Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 139

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Abigail Betker Athletic Achievements

Scott McInnis

Introductions by Members

Speaker’s Statement

Admissibility of Private Members’ Bill

Members’ Statements

Centennial of Memorial South Park

Mable Elmore

World Plumbing Day

David Williams

Epilepsy Awareness

Rohini Arora

Canadian Country Music Hall of Honour

Tony Luck

Social Work Week

Garry Begg

Support for Seniors and Work of Community Angels

Á’a:líya Warbus

Oral Questions

Provincial Sales Tax and Support for Small Business

Trevor Halford

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Provincial Sales Tax and Security Costs for Places of Worship

Claire Rattée

Hon. Niki Sharma

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Saanich Peninsula Outreach Team Health Clinic and Access to Primary Care Services

Rob Botterell

Hon. Josie Osborne

Budget Priorities and Support for Seniors

Ward Stamer

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Food Costs and Government Priorities

Kristina Loewen

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Service Model Change for Children with Support Needs and Funding for Autism Services

Reann Gasper

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Property Tax Deferment Program

Brennan Day

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Investigation of Shootings in Tumbler Ridge and Call for Public Inquiry

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Niki Sharma

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Anna Kindy

Rob Botterell

George Chow

Bruce Banman

Gavin Dew

Macklin McCall

Questions of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. Diana Gibson

Hon. Kelly Greene

Second Reading of Bills

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

Macklin McCall

Kiel Giddens

Korky Neufeld

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Reann Gasper

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (continued)

Linda Hepner

Hon. Christine Boyle

Tony Luck

Claire Rattée

Rob Botterell

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Scott McInnis.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Bowinn Ma : We are joined in the gallery today by Bronwyn Phillips, who is a project manager

with the Ministry of Infrastructure. She is celebrating 25 years of service with the

public service. She is here today with her husband, Jim Phillips.

I ask the House to please join me in thanking her for her wonderful service to British

Columbians.

Lynne Block : I’d like to recognize someone very special who is with us in the gallery today, my

extraordinary constituency assistant Ashten Young.

Ashten first came into my life as my campaign manager. From the very beginning, she

proved herself to be tireless, organized, compassionate and deeply committed to the

people we serve.

Today she is the steady hand in our constituency office, someone who always has my

back, has earned my complete confidence and has become not only a trusted colleague

but also a dear friend. Ashten and her family are expecting their third child in June,

and she will soon be taking some well-deserved time away from her CA duties to focus

on her growing family.

Please join me in welcoming Ashten here today and in wishing her every joy and blessing

in this wonderful new

chapter for her family.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I’m pleased today to introduce a group of more than 20 medical students from UBC

School of Medicine who are joining us in the gallery today.

These are students who are members of a political advocacy committee. They’re here

in the Legislature to raise awareness about the health and well-being of migrant farmworkers,

people who play a vital role in B.C.’s food and agriculture sectors. They’re advocating

for strong supports in areas like health care access, safe housing, language services

and transportation, recognizing that these are factors that are critical to the health

and well-being of workers who help feed our province. Their commitment is truly admirable.

I would like the House to please join me in making them feel most welcome here today.

Ian Paton : I’d like to welcome today Surrey resident Bradley Budden and his daughter Emily here.

Bradley came to our caucus this morning and presented on something we don’t think

much about. But he’s the executive director of the B.C. Insulation Contractors Association,

and everything underneath us and inside of our walls has to be insulated.

Welcome, Bradley and his daughter Emily.

Rohini Arora : I had the honour of hosting a lunch today with the B.C. Epilepsy Society. They’re

joining us in the gallery today, and I just want to take a moment to welcome them.

I hope you’ll all join me.

Trevor Young is the chair of the B.C. Epilepsy board of directors. Deirdre Syms is

executive director of the B.C. Epilepsy Society. Irene, Trevor’s partner, is also

joining us, and Queena Wong and Esther Mkilania.

Please join me in welcoming these amazing advocates.

Without the work you do, so many people would be left navigating epilepsy without

you. Thank you so much.

Linda Hepner : I would like the House to welcome two of my constituency assistants here today, Deborah

Coult and Kyla Coult. Yes, they are sisters, and they do an enormous amount of work,

as everyone here knows, at the constituency office.

In fact, we are so excited because this next week, on Monday, I officially get the

keys to my office that I have been….

Interjections.

Linda Hepner : Yes.

Deborah and Kyla have been insistent on working with the Legislature to make that

happen, and we’re very grateful for all the work they have done.

Would the House please welcome them here today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I would like to welcome Dr. Paula Burns, who is the president of Langara College

and the chair of B.C. Colleges.

B.C.’s public colleges are the backbone of practical, employment-ready education here

in British Columbia. They deliver agile, responsive and equitable training that fuels

the workforce our economy depends on, today and well into the future. They partner

directly with employers and industry to co-design programs aligned to real labour

market demand and modern workplace standards. I’m so proud of all of the work that

the B.C. Colleges are doing.

Tonight in the Hall of Honour, we have a reception with them, so please join us, and

please join me in welcoming Dr. Paula Burns to the House.

Statements

Abigail Betker

Athletic Achievements

Scott McInnis : What a week for young athletes in Kimberley.

It came to my attention this morning that another former student of mine, Abigail

Betker, from Capilano University, has received the Canadian Collegiate Athletic Association

Women’s Volleyball Player of the Year.

Abby is a phenomenal athlete. Since she came into high school in grade 8, she has

been the best volleyball player in the East Kootenay, boy or girl, and she continues

on with that. She’s studying kinesiology, sports sciences. I know how proud Abby is

to represent her community, and I wish her and her family all the best.

Would you please join me in congratulating her.

Introductions by Members

Janet Routledge : I’d like to introduce seven incredible young women in the gallery today who are part

of the Indigenous youth internship program within the government of British Columbia.

They are being hosted at the Legislative Assembly on a one-day twinning program by

our British Columbia branch of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. While the

group is here, they have an opportunity to spend time with women MLAs to learn about

our roles and life as women parliamentarians.

They are TJ Dutton, Shaniah Hillis, Angel Houle, Alexis McGillivray, Ashley Stanley,

Julia Su and Riley Swan. They are accompanied by the team leader, Amanda Sylvester.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Reann Gasper : A couple of days ago my community was hit with a tragedy. Chartwell retirement residence,

which housed the elderly, caught on fire. Thankfully, no lives were lost.

Would the House please thank the first responders, the people that just wrapped around

our community to support at this time. It is worth giving them a round of applause.

Trevor Halford : I’d be remiss if I didn’t highlight that from my office, Melissa McCaskill is in

the House today. I want to thank Melissa for all the work she does in Surrey–White

Rock and here as well.

I ask the House, please welcome Melissa.

Harwinder Sandhu : Today my nephew Avinoor Singh is turning 19. He’s graduating this year as well, and

he wants to pursue his career in medicine.

He’s the one who started a cricket team in his school, the school where he was so

nervous to go because he has long hair and wears a turban, but school students and

teachers accepted him with open arms — that’s who true Canadians are — and now he’s

thriving there.

I just want to say thank you to everyone for the last few years, for the love and

kindness you’ve shown, which helped Avinoor to thrive.

Happy birthday, Avinoor, and welcome to adulthood.

Jeremy Valeriote : I’m delighted to introduce to the House today Liza Brechbill. Liza joins the B.C.

Green caucus as a policy adviser, where they will focus on health, education and social

justice.

Liza comes to us from the B.C. First Nations Justice Council, where their expertise

in the interaction between people and systems was used to full effect. Liza has experience

in addressing barriers to health and justice across Canada and addressing colonial

harm within education and political spaces.

We are very excited to have Liza join our team and to help us continue being a strong

voice for underserved and equity-deserving communities across British Columbia.

Would the House please welcome Liza Brechbill.

[1:45 p.m.]

Janet Routledge : I have the pleasure today of introducing three school groups. I think the first one

is here, École Jules-Verne.

Please help me welcome 27 grade 11 students from École Jules-Verne.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I have the pleasure of introducing to the House today someone very special that works

in my office, Gwen Desnomie.

She came to the work with a heart full of love for the community. She’s a single mom.

She takes such good care of absolutely everybody that walks into our office. I get

that feedback from people all the time, because of the way that they’re treated with

such dignity and care and respect. I wouldn’t be able to do the work that I do without

that solid support in the community and at the office every time I come back to my

riding, Chilliwack–Cultus Lake.

It is with so much gratitude that I say thank you and introduce you here in the House.

It is my absolute pleasure and privilege to work alongside you.

Also, Kyla, since you’ve joined our team, everything that you’ve done to hold up the

work in our office has been absolutely incredible.

I’m just so privileged to work with you both. Hoy chexw.

Tony Luck : It’s always a pleasure when you can introduce a group of young people here that are

interested in politics and listening.

As you know, last week I had grades 6 and 7 French immersion students here from Collettville,

in Merrit. They’re actually tuned in today watching the procedures because they were

unable to stay late last week.

Please welcome them again to watch us, and let’s try to behave today.

Sharon Hartwell : I would also like to join my colleague across the aisle to show my respect and my

gratitude for the First Nations ladies that joined us this morning. It was enlightening,

and we really enjoyed their company here and showing them around.

So I just want to say welcome, and I hope you enjoy your afternoon.

Rob Botterell : In the gallery today are several members of the Saanich Peninsula outreach team,

SPOT, and other community members who are very familiar with and support the extraordinary

work that SPOT does providing health care for people living on the Saanich Peninsula

who do not have a family doctor.

They are joined by church leaders from across my riding who work tirelessly to provide

food and shelter to the unhoused populations in Saanich North and the Islands and

also to support SPOT.

Will the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Lawrence Mok : I rise today to introduce my two good friends from Maple Ridge, Gordon Robson and

his wife, Mary. Gordon was once an adviser to B.C. Premier Bill Bennett, and he was

also once a mayor of Maple Ridge.

Will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Harwinder Sandhu : I have my family joining us in the chamber.

First of all, your biggest fan, my son Avinoor, who I adore. He’s here today along

with my brother Lakhwinder Singh Boparai, who is my only brother, since dad left us

too soon. A lot of responsibility fell on my shoulder as the eldest daughter, but

my brother has always been there for me and my sister. I’m thrilled to have him here.

Since my re-election, it’s their first time.

Of course, my mom, Surinder Kaur, who taught me so many things, as all our moms do.

My mom taught me two things I hold near and dear to my heart.

She would say, “Share with everyone,” and: “Never hate anybody.” Last night when I

was reflecting on this introduction, I reflected on my entire life. There is not a

single person in this world whom I hate. It’s the upbringing. I may dislike or disagree.

That is such a good teaching that she taught.

The other thing she used to say in Punjabi: “Aap khade da ki khana.” It means: “What

is the point of eating alone when others around us are hungry?” She always taught

me: “No matter how much you have, strive to share — and share anonymously, so you

can protect others’ dignity.” I’m so grateful for my mom for being my rock, helping

me raise my daughters when I was by myself.

Would the House please join me to welcome my family.

[1:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew : That’s a hard one to follow from my friend from Vernon-Lumby, but I’ll do my best.

Just at lunch, myself and the forestry critic had the opportunity to meet with a group

of Island leaders to talk about forestry economic development and support for workers.

That group was put together by my friend Tek Manhas. We’ve known each other since

his beard was the colour of my beard. It’s a great group from Cowichan council — Couns.

Tek Manhas, Bruce Findlay and Mike Caljouw — as well as Colwood council, Ian Ward,

Kim Jordison and Misty Olsen.

Of course, we were also joined by Brian Bull, who is a union leader with Steelworkers

who are losing their jobs in Chemainus at the Western Forest Products mill.

Thank you very much for joining us today.

Speaker’s Statement

Admissibility of

Private Members’ Bill

The Speaker : Hon. Members, as the House is aware, following the introduction, first reading and

printing of a private member’s bill, the Chair undertakes an examination of each clause

of the bill to ensure its procedural admissibility.

On Thursday, March 5, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream introduced Bill

M235, intituled Drug Recovery and Community Safety Act. Clause 13 of the bill invokes

section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly called the notwithstanding

clause.

The Chair will remind the House that Standing Order 76 provides: “Any bill affecting

the constitution must be introduced by a member of the government or with the sanction

of the government.”

As noted in previous rulings by the Chair, this applies to private members’ bills

as well. That touches upon the provincial Constitution Act; as well as the Constitution

Act, 1867; or the Constitution Act, 1982, being Canada’s constitution.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is entrenched in the Constitution Act,

1982. A private member’s bill that seeks to invoke the notwithstanding clause therefore

offends Standing Order 76.

In consideration of the above, it is the ruling of the Chair that Bill M235 is not

in order. As such, the bill will be removed from the order paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 27A(5), the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream

is moved to the bottom of the list of precedence for consideration of private members’

business.

Members’ Statements

Centennial of Memorial South Park

Mable Elmore : In a news item dated May 22, 1926, the local paper reported that that particular

Saturday was a red-letter day in the history of South Vancouver.

The report went on: “Rev. George O. Fallis, assisted by Rev. A.D. Archibald and Reeve

Jack Cornett, in the presence of a large crowd, solemnly dedicated and officially

opened a 37-acre memorial park and memorial pavilion, thus bringing to fruition a

movement started in 1918 to establish a suitable memorial in honour of South Vancouver

citizens who rallied to the colours and gave their lives to the empire during the

Great War.”

For context, Jack Cornett was Jonathan Webster Cornett, and he carried the title of

reeve because he was head of the town council of South Vancouver before it was absorbed

into the city of Vancouver. Jack Cornett later became an alderman and mayor of Vancouver

and, before that, a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Jack was

here and served in these chambers.

Once a grazing area for cattle, Memorial South Park has served residents of the southern

area of Vancouver for the last 100 years. Enjoyed by neighbours and sports teams,

the park features a track field, the lit synthetic turf field, a pond and a war memorial.

The field is used by soccer, field hockey, lacrosse and ultimate players. It’s a popular

area for picnics and festivals. There’s a lot of excitement building up to the centennial,

the 100-year anniversary.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to thank park champion Beth Ringdahl and her friends for organizing the centennial.

In addition to Beth Ringdahl, kudos to Cindy Heinrichs, Sharon Olsen, Sherry Loof

and neighbours. Cheers as well to Edie Kernighan and the John Oliver legacy association.

I also wish to mention Cherry Wong, Liza Bautista and Prabhi Deol with South Vancouver

Neighbourhood House. Thanks as well to South Vancouver’s Rob Howatson for the material

about the history of Memorial South Park.

Everybody is invited to a great celebration for 100 years for Memorial South Park,

coming up.

World Plumbing Day

David Williams : Today marks World Plumbing Day, a day that recognizes something many of us rarely

think about. Plumbing is foundational to modern public health and community infrastructure.

Clean water, safe sanitation and reliable plumbing systems are not luxuries. They

are essential services that prevent disease, protect our environment and keep our

communities functioning.

World Plumbing Day was established to highlight the vital connection between plumbing,

sanitation and public health. Behind these systems are tradespeople whose work keeps

homes, schools, hospitals and businesses operating across B.C.

Most of the time, we don’t even think about plumbing at all, but as any homeowner

quickly learns, when there’s a plumbing issue, it suddenly becomes the most important

item on the agenda. Unlike government, plumbing is a profession where people prevent

leaks and cut red tape.

The World Plumbing Council is encouraging plumbing professionals to mark the day by

wearing blue, which happens to be my favourite colour, to recognize the essential

work of plumbing professionals around the world. In rural communities, these skilled

trades are especially important. When something goes wrong with our water systems,

our septic systems or our local infrastructure, it is often local plumbers and trades

professionals who step in to solve the problem quickly and safely.

World Plumbing Day is also a reminder of the importance of encouraging young people

to pursue careers in the skilled trades. British Columbia faces labour shortages in

many trades, and plumbers are among the professionals who will help build and maintain

the infrastructure our province will rely on in the future.

I would like to recognize and thank the plumbers and tradespeople throughout British

Columbia — including those working every day in Salmon Arm, Armstrong and communities

around the Shuswap and North Okanagan — for the essential work they do. On World Plumbing

Day, let’s take a moment to recognize the people who keep our water clean, our communities

healthy and our province moving forward.

Epilepsy Awareness

Rohini Arora : I had a fully typed-out speech, but we had a beautiful moment today for Epilepsy

Awareness Month.

On March 26, people often wear a purple shirt in honour of those living with epilepsy,

and B.C. Epilepsy, of course, is here.

It was amazing to hear from the Minister of Health about the supports that we have

available to folks here in B.C. when navigating epilepsy, and also hearing from the

House Leader of the official opposition.

It was a really heartfelt song holding the people that are dealing with the stigma

of epilepsy — things like being denied rides through ride-share apps, not being allowed

in classes because they are seen as unpredictable and a general lack of understanding

about what a seizure can look like and what form it can take. This means that there

are multiple added barriers when there shouldn’t be.

There was one, quite frankly, disappointing story of a ride-share app request being

accepted, and someone had a tonic-clonic seizure and was kicked out of that vehicle,

left in the snow, in the dark, at 21 years old. This is unacceptable, and it is why

Epilepsy Awareness Month is so important, because there is still so much stigma surrounding

epilepsy. It is a spectrum.

[2:00 p.m.]

That’s why the work of B.C. Epilepsy Society, through Deirdre as well as Jacquoline

and team, that I introduced today…. If there’s anyone here navigating epilepsy and

they don’t know where to go, please reach out to info@bcepilepsy.com.

Thank you, everyone.

Canadian Country Music

Hall of Honour

Tony Luck : Today I want to recognize a true cultural treasure in the Nicola Valley, the Canadian

Country Music Hall of Honour in Merritt.

Merritt is proudly known as the country music capital of Canada, and right in the

heart of our downtown stands a place that celebrates the artists, the storytellers

and the pioneers who built Canada’s country music tradition. Housed in the historic

Armstrong’s department store building on Quilchena Avenue, this beautiful century-old

landmark has welcomed visitors from across Canada and around the world who come to

experience the history of Canadian country music.

The hall first came to Merritt in 2011 and quickly became a cornerstone of the community,

preserving memorabilia, instruments and the plaques that honour the musicians, songwriters,

the broadcasters and the industry leaders who shaped the sound of our nation.

When the original agreement expired in 2021, there was a real concern that this important

collection and the legacy it represented might leave Merritt. But the Nicola Valley

did what it usually does. The community stepped up. Thanks to the dedication of volunteers,

including former mayor Susan Roline, a new board was formed, and the venue was reborn

as the Canadian Country Music Hall of Honour, ensuring this piece of Canadian heritage

remained exactly where it belonged.

Today the hall continues to thrive, welcoming visitors, showcasing music history,

hosting performances on the Copper Country Stage and serving as a hub for tourism

and community gatherings.

But places like this do not survive because of buildings. They survive because of

dedicated volunteers who give their time, their energy and their love of music to

keep the institution alive for future generations. Today I want to thank the volunteers,

the board of the Canadian Society of Country Music and Heritage and Tourism Nicola

Valley for keeping the doors open and the music playing.

To all the members of this House: if you have not had a chance yet to visit the country

music capital of Canada, please, I extend an invitation to everyone. And take your

time, because not only will you hear the music; you’ll also feel the history.

Social Work Week

Garry Begg : It’s my honour today to recognize March 8 to 14 as Social Work Week in our province.

We proclaim this week every year to honour the dedication shown by thousands of social

workers and front-line staff, who have some of the hardest jobs in our province.

These dedicated individuals support British Columbians in our schools, hospitals;

through senior services; within local health authorities, non-profits, private practice,

community organizations, Indigenous child and family service agencies; and through

our public service. No matter where they practise their profession, these are people

who make a real difference in the lives of people of all backgrounds — children, youth,

families — and communities across the province.

We know that social workers are helping people cope with some of society’s most challenging

and heartbreaking problems: toxic drugs, homelessness, cost of living, mental health

issues and intimate partner violence, just as a few examples. These are complex problems

with no simple single solution. Yet social workers are there, steady and strong, through

thick and thin.

For some of the most vulnerable in our society, they offer critical support, bringing

empathy and calm and often providing hope when it seems like there is no one left.

They frequently play a pivotal role in helping someone rebuild their life or chart

a new path, and their support is often remembered with admiration long after the crisis

has passed.

This week shines a light on their work, but our hearts are full of thanks for them

day after day, all year.

On behalf of the government, please join me in thanking social workers and front-line

staff throughout our province for their kindness, passion and commitment to putting

people first.

Support for Seniors and

Work of Community Angels

Á’a :líya Warbus : I rise today to speak about a community that is important to all of us in this House,

our seniors and our Elders. In our communities, they are our most precious commodity

because they carry what we call s’íwes. That is the teachings and the knowledge that

we cannot forget, that we carry forward with us.

[2:05 p.m.]

Recently I had the chance to sit down with a few amazing citizens in Chilliwack–Cultus

Lake, Brigida and Tony. They started Community Angels. They recognized that there

was a real need in our community, and they stepped up to do work from their heart

and to make a lasting impact for seniors that are struggling.

They shared with me that many seniors were quietly facing food insecurity. These people

have contributed their whole lives to building up our communities. They’ve worked

their whole lives to be able to have dignity and to be seen and to be respected. And

we can’t forget that.

It’s becoming too often that we’re seeing — it’s heartbreaking really — seniors that

are accessing food banks and community programs. This is an essential thing that they

do every month. Community Angels is stepping in to help fill the gap through support.

I really just want to highlight the work of Brigida and Tony of Community Angels for

what they’ve done, for starting this conversation. It’s a conversation that we need

to have. It’s not just about providing the food. They’re making sure seniors feel

cared for, that they’re seen and they’re valued and that they know that their community

cares about them.

Organizations like Community Angels show us that the strength of community leadership

and compassion can be the difference between not having a meal and having that hot

meal waiting for you, and somebody that cares about you to bring you in.

I just want to say thank you to Community Angels. I want to highlight the work they’re

doing and say we want to continue that work with all people in the House that represent

our communities.

Oral Questions

Provincial Sales Tax

and Support for Small Business

Trevor Halford : Small businesses have been struggling to stay afloat for years under this NDP government.

Now, there are many examples.

When you walk into a small business — whether it’s in White Rock, Surrey, Prince George,

Kelowna or Vancouver — what do you encounter? It could be a grocery store. It could

be a clothing store. It could be a second-hand clothing store. It could be a thrift

store. You usually encounter a security guard. That is something new.

Many small businesses are saying that this government’s punishment, this PST expansion

to professional services and security, could bankrupt their businesses, which are

already on edge.

Caren McSherry, the owner of Gourmet Warehouse on East Hastings, in Vancouver, is

already spending $7,000 per month just on security. She says: “I’ve voiced my opinion

so many times, and it falls on deaf ears. Pretty soon there won’t be any more privately

owned businesses left because they haven’t got the wherewithal to survive.”

My question is a clear one to this government: when will they stop picking on small

businesses, and who in their right mind thought that it would be acceptable to put

PST and tax on security costs?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Since the PST was brought in, B.C.’s economy has shifted significantly towards services.

I’ll be frank. Updating the PST means that we can continue hiring doctors, hiring

nurses, hiring teachers and supporting the important services for British Columbians.

We are not out of step with other provinces. This aligns B.C. with seven other PST

provinces.

It’s important to note that in Budget 2026, we’re investing in programs for small

businesses, like the $16 million that we’re investing in the chronic property offenders

intervention initiative to help police fight property crimes.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford : There’s the problem. Instead of growing the economy to pay for those services, they

are just going to tax the economy to pay for those services. That’s not going to work

— full stop.

The NDP’s formula on this seems to be very simple. Big business becomes small business,

and small business goes out of business when it comes to the NDP. This government

has chosen not to listen to small businesses.

[2:10 p.m.]

Security costs. People are hiring security because of this government’s incompetence

in dealing with repeat offenders. It is this government’s responsibility. It is this

government’s fault there are security officers that are now staffing small businesses.

That blame is on them. That cost is on them.

And what do they do now? What are they going to do? They are going to tax that service.

They are going to tax the security that is now having to go into small businesses

to make sure that the employees are safe, the customers are safe and they’re not watching

thousands of dollars of merchandise go out every day.

My question is a simple one to the minister, and I’ll ask it again. Who in their right

mind thought it was a good idea and made economic sense to tax small businesses that

are just trying to stay open and making sure that their profits aren’t walking out

the door through shoplifting? Why on earth would they think that’s a good idea?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate my friend across the way for raising the concerns that some small businesses

face. I had the opportunity to….

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I haven’t even started talking, and they’re heckling.

I appreciate him raising that. As I shared with them a couple of days ago, my family

ran a restaurant a few blocks from here. At that time, all the local businesses came

together and hired a security guard to make sure that there was protection on the

street. That was 20 years ago. Challenges arise in communities. You have to respond.

What we’ve heard from communities, what we’ve heard from small businesses, is the

programs that we’ve launched in this budget and expanded with additional dollars is

what communities need to make sure that the people who are causing 99 percent of the

challenges have the intervention from police to be able to address that. That’s what

I hear from small businesses.

The member said: “Oh, this government doesn’t want to grow the economy.” We have the

fastest GDP growth since 2017 in the entire country. Every indication there is, from

all national forecasters, is that B.C. will continue to be one of the leaders in the

country.

We’re going to continue to support small businesses. We’re going to continue to support

large businesses. We’re going to continue to attract investment to British Columbia.

This budget helps us do that.

Provincial Sales Tax and

Security Costs for Places of Worship

Claire Rattée : That was an incredibly tone-deaf answer. As a small business owner myself, I can

tell you that that’s not cutting it for the other small businesses in B.C. right now.

B.C.’s Jewish community alone now spends $100,000 every month on security services

to keep their schools and their synagogues safe — $100,000 every single month. And

now this government is adding PST to those security services. That’s going to cost

this community another $84,000 a year.

Does the minister really think it’s appropriate to tax people for protecting themselves?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Over the last few weeks and years, we’ve been meeting with the Jewish community to

understand what’s needed and what they need on the front line to keep their places

of worship and schools safe.

I can’t talk about a bill that is before the House. I will say that we are responding

with legal steps and resources to make sure they have the money for security that

they need, and also legal protections to make sure that anybody that goes to a place

of worship is protected, that anybody that goes to schools — students, teachers —

are protected. We’ll continue to do that work.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : I don’t really need to know more about that side of the House’s record on antisemitism

and addressing that. Maybe they should talk to Selena Robinson if they want some pointers

on how to fix this problem.

People are being forced to pay for their own protection because public safety has

deteriorated, and, instead of helping, this government is taxing them for it. Communities

are only hiring security because this NDP government has failed to keep them safe.

I have a simple question for the minister. Will the minister commit today to an exemption

on PST for security services for places of worship?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : My friend the Attorney General has highlighted the work we’re doing to protect places

of worship. I’ve highlighted the supports we’re providing to small businesses to ensure

that they can continue to operate in a safe way.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’ve shared with the members, because they raised concerns around the growth of the

economy, that we have the fastest-growing economy since we’ve formed government in

2017. We continue to be leaders in that. These are important issues that we take very

seriously, and there are things in this budget that help address many things.

The members talk about small businesses. We’ve had the largest reduction of red tape

in the country’s history by removing interprovincial trade barriers on goods.

We continue to make investments in security measures. My colleagues are meeting with

local governments on this every single day. And we continue to work with our not-for-profit

partners, our faith leaders, to ensure that all the legal measures are in place to

ensure that they can practise their faith in peace.

Saanich Peninsula Outreach Team

Health Clinic and Access to

Primary Care Services

Rob Botterell : At the end of this month, the Saanich Peninsula outreach team, or SPOT, health clinic

will close. The Minister of Health has met the dedicated team at SPOT, which served

more than 500 patients, two-thirds of whom are Indigenous.

This is a vital service for people with complex needs that can’t get the type of service

they require online or at an emergency and certainly are not able to travel to other

parts of the region or other communities.

Over 500 patients will shortly be without access to vital primary care services, and

this is on top of already 15,000 residents on the peninsula who do not have access

to primary care.

So what guarantees can the minister provide that all former SPOT patients will have

access to the individualized primary care they need after March 31?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and for his advocacy. He is correct.

Upon being fairly newly appointed as Minister of Health, I was able to travel out

to his riding to sit down with him and his constituents and meet with one of the physicians

and board members from SPOT. I want to say…. I want to commend and thank them for

the service they’ve provided over these years in the way that they have.

I know that this is a really challenging situation for the clinic. They had space

that they had leased under an agreement from Island Health, and there was an understanding

that that space would end. They’ve been unsuccessful in being able to secure new space.

What is most important here is that every single one of these patients is able to

be attached to another primary care provider. That is exactly what the primary care

network on the Saanich Peninsula is doing that work of.

I know that the member understands he can come to my office at any time and talk about

any challenges that particular people are facing, but the commitment from the primary

care network is to do that work. There is space for attachment amongst primary care

providers. There is a Coast Salish First Nations–led primary care centre able to provide

the culturally specific care that people are required, and I’m committed to working

with the member to ensure that happens.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister.

These are complex care patients. In three weeks time, the lives of these patients

will be put at significant risk if they are not attached to primary care services

appropriate to their complex needs in their community. Every single one of these patients

has a right to access the primary health care they need.

So what steps is the minister taking to closely monitor progress and ensure that resources

are added, as needed, to ensure that not one patient is left at risk after the end

of this month?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member again for the question.

That is the commitment on the part of the primary care network that oversees primary

care services and works with different clinics and different providers to ensure that

patients are attached. That work is underway to make sure that every single one of

these patients has access to the care they need, because I know just how important

that is.

We are seeing, across British Columbia, an increase in the number of family physicians.

We are able to attach hundreds of patients every single day in communities large and

small in B.C. But for this particular set of patients, I know just how critical and

important it is that they be attached.

And again, to the member, I am very happy to continue to work with him to ensure that

they have those services, come the end of this month.

[2:20 p.m.]

Budget Priorities

and Support for Seniors

Ward Stamer : This budget hurts seniors, cuts funding for autistic children and expands the PST,

pulling more money out of the pockets of businesses and hard-working British Columbians.

An economics professor at UBC said: “Expenditures are growing more quickly than revenue,

and that’s a choice they made.”

Can the Finance Minister explain how new taxes on land lines, basic cable TV and yarn

that seniors use to knit their grandchildren’s sweaters will somehow fix their $13

billion deficit budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : This budget, Budget 2026, is a very serious budget for very challenging times. That’s

where we are. We didn’t choose this trade war, and it’s where we are.

The reality is that Budget ’26 does a number of things at the same time.

First and foremost, it focuses on protecting the key services for British Columbians.

We continue to invest in health care, in education, in public safety, but, at the

same time, stepping, over time, our deficit down.

We’re making serious, serious changes in how government spends. We’re reducing the

size of the public service. We’re re-pacing capital. We’re doing these things because

it’s so important that we address the deficit, all the while investing in the future

of British Columbia and the major projects that are coming our way.

All of these things need to happen. Budget 2026 does this work.

Ward Stamer : So would the minister have us believe that in her budget, seniors are actually better

off than they were last year? The only ones that I think believe that, we believe,

is the government members on the other side of the House.

Our seniors are incredibly proud, but now many of them are going to food banks for

the very first time.

Will this Finance Minister admit that her budget is hurting seniors and repeal the

PST hike on land lines, cable TV and yarn today and show a show of good faith?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thank you to the member opposite for speaking about how important seniors are in

British Columbia and how important they are in this budget.

How do we see that reflected? By protecting health care. It’s the most important thing

for seniors, absolutely.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : In last year’s budget, we took measures to expand SAFER, and we did that by not only

expanding the amount that people could access but the breadth of the program. That

is protected in this budget.

We are doing the work to make sure that we can build more long-term-care homes by

pulling back the costly situation that we’re in and coming up with new models to deliver

more long-term care over time for seniors. It’s so important. It’s $35 million over

three years to support Independent Living B.C., to grow more opportunities for seniors

to age at home.

But we know exactly what would happen if the other side had the reins right now. The

member for Fraser-Nicola told us. So let’s take a quote. They would have health care

and education take the brunt of these cuts.

The reality is that the choice that we have made to protect these services supports

seniors.

Food Costs and Government Priorities

Kristina Loewen : It sounds like the answer is no. She will not repeal it in good faith.

The lines have become so long at our food banks that they now need to hire private

security. Food banks should be a last resort, but, under this government, we’ve seen

an 80 percent increase in food bank usage. Also under this government, food banks

now have to pay PST for security. Meanwhile, the head of Community Living B.C. made

$330,000 last year and has a vehicle allowance of $12,000.

How does this Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction find it acceptable

to pay a $12,000 vehicle allowance when people in B.C. can’t afford food?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : We all want adults with developmental disabilities to have the most dignified, independent,

supported life that they can. We all want people to have the best access to food that

gives them the very best start to the day. These are investments that we are working

on together with community so that people get access to those supports.

I’m so encouraged that this budget provided a lift of $81 million for Community Living

B.C. so that we can respond to the growing caseload. The schools and teachers and

parents are doing a better and better job of identifying who is going to need supports

when they age into adulthood, and this budget lift responds to that need.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I’m also so grateful to the community organizations that let us know the kind of

food security infrastructure they needed in their communities.

If the member has got more questions for me, I can tell her about the really fantastic

work that has been happening in every corner of the province, where walk-in fridges

and smokehouses…. Every corner of the province. With our funding, community organizations

are meeting that intensely deep need, given the increased cost of groceries.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kristina Loewen : I’d like to congratulate the minister for being the only person in the province who

is encouraged by this budget.

Food banks are supposed to be a last resort, yet 33,000 children relied on B.C. food

banks last year. When British Columbians shop at their local grocery store or visit

the food bank, they are faced with guards, not greeters. Costs to prevent shoplifting

don’t just disappear. They get passed down the line. The people who feel it most are

the ones at the checkout. Higher costs at the till compound the problem, leading to

more families struggling and more people turning to food banks.

To the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction: will you commit to an

exemption of the PST on security at food banks, and will you end the $12,000 car allowance

today, yes or no?

The Speaker : All questions through the Chair, Member.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I am reminded that under the government led by the Leader of the Opposition, working

families with an income of less than $30,000 used to pay $177 in tax. Now they get

$1,600 back at tax time.

I could go all day with this member…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : …on the ways that we have been taking a bite out of the cost of inflation — whether

it’s affordable child care, free birth control, affordable housing and lifting income

assistance rates when the official opposition leader’s government froze them for a

decade.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : We’re going to keep investing in people because that’s what we do on this side of

the House.

Service Model Change for

Children with Support Needs

and Funding for Autism Services

Reann Gasper : A couple of days ago the Minister of Social Development said: “Conservatives say

that we are cutting supports. We are not.”

Let me be clear. We absolutely want all children to get the support they need, but

we don’t understand why that comes at the expense of 5,000 other families. One parent

I spoke to affected by these cuts is concerned for their child, AB. They said: “While

daily life is still much more difficult than it should be for AB, these supports have

been a lifeline for all of us. As her parents, we are utterly terrified to think what

might happen without them.”

Will the minister stand on the front steps of the Legislature this Saturday and defend

these cuts directly to the families losing their support?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I thank the member for the question. I will talk to any family and any parent who

has a question for me, and I have met with many of them.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I know that the member opposite received a comprehensive briefing around our program

redesign. I know that when we redesign a system, families will have questions and

concerns.

[2:30 p.m.]

We also know that our old system was not working for thousands of children in this

province. I’ve received emails from many members of the opposition about children

for whom the current system was not working. So what we are doing is we are creating

a stronger system, one that will serve more children.

I just want to be clear that under the new system, we’re expanding direct funding,

including for children with autism. Under our new system, the direct funding to families

of children with autism is increasing from around $190 million to about $230 million.

As I’ve said before, when you meet one child with autism, you meet one child with

autism. You cannot take a blanket approach to every single child. In the new system,

we will walk alongside families throughout our changes, and I am happy to meet with

anyone.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Reann Gasper : The minister has the opportunity to look families in the eye on Saturday and tell

them and explain this to them. Because this answer is cruel, it is out of touch, and

they feel betrayed. We are talking about young, vulnerable children losing their pathologists,

their therapists, their support network because of this government’s fiscal incompetence.

AB’s parents said: “Increased inclusion does not involve exclusion.” How can you develop

a program that is supposed to be inclusive for all children yet children and families

are excluded? That does not make sense. AB’s parent says this is the very essence

of hidden disabilities. Just because they are hidden does not make them any less disabling

nor deserving of support.

Will the minister stop the cuts and ensure that no family loses the support they were

already promised?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I will meet with any family in this province and speak with them.

I’ve attended rallies myself. I understand the concerns that families currently have

about a redesigned system. We know that in our old system, too many children living

with disabilities received no direct support at all. For far too many children, the

amount of support that they received did not meet their need, and our system was very

complicated to navigate.

Every child with a need in our province will access supports and services. This includes

an increase of $80 million to community-based services in all of our communities across

the province. I want to just be clear that $475 million has never been invested in

children and youth with disabilities in this province, ever.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Dr. Glen Davies — the director of ABLE Developmental

Clinic, a registered psychologist and the director for our autism integrated medical

services — said: “It’s not every day that you hear a government commit $475 million

of new funding to children with disabilities, and we recognize that this is coming

at a time with economic uncertainty, with many competing needs. For the government

to choose to move forward with this initiative at this time is particularly meaningful,

so thank you.”

Beyond a very significant increase in funding, this plan extends supports to thousands

of children who did not previously have support in any organized fashion. It enhances

supports for high-needs kids, whether they have autism or don’t have autism. It creates

funding access like never before.

It is a challenging time, but I’m happy to talk to parents.

Property Tax Deferment Program

Brennan Day : I can’t wait to hear the minister say that to the parents on the lawn on Saturday.

In this budget, this government quietly changed the seniors property tax deferral

program, raising the interest rate by 4 percent and switching to monthly compound

interest.

To the Minister of Finance, this disastrous budget is hurting seniors. Why is this

government making it more expensive for seniors struggling?

Will you commit to reversing this damaging tax hike today?

[2:35 p.m.]

The Speaker : Questions through the Chair, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

The property deferment program was designed to help seniors stay in their home. Unfortunately,

the way that the program was structured was that it was lending money to many folks

who didn’t need it, at rates that were below commercial lending rates, which means

everyone else in the province was providing that funding.

The correction that we’ve made is prime plus 2. This is still a very competitive rate,

and the program is designed to help seniors stay in their home. There is no additional

monthly fee. This is a program that’s available for people to defer their taxes and

pay it when they sell their home in the future.

Investigation of Shootings

in Tumbler Ridge

and Call for Public Inquiry

Larry Neufeld : Tumbler Ridge. It has been one month since that horrific event occurred in the community

— one month. I have called for a public inquiry. We have had no response.

The community deserves more than vague answers and a lack of commitment to that essential

tool that will provide information that we must have in order to prevent something

so horrific, so incredibly soul-tearing, from happening in another community again.

Even former judges and Attorneys General from this province are calling for this to

be done.

My question, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government is: will they today commit

to calling for a public inquiry into the Tumbler Ridge incident, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I want to start by just acknowledging that member’s leadership over what is a really

challenging and trying time for his community and for the people he represents. It

was remarkable to me how many of us stood together in this House to support the work

that he’s doing for his community and for the grieving families and for the community

that’s suffering right now. My hands go up to you for that work.

We as a government, and the Premier has said this many times, have committed to using

every tool that we can to get the answers we need. That includes a public inquiry.

At this stage, the coroner’s inquest is underway, so is the RCMP investigation. We’re

going to get to the bottom of it and make sure that every family and every member

of the member’s community gets the answers that they need through every tool that

we have.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Information and Privacy Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the

Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued Committee of Supply, estimates for

the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Members, we’re going to call the chamber back to order, so I’d ask you to take your

conversations outside.

We’re going to continue our debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

[2:40 p.m.]

Anna Kindy : I’m continuing the debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act.

I just want to summarize what I was talking about yesterday, about living in a democracy.

Freedom of information is fundamental to democracy, and this government is making

it more difficult for citizens, taxpayers, to get information from this government.

The question is: who owns this information? Is it the taxpayers? Is it the people

that are asking for transparency and accountability? This act makes it harder to get

this information.

I’ll go over again the categories of clauses that make it harder to get this information.

It expands a category — again, if the request is thought to be malicious, abusive,

unreasonably interferes with operations of government, repetitious or excessively

broad. We can all interpret these differently. To unreasonably interfere with operations

of government can be interpreted any way the government wants, and it therefore will

limit the ability for citizens, who actually own this information….

I think the government is so out of touch to the taxpayers, to the voters that want

transparency and accountability with this government. It’s been nine long years where

we’ve seen a government do more and more things behind closed doors. And in times

of a health crisis, data for people trying to access health care is paramount.

You might be smiling, but I think people waiting for cancer care are not smiling.

Interjection.

Anna Kindy : I’m seeing somebody smile, and it could be my wrong

interpretation.

That is my point about

interpretation.

Interpretation is subjective, and, therefore,

when you limit access to

interpretation, it’s subjective. What may seem to be a smile

to me or abusive or malicious is actually maybe not. Maybe it’s a smile of friendliness.

That is the issue with what this government is doing with the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. It limits transparency and accountability

of the government.

Coming back to health care, I keep hearing more and more stories that keep happening.

Emails — I had another one today, for example, of somebody with potential cancer who

cannot see a specialist for a biopsy for two months. That is real.

Is the government collecting that data, and is it accountable to that data? Sometimes

the only way to get that data is by doing freedom of information.

I’ll argue that data is not owned by the government. It is owned by the taxpayer,

by the people trying to access health care, by the patients.

Interjection.

Anna Kindy : Yes, correct, by the patients. Those patients sometimes don’t have the $10 fee, or

because they’re anxious, their requests might seem to be repetitious. But when it’s

about a life-and-death situation and the category where we can limit the access of

FOI because someone in the government assumes that this FOI is repetitious….

My point being that we need access to information, and if that information is not

available, then maybe the government isn’t doing their job.

[2:45 p.m.]

You can’t be accountable if you don’t have data. And if you have data, we, the taxpayer,

the people voting for us in this House, deserve to be able to access it.

When I’m saying that these stories…. They’re not stories; they’re emails of people

in despair trying to access timely care. Because it’s about life and death. Some of

these people have children, and they know that the clock is ticking.

There are organizations that are accessing it through FOIs. They publish reports as

to the wait times. We know that in this province, wait times are increasing. Is the

government accountable to that data if it’s not being published?

In

summary, government exists to serve the public. The records produced by the government

are produced using public funds. That information belongs to the public, and that

information should be accessible. It should be transparent. That is the only way that

we can make a government accountable. Freedom-of-information law exists to protect

that right.

I’m not sure why this government is changing the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act. I’m not sure why this government needs this. Why is it making

it more complex to access information? It makes no sense. If a government is doing

its job, it should be proud of it. The citizens should not need to require FOIs to

get information.

We in this House work for British Columbians. People in the bureaucracy work for British

Columbians. Taxes pay for our salaries. What has happened over nine years is it has

become more difficult to access.

In conclusion, Bill 9 does contain some administrative improvements, but these improvements

are overshadowed by provisions that restrict access to information, by provisions

that expand the power to disregard requests.

I think British Columbians deserve a government that is transparent and accountable.

We all need to be accountable. It’s not just the government, but the government has

lost touch with the reality of being, in a sense, public servants.

We don’t live in this castle and ignore the people on the ground. This is not what

this is about. This is about the public. We are public servants. I repeat the word

“servants.” We serve the public. Serving the public means being transparent and accountable.

I’m hoping that as I progress in this job as an MLA, I don’t lose touch with this,

because I think it becomes easy, when we’re sitting in this House, to forget why we’re

here.

In conclusion, I cannot support Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’m hoping that as time progresses in this job, I’ll keep in mind who I’m supposed

to be serving and working for.

Rob Botterell : I will be the designated speaker for the Third Party. I’ll just begin my statement

and reflections on second reading notes.

First, I want to note that the Third Party will not support Bill 9 in its current

form. Later in my presentation, I’ll outline the fundamental flaws that need to be

addressed.

This is not just any legislation. Freedom of information is the foundation of open,

transparent and accountable democratic government — period. Bill 9 represents the

culmination of a 34-year effort of the NDP and other governing parties to convert

freedom of information to freedom from information. In the balance of my remarks today,

I’ll outline why that is so.

Not only that. This Bill 9 represents another step of this NDP government’s efforts

— supported by every member of caucus, whether voluntary or whipped — away from open,

transparent and accountable government. We look for a government that builds consensus

rather than division, and the lack of an effective Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act prevents that from happening.

We now know the concentration of power and decision-making in the Premier’s office:

the removal of checks and balances, such as the Merit Commissioner; the lack of oversight

and involvement of key legislative committees; the move to put everything in opaque,

cabinet, Premier-decided regulations where there is not the scrutiny of the Legislature;

and the use of budget cuts to justify reducing review or consultation.

This is all part of an effort to convert a 22-vote win into unchecked power. And we

know from history and what has happened south of the border that this will not end

well.

Now this is being capped off by a disturbing pattern that has emerged where we end

up on key pieces of legislation in a tie vote, where the Speaker is repeatedly put

in the impossible position of breaking the tie, for a variety of reasons.

Then we have Bill 9, and Bill 9 really is the culmination, as I mentioned earlier,

of a 34-year trend to eliminate freedom of information in this province.

In the next period of time, I’m going to take you back in time to an era when the

NDP upheld instead of bypassed and degraded democracy. I’m going to talk about a time

when the NDP built consensus, not division. Then I’ll take you through to around 2010,

for a check-in to document the reductions in freedom of information that occurred

in that period of time.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’ll touch down in the early 2020s, when fees became a barrier to access. Then I’ll

turn to Bill 9 and offer some observations on Bill 9.

Why is this context important? Because it explains the steady degradation of our democracy

in B.C., to the point where the independent Information and Privacy Commissioner says

he supports a bill that destroys the right to know, as I will show. No other commissioner

in Canada would ever countenance some of the amendments that are proposed in this

legislation. Be so for real right now.

Let’s go back to 1991. It was 1991. The NDP Premier, Mike Harcourt, had just been

elected. The Attorney General was Colin Gabelmann. There was a passionate advocate

for freedom of information, an NDP MLA, Barry Jones. There was a special adviser,

one Murray Rankin, who at the time was a big advocate for freedom of information.

And there was a young public servant in his mid-30s. I may add he was quite, quite

accomplished. His name was Rob Botterell.

So what happened? Well, in the fall of 1991, the NDP had just been elected, at least

in part, on the basis of a promise to bring the most open freedom of information legislation

in Canada to British Columbia.

There was a great deal of fear about freedom of information and protection of privacy.

Public servants that I worked with feared they would have to operate in a fishbowl.

Treasury Board feared that freedom of information would be prohibitively expensive.

Cabinet members feared that the NDP government would lose control of its political

agenda. One cabinet minister at the time, I remember, raising these concerns was a

fellow by the name of Moe Sihota.

Non-government organizations like the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association

and the media feared the legislation would have too many loopholes and would be ignored

— fears that are now fully realized if Bill 9 passes.

To address these fears, former Attorney General Colin Gabelmann and MLA Barry Jones

— a longtime advocate, as I mentioned — opted for a very open, inclusive and transparent

legislative process both before and after the legislation was introduced.

I led, as part of my team in working for the Attorney General, extensive consultations

inside and outside government. All submissions were made publicly available. Lawyer

Murray Rankin provided advice on the act. I even participated, along with other ministers

and senior officials, in a televised debate on freedom of information, with a coalition

of media organizations on the other side of that debate.

We looked to precedents in other jurisdictions, such as Ontario, to find workable,

predictable provisions that would stand the test of time. Full openness and transparency

of process, of how we developed the legislation, was critical to achieving a broad-based

consensus on what the legislation would do and how much openness there would be and

how much privacy protection there would be.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s a rare event in B.C. politics. It’s hard to believe that it occurred 34 years

ago, but in 1992, the NDP government of the day and the opposition, Liberals and others,

set aside their political differences and unanimously passed what was then the most

open freedom-of-information legislation in Canada.

I should describe a bit about that process, because the difference in that process

compared to the process we go through in this Legislature, in these sessions that

I’ve had the privilege to be an MLA sitting in the House, was quite different.

We introduced the legislation, and then we went out and we consulted, after people

could see the legislation. We didn’t have everybody sign NDAs or a select few to see

it in advance the way we do it now, or the government does it now. We let everybody

see the legislation, and then we sought public input. Then we prepared a report on

that public input which everybody could see.

Then you wouldn’t believe what we did. It seems unimaginable given how this particular

government operates. The NDP government of the day listened to the input, both from

those that were concerned about the degree of openness and those that were looking

for more openness. We introduced over 50 amendments to the legislation. And that legislation

passed unanimously because we had taken the time to build the consensus across party

lines.

On that day, there was a promise made by the NDP government and everybody who supported

that bill. That promise to the citizens of B.C. was that we would have the most open

and accountable jurisdiction in Canada. This meant that access to information would

be timely, because access delayed is access denied, something I’ll speak more about.

Fees would not be a barrier to access. We were determined not to charge fees to the

public for access to their own personal and general information, the information that

they paid to have created. We committed and promised that exemptions to access would

be narrow and specific.

When I say “we,” I mean the government — all of those that voted in favour of the

legislation, but all of us that worked on it too. We were given a mandate that it

had to have these attributes. The amount of information you received would no longer

depend on who you are and why you want the information. Bill 9 will change all that.

There would be an independent commissioner free from judicial and political pressure

or interference who would be unstinting to ensure this happened.

In short, there would be a new culture of openness within government, and the government

at the time said we need to commit the resources to information management, to systems

that are needed to create and have this culture of openness.

I would defy anybody in the Legislature to challenge that view and, if they wish to,

boy, they should go and have a chat with former Attorney General Colin Gabelmann and

others at that time. This promise was made not only to the citizens of this province

but also to those who rely on freedom of information to hold government accountable:

the media, opposition parties, non-governmental organizations, public-minded citizens.

[3:05 p.m.]

And it worked. As I mentioned, in June 1992, after making 50 amendments, the B.C.

Legislature passed the act unanimously. David Loukidelis, president of the Freedom

of Information and Privacy Association and a future Information and Privacy Commissioner,

said at the time: “With the new amendments, FIPA” — that was the name of his organization,

non-profit — “can state unequivocally that this is the most open, balanced and effective

information rights legislation in Canada.”

Later that year, after the NDP’s first session, so mid-1992…. We had longer sessions

there, back then, because we actually spent more time debating legislation, and we

didn’t use tactics to speed it up or move everything into regulation. So there was

less to debate, except to vote no and have the Speaker overrule on a tie.

Back in the old days we actually took a lot of time. So it was later that year, and

the Vancouver Sun ’s Vaughn Palmer, who was also a lot younger then, wrote: “Its most outstanding achievement,

which sharply increased its point average, was the passage of a freedom-of-information

bill that was handled in exemplary fashion, with full opportunity for public input,

resulting in what experts agree is the best legislation of its kind in Canada.”

That was what Vaughn Palmer said about this freedom-of-information legislation in

1992. He’s not saying that now, but he was saying that then. I think it’s pretty rare

that we hear Vaughn Palmer complimenting this government on the legislation it passes.

Most importantly, the degree of openness in the act was no accident. It reflected

a hard-won balance that everyone believed would be respected. How wrong we were. So

now what I want to do is start in on talking about the various ways in which this

legislation was dismantled.

Let’s fast-forward to 2010, because I only have two hours. We could go through every

year and every single amendment, but I’m going to check in at 2010. One of the items

that we provided in this legislation was that we would have a review every six years.

So in 2010, we had that review. And that was good timing for talking about the start

of what had been dismantled by 2010.

If it’s any consolation, some of this was the result of NDP government amendments,

others the result of Liberal amendments. You know, I’ll share the blame a bit. I won’t

take responsibility, because I was actually advocating to hold on to the legislation

and improve its openness.

So what was the first one that I want to touch on in 2010? Access to information was

not timely. Guess what. Access delayed is access denied. If you have concerns about

a decision related to autism funding; if you have a concern related to the establishment

of a fund, a Look West fund; if you have concerns not about legislation, maybe, but

about other things that are happening….

[3:10 p.m.]

You would like to see, for example, what exactly was the briefing material that was

in front of the Premier when the Premier suddenly decided that this was the time to

announce a permanent spring forward in time zones. Or what is the background, and

what are some of the key issues related to FIFA and what’s going to happen later this

year? There’s any number of issues.

In order to hold government to account, the purpose of freedom of information is that

we can access that information in a timely way. It’s hard to actually use information

to hold government accountable six, 12 or 18 months after the fact. It’s a great approach

if you’re a history professor or if you’re writing the memoirs of a bad public policy

decision or a good public policy decision. Maybe the FOI information will show that

the government’s fully justified in the approach it took.

Well, in 2010, work started on dismantling

section 6. We’ll come back to

section 6

later this afternoon.

Section 6 of the act places a positive duty on public servants

to assist applicants and respond without delay, openly, accurately and completely.

This was intended to make it clear that the time limits under the act, such as the

requirement to respond no later than 30 days after the request is received, would

be the outer limit. The government would move to make information routinely available.

It would modify information systems, filing systems, bring it into, at that time,

the 20th century, early 21st century, and actually create a way for information to

be released in a timely way.

We did that intentionally. We said: “Without delay.” I’ll come back to the latest

effort here, which is to insert the reasonable test, because then that opens up the

possibility for government, ministries, agencies to say: “Well I don’t know. It seems

reasonable. Sixty days would seem reasonable here. I can probably find some mystical

objective person somewhere that I can create to say ‘Oh, yeah, 60 days.’” We even

equipped the commissioner with order-making power to enforce this duty.

What was the government’s response? Oh, amend the act. Sound familiar? To relax the

deadlines and legalize delay through the stroke of a legislative pen. The 30-calendar-day

outside response time morphed into a 30-working-day outside response deadline. Four

weeks became six weeks. But, of course, the government….

Many of you will not realize that it’s changed at all because this may be, at least

for some MLAs, the first time they ever heard that the deadline, in line with everybody

else in Canada, was 30 calendar days. But with stroke of a pen, let’s make it six

weeks. That’s just the first of a number.

The other change that happened and that started to emerge was massive delays in response

times. And fees…. Oh, we can use processing fees to delay responding, delay the issue,

delay getting information so we can hold government to account.

Some of my colleagues on both sides of the House will be old enough to have remembered

the harmonized sales tax, that glorious invention that caused a fair amount of foofaraw

until it was eventually eliminated. Media outlets thought: “Oh, it’d be interesting

to have some information on the harmonized sales tax.”

[3:15 p.m.]

The government said: “Sure, yeah, no problem. Just write us a cheque for $800, and

we’ll start processing your request.” Then, of course, the media organizations would

appeal. Then the appeal would take a whole bunch of time to deal with so that five

months later there’s no information provided.

So that’s a history lesson there of how the legislation was used and the fees under

it were used to delay access. The fact is that it’s inconceivable that it would cost

$800 to locate and process public records on a high-profile issue like the HST. That

information should be at the government’s fingertips.

At that time, we didn’t have nearly the computing capacity and internet capacity that

we do now. But even then, we lived in the era of Google and iPads. It wasn’t just

filing cabinets and typewriters. So this information that was requested must have

been generated and stored on computers. Instead of building the infrastructure to

access it, it was used as a shield to eliminate the access and charge a fee.

At the time, government records management was either in a shambles or the government

had something to hide and was doing everything it could to delay responding. Either

way, the public paid their taxes to have the HST information prepared and have a right,

not a privilege, to know what it says, subject to the exemptions in the act.

So whether it’s, I’ve mentioned a couple…. There are numerous issues that we’re debating

in the course of estimates and legislation in this House. In between sessions, there

are going to be lots of announcements of issues where it would be extraordinarily

helpful to hold the government to account by having access to information about that

decision.

The next step in dismantling the act was two or three key decisions of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner to broaden the exemptions so that you could deny disclosure

of amazing categories of information. There are three areas where this unfolded.

The first area was in policy advice. Policy advice can be divided into several categories.

Most of us, over the years, have seen briefing notes. You have the topic, you have

background, you have discussion, you have options.

In some decisions that’ll go down in history as the steps towards everything becoming

advice, the factual background in a briefing note was treated as advice. The options

were treated as advice under the idea that, well, a gifted public servant picked out

some options, so he’s giving or she’s giving, they’re giving advice on the options.

Well, that’s balderdash. That is not what was intended, and it was made very clear,

in the development of the legislation, to everybody involved, that was not the intention.

The document that related to the legislation that was introduced said: “For the purposes

of the act, advice or recommendations refers to the submission of a suggested course

of action, which will ultimately be accepted or rejected by its recipient during a

deliberative process. Advice must contain more than mere information.”

[3:20 p.m.]

That was the

interpretation of the

section that was provided to all public servants

across government. That is the basis on which government operated until the commissioner

broadened it, and broadened it in a manner that is inconsistent with the same language

in Ontario.

Now, I’m not trying to relitigate this, but I will for those who remember, fondly,

a fellow by the name of Phil Halkett. You will be surprised. Phil was a little surprised

when this change happened. He came to me because we knew each other and we worked

on a variety of issues together.

He said: “Rob, you told me that the act would require the disclosure of options and

factual material. Now the commissioner has changed that.” I said, “Yeah, well, you

know, that’s the commissioner’s prerogative.”

It’s your prerogative as the government to straighten that out, to amend the act and

take it back to the clear intent that was presented to everybody and agreed on by

everybody and to the hard-won balance that was achieved when the act was passed. Well,

of course that didn’t suit the government. The government was quite happy to see the

legislation evolve in that manner.

My view at the time, based on review of precedent across Canada, the work that a legislative

team does, was and still is that large portions of briefing notes can be released,

including the topic, the background, the discussion, options and transmittal information.

Those should all be accessible for the purposes of

section 13. That was the intention.

That doesn’t mean that it’ll all go out, because there are other important exemptions.

There are business exemptions. There are solicitor-client-privilege exemptions. There

are numerous others. But if it’s just the advice part, that should mainly go out.

My view and opinion was then and is now that it is possible to structure briefing

notes so that you separate out the advice from the factual background in a manner

that respects the policy advice process, respects the ability of public servants to

be candid in their advice but also equips the public and others — journalists, opposition,

others…. Businesses are interested in this too, because they have to assess decisions

and be able to provide their views on them.

That can be accomplished. As a matter of fact, in a future iteration of freedom of

information, I was retained by a First Nations client who was drafting treaty legislation,

and — gadzooks, oh my god — what did they do? They created legislation that made sure

that there would be routine release of that information.

I can tell you today that I still know those First Nations. They still invite me back.

The world has not ended. Their community has access to information that we don’t,

as non-Indigenous British Columbians — B.C. government information.

Then, of course, just to continue this trip down memory lane, after following the

Ontario precedents in this area, having them rejected, having a government that would

not go back to the original intent because it suited them to have broader exemptions,

we had

section 25, the public interest override. It says that if something is clearly,

clearly in the public interest, a matter of significant public interest, then it’s

an override.

[3:25 p.m.]

Once again for those who are interested in history, around that time, the government

made a major decision with major implications for the public. What was that decision?

Oh, we’re going to privatize B.C. Rail. No, we’re not going to sell it. We’re just

going to grant a 999-year lease. So we’re not selling it.

At the time, that would have been a candidate for

section 25, but instead it was interpreted

as: “It has to be something imminent of a public emergency nature.” Once again that

wasn’t the intention. Once again the government made no attempt to fix that.

Very interesting time we’re in, because we’re on the other end of that discussion

now. We have the NDP government. This government has said it’s going to bring in amendments

to DRIPA. We’re going to see those amendments at some point and debate them in this

session. In that case, the concerns about the rulings, and so on, have caused the

government to say: “Well, we better amend the legislation so that we don’t have the

rulings apply.”

In this case, we have the opposite end, where the rulings aren’t quite what we want,

so we won’t make the amendments to deal with them.

When going down this memory lane, I do want to quote what is at the heart of freedom

of information. Often, we’re asked: “What is freedom of information for? Why do we

need freedom of information?” This quote from John Plamenatz puts it very clearly:

“If there is to be responsible government, information should be so distributed amongst

professionals and ordinary citizens so that competitors for power, influence and popular

support are exposed to relevant and searching criticism.” If you don’t have the information,

you can’t hold government accountable.

I’ll make one last observation, which is that by 2010, there would also be a demonstrated

loss of judicial deference. What do I mean by that? When this legislation was drafted,

we — I’m going to say naively, in retrospect — didn’t introduce a privative clause.

We mistakenly, after looking at other jurisdictions, thought that the courts would

defer to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, much in the same way that the courts

look at labour tribunals and other tribunals and say: “You have specialized expertise,

so we will defer to your decision.” That was not the case with freedom of information.

We have never seen any move to protect the Information and Privacy Commissioner to

some extent or to a greater extent from judicial interference. That’s something that

would have reduced this move in terms of the broadening of exemptions.

So here we are. We’re in 2010 now, and we’ve identified some of the main changes that

occurred in that first period of time since the legislation was passed. But it’s still

that the promise hadn’t changed. The promise was that embarrassment would not be an

exemption under the act. The information is embarrassing; it still goes out.

[3:30 p.m.]

The promise that administrative convenience is not a legitimate reason to abandon

a fundamental democratic right, the public’s right to access to information, hasn’t

changed. That’s the original promise. It’s being broken, but that is the original

promise.

The issue about how to balance privacy and access and secrecy or non-disclosure or

confidentiality versus releasing information to the public…. That calculus, that balance,

was struck and resolved in 1992. What we’ve seen up to 2010, and now it’s carrying

on, is step by step a move away from that balance. As in 1992, as in 2010, as now,

those that passed this legislation promised the people of British Columbia the most

open government in Canada. I’m here today, and I will outline in additional ways what

needs to happen to keep that promise.

I’m going to turn, shortly, to Bill 9, but I would be remiss if I didn’t reflect on

the fact that in 2021, this NDP government introduced fees, application fees, for

the first time, to apply to get the information that taxpayers paid to create, that

you and I paid for. We discussed at length in 1991 and before it was passed in ’92

and said we weren’t going to put fees on information and create either a perception

or an actual barrier.

It’s mystifying what the purpose of establishing application fees was, and I was sorely

disappointed to see the NDP government and, in particular, at the time, a former strong

advocate for freedom of information, Murray Rankin, involved in that.

In ’24-25, how much did those fees generate? At $22,590, it can’t have been a revenue-generation

plan. I have no idea to this day how that came about. It’s just one of those items

in life where you’re gobsmacked and you just go: “Well, who knows?” But it was a step

away from the original promise.

Now I’m going to turn to, with that background, Bill 9. I’m thrilled to have members

on the opposite side here to listen to my scintillating presentation on Bill 9.

I know you’ve been waiting now for the better part of 45 minutes to find out: what

will Rob, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, say about Bill 9? Let’s start with

who was consulted. Let’s start with who was consulted, aside from the Information

and Privacy Commissioner.

Well, First Nations were consulted, as they should be. Public sector organizations

were consulted, as they should be. There were internal discussions, as there should

be.

[3:35 p.m.]

There was a look at the 2022 review of FOI. The report was read. There was no recommendation

for these sorts of changes in the 2022 report.

Were those that might potentially be concerned about Bill 9 consulted? Was the B.C.

Civil Liberties Association consulted? Was FIPA consulted, the Freedom of Information

and Privacy Association — which, I may add, has been a diligent and long-time advocate

for this legislation since it was created? Were users of the legislation consulted,

those that have lived experience? Nope. Media organizations? Nope.

So the only folks that were consulted about Bill 9 were those in the administrative

convenience world. They’re the ones that find it inconvenient to respond to requests,

find it a burden. They were sure consulted.

That’s where we start, and what do we find? Well, let me take you through what we

find.

First, let me talk about a fundamental point when you’re drafting legislation. In

the course of my career, I’ve drafted hundreds of pages of legislation. I’ve drafted

election acts. I’ve drafted financial administration acts. I’ve drafted, obviously,

the Freedom of Information Act. I’ve drafted governance acts, forestry acts. I’ve

drafted a lot of legislation. The first thing you ask when you’re drafting legislation

is: what’s the problem? What is the problem we are trying to solve? Then you start

to look at policy, and then, of course, you look at legislation, and you say: “Okay,

well, what’s the problem?”

The drafting instructions are always focused on: “We have an issue. How are we going

to deal with it?” Well, the interesting part about this is that the issue in front

of us is not addressed. It does not need to be addressed. Let me explain why.

In 2024-25, there were 4,691 FOI requests for general information. Those are the requests

that those that want to hold government to account or celebrate their achievements

and get the information to do so…. Those are the requests. And what was the average

number of days to process those requests? These are all extracted from the annual

report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. So 43 days.

So what changes do we have to make when we’re at 43 days and the legislated target

is 30? I mean, that’s not bad. Maybe we should work on our systems and the way that

information is organized rather than giving the government, the public bodies, the

ability to delay responses, to broaden categories of exemptions, to effectively avoid

having to deal with it. So 43 is not bad. The goal should be to change the policies

and systems around FOI requests to get more routine disclosures so you can get down

to the magic 30 days.

Where is the problem that we are trying to address in this legislation? It’s with

MCFD personal requests. There were 2,372 requests in ’24-25 to MCFD.

[3:40 p.m.]

What were the average days? The average is only one indicator. What was the average

days? So 121 days. That’s completely unacceptable. That’s not even near meeting the

need. Why? It’s because when individuals request their own personal information, those

files are huge.

So we have provisions in this act to address that. We have provisions around connected

services. We have provisions around enabling proactive access to personal information

by the person it’s about. We even have provisions so that Information and Privacy

Commissioners can share information across jurisdictions, which is a good thing.

Those are all good provisions in this legislation, and the government deserves credit

for bringing those amendments forward, because those amendments are aimed at addressing

the problem, which is personal information requests in MCFD.

But as is the wont of government throughout the ages…. The one I particularly remember

with some — I won’t say fondness; this is a new word — gobsmackedness is Stephen Harper

and his ability, when he was Prime Minister, to have a government that would create

these huge bills, slip in something that was completely unacceptable with the good

stuff and then just see if he could sneak it through.

What are the problems with this legislation? The problem with this legislation is

that it has the good parts, but it also has the bad parts. What are those sections?

What are the sections that turn this from an acceptable piece of legislation into

a piece of legislation that either needs to be fully withdrawn, or those sections

need to be pulled? What are those sections? Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15,

25, 26, 27 and 28.

There’s still a lot of meat left in the legislation, after those are pulled, that

will enable this government to deal with the overwhelming burden of personal requests

at MCFD — not by refusing to disclose personal information to the individual it’s

about but by building the systems, the cross-ministry support and the summarization

so that those individuals can get access to an initial tranche of information that

is really important, really quickly. Then they can be much more targeted about follow-up

requests.

That is good public policy, and this legislation deals with that. But it has this

little Trojan Horse in it of amendments that are not needed and that put freedom of

information at risk to the point where I’ve been saying that it’s freedom from information.

Let me describe, in some painful detail, what those amendments are.

First of all, in

section 3, some records are excluded where records are required by

law to be produced as part of a proceeding. So far, so good, but then (5.1) adds an

additional, gratuitous, “Well, while we’re at it” type of amendment, which is that

it excludes a record that is not specifically listed or identified but that falls

within a general class of records. I get the first part of the amendment, but that

second

part is just broadening it unnecessarily and completely in contradiction with

the fundamental purpose of this act.

[3:45 p.m.]

It gets better. In

section 5, there is a provision to ensure that the applicant provides

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

effort, to identify the record sought.

And then, new magic words: “In the opinion of the head of the public body.” So the

head of the public body is now the judge.

Then the additional test: “In a reasonable amount of time.” Well, we’re in a budget

where there’s a forecast to eliminate 15,000 positions in the public service. We have

huge, increasing demands across government, given the current economy and the challenges

we face. So you’re putting the head of the public body and, by implication, everybody

in the ministry or the agency in an impossible position.

We have less resources, we have increasing demand on the services we’re providing,

and we’re expected to do this, but we’re not going to be able to do it, identify it,

in a reasonable amount of time. So we better change the act to allow us to extend

the start time for the response.

This is all about that you need enough detail in the application. You can delay starting

the response by saying that it would take too long to find the record, so you better

provide us with more detail. Boom — we’ve got an extra 30 days added on.

But we’re already at 43 days. So why aren’t we trying to get down to 30 days rather

than creating an opportunity for the head of the public body to say: “Oh, sorry. We

love openness, we love accountability, we love transparency, but we can’t afford the

time right now”?

That does not reflect what government promised at the time this bill was unanimously

passed. So my call on government is: take that amendment out. I’ve given you the list.

Then it gets better. The next one is: “Respond without delay.” We talked about this

earlier. Well, what does “respond without delay” mean? It means respond within the

30 days. If you’re going to go over, you better have an explanation. You better be

working hard to get down to 30 days. And we’re at 43.

So “without unreasonable delay” gives you a “get out of jail free” card. It enables

you to say: “Oh, well, it’s not reasonable to do 30 days, so I guess we’re good.”

I know, from working within government and as a practising lawyer for 25 years, you

can always find an argument to support “unreasonable.” And it is a ticket to not meet

the 30-day requirement or even try.

Oh, I like this one.

Section 10 amendment: “If an applicant consents in the prescribed

manner….” There’s that word. You know, what I should do is…. I should be doing a word

search of all the acts passed in 1992 and all the acts we were going to pass, say,

this spring session, go through all sorts of fancy statistical analysis and then count

up how many times major parts of bills say “prescribed.” And I will guarantee that

“prescribed” is the favourite word of this government in legislation, both in the

last year and this.

“May extend the time for responding to the applicant’s request by the period to which

the applicant has consented.” What does this do? This creates the possibility that

the head of the public body says: “Well, you know, we’re thinking about…. It’s really

tough times. We’ve got lot of impacts. We could reasonably delay this for months.

Your detail isn’t detailed enough. Tell you what: why don’t we just both agree that

we’ll respond in three months instead of 30 days?”

[3:50 p.m.]

You create an asymmetrical relationship between the applicant and the public body,

because you’re equipping a discussion where: “Well, we could take a year, and you

know you won’t get it, but if you give us an extra 40 days, well then, why don’t we

just both agree? Then the commissioner won’t be involved, and nobody will be unhappy

because you’ve agreed.” This creates the possibility to contract out of the fundamental

timelines in this legislation and to enable the public body to apply pressure to the

applicant to agree. That is fundamentally wrong.

It gets better. In 16.1, we have a controversial court decision, or we have a ruling….

I’m not talking about any of the court decisions over the last year. It could be two

years ago, and I’ll explain why in a second. You say: “Well, we’d like to get some

advice on respecting a proposed or existing policy, program or enactment.” What this

does is this excludes a whole class of records from this act.

The fact is that when a record is included in the act for the purposes of this act,

you still have a myriad of carefully crafted exemptions to make sure that anything

harmful to law enforcement, harmful to intergovernment relations or negotiations,

harmful to financial or economic interests, harmful to the conservation of heritage

sites, harmful to interests of an Indigenous People, harmful to individual or public

safety, information that’ll be published or released within 60 days, harmful to business

interests of a third party, harmful to personal privacy, etc…. Policy advice, legal

advice, cabinet. Oh my god.

We have dozens of exemptions, but this government wants to put an amendment in that

effectively says: “Oh, we’re not going to go through the analysis of where there’s

harm. We’re just going to exclude this because the public doesn’t have any right to

even maybe know about this.” That is fundamentally not what this legislation was intended

to do. The legislation….

Let me talk about the purpose of the act. The purpose of this act, which is the purpose

of most acts across Canada, is to make public bodies more accountable to the public

— that’s us — and to protect personal privacy by giving the public a right of access

to records, specifying limited exceptions to the right of access.

So what are we doing? We’re converting limited harm–based exceptions into class-based

exceptions. That’s exactly the opposite of what the drafters of this legislation and

the unanimous Legislature intended.

It just gets better. I can’t tell you how happy I am to be able to make this speech

with such easy targets. I can tell you that there are much more subtle ways to ignore

the principle of freedom of information than this act. I mean, I frankly couldn’t

believe my eyes. I thought: “How did this ever, ever happen?”

[3:55 p.m.]

Then, of course, we get to the best one of all,

section 43. Now, just for the record

and because we’re over an hour now and we have another hour to go, I’ll just read

you

section 43, because this really is at the heart of the act: “If the head of a

public body asks, the commissioner may authorize the public body to disregard a request,

including because the request is frivolous or vexatious, the request is for a record

that has been disclosed to the applicant or that is accessible by the applicant from

another source.”

All good. We spent a lot of time on this because we saw this at the time we drafted

the legislation — on direction from cabinet, of course, on direction from a cabinet

caucus committee set up specially, where we spent hours going over each clause because

we wanted to get it right, and it wasn’t going to be done off the sides of people’s

desks.

“Frivolous or vexatious” — standard language. And a record that’s already been disclosed

makes sense. Why would you have to disclose something that’s already out there or

that the applicant can get from another source?

Then we get to 43(c): “Responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with

the operations of the public body because the request is excessively broad or is repetitious

or systematic.” Makes sense. We don’t want requests that are excessively broad, repetitious

or systematic to clog up the system. And it’s not clogging up the system. We’ve got

a 43-day response time here.

What did the drafters of these amendments, on direction from cabinet, do? They said:

“Aha. Here is the solution we’ve been looking for. First of all, you have to apply

to the commissioner, so we’ll put it on the commissioner. But we’re going to make

it really clear the approach and the criteria the commissioner has to apply. So what

are we going to do? Well, first of all, we’re going to add a new

section saying the

behaviour of the applicant is abusive or malicious.”

Abusive or malicious. Are we saying that the public body has no other way to deal

with a request that is abusive or malicious than to not respond to the request at

all? Is there no other mechanism to address or deal with an abusive or malicious applicant?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’ll certainly, if this gets to committee,

be asking that question and asking the specific instances of information-access requests

that led to the need for this.

What is the problem we are trying to remedy? Is this: “Oh, once we had somebody come

and threaten us, and we didn’t have any ability to deal with somebody being abusive

or malicious, so we need to amend the act so we don’t deal with the request”? Maybe

the information requested is vital to that person being able to understand how they’re

being treated by government.

I can’t…. There’s no ready justification for that amendment, and I certainly would

like to see it go. I’ve said that at the beginning. We’ll deal with it, as I said,

in the event this ends up getting to committee.

[4:00 p.m.]

The next one is really the winner, the Oscar winner of the freedom-from-information

award for 2026. “Responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations

of the public body or the government of B.C., or the request is an abuse of the right

to make a request because it’s repetitious or systematic or excessively broad.”

So we took out the reason. We don’t have to have a reason; it’s just unreasonable.

“I’ve got stacks of other work to do. I’ve got budget cuts. I’ve just had staff around

me laid off. I can’t deal with this right now. It’s unreasonable.”

Then what has been responded to, I gather, in some other forums over the last few

days is: “Well, but that’s the commissioner. That’ll be the commissioner’s decision.”

Well, yeah, it’ll be the commissioner’s decision. But any lawyer worth his, her or

their salt can create a compelling argument that: “Well, we really like freedom of

information, but sorry, it’s going to unreasonably interfere, and the hallowed, objective,

mythical-person test…. Here are the facts that that type of person would say: ‘Yeah,

it’s going to unreasonably interfere.’”

This a definite Trojan Horse. It’s the cumulative impact of these changes that effectively

makes the public body the judge and juror on whether, and if, you’re going to get

the information you request.

I’m not talking about the personal information. I support the amendments that deal

with helping MCFD deal with their 121-day response time and focus it and reduce the

number of pages on that initial step. I’m talking about those that are charged — publicly

minded citizens, media organizations, political parties, businesses.

This is for businesses too. In fact, in 1992, businesses were supportive of this legislation,

because it opened up access to information they need to do their work and to build

this economy. This section, in combination with the others, is going to eviscerate

what’s left of this act.

I’ve saved the best for last. What have we got? We’ve got legislation that takes us

right back to the beginning, where the amount of information you receive will depend

on who you are and why you want the information. This legislation equips us to go

back to 1990, all in — I don’t know — under ten sections.

Now I just want to touch on the one I just…. I mean, there are so many. It’s so clever.

But the sections 25, 26, 27 and 28….

Most people don’t enjoy reading legislation the way some of us do. We might sit down

and, depending on your interest, you might get a nice cup of chamomile tea or a glass

of red wine — for me, it’s coffee, a black coffee, thank you; I love that, sitting

down with a black coffee — and you start reading this legislation. Then you get to

sections 25, 26, 27 and 28, and you do a word search. Or, if you’re like me, you actually

read it, because it’s the old way of doing things.

[4:05 p.m.]

Oh my god. There’s a word. What? It’s “before.” Before. In each of these sections,

there’s the word “before.” Oh my god. This act, these changes, are retroactive. So

if I’ve got a particularly embarrassing file sitting on my desk from a year and a

half ago that I haven’t dealt with and that’s going to be really embarrassing, probably

before I was elected as MLA, and it still hasn’t been responded to, I can use these

sections to shut it down.

That’s what “retroactivity” means. I’ve got a production of documents, and: “Oh, the

general category is going to be a little troublesome. I’d better talk to the government

and see how we’re going to fix this.” That is really, really a bad step: to change

the rules in the middle of the game, to create retroactivity, to eliminate the right

the public has to information, retroactively. I’m speechless. I’m speechless.

Those are the changes, so remember these numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 25,

26, 27, 28. Take those out, and the Third Party will support this legislation.

Better yet, let’s come to the next step in Groundhog Day. Why do I call it Groundhog

Day? It’s because every six years there’s a review of the legislation. What does that

review do? It’s an all-party committee. Imagine an all-party committee, a committee

that actually works across party lines and develops, collaboratively, recommendations

for change. This is what the act should be doing. It should deal with — let me drum

roll — the 34 recommendations made by the all-party committee in 2022.

But the best part…. I get excited about this stuff. This is right up there. Why is

it right up there? It’s openness. It’s accountability. It’s transparency. It’s the

foundation of our democracy. We can have amendment bills galore, but this is the legislation

that provides the information to hold governments to account and that British Columbians

need in order to conduct their affairs.

I’m just going to read out the ones that have been recommended repeatedly and ignored

repeatedly, out of the — what did I say? — 34 recommendations.

Culture of transparency. “Add a duty to document to the act.” That was recommended

in 2016. Nothing happened, and nothing has happened now.

Amend the definition of public body to ensure that any board, committee, commissioner,

panel, agency or corporation created or owned by a public body is subject to the act,

regardless of whether it is listed in

schedule 2. That was recommended in 2010 and

Let’s go down to recommendation 6: “Clarify the discretionary exception for advice

or recommendations.” It does not extend to facts upon which they are based, or for

factual investigative background material, or for the assessment or analysis of such

material, or for professional or technical opinions. That’s the recommendation to

fix what was wrong in 2010, and it was recommended twice before. Nothing has happened.

[4:10 p.m.]

Recommendation 10: “Ensure that information held by public bodies is considered public

by default” — similar to 2004, 2010, 2016. I will, perhaps, give the government, in

a spirit of generosity, some credit on that one, because I believe that the recommendations

related to better and more effective disclosure of personal information to reduce

the 121-day wait are good.

“Reduce the timeline in which a public body must respond or access request or extend

the time responding from 30 business days to 30 calendar days.” Oh, I remember talking

about that earlier this afternoon.

“Amend the act to provide an automatic waiver of application fees and processing fees

for applicants when a public body has failed to meet the statutory timeline.” Oh,

that’s been recommended before? And why not? No consequences for missing your timeline.

Well, in the real world, there are consequences, and consequences affect behaviour.

So 19: “Amend the act to establish that an applicant who makes a formal access request

has the right to anonymity.” I can’t believe that’s here. We made it as a policy matter

that application requests had to be anonymous. That’s been recommended four times.

Of course, if the name of the applicant is not anonymous, then…. Oh, then we’ll know

which of these multiple provisions in Bill 9 we need to apply. “Oh god, Vaughn Palmer’s

applying.” “Uh-oh, Rob Botterell’s applying.” “Uh-oh, we’d better shut her down. Delay,

delay, delay.”

New technologies — 22. “Draft and consult with the OIPC on regulations that address

transparency, privacy protections and oversight for data.” Oh, that’s been recommended

before.

Then 26: “Add to

section 29 of the act a requirement about correction of personal

information.” Oh, that’s been recommended before.

And 27: “Enact new comprehensive health information privacy legislation.” I think

this is partially covered, perhaps. But if not, it’s been recommended twice before.

Then 33, extending the 90-day period in a manner consistent…. That’s been recommended.

And then 34, twice: “Amend

section 42 to expand the commissioner’s oversight by granting

the commissioner the jurisdiction to review matters or allegations of unauthorized

destruction.” Oh, that’s been recommended twice.

Now, I will say that if members opposite wish to point me to legislation that has

enacted any of these 34 recommendations, I’ll be more than happy to correct the record.

I just want to make public note, on the record, of the fact that as a relatively new

MLA, I’m in learning mode.

The other day the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth graciously apologized for an

error, on the record, that I pointed out. I’m learning from that. So if all of those

recommendations, 34 recommendations, have been implemented, boy, I’m going to be the

first one to withdraw any concerns I may have raised and compliment the government.

I’ve been listening over the last few days to some of the coverage and some of the

response. These amendments enable applicants to get the right information, so we’ve

got to make the amendments. Great, okay. I agree in terms of personal information.

But the record on freedom of information is actually quite good. It’s — what did I

say? — 43 days. So people must be getting the information they’re looking for. It’s

just not quick enough, and it’s exempted. Parts are blacked out that shouldn’t be.

[4:15 p.m.]

OIPC oversight. Oh, this is all okay. “The Information and Privacy Commissioner will

keep us honest.” Yeah, but you’ve set the rules of the game around delayed response

or not responding to a request at all in a manner where if you can construct an argument

that it would unreasonably interfere with your operations, you can ignore the request.

The commissioner doesn’t have the ability to modify the direction you’re giving them

in this amendment. So that’s just a red herring.

“Oh, there’s too much information for us to deal with.” Well, hold on a second here.

There is too much information involving the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

I grant you that. You’ve got amendments in here that we’re not objecting to that address

that. But there isn’t a problem on the FOI side. These amendments are not needed.

What is needed is a stronger commitment to implement the changes recommended by the

all-party committee in June 2022. All of them, not just the ones that have been made

repeatedly.

Then…. I love this one. I won’t call it ageism because that probably was never the

intent. Every once in a while, I hear words like: “But, Rob, things are different

from 30 years ago. We have more information. We have a lot of things on our plate.”

Well, give me a break. Give me a break or, as my caucus team likes to remind me, I

need to bring my language into the 21st century. “Be so for real right now” is apparently

how you say: “Are you serious?” I just want you to know that I’m trying to stay in

sync, despite my advancing years.

So where does that lead us, that little pearl of wisdom I just provided? Well, I have

to check my notes, because I think that we’re getting pretty close to the wrap-up

of my second reading speech, but I do have 32 minutes. I expect…. I’m aiming for two

full hours here.

How are things different in a good way since 30 years ago? We have huge, huge data-management

capacity. We have ways to access and organize information that we couldn’t even imagine

when I was using a BlackBerry. We can put our effort in, and I can tell you when the

Premier or any minister says, “Find me the information, because I’ve got to be ready

for estimates,” that information is magically going to appear very quickly.

I grant that things are different from 30 years ago, but the ability to use information

technology and information management to achieve the targets that are set in the act….

It’s there. The will to use it may not be, but the technology is there. And we are

responding, the government is responding, the public agency, in 43 days. Let’s get

it down to 30. Let’s use the…. Let’s innovate.

I know, let’s use some of the Look West funding to establish a world-leading information-management

system that we can sell to everybody so we can actually get the response time down

to 10 days instead of 43 days.

[4:20 p.m.]

Let’s look at the way that we have organized briefing materials and reorganize them

so that it facilitates disclosure rather than creates the task of blacking out and

turning it into a patchwork quilt.

I may be giving my colleague a bit of a warning, because it’s just possible that I

might not get through two hours here.

We in the Green caucus will not be participating in this final evisceration of freedom

of information in this province. We will not. I’ve named the sections that need to

be withdrawn. The balance of the act is deserving of our support, and we will support

it at second reading, if it didn’t have all those other sections. My understanding

is that depending on what happens at second reading…. We’ll be voting against the

bill at second reading. If it gets to committee, we’ll be looking to see what government

does in response to our request for those sections to be removed.

In simple terms, we cannot support this bill in its current form.

There are many other provisions in the act that haven’t been used in the way that

they could have been. We’ve dwelt this afternoon a fair amount on routine disclosure

and the lack of use of information technology and the lack of willingness to innovate

in the way in which policy documents and cabinet documents and briefing notes are

structured to facilitate access.

I always wonder if, sometime in the next 25 years, we might actually see the consultative

committee that’s provided for in the act meet a few times, because that was going

to be and was intended to be a mechanism to build understanding and consensus around

the successful operation of the act.

We’re calling on this government and every member of the caucus to follow the path

set by Premier Harcourt, by former Attorney General Colin Gabelmann, former MLA Barry

Jones and a unanimous legislature in 1992 to take the steps to return to open, transparent

and accountable government, to not proceed with this legislation in its current form.

Every single NDP member in this House must speak up for democracy. Your children,

your families, your partners, everybody you know is counting on you on the government

side to stand up for democracy to the end. The ends do not justify the means. The

promise that was made in 1992 has been broken, and you need to work to make it right.

We fundamentally need to stand together.

[4:25 p.m.]

I’m not at all interested in how we got to today with Bill 9. I am interested in where

we go tomorrow. We still have time as a legislature to stop, take a deep breath and

either pass the parts of the legislation that don’t eviscerate freedom of information

or pull the legislation. Fundamentally, this is an important moment in this government’s

commitment to keep the promise of a unanimous legislature that has stood the test

of time up until now.

What do I mean by that? I don’t mean that there haven’t been disappointments and backtracking

on freedom of information. Every report every six years has provided government with

a list of what needs to be done to fully keep that promise. But this act is really

the last step.

What it does, which none of the changes up until now do, is that it effectively returns

us, as I’ve said, to the way government handled information prior to freedom of information.

Who gets the information and what they get depends on who you know and why you want

it. That is fundamentally wrong.

I’m going to conclude by reading into the record who holds the future of democracy

in this province in their hands. Who holds the future of freedom of information in

their hands? In a month’s time, in five years’ time, in ten years’ time, it will be

possible to look back to the day on which this legislation was either pulled, passed

without these horrific sections or passed intact.

What I want to do is respectfully ask each NDP MLA to think carefully about how you

will proceed with any votes on this bill.

We have the member for Vancouver-Strathcona. Please, please think about this vote

in a different way than others. Please preserve freedom of information in this province.

I urge and I plead with all NDP members to do the same.

The MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour. The MLA for Kootenay-Monashee. The MLA for Esquimalt-Colwood.

The MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview. The MLA for Burnaby South–Metrotown. The MLA for

Nanaimo-Lantzville. The MLA for Juan de Fuca–Malahat. The MLA for Surrey City Centre.

The MLA for Vernon-Lumby. The Minister of State for AI and New Technologies. The member

for Ladysmith-Oceanside. The member for Cowichan Valley. The Minister of Citizens’

Services. The member for Burnaby East.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The member for Vancouver-Kensington. The Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction. The MLA for Surrey-Guildford. The MLA for Burnaby North. The Minister of

State for Community Safety and Integrated Services. The Minister of Tourism, Arts,

Culture and Sport. The Minister of Infrastructure. The Minister of Children and Family

Development.