the minister like to open with some statements?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Good afternoon, Chair, and thank you.

I’d like to introduce my staff, who I have here to support me: assistant deputy minister,

Milan Singh; executive directors, Colleen Rice and Rhianna Begley. I’d also like to

thank the dedicated public servants who have worked hard on this project and who serve

the public daily with professionalism and passion for ensuring access to information.

Their efforts help ensure B.C. continues to have one of the strongest access and privacy

laws in the country.

At a time when jurisdictions across the country are struggling with increased volume

and complexity of freedom-of-information requests, our government is continuing to

maintain oversight and access, while others are pulling back on both access and oversight.

Access to one’s personal information continues to be free, FOI timelines remain the

same, and the amendments do not limit people’s access rights or diminish the powers

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I’m happy to answer questions from my counterparts on this important piece of legislation.

Jody Toor : Thank you, Minister. I’m going to just start off with some questions with clause 1.

My first question. Why did the government feel it necessary to add the phrase “and

in a reasonable amount of time”?

The Chair : I’m sorry, Member. The Chair doesn’t see that in clause 1.

Did you have another question that pertained to clause 1?

Jody Toor : What particular problem was not already addressed under the current legislation?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The changes in clause 1 apply to situations where there is duplicate disclosure of

records through FOI, which are available through other statutory processes like legal

discovery. It ensures participants in legal proceedings receive the right information

through the most appropriate disclosure channel, and it reduces the strain on the

FOI system by preventing duplication of effort in identifying and processing the same

records requested through parallel disclosure processes.

[2:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : Thank you to the minister and her team for taking time with us to go through questions

and answers in committee.

On clause 1, my question is: can you explain why this clause includes the language:

“includes a record not specifically listed or identified but that falls within a general

class of records”?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, member opposite, for the question. The reason that’s there is because not

all legal proceedings list every document, but the following clause helps to qualify

that by saying: “but that falls within a general class of records that is listed or

identified as part of the proceeding.”

Rob Botterell : The risk associated with this type of clause is that “within a general class of records

that is listed or identified as part of the proceeding” would be more expansive than

the current provisions in the act.

My question is: would you agree that “a general class of records” is broader than

the current disclosure requirements in the act?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I think it will help for us to clarify that this only applies to records that are

part of the legal proceeding, so somebody who is engaged in the legal proceeding and

will be getting it through that legal process. If that’s not the case, then FOI would

apply.

Peter Milobar : When you read the existing legislation, and, as clause 1 is amending

section 3, you

go to

section 3 and its application. “Subject to subsections (3) to (5), this act

applies to all records in the custody or under the control of a public body, including

court administration records.”

Then you go to subsection (5), which clause 1 is adding to — not amending but adding

to — and the start of (5) is: “Part 2 does not” — does not — “apply to the following.”

Then you go down to

part 2.

Part 2 is “Information Rights and How to Exercise Them.”

It is: information rights, how to make a request, duty to assist applicants, time

limit for responding, contents of response, how access will be given, extending the

time limit for responding, transferring a request.

[2:30 p.m.]

Then there’s division 2, “Exceptions”: cabinet and local public body confidences;

policy advice or recommendations; legal advice; disclosure harmful to law enforcement;

disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations; disclosure harmful

to the financial or economic interests of a public body; disclosure harmful to the

conservation of heritage sites, etc.; disclosure harmful to interests of an Indigenous

People; disclosure harmful to individual or public safety; information that will be

published or released within 60 days; disclosure harmful to business interests of

a third party; disclosure harmful to personal privacy — that one’s a long one; disclosure

of information relating to abortion services.

Division 3, notice to third parties — notifying the third party, time limit and notice

of decision.

Division 4, public interest paramount — Information must be disclosed if in the public

interest. That’s the last one within

part 2. Those are all the headings of the various

areas that are dealt with.

Now this is amending or adding to subsection (5), and I’m just going to read for the

public so they get a clear sense, because when you read it just as itself, it sounds

kind of benign. But you realize it’s actually removing all of those aspects of

part

2, essentially, because:

“Part 2 does not apply to the following: (

a) a record that is available for purchase

by the public; (

b) a record that does not relate to the business of the public body;

(

c) a record of metadata that (

i) is generated by an electronic system, and (ii) describes

an individual’s interaction with the electronic system; (

d) an electronic record that

has been lawfully deleted by an employee of a public body and can no longer be accessed

by the employee.”

Now those all sound like reasonable exceptions for why

part 2 would not apply. Clause

1 in the bill we’re talking about, though, now says that we’re going to add in an

(e).

The (

e) of what will not apply for

part 2 is: “a record that the public body, the

Attorney General or the government of British Columbia is required by law, as part

of a proceeding, to produce, list or identify (

i) to the applicant, or (ii) in the

case of an applicant who is acting on behalf of or under the direction of another

person, to that person,” and also adding in “a reference in subsection (5)(

e) to a

record that is required by law to be produced, listed or identified as part of a proceeding

includes a record that is not specifically listed or identified but that falls within

the general class of records that is listed or identified as part of the proceeding.”

Now I’m just a little confused, because the minister’s answers seem to make it sound

like this is going to actually enhance access to information and create more information.

But

part 2 is about not applying anything that I just finished reading to freedom-of-information

access within

part 2, and

part 2 is the guts of freedom-of-information legislation.

Can the minister explain to us how this is actually adding to access by putting in

all of this language around what will no longer be applied in

part 2 of the existing

act, given that that has a wide range of applications to it, not the least of which

is the very last, 25: Information must be disclosed if in the public interest.

Hon. Diana Gibson : The member opposite may be misunderstanding what’s happening here. Changes aren’t

being made to all those sections of clause 2. We are simply ensuring that we are not

providing this information two different times. If it’s going to be accessed through

the legal process, it will not be accessed through FOI as well, to reduce duplication

between the processes. This applies to records an individual will be getting through

the court process.

Peter Milobar : Can the minister, then, describe…? I think the minister misunderstood what I was getting

at. I understand it’s not amending all of

part 2, but in theory, it actually is, because

it refers directly to

part 2 not applying. All those headings I read out — I didn’t

want to read

chapter and verse of every piece — is what this change will now not apply

to.

Part 2 does not apply to the following — “a record that the public body, the Attorney General or the government of British

Columbia is required by law, as part of a proceeding, to produce, list or identify.…” That’s what this change will now read in legislation.

Part 2 does not apply to

what I just read out.

Part 2 will not apply to that, plus to “to the applicant, or in the case of an applicant who is acting on behalf of or under

the direction of another person, to that person.”

[2:35 p.m.]

Can the minister give an example? What tracking has been done of the sheer number,

the onerous volume, of double FOIs, where legal counsel is requesting the exact same

information as their client is requesting, and we’re finding this massive overwork

and overburdening of the system of a duplication of filings? The minister is purporting

this clause change is going to free up all of this great time.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I just want to clarify that the only change we’re adding isn’t around what….

Part

2 doesn’t apply — (a), (b), (c), (d). It is just adding (e), a record of the public

body related to a court case or judicial proceedings — that we won’t be duplicate

releasing information if it’s going to be released by the court. That is the only

thing that’s being added.

The other language is existing language in the bill, in the FOI Act. These massive

litigation-related requests require quite a bit of process. That doesn’t provide greater

access to an individual if they’re already going to be getting access through the

court process. This is important for ensuring efficient use of resources, which I’m

sure the member opposite would support.

Peter Milobar : The question I asked was how many cases of this are coming through the system to

require this legislation. The minister is saying it’s to prevent duplication and to

provide more efficiencies. Surely modelling has been done. Surely there must be a

case number of how many times this is being duplicated being asked and the problem

that has been created that government is now purporting to solve. What modelling was

done? What do those numbers look like, and how many actual filings is this actually

currently impacting?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Processing large litigation-related access requests requires substantial effort. These

requests strain the FOI process and provide no greater access than what is available

through legal discovery.

During legal proceedings, more appropriate and secure mechanisms exist for accessing

information. Duplicate disclosure through FOI increases system costs and pressures

on already limited resources.

This amendment prevents that kind of duplication to ensure that parties in legal proceedings

receive accurate information through secure, established channels.

[2:40 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : Once again, that wasn’t the question.

My understanding is, if I recall, that the Finance Minister seemed to say this was

about a $2 million dollar savings, something in that neighbourhood. I can’t remember

if it was a system or a different program change they were making, so don’t hold me

to that.

Either way, this is supposed to be about finding efficiencies. It certainly must be

modelled on something. It’s obviously a contentious piece of legislation. The minister

and the ministry have had quite some time to figure out what exactly they are purporting

to improve and streamline and speed up.

I’m simply asking: what modelling was done? How many of these types of situations

are currently in the queue that are backing up FOI and creating the exact scenario

that the minister is talking about? Saying that that exists but not actually being

able to point to any number of files or documentation that it’s actually impacting

simply isn’t good enough on something as fundamentally important as changing access

to FOI.

How many, and what modelling was done? How many of these types of files are currently

logjamming the system?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Processing large litigation-related access requests requires substantial effort, as

I have said multiple times. One case alone — hundreds of legal hours, thousands of

dollars. We have multiple cases.

That’s why our government’s committed to ensuring access, secure access, for the information

people need from the right avenue, without duplication or unnecessary expense, in

a system that’s currently under pressure.

We are going to continue to do that work to ensure we’re judiciously using our public

resources while ensuring access to information.

Peter Milobar : Bravo, and I stand corrected. I remember where the $2 million was. I’m sorry. There’s

been, between FOI and Merit Commissioner, so much gutting of public access. It was

the Merit Commissioner that was going to save $2 million, not these FOI changes, so

I’ll correct myself on that.

Again, it’s a rinse-and-repeat answer from the minister. I think everyone understands

that court proceedings would result in large volumes of documents. You think of the

20 cases that the government doesn’t want to tell us which ones they are, that are

facing DRIPA challenges and everything else. Those would require huge, huge volumes

of documents.

I think we can all understand that. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a layperson. I understand

that. Not a problem.

We’re asking a pretty specific question. What modelling was done? What volume? How

can the minister claim that this is going to free up all of this time and all of these

resources for other FOI requests and make it an improved system if we actually don’t

know what is being freed up — other than one case, in particular, that required a

lot of documents?

[2:45 p.m.]

Again, I’m just trying to get a straightforward answer from the minister and the ministry.

This is their legislation, based on what they have told us and the public, why they

needed it — the background information that went into the decision-making to create

a contentious piece of legislation.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the public. I would say I would FOI it, but

once this passes, we won’t get that information.

Could the minister just please answer: what modelling was done? There must be a cost

savings they can identify, a number of hours that it’s going to free up. What modelling,

what matrix was used to demonstrate, other than if it’s a court case, it can get very

cumbersome for the FOI system because these are large documents? That’s a pretty generic

statement to be changing FOI law.

What modelling was done by the ministry to do this? I recognize the minister herself

didn’t do it, but we have the staff here. We have other staff undoubtedly watching

online. I’m sure we can get an answer. Otherwise, I don’t know why the government

would have initiated this in the first place if they didn’t have solid factual data

to back the previous statements made by the minister up.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I have shared already with the member opposite that there are substantial savings

in one case alone, multiple cases. That is adequate reason for moving forward with

a change that protects privacy and access to information while reducing duplication,

shows that we’re being judicious with tax dollars while ensuring we prioritize freedom

of information and access, and that’s the work we’re doing here.

That’s work our government is doing consistently, ensuring we are leaving no stone

unturned to ensure we’re using public dollars judiciously while meeting and delivering

for the public on things like privacy and protection.

Peter Milobar : How many dollars are being saved?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I want to go back to the reason we are making the changes today. Jurisdictions across

the country are being taxed by increasing volume and complexity, as is our FOI system taxed by increasing volume and complexity of information. The changes being

brought today, and this clause in particular, are about ensuring that we are using

our limited resources to the most effective means possible.

That’s why we’re reducing things like duplicate disclosure. Duplicate disclosure is an inefficient use of limited resources at a time where

the system is under pressure and where our resources are limited. We are getting rid

of the duplicate disclosure in order to ensure we can use those resources to best

serve FOI requests in a system under pressure.

Peter Milobar : So no modelling, no cost savings, rinse-and-repeat answer. And I apologize. This is like an episode of The Twilight Zone for me because this feels very much…. At the opening, the minister said: “making

FOI free.” It’s not free. Under this government’s watch, it’s $10 for a file now,

in the opening statement, so we might need to modernize the speaking notes.

I say that because it wasn’t that long ago I was sitting in a chamber just like this

with a predecessor to this minister talking about that $10 fee, and the answer for days on end was a rinse-and-repeat answer like we’re getting now. It’s ironic because it’s a

piece of legislation that’s supposed to be about freedom of information. And the pieces of legislation in this place that have consistently had the hardest

time getting a straight answer out of government have been changes to FOI.

Previously, it was: “Well, what would the rate be?” The answer was continually: “Well,

we need to consult after this is passed. We need to consult. We need to consult.”

Then within 15 or 20 minutes, the rate was actually set, after the bill was passed.

Fastest consultation this government has ever had in the history of the NDP.

In this case, the answer we’re getting back…. I’ve been trying to just get what exactly

the volume of these duplications is. And for a duplication, to someone from the outside

world listening to that, it sounds like you just have to hit “print two copies” versus

one because you’ve already collated the information. I know it’s not that simple,

but to the outside world, that’s what it sounds like.

We’re trying to ascertain from the government the changes they are purporting the

need to make and to quantify that need. That is simply what the basis of my questions

has been. And it’s been this round and around, sounds-good answer that isn’t actually answering the question at all. So I’ll try this as a slightly

different approach and see if then we can get back into the meat of the original question.

When the government was debating whether or not to make these gutting changes to FOI

legislation for the sake of efficiencies, did they balance that off and study this

onerous volume of duplication applications they have out there with the backdrop of enhancing AI techniques to provide FOI responses?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Because the member opposite didn’t like the answer to the question doesn’t mean it

wasn’t answered.

The removal of one large duplicate disclosure means many, many other people can get

better access to information, which is why this change is being made.

I also beg to differ with some of the language used by the member opposite around

gutting changes. These changes are part of an overall strategy our government has

to improve access to information.

We have 17 categories of proactive disclosure under FOI because of our government’s

commitment to ensuring people can get access without even having to ask for it. This

set of changes in Bill 9 adds another proactive disclosure category so that people can get their information

without even having to ask for it.

In terms of the cost, this act ensures that those personal requests, which is the

growing volume for us, remain free.

[3:00 p.m.]

Peter Milobar : Again, “one large file will create many.” That is not what I was asking, and we don’t

know what “many” is.

I’ll ask a different way because we totally glossed past whether AI was considered

as a way to provide the same efficiencies versus a gutting of legislation. I can come

back and ask that later, I guess.

But just avoiding the question isn’t answering the question — standing up and providing

the same stock answer over and over and over again. It’s not me not wanting to hear

the answer. I literally asked about AI there. I didn’t hear AI once in the answer.

So I don’t think I was just ignoring the answer. I did not hear it.

We’ve heard we’ll have capacity for many more files if even just one large duplicate

filing is removed. The question all along has been: how many large duplicate filings

are going to be removed by this?

There has to have been modelling. If not, it’s a guess. And if it’s a guess, the public

needs to know that. If it’s that one large filing will speed things up for 5 percent

of the applications and we’re going to remove X amount of large files, fair enough.

I don’t know what the answer is. That’s why we’re here trying to ask the minister

and the ministry what modelling was done based on her own answers. Otherwise, how

did the ministry come to this conclusion that this was going to free things up and

it was going to make things faster and it would actually help everyone, if it’s just

simply about removing duplication?

How much duplication is it removing, and what does it actually mean in real terms

to the people that are sitting on long backlogs and being asked to approve extensions or needing to keep asking why it’s taking so long?

That’s what we’re asking, as opposition. I don’t think it’s too unreasonable of a

question to ask. I would hope the government would add it to be No. 18 of proactive disclosure

and actually disclose it. But they’re not, so we’ll keep asking it.

Can we get a sense around that? Was AI played into this or not?

We don’t know because the minister didn’t want to touch that. That’s what the opposition

is trying to find out.

Hon. Diana Gibson : Yes, B.C. government’s modernized FOI technology is using AI to support public servants

who process FOI requests and improve service delivery for applicants.

One new AI-enabled tool allows analysts to search across old and handwritten documents

to speed up review of records and help applicants get their records sooner. Another

tool uses natural language processing to help analysts find personal information within

FOI records to enhance abilities to protect privacy.

These tools have been developed in alignment with B.C. government’s responsible use

of AI principles to ensure all privacy and security requirements are applied.

These help us to identify sensitive information, but the decision in terms of the

FOI processing and completion is done by an experienced staff person.

Peter Milobar : Thank you for that.

Then how much capacity will these changes create in the system? How many large files

will no longer be duplicate applied based on current filings? And what does that mean

to applicants out there reasonably expecting for a change in their service levels?

[3:05 p.m.-3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The review of resource allocation in our FOI system was done through rigorous research

and policy analysis by our team around where resources were being used and how they

could be used to the best possible purpose for maximizing access for individuals to

FOI.

Each legal case is totally different, making it difficult to anticipate going forward.

Also, with the FOI process being applicant-driven, again, there’s great variety around

what that could look like going forward. We do know for a fact that hundreds of hours

for a case, on average, can be used more efficiently elsewhere in our FOI system to

deliver for individuals. That has been the purpose of this FOI review, to ensure that

we are using the resources to the maximum possible effect.

These resources were being used twice, once through our process in FOI, the other

through legal disclosure. To be accountable to citizens, we are reducing that duplicate disclosure, while ensuring that the individuals get access to

their information through the most appropriate and secure mechanism that exists.

The Chair : The Chair will call a five-minute recess. It is now 3:14, and we’ll return at 3:20.

The committee recessed from 3:14 p.m. to 3:21 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair : Welcome back, Members, and recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

Please proceed.

Rob Botterell : Early in April, I also raised the same questions with the minister along these lines

that my colleague raised. How many FOI requests were made in ’24-25 that would be

excluded from the act if this amendment were in force? What other metrics are available

in relation to this category of requests in ’24-25 — pages, percentage on time, processing

days, dollars?

The answer then, as now, is that there’s no data. So let me take a different approach

to trying to understand the purpose of this clause, and let me paint it in a picture

that somebody who’s pretty old-school would appreciate, and those of you who are youngsters

will get a history lesson.

Interjection.

Rob Botterell : That’s right.

In the world of litigation, you have a pre-litigation phase before the proceeding

starts. Applicants are quite free to make FOI requests at that stage, before there

is any litigation started and before there’s an “in contemplation of litigation” moment,

and apply the act and get information. And that’s a good thing, because it helps the

applicant get some information to understand whether it’s worth pursuing.

Then we get into the part of this

section that deals with “as part of a proceeding.”

Certainly in my experience in litigation and my experience in watching how the province

and the Ministry of Attorney General and ministries impacted by a particular proceeding….

How that works is that the call goes out to gather, in a great big filing cabinet,

all the records that might be relevant, because the legal counsel handling the proceeding

needs to know all of the relevant information in order to effectively represent their

client.

Then, as the litigation proceeds, there is, as required by law, a necessity to produce,

list or identify records. So you’ve got this great big filing cabinet, and now you

get your order from the court or guidance from the court, and you have to go to the

filing cabinet. You say: “Okay, those are the ones that I need to produce, list or

identify.” And then there’s the rest of the filing cabinet. The rest of the filing

cabinet is sitting there, and somebody has already gone to the work of figuring out

what’s required for the proceeding.

[3:25 p.m.]

It is a complete change in the litigation process to say, as this clause says —

section

3, amended: “A reference…to a record that is required by law to be produced, listed

or identified as part of a proceeding includes a record that is not specifically listed

or identified but that falls within the general class of records.…”

This excludes the whole filing cabinet. There’s nothing in this clause that makes

clear that that is not the case. This could easily, and I would say reasonably, be

interpreted as excluding the whole filing cabinet. That is a change in this act.

The fact is that the applicant has a right, at law, under this act, to apply to see

the rest of the filing cabinet, subject to cabinet and local public body confidence;

policy advice; legal advice; harmful to law enforcement, intergovernmental relations,

financial or economic interests, conservation of heritage sites, interests of Indigenous

people, individual or public safety; information to be published or released; business

interests; disclosure harmful to personal privacy, information relating to abortion

services.

There’s lots of protection. I guess my question is: would you not agree that

(5.1) effectively takes the rest of the filing cabinet out of the FOI process? It is not

just an effort to eliminate duplication.

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you, Member opposite, for the question.

With regard to the filing cabinet, first, it’s really important that the sentence

be read fully. So “includes a record that is not specifically listed or identified

but that falls within a general class of records that is listed or identified as part

of the proceeding” — meaning, only the parts of the filing cabinet that are listed

or identified as part of the proceeding would be covered by this (5.1). The balance

would be accessible under FOI.

[3:30 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

The “but falls within a general class of records that is listed or identified….” Those would all be listed or identified as part of the proceeding under this

interpretation.

So the point here is: “record that is required by law to be produced, listed or identified includes.” It doesn’t

say “only.” It includes a record that is not specifically listed or identified but

that falls within a general class. It’s not specifically listed or identified. It’s

a general class. So that part of the filing cabinet is excluded where it wouldn’t

be before.

It’s clear on the face of it, as far as my read of it, that you’re expanding the portion

of the records. If you simply had 1(a), I could probably understand that. That hasn’t

been…. That’s the limit of the type of restriction that occurs in other parts of Canada.

This is simply a restatement of

section 3 for more clarity. But 5.1 broadens it. The

key is that “but that falls within a general class” and “includes.” In that way, you have extended

the section.

I think that if you had done consultation with Trial Lawyers Association or the Canadian

Bar Association, which you haven’t, you would find that they’re very concerned about

the way in which this alters the way in which the act has worked for a long, long

time.

I understand the desire to reduce costs, but as my colleague mentioned, there’s no

business case here. Hundreds of hours. It must be tens of thousands of hours spent

a year on FOI. Hundreds of hours is a drop in the bucket if those are the savings

— and we don’t have any records — in return for expanding this. This is not just an

elimination of duplication.

To come back to the section, you’re doing the search for the records, you have the

filing cabinet, you’ve already created the universe of records that might be available,

so it makes logical sense that you’re not going to reduce the…. Duplication costs

are not going to be very high, even if there are any, on account of the fact that

you’ve already gathered the records and you already will have the list from the court.

So it can be and should be a straightforward matter.

My question is: what other approaches have you considered and what report or briefing

notes or documents…? Maybe I can make an FOI request to find out what you considered rather than taking this draconian step of expanding the area that prevents disclosure

of classes of records.

[3:35 p.m.-3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : Something that might be, I think, informing the challenge here is the difference between

how information shows up today compared to how it did when the bill was first created

in the ’90s. There might have been a filing cabinet in the ’90s. Today it’s multiple

electronic and other types of files across many different systems and types of information.

That’s the kind of volume and complexity that is challenging FOI jurisdictions right

across the country.

This change is about ensuring that we don’t do that processing twice through two different

teams and processes and also adding to the legal review because they would then also

have to do a review of the FOI review. So it’s duplicate plus.

Again, this isn’t about pulling records out of FOI. It’s about ensuring that those

that are going to be disclosed under the legal process, those that are listed or identified

as part of the proceeding, are disclosed through that process. Those that aren’t will

be subject to FOI.

Just to say, the reason that class is added here is because legal processes often

don’t list every document. The class of records is an important part of ensuring that

we’re not duplicate releasing documents and processes that are going to go through

a more appropriate avenue for the individual.

Rob Botterell : I don’t think that technological innovation since the 1990s changes my point. I only

used that to try and introduce some levity in a serious discussion.

The information should be even easier to access and assemble now, with the help of

AI and with the help of all of the innovations that your team has put in place over

the last bunch of years.

But the point is that there is no way, that I’ve heard so far, to guarantee that this

clause, clause 5.1, isn’t effectively a Trojan Horse. There are no boundaries around

general records — that definition in that clause — to make it clear that, just exactly

what you’re saying, is the way it’ll actually be applied.

It is broad enough to incorporate records that eliminate them from access because

of the breadth of the way that clause has been drafted.

Do you have the endorsement of litigation lawyers and their clients for this change?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : For the record and on the record, that is not the intention of this change. The boundaries

around the class of record are that it be listed or identified as part of the proceedings.

If it is not, it is covered by FOI.

Rob Botterell : There was part of my question that was not answered. Trial Lawyers Association, litigation

clients, applicants — do they support these changes? Do you have some evidence that

there’s support? Because they’re all taxpayers too. They’d be concerned about duplication

and eliminating duplication. If your

interpretation of this clause is correct, then

the trial lawyers and litigators and applicants should be jumping up and cheering

because taxes are going to go down and there’s going to be more time for their FOI requests.

So my question is, repeating what I said earlier: do Trial Lawyers Association, litigators

and applicants who this clause would apply to…? Are they supportive of these changes?

Are they on the record as supportive of these changes?

[3:50 p.m.-3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : This change came from our litigators, who identified this as part of the review process

that was looking for ways we could have efficiency within the FOI system, which, as

we’ve talked about, is under pressure.

They identified this as an area that took up a lot of time and that was duplication.

We then validated this by speaking with other public bodies, which were also in favour

of this change because it was duplicate processes. The Privacy Commissioner’s office

did not oppose this change.

Again, it’s really important to recognize this is not about reducing access. This

is about making sure we’re not having our teams do the work twice at cost to the taxpayer,

ensuring it’s an efficient use of resources while we deal with a system under pressure.

Jody Toor : What kind of consultation was done with First Nations under the provision of DRIPA?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : In the development of this bill, we followed the consultation and protocols under

DRIPA for Indigenous consultation, and there was some engagement, particularly around

the Connected Services aspects of the bill and the opportunity to better serve Indigenous

individuals through our Connected Services B.C.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Jody Toor : How will this impact First Nations while they’re suing the government?

Hon. Diana Gibson : As per the provisions in clause 5(

e) and 5(1), the access would be through the judicial

disclosure process for records that are specifically listed or identified or fall

within the class of records specifically listed or identified. Otherwise, they would

be eligible to access records through FOI.

Jody Toor : Thank you, Minister.

Can the minister explain why the bill is disapplying in

part 2 of the act that records

must be produced, listed or identified as part of a proceeding?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The changes here are about addressing the duplicate disclosure records through FOI

when they were available through other statutory processes like legal discovery, ensuring

that participants in legal proceedings receive the right information through the most

appropriate disclosure channel.

Jody Toor : How does this government define “general class of records,” and who determines whether

a record falls within a general class connected to a proceeding?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The list of records and general class of record is determined through the court proceedings.

Something important to point out is that through the process in second reading and out in public debate, there has been a

lot of misinterpreting and misunderstanding the oversight. It’s important to know

that clause 42(1) outlines the Privacy Commissioner’s role: “Monitoring how this act

is administered to ensure that its purposes are achieved and may conduct investigations and audits to ensure compliance with any provision of this

act or the regulations.” So where there are challenges on

interpretation or

definitions, that does sit, in all clauses of this act, with the Privacy Commissioner.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jody Toor : Does this clause increase government judgment to characterize records as connected

to proceedings?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Absolutely not. The determination is made through the court and legal proceedings.

The Chair : Recognizing the Minister of Citizens’ Services. You have to say that again, unfortunately.

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you.

Absolutely not. The determination is made through the process of the court proceedings.

Jody Toor : Could applicants lose FOI access rights simply because records related indirectly

to litigation or another legal matter?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Absolutely not. As we’ve been clear throughout this discussion, either the record

is accessible through the judicial process, or it would be accessible through FOI.

Jody Toor : Can applicants challenge a ministry’s determination that a record belongs to a general

class connected to a proceeding?

Hon. Diana Gibson : As I have stated, the provisions under Bill 9, and in the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, are covered by the “General powers of commissioner,”

clause 42(1). Maintains oversight. Decisions can be appealed to and are reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner as per clause 42(1).

Jody Toor : What prevents public bodies from using overly wide classes to shield records from

FOI even after proceedings end?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Once legal proceedings are completed, an applicant can request information through

the FOI process, subject to the mandatory and discretionary exemptions and disclosures

as described in the act.

Jody Toor : Do proceedings include court actions, inquiries or settlements? Can the minister provide

examples of records this would newly exempt?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I want to clarify that this applies to records that an applicant or the person acting

on their behalf would receive through the legal discovery process. If they are not

receiving it through the legal discovery process, it would be eligible for FOI. After

the legal proceedings are complete, information can be requested through FOI.

Jody Toor : What safeguards prevent ministries from interpreting “general class of records” too

broadly?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : As was said before, the determination of class of records is made through the court

process. Any record that is not in that legal proceeding disclosure would be eligible

for FOI. The guardrail and oversight are as per the clause previously mentioned, where

the Privacy Commissioner has oversight of

interpretation and review.

Jody Toor : You just mentioned about the safeguards. I just have a question: are these objective

criteria governing how these classes are defined?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The determination of the class of records is made through the court process, and the

oversight is through the Privacy Commissioner’s office. Both of those provide clarity

of the line of determination and of the process for appeal.

Jody Toor : How does government ensure this framework respects digital data governance principles?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Although these records are being exempt from FOI, the data management protocols for

any ministry data would continue to apply.

Jody Toor : Could this amendment broaden the categories of records excluded from the FOI processes?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : No, it will not broaden exclusion. This is about reducing duplication. The individual

will either have access through the legal discovery process or through FOI, but they

will continue to have access.

Rob Botterell : Much has been made of the role of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to safeguard

this particular section’s application, and this

section is focused on the litigation

process. So my question is: is the Information and Privacy Commissioner a lawyer?

Hon. Diana Gibson : As the member opposite would know, when speaking about the commissioner, it involves

the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which includes a team that

includes multiple lawyers.

Rob Botterell : Through the afternoon, reference has been made to consulting internal legal counsel,

so lawyers at the Attorney General’s ministry and other legal counsel within government,

in order to allay concerns about the application of this section.

[4:35 p.m.]

My question: are those legal counsel that you’ve consulted within government speaking

on behalf of lawyers outside of government, for example in the Trial Lawyers Association,

on the merits of this section?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Absolutely not. When we engage with our internal lawyers, it’s about process efficiencies

within our internal FOI processes, which is what this change is about.

Rob Botterell : Then that confirms what we’ve discussed this afternoon, that lawyers who potentially

have a concern about this provision have not been consulted or given an opportunity

to say yea or nay in terms of their

interpretation of the application of this section.

Earlier this afternoon we talked about the lack of data to support this change. Clearly,

if this legislation and this amendment were to come into force, there would be an

opportunity to monitor the benefits that are asserted regarding reduced duplication,

more hours available for other requests or for other activities.

What concrete plans are there in place to monitor the implementation of this

section

should it be enacted, including the information that we’ve requested that is unavailable,

such as the number of FOI requests that would be excluded from the act if this amendment

were in force and pages, percentages, processing days, dollars? What monitoring work…?

What plan is there to monitor the implementation of this

section should it be enacted

and to prove, through detailed metrics, that it’s having the effect that the minister

claims it will?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : First, I want to differ with the characterization of a lack of data. We have put on

the record that there are hundreds of hours, in a single case alone, of resources

being diverted to duplicate processes that could be better used to deliver on FOI

under these changes. That’s data and information that informed this change.

But with this change, we have the opportunity to monitor, on an ongoing basis, any

that do apply and fit these criteria. It will provide an incomplete picture because

with the clarity under these changes, we assumed there would be fewer applications

or requests.

Rob Botterell : I’ll just note for the record that doesn’t really answer the question in terms of

what the impact would be in public policy and in business. You would want to be able

to have a very clear measurement of metrics to demonstrate the efficacy of the change.

[4:45 p.m.]

My final question, subject to my colleagues having other questions on this clause,

is to clarify the impact of this change. This act does not apply to the following:

“a record that the public body, the Attorney General or the government of British

Columbia is required by law, as part of a proceeding, to produce, list or identify

to the applicant, or in the case of an applicant who is acting on behalf or under

the direction of another person, to that person.”

Consider this scenario. You’re a journalist or you’re an interested NGO. You’re not

a party to the proceeding, but you’re seeking the records required by law as part

of a proceeding to be produced, listed or identified. So under this section, does

an individual or an entity that is not part of the litigation find itself with no

access to the record through FOI?

Hon. Diana Gibson : There are no changes for people who are not party to the litigation. The act, as previously,

would apply. They may or may not get access to the record depending on the provisions

of the act as it currently stands.

The Chair : Recognizing the member for Abbotsford South.

Bruce Banman : Thank you very much, Chair. You know, I have to say I was less than impressed with

the minister’s answer to my colleague’s question. I found it actually to be a tad

flippant, in fact.

With the greatest of sincerity, the reason that this legislation was brought forward

was because it is creating an exorbitant amount of work, we are hearing. That’s what

we’ve been told.

If you’re going to reduce the workload by changing the act, I would imagine that you

would have great ways of measuring that. And to say, “Well, we assume that there’s

going to be less requests for freedom of information” really doesn’t cut it. It does

not answer the question.

[4:50 p.m.]

There are a number of reasons why you may not have increased freedom-of-information

requests — such as it now costs, as we found out, $280 for a simple freedom-of-information

request because it’s $10 across potentially 28 ministries. That could be a reason.

It could be that it’s now become so onerous to do a freedom-of-information that that

could be a reason why we have less requests.

I think my colleague’s answer — what metrics is this ministry measuring? — is a valid

one. So would the minister please tell us. What is it that she will know that this

particular legislation is working, with regards to the metrics of the amount of time

that’s being put in? Is it the amount of requests that are being asked? Is it the

amount of money that’s being asked?

The public has a right to know whether or not we are creating so much red tape that

they just throw their arms up. Or is this actually working because it’s going to streamline

things? What is it that this ministry is doing to actually measure this so the public

knows that the hours that we have debated this particular piece of legislation are

actually effective? I think it’s a fair question.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : First, I want to say the member opposite misunderstood when I said the metric would

be numbers going down. I was specifically referring to people applying under this

clause and to applications that would be exempted from FOI under this clause. We would

not know how many because they won’t be applying, because it’s clear they’re not eligible

for an FOI under this clause.

However, I want to speak to the broader metrics that we have for making the decision

to do this and for being able to know that we’re achieving something with this.

Does this reduce duplication? And the answer is yes. Does this ensure participants

are receiving the right information through the most appropriate disclosure channel?

The answer is yes. Does this reduce strain on the FOI system by preventing duplication

in effort by identifying the same records requested through parallel disclosures?

Yes, hundreds of hours per case. The answer to using public resources more efficiently

to deliver FOI more efficiently through the right channels…. The answer is yes. The

metric is clear.

Rob Botterell : Just a follow-up to my colleague’s question. How can you assert that when you don’t

have any data?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Asked and answered on the record of what the data is and what the driver of this initiative

has been from our team.

Rob Botterell : Let me slow down and ask this in another way.

If your legal counsel is saying that they are actually spending time reviewing FOI

requests that appeared to match a list of documents or a list for a proceeding, then

they would be able to provide you with the number of hours they are spending on each

of those tasks. And then with this change that you’re describing, they would be able

to track and advise you exactly how much less time they’re spending, if indeed they’re

spending less time.

From a business case point of view, you can’t determine exactly what you’re going

to save and how that is going to be used without actually having metrics.

With respect, “oh, we save hundreds of hours” is not the type of accountability mechanism

and assessment of the impact of this change that we’d be looking for. I think the

public of B.C. and the taxpayers of B.C. would want to know exactly what the savings

are, if indeed there are savings, because there’s entirely the possibility that an

unintended consequence of this amendment could be an increase in other types of requests

to compensate in a manner of trying to ensure that the document production in a particular

case is full of integrity.

It’s not clear to me that this change will have the effect, and it’s not enough, with

respect, to assert it will. We need to actually prove it will.

[5:00 p.m.]

So that’s been the line of questioning. What steps will you take, as the minister,

to come up with concrete, specific monitoring mechanisms so you can say in a year’s

time, “We saved this many thousand hours, and they were devoted to this task and this

task, and this is how the business case for this particular change is proven out”?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Taxpayers have asked for our government to be efficient with the use of resources,

and the key part of that is to reduce duplication.

This is what we’re doing — reducing duplication and ensuring access to information.

We have been clear. Under these changes, the individual will either get their information

through the court process or through FOI. We will not do it as duplicate processes.

That is delivering for the taxpayers on the efficiency they’ve asked us to deliver

in terms of judicious use of resources in an FOI system under pressure.

Bruce Banman : Did this government look at other jurisdictions for best-use practices to come up

with this particular

section of legislation, or was this done in-house?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : As I’m on the record as saying, this surfaced as part of our internal efficiency review

to reduce duplication while delivering access to information for people. This is about

good public policy.

Bruce Banman : Again, I’m confused. The answer really didn’t have anything to do with the question

that I asked. With the greatest of respect, I’ll repeat the question perhaps slightly

differently.

When it came to this legislation, did we look at other jurisdictions, other provinces,

other states, other countries, other cities — anywhere in the world, for that matter

— to come up with how to improve this FOI legislation that now stands before us?

Were there any other legislations that were studied to help build this particular

piece of legislation that is before us right now?

Hon. Diana Gibson : We are discussing clause 1. As I’ve said, clause 1 is as a result of…. Changes came

from a review of efficiency of how FOI resources are being used, to identify areas

where we could reduce duplication.

That is the origin of the material in clause 1. It is about ensuring access while

reducing duplication and ensuring the most effective use of our FOI resources in a

system under pressure.

Bruce Banman : That’s great that we’re trying to do efficiency and reduce duplication and get money

for the taxpayer.

Let me answer the minister’s question for her, which I have a hunch she’s going to

give me back in a second.

The question I really want to know is: did we look at other jurisdictions to be able

to sort out what best practices were, so that we could figure out where duplication

was, so that we could get better efficiency, so that we could get better efficiency

for tax dollars?

Did we look at other jurisdictions for this particular

section in front of us?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : I have discussed already, multiple times, that we’ve canvassed thoroughly the origins of this change, and I have nothing further to add.

Bruce Banman : I didn’t ask the minister what the origins of the change were. I asked the minister

a question for a specific answer. I asked the minister because other jurisdictions

have done this.

Let me put it in medical terms. There’s a thing called “best practices.” When one does things in medicine, we do this because it is the best practice. We

learn from others’ mistakes, and that’s how we get to best practices. This isn’t a

try-to-get-you, gotcha moment for the minister.

If we are developing our own legislation in this province, well, maybe this is the

best practice. Then the minister should stand up and proudly state: “No. We’ve done

this in-house.” It was a simple question, and I don’t know why the minister is hesitant

to say whether or not they looked at what are the best practices across the world when it comes to FOIs.

Have we looked at that? Did we consider that? Or did we make this up here? Is this

100 percent made here in British Columbia? It’s not what the origins were. The origins of it were, as the

minister has discussed and told us, because there was tons of work being done by staff.

Fair enough. I’ve talked about that when I was a mayor and the amount of work that

FOI’s caused for my staff and how much of an annoyance that was to them. I get the

burden.

My question, respectfully, again, is not the origin. Did we look at best practices

across the world to help draft this?

Hon. Diana Gibson : Thank you for patronizingly explaining best practices. I’m perfectly aware of what

those are.

In this case, and in cases of efficiency review in our government, we look at the

best-possible use of taxpayer resources in every case. In this case, the best-possible use of taxpayer resources is to ensure maximum effective use of our resources for

delivering FOI.

The best practice is to ensure we’re not duplicating processes where we have a system

under pressure. And the choice was made to ensure that we are giving these people

access to their discovery through legal discovery or through FOI, not through both,

so we can maximize effective use of FOI resources.

In terms of developing the FOI Act, jurisdictional reviews, of course, are part of

that process. This particular, as I’ve said already clearly, was developed in-house.

The Chair : We’re on clause 1. Shall clause 1 pass?

Okay. Division has been called.

[5:15 p.m.-5:20 p.m.]

The Chair : Members, are you in agreement to waive the time?

[5:25 p.m.]

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

Section

A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is whether or not clause 1 shall pass.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5

Routledge

Whiteside

Yung

Gibson

Chow

NAYS — 5

Banman

Hartwell

Botterell

Maahs

Luck

The Chair : There being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting

vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 1 to keep the bill intact in its original

form and as adopted at second reading.

The committee will take a brief recess now and will return at 5:40 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:26 p.m. to 5:41 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

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

Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, back to order.

On clause 2.

Jody Toor : I’d just like to know. Why did the minister think that it is now necessary to add

“in the opinion of the head of the public body”?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The change in this clause referring to “in the opinion of the head of the public

body” is consistent with language elsewhere in the act and was introduced to provide

clarity and consistency.

It does remain under the oversight of the Privacy Commissioner’s office, as per

section

42 of the act. But in engagement with other members, and in information we saw in

second reading, we’ve heard that it was being misinterpreted and misunderstood. So

we have proposed an amendment to remove “in the opinion of the head of the public

body” to reduce that concern.

Jody Toor : With this clause, it suggests that the request must provide enough detail for the

record to be found “in a reasonable amount of time.” A reasonable amount of time is

not defined, and it was not in the original requirements for a request. Why did the

government feel it is necessary to add the phrase “and in a reasonable amount of time?”

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The objective of this clause change is to ensure that there is sufficient detail to

be able to find the record.

The definition is defined elsewhere in the act, is used, commonly, elsewhere in the

act. It is standard wording for legal test. It is interpreted by the Privacy Commissioner’s

office, and there will be jurisprudence already.

Jody Toor : How does the government define “reasonable amount of time”?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : As I explained in my previous answer, there is jurisprudence from the Privacy Commissioner’s

office on the definition of “reasonable,” and that would be used to define it in this

circumstance as well. If an individual had concern with the

interpretation of it by

the public body, they would have recourse through the commissioner.

Jody Toor : Where is the definition written in this bill?

Hon. Diana Gibson : The term “reasonable” is used in many places in the existing FOI legislation, which

means that there are past commissioner decisions on the appropriate

interpretation

of “reasonable.” That would be used as guidance in this context.

It’s also a term used widely in other legal jurisprudence and the courts, which would

also, of course, be guidance.

Jody Toor : Will different ministries apply different standards for “a reasonable time”?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : We have a centralized FOI service that offers guidance to the ministries and helps

to ensure a consistent service for people.

Of course, it still remains under the oversight of the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner.

Rob Botterell : I have some questions related to clause 2, which amends clause 5(1). “To obtain access

to a record, the applicant must make a written request that provides,” in its current

form, “enough detail to enable an experienced employee of the public body, with a

reasonable effort, to identify the record sought.” That’s the current version. Then

the addition in the part we’re dealing with right now is: “in a reasonable amount

of time.”

I want to begin by asking for some representative examples of what you would see is

an unreasonable effort. I’ll come to my questions about the change coming, but first

of all, I’d like to understand the current

section before the change. What is an unreasonable

effort? Can you give some representative examples? Because those representative examples

would illustrate the circumstances in which the request is put on hold because it’s

considered that it would involve an unreasonable amount of effort.

Then, presumably, you’d go back to the applicant and say: “This involves an unreasonable

amount of effort. You’ve got to narrow the request or withdraw the request or change

the request or reduce the number of ministries, whatever.” But I’d appreciate an explanation

with some representative examples of what unreasonable effort means.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : This clause is not about limiting access to records that are hard to find but about

requiring or ensuring sufficient detail to be able to find the records, and it isn’t

appropriate for us to define that here, as the language is already in the act and

interpreted by the Privacy Commissioner’s office, where the jurisprudence would sit.

Rob Botterell : I’m sure your staff have read all the commissioner’s orders in detail over the years.

Can you not give the members of the public who are listening in on Hansard and others, some examples of where there’s insufficient detail?

[6:10 p.m.]

I gather, with an unreasonable effort, there’s insufficient detail. So would it require

an unreasonable effort to find those? There must be some examples you could share,

because that’ll help illustrate questions I’m going to ask later this afternoon or

probably tomorrow.

The Chair : Member, just a reminder that questions are through the Chair.

Rob Botterell : Through the Chair, Mr. Chair.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson : The role of the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner is a critical part

of the freedom-of-information and privacy legislation and the act, and it’s not our

place to do

interpretations here in this room.

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 6:15 p.m.