Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 159

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

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

Kristina Loewen

Hon Chan

Steve Morissette

Linda Hepner

Dallas Brodie

Heather Maahs

Dana Lajeunesse

Claire Rattée

Scott McInnis

Donegal Wilson

Brennan Day

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026

Second Reading of Bills

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

Brennan Day

Larry Neufeld

Teresa Wat

Misty Van Popta

Ward Stamer

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness (continued)

Sheldon Clare

Hon. Kelly Greene

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Parks

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Sheldon Clare

Bruce Banman

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and

Privacy Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 14, Forests Statutes

Amendment Act.

In the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply for the estimates of the Ministry of

Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and, when that’s finished, for the Ministry

of Environment and Parks.

[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’ll be continuing our debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Kristina Loewen : Just before the break, I was saying that transparency is not a partisan issue; it’s

a democratic one. In fact, in displaying that it’s not partisan, I’m going to quote

one of my colleagues from the Green Party, the member for Saanich North and the Islands,

who said that the commissioner’s support for this bill, in part, is part of a steady

degradation of our democracy in this province. No other commissioner in Canada would

ever countenance some of the amendments that are proposed in this legislation.

A case in point. In recent weeks, we’ve already seen developments that raise questions

about the strength of oversight in our province. One example is the government’s move

to eliminate the Office of the Merit Commissioner, an independent office responsible

for ensuring that hiring across the provincial public service is based on merit and

fairness. The purpose of that office is simple and essential. It provides the public

with confidence that hiring decisions across government are conducted fairly and without

political influence.

Independent oversight bodies exist for a reason. They exist because governments should

not be left to police themselves. When those oversight structures are weakened or

removed, public interest is inevitably affected. And now, in this very same period,

we see legislation that would make freedom-of-information requests easier to dismiss

and potentially more expensive to obtain.

When multiple transparency mechanisms are weakened at the same time, it creates a

troubling picture, because each of these systems — oversight offices, freedom-of-information

laws and independent watchdogs — plays a role in ensuring accountability. Remove enough

of them or weaken enough of them, and accountability begins to erode.

We do not have to look far to see why transparency matters so deeply to communities

across British Columbia, including in my own region. In Kelowna and across the Okanagan,

residents regularly seek information about decisions that directly affect their communities.

[1:35 p.m.]

One area where this has become particularly important is development and land use

planning. As our region continues to grow rapidly, residents want to understand how

decisions are being made, what studies were conducted, what internal communications

took place and how proposals were evaluated. In many cases, those answers are only

available through freedom-of-information requests.

Residents use FOI to access internal reports, staff communications and background

documents related to development proposals. Those records help communities understand

the full context behind decisions that may reshape their neighbourhoods. Without freedom

of information, many of those records would remain inaccessible to the public, and

citizens would simply be asked to trust that decisions were made properly without

ever seeing the documentation behind them.

We’ve also seen many examples across the Okanagan where journalists and residents

rely on access to records to better understand how public institutions are operating.

Local media outlets such as Kelowna Now , Castanet, Black Press and other regional publications frequently rely on access

to public records when reporting on municipal spending, infrastructure planning and

government communications.

The records allow the public to see how decisions are made, and sometimes those records

raise difficult questions. It’s not a flaw in the system. It’s exactly how the system

is supposed to work.

Transparency can occasionally be uncomfortable for governments. Internal discussions

may become public. Policy debates may be revealed. Spending decisions may be scrutinized.

But that discomfort is not a weakness of democracy; it’s one of its safeguards.

When public institutions know their decisions may be examined by citizens, journalists

and opposition members, it encourages better decision-making. It encourages accountability.

And we should be asking ourselves: why is this government seeking less transparency

and accountability?

The erosion of transparency rarely happens overnight. It happens gradually — a new

fee here, a new administrative hurdle there, expanded powers to dismiss requests.

Each individual change may appear modest, but, over time, those barriers accumulate.

Each one discourages a few more people from filing requests. Each one limits access

to a few more records, and slowly the system shifts. What was once a culture of openness

can begin to drift towards a culture of secrecy.

This is why legislation like Bill 9 deserves careful scrutiny. Transparency does not

disappear all at once. It erodes piece by piece.

Bill 9 may appear to introduce only modest changes, but those changes matter because

they alter the balance between government power and public access to information.

In a democracy, that balance must always lean toward the public.

British Columbians deserve a government that welcomes scrutiny. A government that

recognizes that transparency strengthens institutions rather than weakening them.

A government that understands that when citizens ask questions about public decisions,

they’re not interfering with government operations; they’re participating in their

democracy. That’s why maintaining strong freedom-of-information laws remains so important.

Sunlight remains one of the most powerful tools we have for protecting accountability

in public life.

Another reason this debate matters so deeply is that British Columbians are asking

more questions than ever about how public money is spent. Across this province, families

are facing rising costs — housing, groceries, fuel, insurance and utilities. Communities

are watching budgets closely, and people want to know whether their tax dollars are

being used responsibly.

British Columbians are also asking a deeper question: what is behind the numbers presented

to them? When government announces the cost of a housing unit, does that number include

layers of taxes, development charges, regulatory costs and admin expenses built into

the project? When we’re told the price of a public program, do we know what assumptions

were used to calculate that number?

The public deserves more than a headline figure. They deserve the details behind the

data. Without those details, citizens cannot evaluate whether public funds are truly

being used effectively. Freedom of information allows the public to see background

documents, internal reports and financial assumptions that help answer those questions.

That transparency becomes particularly important when we look at some of the most

challenging policy areas facing this province.

We often hear compelling stories used to justify certain policy approaches. Many British

Columbians have heard the example of Million-Dollar Murray, a case often cited to

suggest that a person experiencing homelessness may cost the public nearly $1 million

over years through emergency services, policing and hospital visits but far less than

that $1 million once they’re placed in supportive housing.

[1:40 p.m.]

It’s a powerful story, but responsible public policy requires more than powerful stories.

It requires transparent data. How were those numbers calculated? What assumptions

were included? What services were counted? Equally important, what are the long-term

costs of operating supportive housing once it is built?

In Kelowna, residents have asked and raised questions about facilities such as Ellis

Place, where serious damage rendered parts of the building uninhabitable for extended

periods of time — actually, I believe, the whole building. When situations like that

occur, there are legitimate questions. What are the repair costs? What happens to

the operational budget? What happens to the residents who were living there? Is Million-Dollar

Murray still less expensive housed? I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t house people,

but what are the true costs? The public deserves to know.

Without access to internal records and financial documents, the public cannot fully

understand the real costs and challenges involved. Transparency allows those conversations

to be based on facts rather than assumptions. That’s exactly what we should expect

in a healthy democracy.

When governments spend public money, the public has the right to ask questions about

where that money goes, what programs it funds and whether those programs are achieving

results. Freedom of information is one of the ways citizens get those answers. That’s

why legislation that restricts access to information inevitably raises concerns about

accountability.

Transparency in spending is especially important at a time when the province is facing

record levels of debt and deficit. British Columbians are carrying historic levels

of public debt. Government spending has reached record levels, yet many British Columbians

are asking why outcomes in critical areas such as housing, health care access and

affordability are not improving at the same pace.

Those are legitimate questions. They are questions any responsible government should

be prepared to answer. Freedom of information plays an important role in helping the

public get those answers.

Journalists also play a crucial role in examining public spending. Investigative reporting

often relies on access to government records, expense reports, internal briefing notes,

contracts and procurement documents. Without access to those records, journalists

would be forced to rely solely on government press releases and public statements.

That’s not accountability. Accountability requires the ability to verify. It requires

access to the records that explain how decisions were made. That’s exactly….

Deputy Speaker : Member, I need to interrupt you just for a moment. I believe we have a member about

to seek leave.

Donegal Wilson : Yes, I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Donegal Wilson : My apologies to my colleague for interrupting her speech, but this is the first time

I have the privilege of welcoming a school from my riding here to the Legislature.

Please give a warm welcome to Similkameen Secondary School.

Right now we’re debating Bill 9, which is the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act. Often not known here in this building is that there are

two other Houses sitting. That’s why some of the seats are a little vacant, because

we have other Houses sitting, dealing with other business of the Legislature.

I would appreciate an invitation from the school to come speak to students after their

tour, to answer questions.

Please join me in making them feel most welcome here from Keremeos.

Deputy Speaker : Indeed, welcome to everyone in the chamber today.

Debate Continued

Kristina Loewen : Another example comes from our health care system.

Across British Columbia, hospitals have faced incidents where rooms must be temporarily

closed due to fentanyl exposure or contamination. When that happens, the consequences

ripple throughout the system. Rooms will be closed. Patients may wait longer. Staff

face increased workload pressures. Those closures affect emergency department flow;

staffing pressures; and, ultimately, the experience of patients waiting for care.

But the public rarely sees the full data behind those impacts. How often are hospital

rooms closed due to these incidents? How many patients are delayed or diverted? What

does that cost the health care system, and how does it affect the already severe staffing

shortages in many hospitals across our province?

Freedom of information allows those questions to be answered with evidence. Without

transparency, those impacts remain largely invisible to the public, who ultimately

fund the system.

[1:45 p.m.]

The public does not ask questions because it distrusts democracy; it asks because

it believes democracy should work better. When citizens seek information about how

their government operates, that should not be seen as interference. It should be seen

as engagement and participation and democracy in action. That’s why access must remain

strong, accessible and protected. The more open our institutions are, the stronger

the trust between government and the people we serve.

As we consider Bill 9, it’s important to remember that British Columbia has already

experimented with restricting access to freedom of information. In 2021, the government

introduced a non-refundable $10 application fee for FOI requests. At the time, British

Columbians were told the change would streamline the system and reduce the administrative

burden on government. The promise was that the fee would discourage frivolous requests

and allow public bodies to focus on legitimate ones.

But what actually happened tells a different story. After the fee was introduced,

the number of FOI requests dropped significantly. Yet response times did not improve

in any meaningful ways. Shocking. In other words, the system did not become faster

or more efficient. Fewer people were simply asking questions.

That outcome should concern all of us. FOI laws are meant to encourage transparency,

not discourage citizens from participating in oversight. When barriers are introduced,

participation declines — not because the information is no longer important but because

the process becomes more difficult, more expensive and more discouraging.

In Kelowna and across the Okanagan, we see many examples that illustrate why access

to information matters.

One area where public records are particularly important is policing and public safety.

Residents regularly seek information about policing resources, operational priorities

and community safety initiatives. Questions about policing budgets, deployment strategies

and public safety programs often require access to records that are not readily available

through public reports. Journalists and community advocates rely on those records

to understand how policing decisions are made and how resources are allocated.

Another example involves environmental concerns in the Okanagan. Our region faces

increasing pressures related to wildfire risk, watershed protection and development

near environmentally sensitive areas. Residents frequently seek access to environmental

reports, internal communications and government studies related to wildfire mitigation,

water protection and land use planning. Those records help communities understand

how environmental risks are being assessed and what steps government is taking to

protect local ecosystems.

In a region like the Okanagan, where our landscapes and natural resources are central

to our identity and economy, transparency in environmental decision-making is essential.

Freedom of information also plays a role in helping residents understand infrastructure

and transportation planning. Kelowna is one of the fastest-growing cities in B.C.

With that growth comes major decisions about roads, transit systems, housing development

and long-term planning. Residents often want to see studies, planning reports and

internal communications behind those decisions.

Access to those records allows communities to participate more meaningfully in discussions

about the future of their cities. When citizens have access, they can engage constructively

in the planning process, but when the information becomes harder to obtain, the conversations

become more difficult.

The lesson from the 2021 freedom-of-information fee is clear. When barriers are introduced,

fewer requests are filed.

Bill 9 is repeating that mistake by expanding the grounds on which requests can be

dismissed and introducing new fees related to records. The legislation creates additional

barriers to access. Each barrier may appear small on its own, but together they send

a signal that accessing information is becoming more difficult.

I’m just going to skip a little bit here, because I see I’m running low on time.

Transparency also matters deeply to families navigating government programs, particularly

when those programs involve vulnerable children. Across B.C., many parents of children

with autism have raised serious concerns about recent changes to autism funding program

and service models. For these families, the issue is not abstract. It’s their children’s

therapy, their development and their future.

Parents want to understand how decisions were made, what projections were used and

whether service capacity will actually meet the needs of children across the province.

Those questions are difficult to answer without access to internal planning documents

and data.

In fact, just in March, a parent of a child with autism filed two formal freedom-of-information

requests seeking records related to three-year municipal utilization data and clinical

staffing forecasts. That parent was not acting out of political motivation. She was

acting out of concern for her child and thousands of other children who rely on these

services. Families facing these challenges deserve clarity, and transparency is often

the only way they can obtain it.

[1:50 p.m.]

When citizens file these requests, they’re not interfering with government operations.

They’re exercising their democratic rights. They’re participating in the oversight

of public institutions. That participation should be encouraged, because when citizens

feel that government is open and transparent, public trust grows. But when access

becomes more difficult, the opposite happens.

At the end of the day, this debate around Bill 9 comes down to a simple question:

do we believe that government should be open to scrutiny, or do we believe that access

to information should be more restricted?

Transparency is not a burden placed on government. It is the foundation of public

trust. When citizens can see how a decision is made, when records are accessible and

questions are answered, confidence in public institutions grows. When information

is hidden or difficult to obtain, that confidence begins to erode.

I might be done. I see my time evaporating.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

Members, just a reminder. I know we’ll have a wide array of examples here this afternoon.

I would like to know more about Bill 9 this afternoon, and I hope that we all understand

it better at the end of the day. So please tie your examples to Bill 9.

Hon Chan : I rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026.

Freedom-of-information laws exist for one fundamental reason, to ensure that the government

remains accountable to the people it serves. They are not a privilege granted by the

government. They are a right held by the public.

When British Columbians seek information about the actions of their government, they’re

not asking for a favour. They are exercising their democratic right to understand

how decisions are made, how public money is spent and how policies affect their lives.

That is why FOI legislation must always lean towards transparency. It must be on the

side of openness, not secrecy. Unfortunately, this legislation before the House moves

us in the opposite direction.

The government has presented this bill as an effort to improve the efficiency in the

FOI system. They say the system is overloaded, that requests take too long and that

administrative improvements are necessary.

On that point, I agree. This system should be faster. It should be more efficient.

It should work better for British Columbians. These are elements in this bill that

aim to modernize process and streamline administration. On those aspects, I am prepared

to offer support.

But buried in this legislation are several changes that fundamentally weaken access

to information in the province. Instead of strengthening transparency, this bill risks

restricting it. Instead of improving access to information, it risks making that access

more difficult, more expensive and easier for government to avoid.

This is very similar to the approach taken by the NDP government with the GLP program

change. There was a huge backlog for the second road test. Instead of addressing the

problem, they simply cancelled it.

One of the most concerning aspects of this legislation appears in clause 13, which

expands the categories under which the government can apply to the Information and

Privacy Commissioner to disregard an FOI request. Currently there are already mechanisms

to deal with these requests, and that protection already exists in the law, but this

bill goes much further. The government proposes to add new categories such as malicious,

abusive, repetitious, excessively broad or requests that could reasonably interfere

with the operations of government.

At first glance, those terms may sound reasonable. But when we look closer, a serious

problem emerges. None of these terms are defined. There is no clear definition of

what constitutes a malicious request. There is no definition of what counts as abusive.

There is no objective standard for what might be considered excessively broad, and

there is certainly no definition of what it means to unreasonably interfere with the

operations of the government.

An FOI request that is truly meaningful is often one that asks difficult questions.

It may request documents that expose mistakes, mismanagement or even wrongdoing within

the government.

[1:55 p.m.]

Those are precisely the kinds of requests that can create pressure and maybe interfere

with government operations. The reality is this. The most important FOI requests are

often the ones that make government uncomfortable.

Recently, I know, one of the members in the opposition actually made an FOI request

on the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm deal, on the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm ceremony, and that exposes the government’s flip-flopping. That makes the government

uncomfortable. That’s also the beauty of FOI requests.

When a journalist, a researcher or even an opposition MLA files an FOI that could

expose mismanagement or wrongdoing, of course it may interfere with the government’s

operations. It may even force the government to answer difficult questions. It may

expose problems the government would rather keep hidden. But that is exactly how accountability

works in a democracy world.

If the standard becomes that a request can be ignored because it interferes with the

operation of government, then almost any serious investigation could fall under that

category. A request that uncovers a scandal could be labelled disruptive. A request

that demands thousands of pages of records could be called excessively broad. A request

that repetitively asks about the same issue could be labelled repetitive. Suddenly

this government has a pathway to simply avoid answering, and that is a very dangerous

precedent.

cannot solve the problem, you remove the person who points out the problem.” In other

words, instead of fixing the issue, you silence the person asking the questions.

That is the danger we see here in this legislation. This is exactly how authoritarian

and dictatorship systems operate. When scrutiny becomes inconvenient, they do not

fix the problem. They block the investigation. And here in this bill, the NDP government

is doing exactly that.

Democratic governments should do the opposite. When citizens ask questions, government

should answer them, and FOI laws exist to protect that principle.

Very disappointingly and frustratingly, instead of strengthening transparency, this

bill risks creating tools that allow the government to avoid scrutiny. When journalists,

researchers or even opposition members dig deeper into government actions, the response

should be to provide answers, not to make that request harder, not to label that request

as abusive, not to claim that it interferes with government operations.

Governments do not exist for their own convenience. They exist to serve the public.

Part of that responsibility is to answer difficult questions, even when those questions

expose uncomfortable truths. If this legislation allows the government to avoid releasing

information simply because that information might create political consequence, then

transparency becomes conditional and democracy becomes weaker.

FOI should empower citizens to uncover the truth about their government. It should

not give the government new ways to hide it. Without clear

definitions, these categories

become open to

interpretation. That

interpretation will be made by the very government

that is being asked to disclose the information. That is a very serious concern.

Imagine a journalist submitting an FOI request about communications within the Premier’s

office. Could the government claim that fulfilling that request would interfere with

the Premier’s office operations?

Imagine a researcher requesting documents of a policy decision. Could that request

be labelled excessively broad?

be described as repetitive because similar questions have been asked before?

When these

definitions are vague, the door opens for abuse.

Now, the government may say: “These requests must still go before the Information

and Privacy Commissioner.” That is true. But the very fact that government can apply

under such broad and undefined categories creates an additional barrier to access.

FOI requests have uncovered government decisions that otherwise have remained hidden.

They have revealed problems in public policy, exposed its mismanagement and brought

important facts to light. They have helped journalists report accurately. They have

helped researchers understand government programs. They have helped citizens hold

their government accountable. That is precisely why these rights must be protected.

Yet Bill 9 expands the tools available for the government to avoid responding.

[2:00 p.m.]

Unfortunately, this is not happening in a vacuum. British Columbia has already been

criticized as one of the most secretive governments in Canada when it comes to access

to information. Reports have reportedly pointed out delays, redaction and barriers

within the system. Instead of fixing those problems, this bill makes them worse.

Another troubling element appears in clause 21, which allows public bodies to charge

fees for records that are currently accessible without filing a formal FOI request.

This may sound like a small charge, but the principle behind it is significant.

Under the current system, certain information is made proactively available to the

public. These are records that governments have already determined should be accessible

without requiring a formal request. They’re meant to be easily obtained. They’re meant

to promote openness. They’re meant to reduce the need for FOI applications.

This bill introduces the ability to charge fees for those records. That fundamentally

undermines the concept of proactive disclosure. Proactive disclosure should mean exactly

what? Information that is proactively available to the public, accessible, open and

free.

If citizens must start paying for access to information that is already considered

public, then disclosure is no longer proactive. It becomes transactional, and that

raises a serious question. Is this about transparency, or is this creating another

barrier between the public and the government?

We must remember that this is actually not the first time that this government has

introduced fees into the FOI system. A few years ago this government introduced a

$10 application fee for filing FOI requests. At that time, many observers already

warned that even small fees could discourage citizens from seeking information.

Transparency should not be dependent on whether someone is willing or able to pay.

FOI should not come with a cover charge. And now we see another step in the same direction

under this NDP government.

If the government truly wishes to improve the FOI system, then the first issue that

should be addressed is the backlog. British Columbians are waiting for too long to

receive response to their requests. According to the recent data, in the ’22-23 period,

applicants had to wait for an average of 192 additional business days beyond the initial

timeline to receive a response. Let that number sink in — 192 business days. That’s

nearly a full year on top of the initial timeline.

Information delayed is often information denied. Imagine — when a journalist must

wait nearly a year for documents, the story may no longer be relevant. When researchers

must wait months for records, their work is delayed. When citizens must wait indefinitely

for answers, trust in government erodes.

If the goal of this bill is truly efficiency, we should expect to see measures aimed

directly at reducing those delays. We would expect to see investment in FOI processing.

We would expect to see stronger timelines. We should expect to see accountability

for missed deadlines. Instead, we see broader powers to disregard requests and new

opportunities to charge fees.

I support using technology to improve access. I support streamlining administrative

process when it benefits the public. But efficiency must never come at the expense

of accountability, and transparency must never be sacrificed in the name of convenience.

The right to access to information belongs to the people of British Columbia. It does

not belong to the government. Government records are created using public resources

in the course of serving the public. Those records ultimately belong to the public.

The foundation of democratic government is trust. Citizens must trust that their government

is acting in their best interests. When government begins to restrict access to information,

that trust begins to erode. Bill 9 expands the ability of government to avoid requests

and introduce new barriers to public access. Unfortunately, part of this bill moves

us away from that principle.

British Columbians deserve a government that strengthens access to information, not

one that slowly takes the free out of freedom of information.

Steve Morissette : I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 9, the proposed amendments to British

Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, commonly known as

FOIPPA.

[2:05 p.m.]

These amendments represent thoughtful, balanced and necessary updates to legislation

that sits at the very heart of two core democratic values: the public’s right of access

to information and the protection of personal privacy. Both of these principles matter

deeply, and this legislation strengthens both.

FOIPPA was created in a different era, before digital services were central to how

people interact with government. Today British Columbians expect services to be seamless,

secure and accessible online. They expect the government to work together, not in

silos.

The amendments before us do two important things. They improve the experience of people

using the freedom-of-information system, and they enable the next stage of connected

digital government services. These are not competing goals. They are complementary.

We can and must protect privacy while delivering better service.

in terms of ministries and program areas. They think in terms of needs. They need

to renew a licence. They need to access benefits. They need to update their address.

They need to support their family or business. Yet too often they are required to

provide the same information repeatedly, across multiple programs.

These amendments support the creation of Connected Services B.C., a single government

gateway that will allow people and businesses to apply for services and update their

information across programs in a streamlined way.

Importantly, this is not about building a massive, centralized database. It is not

about consolidating everyone’s personal information into one giant repository. It

is about allowing information, with a person’s knowledge and permission, to flow securely

between public bodies so services can be delivered more efficiently.

Public bodies will continue to hold and safeguard information within their own systems,

but, where appropriate, they will be able to securely share information in a way that

reflects how people actually interact with government, not by department but by need.

Privacy protections remain robust.

FOIPPA already contains strong safeguards for collection, use and disclosure of personal

information. These amendments go further by allowing the minister to establish clear

data standards and privacy and security requirements specific to Connected Services.

Additionally, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be notified

when a Connected Services provider is established and retains the discretion to review

the associated privacy impact assessments. This is modernization with accountability.

We also know that the volume and complexity of FOI requests have grown significantly.

Across ministries, school districts, municipalities and health authorities, public

bodies are experiencing real administrative pressure. We have a responsibility to

ensure that access to information remains timely and equitable for all applicants.

These amendments improve process efficiency without diminishing access rights. For

example, they minimize duplicate disclosure processes, so time is not wasted processing

records that are already being released through other mechanisms, such as legal discovery.

They enable proactive disclosure of personal information back to individuals seeking

their own records.

Currently approximately 60 percent of FOI requests are for personal information. By

allowing public bodies to proactively provide personal records directly to individuals,

particularly former children in care, we can improve access while relieving pressure

on the FOI system. That is not restricting access; that is improving it.

[2:10 p.m.]

Another key improvement is strengthening provisions around request clarity. The current

act requires applicants to provide enough detail to allow records to be identified

with reasonable effort. However, there is no clear, structured process for clarifying

unclear requests. The amendments create a formal mechanism for seeking clarification.

Let me be clear. This does not force applicants to narrow their requests. It simply

creates a transparent process to ensure that when clarification is needed, it is requested

formally and responded to promptly.

It serves no one if a public body is unsure what records are being sought while a

statutory clock continues to run. These changes provide accurate timelines and encourage

engagement, ensuring applicants receive the information they are actually looking

for. Stopping the 30-day clock during clarification is not about delay. It is about

fairness and accuracy. Clearer requests mean better responses.

There has also been discussion about amendments that would allow public bodies in

extremely rare circumstances to apply to disregard a request that is abusive or malicious.

Let us be precise. There is already a process under which a public body can apply

to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard a request.

These amendments simply clarify and expand the circumstances in which that application

can be made. The oversight remains entirely with the commissioner. A public body cannot

unilaterally disregard a request. It must apply to the OIPC, and the commissioner

decides.

Abusive or malicious behaviour refers to patterns of conduct intended to harass, intimidate,

threaten or overwhelm. Examples include issuing death threats to public servants or

mailing suspicious substances with requests. These situations are extremely rare,

but when they occur, they are highly disruptive and divert resources away from processing

legitimate requests. Protecting public servants from harassment while maintaining

access rights is not controversial. It is responsible governance.

I want to address consultation. The ministry has consulted extensively with the Office

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner on all these proposed amendments. The

commissioner has been engaged throughout the process. We value the OIPC’s role in

protecting privacy and ensuring access to information. That oversight remains strong.

Governments must balance two responsibilities: protecting access rights; and ensuring

the system functions effectively so that all requests, regardless of size, can be

processed within reasonable timelines. This legislation supports that balance.

There has been a discussion about the $10 FOI application fee. This legislation does

not change the fee structure. Individuals requesting their own personal information

pay no fee. Indigenous governing entities are not required to pay the application

fee. The application fee has contributed to more targeted requests rather than broad,

cross-government fishing expeditions.

At the same time, we are expanding proactive disclosure, making commonly requested

materials available without the need for an FOI request at all. That is how we increase

[2:15 p.m.]

These amendments also introduce the ability to proactively disclose personal information

back to individuals. This is an important evolution. Instead of requiring someone

to file a formal FOI request for their own records, public bodies will be able to

provide that information directly. This improves access and reduces administrative

burden. It is a win for applicants and a win for the system.

British Columbia is moving toward more connected digital services. We are enabling

people to access government through secure digital identity tools, like the B.C. Services

Card. To support that modernization, our legislative framework must evolve. But modernization

does not mean weakening privacy. It means embedding privacy into service design. It

means building systems that are secure, accountable and transparent. It means ensuring

that as government becomes more digitally connected, it remains grounded in democratic

values.

These amendments do exactly that. They improve the efficiency and transparency of

the FOI process. They protect public servants from rare but disruptive abuse. They

enable proactive disclosure of personal records. They modernize information-sharing

frameworks to support connected services. They maintain strong oversight by the Office

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. They reinforce privacy protections while

improving service delivery.

This is balanced legislation. It responds to recommendations from the FOIPPA special

committee and operational realities across public bodies. It reflects extensive consultation,

and it prepares British Columbia for the next generation of digital government responsibly

and thoughtfully.

Access to information and protection of privacy are not competing principles. They

are complementary pillars of public trust. These amendments strengthen both.

I am proud to support this legislation, and I encourage all members of this House

to do the same.

Linda Hepner : I rise today with the clarity of purpose that comes from more than three decades

in public life — first as a bureaucrat, helping to build companies that deliver results

for the citizens of Surrey; then as councillor; and then as mayor, where I balanced

budgets, created jobs and fought for housing that, at that time, you could actually

afford; and now as the member for Surrey–Serpentine River.

I speak not as a partisan but as a leader who knows that sunlight is the best disinfectant

for any organization, government or private, and as a mother and a grandmother who

believes British Columbians deserve leaders who trust them with the truth and the

openness of transparent decision-making and access to data used in public to make

those decisions.

Today I speak against Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026, the bill the NDP quietly placed on the floor of this House February

This is not a technical housekeeping measure; this is a deliberate step backward for

transparency in British Columbia. As Housing critic, I can tell you with absolute

certainty that if this bill passes, the housing crisis we are all fighting will become

even harder to solve because the public will be kept further in the dark.

Let me be crystal clear from the outset. Freedom of information is not a luxury; it

is the cornerstone of accountable government. Our FOIPPA, passed in 1996, was designed

to put power back into the hands of the people. It has allowed journalists to expose

wasteful spending, opposition members like me to hold ministers to account and everyday

families to discover background issues that have directly affected them or their businesses.

[2:20 p.m.]

In my time as mayor, we used FOI requests to benchmark against other cities, to cut

red tape and to deliver more accountable results. FOI requests are how we learn the

truth when the government’s press releases paint a different picture.

What does Bill 9 do? Instead of investing in reassigning more staff to clear the backlog,

it gets reactionary and gives public bodies new tools to say no, to delay and to bury

information. That flies absolutely in the face of the act’s very title, freedom of

information.

Let’s walk through the provisions, because British Columbians deserve to know exactly

what is being taken from them.

First, the government wants to expand the power to disregard requests it labels “abusive”

or “malicious.” Those words sound reasonable until you realize they are subjective.

Who decides? The same ministries that are already slow-walking requests? A persistent

journalist asking the same question six times because the first five answers were

incomplete — abusive. A constituent in Surrey–Serpentine River filing multiple requests

about why the new provincial transit-oriented development promise still hasn’t broken

ground — malicious. The Privacy Commissioner gets more authority to rubber-stamp refusals.

That is not efficiency; that is a shield for incompetence.

Secondly, they are watering down the duty to respond “without delay” to “without unreasonable

delay.” That tiny word change is everything. It is the legislative equivalent of a

government employee shrugging and saying: “We’ll get to it when we get to it.” We

already see average response times anywhere from 43 to over 100 days and climbing.

This change does not fix the problem. It codifies it. That is troubling.

Third, new hurdles on the specificity of requests. Applicants will be forced to clarify

and narrow their asks even more, giving bureaucrats fresh grounds to reject or endlessly

loop back. I know what a clear request looks like. As Housing critic, I know what

a desperate family in my riding looks like when they ask: “Why can’t I get help for

a rat-infested B.C. Housing unit?” They do not need a law degree to phrase it perfectly.

This bill tells them: “Try harder or go away.”

Let’s talk about the so-called proactive release of personal information. Yes, 60

percent of requests are for one’s own records. Streamlining that is fine on paper.

But when the government bundles it with centralized Connected Services B.C., a single

gateway that will hoover up your data across ministries and hand the minister power

to dictate data standards, we should all pause. Centralization sounds modern until

you remember the privacy breaches that we have seen from many corporations and around

the province generally, in a few places.

Notice how the government is far more enthusiastic about sharing your personal data

than it is about sharing its own decision-making records.

Colleagues, I have reviewed the briefings. I have read the government’s press releases

touting consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Yes, the commissioner

has issued a polite statement saying this is one step forward, but polite does not

equal endorsement of the big picture.

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has it right. This bill ignores

2022 special committee recommendations that called for strengthening access, not diluting

it.

[2:25 p.m.]

Vaughn Palmer laid it out plainly in the Vancouver Sun . “The NDP are quietly moving to give public servants more power to refuse information

and keep the public in the dark.”

Now let me bring this home to the issue I am tasked with every single day, housing.

In Surrey–Serpentine River, we are at ground zero for B.C.’s housing crisis. Young

families priced out. Seniors forced to downsize or leave the community they built.

Small businesses not able to attract workers — nowhere for them to live. And I have

constituents who have waited a very long time for why provincial funding for units

is not happening.

FOI responses reveal the internal memos showing that ministers knew of supply shortages

two years before they were admitted publicly. Bill 9 will make those revelations harder.

Deputy Speaker : Member, apologies. I need to interrupt you just for a moment and recognize our Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Thank you very kindly, and I thank my colleague. I’m seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Minister for Energy and Climate Solutions….

He’s the MLA for Vancouver-Renfrew, formerly Vancouver-Kingsway, a man whose last

name rhymes with Ricks, but I can’t say his name. You will know him as your MLA.

I want to welcome St. Mary’s School. They’re with teacher Mirna Lewis. There are 23

grade 5s and 8s in one of the groups and 25 grade 5s and 6s, is my understanding,

here from St. Mary’s.

Welcome to your Legislature, the people’s House, on behalf of your MLA.

Deputy Speaker : To expand just a little bit on that, we do refer to our members by their riding, so

that is why you don’t hear names here.

Welcome, students. We’re glad to have you.

Debate Continued

Linda Hepner : Welcome to the students.

Bill 9 will make revelations harder. When I file my next request asking for the actual

timelines on short-term-rental registry and the financial chaos the re-registration

system has caused, the ministry will have new tools to say that the request may be

too broad; repetitive; or, conveniently, abusive. When journalists dig into the Agricultural

Land Commission on decisions on farmland, they will face higher barriers. When opposition

members try to expose the gap between the photo ops with the Premier and the reality

on the ground, the government will now have legislative cover to stall.

This is not abstract. Last year alone, FOI requests exposed $1.2 billion in cost overruns

on provincial projects across B.C. Another set of requests revealed that only 11 percent

of the urgent modular housing units promised in 2023 were actually occupied by the

end of 2025. Families are living in their cars while the government hides the numbers.

Bill 9 does not solve a housing crisis. It protects, however, the people who have

failed to solve it.

From a business perspective, the results-driven lens I bring to the House as an experienced

leader, transparency is never a cost. It is, in fact, the cheapest form of risk management.

When investors look at British Columbia, they want to know the rules are clear, the

approvals are predictable and the data is reliable. Weakening FOI sends the opposite

signal. This is a government that fears scrutiny. It is why capital is flowing to

provinces with stronger access laws. Strong FOI is good economic policy.

I have heard government members say: “But we’re overwhelmed.” When workloads grow,

we train more people and streamline processes. We do not rewrite the rules to hide

the books. That’s just plain dangerous.

[2:30 p.m.]

The NDP have had nine years. They increased the civil service by thousands while piling

up record deficits and wasteful spending. They had a special committee review. Their

solution is still to weaken the law rather than fix the administration or control

the runaway budget. That is not leadership; that is avoidance.

Let me speak directly to the families watching in Surrey–Serpentine River. The young

couple saving for their first home. The single mom fighting for $10-a-day daycare

spots near new rentals. The retiree in Surrey or in Serpentine who wants to know why

pharmaceuticals are not covered for seniors, or why their pharmaceutical is not covered.

Your right to know is under attack. This bill is not about protecting your privacy.

It is about protecting the government from you.

To my colleagues across the aisle, I ask you: please search your conscience. Many

of you entered politics to make a difference. You ran on open government. Some of

you have used FOI yourselves in opposition. Do you really want to hand your successors,

even within your own party, a weaker tool for accountability? Governments change.

Today you are in power. Tomorrow you may be the ones filing those requests. History

will judge whether or not you chose convenience over principle.

I also want to address the younger members in this House — and, certainly, we have

to information. This bill is a step in the wrong direction for your generation. You

deserve better than a government that says, “Trust us,” while building new barriers

to the truth.

The amendments in Bill 9 fail every test of good governance. They fail the transparency

test, they fail the accountability test, and they fail the test of respecting the

people who pay the bills and to whom this information rightly belongs. That is why

I will certainly be voting against this bill, and that is why I’m calling on every

member who believes in open government to join me.

Have a real discussion. Talk to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.

Talk with journalists. Talk with housing advocates. Talk with municipal leaders who

are also struggling with provincial secrecy.

Strengthen FOIPPA. Don’t weaken it. Add real timelines with teeth. Enshrine a duty

to document and preserve. Make proactive disclosure the default for non-personal information,

not just a footnote.

British Columbians did not elect us to manage decline. They elected us to solve problems.

You cannot solve a problem you cannot see, and with Bill 9, the NDP are dimming the

lights.

In closing, I want to quote the late, great B.C. journalist Rafe Mair, who reminded

us that “democracy is not a spectator sport.” It requires informed citizens. FOI is

how we stay informed. Let us not turn this into a contact sport where only the government

holds the ball.

To the people of Surrey–Serpentine River: I will continue to fight for every scrap

of information you need to hold this government to account. Your voice will not be

silenced by legislative sleight of hand.

To my colleagues, let us choose light over shadow. Let us defeat Bill 9 and send a

message that in British Columbia, the people’s right to know remains non-negotiable.

Dallas Brodie : I want to commend the MLA from Surrey–Serpentine River for one of the most amazing

speeches I’ve ever heard on freedom of information.

[2:35 p.m.]

I rise today to speak also against Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act. This bill is everything one might expect from this, the

most secretive and sneaky government in B.C.’s history, and worse. This is the government

that ran on a promise of openness, and we see constantly, over and over again, closedness,

secrets, faits accomplis, done deals.

This government, if we could even call it that at this point, must have forgotten

that it is supposed to work for the people and be accountable to the people, because

there is no other explanation for why a government would go to such lengths to shield

its conduct from scrutiny. There is no clearer admission of guilt than a government

that wishes to hide its work.

I, for one, would stand to have all my work open to every person in this province

at any moment, at any time, no secrets.

This does not come as a surprise. The record of this government speaks for itself

— record deficits, irresponsible spending, attacks on private property rights, secret

agreements with Indian bands, a health care system in total collapse, rising crime,

a failing justice system, an affordability crisis that is crushing families across

this province. The list goes on and on. This is nine years of this we’ve had to endure.

Now this government is trying to cover its tracks.

This bill does two distinct and troubling things.

The first troubling thing about Bill 9 is that it makes it harder to access information

about what this government is doing. The current obligation to respond to freedom-of-information

requests without delay is replaced with the words “without unreasonable delay” — standard

weasel words to allow anybody to wiggle out of any difficult question. This is a standard

that this government will define for itself, at its own discretion, and it is this

government that makes the determination.

Beyond that, if a request is deemed too broad, too repetitive or merely disruptive

to government operations, it could be disregarded entirely. Anyone who has made a

freedom-of-information request has had to learn the fine art of making that request.

If you don’t ask something specifically, repeatedly, in every possible use of the

ridiculous and unresponsive to the claim. That is why the requests have become so

annoying and sometimes long and repetitive.

A new exemption shields communications between judicial officers and government bodies

from disclosure altogether, removing from public scrutiny precisely the kind of back

channel policy conversations that British Columbians have every right to know about.

Our judiciary is already cloaked in such secrecy. We have no idea what goes on in

their minds at any given time. We don’t elect them. We don’t even really know how

they’re appointed. Now they want all their discussions shielded from public view.

Why?

This is not administrative modernization. This is a government methodically closing

the doors through which it can be held accountable.

The second troubling thing about Bill 9 is that it dramatically expands this government’s

control over the personal information of British Columbians. The member who just spoke

before me described this very, very well. It is a hoovering up of information about

each and every one of us, all of us, all into one person’s control.

Imagine that. You don’t like someone? I think I’m going to look into everything about

this person.

This bill creates what it calls a connected services provider, a government-designated

body with sweeping authority to collect, share and circulate personal information

across public bodies, all directed by ministerial instruction alone, with no requirement

for legislative approval. The minister decides what data is shared, with whom, in

what format and under what circumstances.

What this means in practice is that the personal information of British Columbians

— health records, financial information, social service data — becomes available to

be pooled, redirected and redistributed across government bodies at ministerial discretion,

far beyond the purpose for which it was originally collected. There are no legislative

guardrails on the scope of that sharing and no meaningful, independent check.

[2:40 p.m.]

So on one hand, this government wants less scrutiny of itself, but, on the other,

it wants more access to information about the people it governs. That asymmetry should

concern every member of this House and every citizen of this province.

Many people fall into the trap of believing that if you’re not doing anything wrong,

or if you have nothing to hide, then what’s the problem of having your information

available? Think about that. Do you want all the information about your family available

to a minister? Do you want that information available? It’s not that you’re doing

anything wrong. It’s just that now it’s available.

This government’s intentions are clear: less transparency, more government control

and fewer avenues for the people of this province to hold this government to account.

I will not be supporting this bill, and I encourage all other members of this Legislature

to read this very, very carefully. In the end, please vote against Bill 9.

Heather Maahs : Let’s stop dressing this bill up in the language of modernization. Let’s stop pretending

this is a technical cleanup, an administrative tune-up or a harmless rewrite of procedure.

It’s not. Bill 9 is a political decision to give government more control over what

the public can learn, when the public can learn it and whether the public can learn

it at all.

The official explanation notes alone tell the story. They say the bill changes the

duty to respond “without delay” to a duty to respond “without unreasonable delay,”

lets the head of a public body decide whether a request contains enough detail, excludes

certain records tied to court proceedings, creates a new refusal power for communications

by or for judicial officers on policy or legislation, expands the grounds for disregarding

requests and permits longer review times.

This is not a package of reforms aimed at openness; it is a package of reforms aimed

at discretion, delay and denial. Freedom of information exists for one reason, because

the public has a right to know what the government is doing in its name and with its

money. It exists because the public records are not the private property of ministers,

deputy ministers, chiefs of staff, political operatives or communications directors.

It exists because democratic accountability is impossible when the government controls

the flow of information about itself.

That principle was baked into British Columbia’s original FOI law. Rob Botterell,

who was a part of that, my colleague from the Greens.…

Deputy Speaker : Member, we do not use names of any of our members here, please.

Heather Maahs : Oops, I’m not supposed to say names; I’ve got it.

Anyway, my colleague, who says he led the team that developed B.C.’s FOI legislation

for the Harcourt government, wrote that the act was passed unanimously in 1992 and

was once hailed as the best in North America. He also warns that the system has been

chipped away, piece by piece, and that Bill 9 risks turning freedom of information

into freedom from information.

That phrase matters: “freedom from information.” It captures exactly what this bill

does, not in one dramatic stroke, not with one flashy clause that every British Columbian

will notice overnight — a word changed here, a threshold moved there, a little more

power handed to the institution being scrutinized, a little less power left to the

person asking the question, a little more patience demanded of the citizen, a little

more latitude granted to the state.

Each of these changes can be defended by a minister. Each can be described as practical.

Each can be called balanced. But taken together, they amount to a plain and unmistakable

message from this government. “We want more control over access, and we want less

accountability when we deny it.”

[2:45 p.m.]

Look at the time limit change under Bill 9.

Section 6(1) is amended by striking out

“without delay” and substituting “without unreasonable delay.” That is not semantics;

that is substance. “Without delay” is a clear command. “Without unreasonable delay”

is a debate. It invites argument. It opens the door to excuses. It lets the public

body say: “Well, in our view, this took a reasonable amount of time.” A standard that

once pointed government towards urgency is replaced with wording that can be stretched,

defended, rationalized and lawyered into meaning almost anything.

This government knows exactly why they change one word in legislation. One word can

shift the entire culture of compliance. One word can move an obligation from firm

to fuzzy. One word can take a citizen’s right and turn it into an opinion. And that

is before we get to

section 5.

Bill 9 repeals the current wording and substitutes a new requirement that a request,

in the opinion of the head of the public body, provide enough detail to let an experienced

employee identify the record with reasonable effort and in a reasonable amount of

time.

In other words, the bill does not merely require an applicant to describe what they

want. It explicitly says that the sufficiency of the request is determined by the

head of the body being asked for the records. The institution being scrutinized gets

to decide whether the request is specific enough. The gatekeeper becomes the judge.

The respondent becomes the arbiter.

That is not a neutral process. That is a built-in conflict of interest embedded in

the law itself.

Ask yourself how that works in the real world. A journalist files a request about

communications related to a procurement decision. An opposition MLA seeks documents

related to briefing notes, internal warnings or contract irregularities. A foster

youth asks for records tied to their own history. A citizen seeks correspondence concerning

a controversial service failure.

Under Bill 9, the public body can say the request lacks enough detail not because

it is impossible to understand but because, in the opinion of the head, it cannot

be identified with reasonable effort and in a reasonable amount of time.

Those are elastic phrases. These are subjective phrases. They are phrases that shift

the burden from government to the applicant. And that is exactly the opposite of what

a strong FOI is supposed to do.

Then we arrive at

section 43, and this is where the mask really slips.

Deputy Speaker : Member, my apologies for interrupting you.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Apologies. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : On behalf of the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, the member for Vancouver-Renfrew….

Anyways, you’re all here from St. Mary’s, I believe. Thumbs-up. Go, St. Mary’s! Your

minister, your MLA, Minister Ricks…. It’s not his name, but it sounds like Ricks.

We don’t say last names in this House. We refer to each other by ministry titles,

so Hadrian Ricks rhymes with your minister’s name.

Anyways, he wanted me to welcome you all to your chamber, to your House, the people’s

House. We are currently debating the freedom-of-information and protection-of-personal-privacy

legislation.

Thank you, and welcome to your Legislature.

Deputy Speaker : Indeed, welcome to everyone in the chamber. The minister quite rightly pointed out

that we don’t use names to define any one of our members, so we do refer to our ridings.

Debate Continued

Heather Maahs : Bill 9 adds and modifies the grounds on which the commissioner can authorize a public

body to disregard requests. The new language adds that the behaviour of the applicant

can be abusive or malicious. It allows a request to be disregarded if responding would

unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body or the government of

British Columbia.

It also allows a request to be characterized as an abuse of the right to make a request

because it is repetitious or systematic or because it is excessively broad.

[2:50 p.m.]

When we say those words out loud — “abusive,” “malicious,” “unreasonable,” “interfere,”

“repetitious,” “systematic,” “excessively broad” — these terms are meant to shut down

scrutiny that is inconvenient, persistent or maybe embarrassing.

Who exactly files requests that are repetitive or systematic? Journalists do. Opposition

researchers do. Watchdogs do. Citizens who suspect there is a pattern do. People investigating

waste, misconduct or incompetence do. A single document rarely exposes a serious problem.

It takes persistence. It takes follow-up. It takes multiple requests. It takes systemized

inquiry. That is how public interest investigations work.

So when a bill flags systematic or repetitious behaviour as a basis for disregarding

requests, it is not striking at abuse in the abstract. It is creating a weapon that

can be aimed at determined scrutiny in practice.

Let us not ignore the “unreasonable interference with operations” language. Scrutiny

is inconvenient, and that’s too bad. Every department can say that locating records

takes staff time. Every bureaucracy can say that answering questions interrupts business

as usual. But that is the point of a freedom-of-information law. It is supposed to

impose an obligation on the state to serve the public’s right to know, even when it

is inconvenient. If the test becomes whether disclosure work disrupts operations,

then the very existence of accountability is recast as a nuisance.

My colleague earlier, when we were debating this session a few weeks ago, said plainly

that under the Premier’s government, legislative oversight is increasingly seen as

a nuisance and is being replaced by closed-cabinet-door decision-making. That criticism

lands, because Bill 9 reads like legislation drafted by a government that sees scrutiny

as interference rather than democracy.

Kirk LaPointe put it just as bluntly in an op-ed. In his commentary, he writes that

Bill 9 is really Bill nein. He says that legislation is marketed as modernization

but is not. He calls it strategic legislation to defer, delay and deny the public’s

right to know. He further writes that the original democratic premise of the law was

that government records belong to the public unless there is a defensible reason to

withhold them, and that the burden rested on the state, not the citizen.

Those are devastating observations because they identify the philosophical shift underneath

this bill. This government is moving away from a culture in which disclosure is the

default and toward one in which the applicant — the applicant — must satisfy the system,

navigate the hurdles and accept the government’s view of what is reasonable. What

happens when disclosure becomes slower and more discretionary and more applicant-burdened?

LaPointe answers that too. He warns that the changes make access slower, less predictable

and more discretionary. That is not the description of a stronger accountability regime.

That is the description of a weaker one. Slower means information arrives too late

to inform public debate. Less predictable means applicants cannot rely on a clear

process. More discretionary means outcomes depend increasingly on internal judgments

rather than firm, statutory duties.

Taken together, those effects do not just frustrate requesters. They chill scrutiny.

They tell local media outlets, independent journalists, citizen advocates and ordinary

people that unless they have the time, money and persistence to fight, the process

may not be worth it.

[2:55 p.m.]

That chilling effect matters. A freedom-of-information law is not healthy because

it exists on paper. It is healthy because taxpayers, ordinary people, believe they

can use it. If people conclude that requests will take too long, be denied for technical

reasons or be characterized as burdensome, they stop asking. When they stop asking,

government secrecy does not even need to work very hard. It wins by discouragement.

It wins by exhaustion. It wins by turning accountability into a process that only

the most well-resourced can endure.

That is why this chamber should not dismiss wording changes as administrative. Administrative

barriers are one of the most effective ways to kill a right without formally abolishing

it. Bill 9 also excludes from

part 2 of the act certain records that must be produced,

listed or identified as part of a proceeding, including records that fall within a

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

Again, the explanatory note says that right on page 1, and the text on page 2 spells

it out: when government, the Attorney General or the government of British Columbia

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

those records are carved out from the access part of the act in that context. This

is not some obscure housekeeping adjustment. It narrows the route through which applicants

can seek access and broadens the zone in which government can say, in effect: “Not

here. Not this way.”

Then there is a new section, 16.1, allowing the head of a public body to refuse to

disclose information that would reveal the substance of a communication of a judicial

officer, or one made on behalf of a judicial officer, respecting a proposed or existing

policy, program or enactment. That may sound specialized, but the effect is obvious:

it creates another class of information that can be withheld.

What is the broad trend of this bill? More carve-outs, more refusal powers, more institutional

control over the disclosure boundary. Government says this is refinement. The public

sees, rightly, that it is another ratchet, in one direction only.

The bill also allows the head of a public body to extend the time for responding to

a request by a period to which the applicant consents, and the commissioner’s inquiry

timeline can now be extended beyond 90 days if the commissioner specifies a later

date and notifies the relevant persons. On paper, those may sound reasonable. In practice,

they further normalize longer timelines.

When the law already weakens the promptness standard from “without delay” to “without

unreasonable delay” and then adds more room for extensions and later dates, the combined

message is unmistakable. Waiting is becoming part of the architecture. Government

is not moving towards faster disclosure. It is building itself a more forgiving delay

structure.

And now we have to talk about the politics of this, because the politics are inseparable

from the bill. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the government should immediately

resume proactive disclosures and cancel Bill 9, describing the pause in proactive

disclosures and the bill itself as part of a larger rollback.

Its March 18 news release said the pause means government has stopped routinely publishing

things such as ministerial briefing notes, purchase card records, travel expenses

for ministers and deputy ministers, and contracts awarded without a competitive process.

The same release quotes Carson Binda, saying that the Premier had launched an all-out

offensive against transparency and accountability government and adding that Bill

9 would make it easier for bureaucrats to delay and deny FOI requests.

[3:00 p.m.]

The federation also listed examples of stories that came to light because of FOI requests.

We’ve heard them in this House. Gift card bonuses for bureaucrats. A budget line for

an open bar reception. Ministers billing taxpayers for an Amsterdam happy hour. Government

spending on novelty soccer balls. Expensive hotels in Dubai. Limousine service costs

for a ministerial trip.

The point is that the public learned about those things because access tools existed

and were used. When a government that has been embarrassed by records then moves to

weaken access, people are entitled to draw conclusions. They are entitled to think

the government has learned the wrong lesson — not “we should spend better” but “we

should hide better.”

This is why the phrase “assault on government transparency” resonates. It is not just

about the text of Bill 9 in isolation. It’s about the context in which the bill arrives.

A government paused proactive disclosure of spending-related documents and, at the

same time, advances a bill that makes ordinary access requests easier to delay, challenge

and disregard.

British Columbians do not need a doctorate in public administration to see the pattern.

Fewer routine disclosures. More discretion over requests. More ability to call scrutiny

disruptive. More power to decide what is reasonable. Less sunlight, more fog.

This is where the government’s defence collapses. It says the bill is about efficiency,

but efficiency for whom? If a minister can decide that a request lacks enough detail

because, in its opinion, an experienced employee cannot find the records within a

reasonable effort or a reasonable amount of time, that may be efficient for the ministry.

It is not efficient for the public.

If requests can be characterized as excessively broad or systematic and disregarded,

that may be efficient for bureaucracy. It is not accountability for British Columbians.

If response duties are softened and review timelines lengthened, that may be administratively

convenient for government. It is not meaningful access for an applicant waiting for

answers. Convenience is the institution, not the same as justice for the public.

Another point that should be taken seriously is the legislation makes no distinction

between general requests from journalists or legislators and requests by individuals

seeking their own personal records, such as child and youth foster care records or

employment records. That matters, because behind the legal jargon, it’s not just politics.

It’s also a human reality.

Delays in access are not always about headlines. Sometimes they are about people trying

to understand what happened to them, people trying to reconstruct a life event, a

care history, an employment issue or an administrative decision that changed their

future. When government loosens timelines and hardens the gate, it is not only the

press gallery that pays; ordinary people do too.

My colleague also recently said that it is magical thinking to suggest that making

it easier to delay or deny access to general information will somehow speed up the

process. That is exactly right. The government wants the public to believe that weakening

requesters’ rights is a pathway to a better functioning system.

If a system is overloaded, the answer is to improve record management, improve searchability,

invest in staff capacity and expand proactive publication. The answer is not to move

the goalposts for applicants. The answer is not to grant more refusal powers. The

answer is not to downgrade urgency in the statute itself. The answer is not to tell

citizens that their rights are causing the inefficiency.

Bill 9 goes in the opposite direction on core access questions. That is important

politically as well as legally. It means this bill is not the inevitable product of

expert consensus. It is a choice.

The government chose this path. It chose more discretion over more openness. It chose

a softer duty to respond. It chose wider disregard powers. It chose to put more weight

on administrative convenience than on the public’s right to know.

[3:05 p.m.]

And because it is a choice, members opposite are responsible for it. They cannot hide

behind their officials. They cannot hide behind drafting counsel. They cannot say

this is simply a modernization file from a ministry. Every clause in this bill expresses

a value judgment. Every clause answers a question.

When there is tension between convenience for government and access for public, whose

side are you on? Bill 9 answers: the government’s side. When there is tension between

institutional workload and democracy scrutiny, whose burden do you lighten? Bill 9

answers: the institution’s. When there is tension between certainty for the applicant

and discretion for the state, whom do you trust? Bill 9 answers: the state.

That is why, in LaPointe’s op-ed, the line about “original premise of the law matters

so much,” he says the burden rested on the state, not on the citizen. Bill 9 shifts

that burden. The applicant must be precise enough, narrow enough, acceptable enough,

not too broad, not too systematic, not too repetitive, not too interfering, not too

time-consuming.

Who decides whether they’ve crossed the line? The very people whose records they want.

That is not a robust right. That is a tolerated request process, conditional on the

patience of bureaucracy and the tolerance of government.

Members opposite may say that the commissioner still plays a role. Of course, the

commissioner plays a role, but Bill 9 itself broadens the grounds upon which the commissioner

can authorize a public body to disregard requests, and it permits later dates for

inquiries beyond the default 90-day timeline in certain circumstances.

Even oversight is being furnished with a looser calendar and a broader vocabulary

of refusal. That is not strengthening of external control over secrecy. It is a recalibration

that gives the system more room to accept delay and disregard it as ordinary.

What is really going on here? The answer is political culture. The most troubling

aspect of Bill 9 is cultural. A cultural openness once promised in 1992 has been broken,

and that system has been dismantled, piece by piece. The CTF says that government

is trying to ensure embarrassing documents never see the light of day. Different voices,

different politics, same theme.

This bill reflects a government culture that sees transparency as a risk to be managed

rather than a duty to be honoured. That is why this debate matters far beyond lawyers,

journalists or FOI specialists, because if government can normalize the idea that

rights are subject to administrative convenience, then the damage does not stop with

access to records.

It teaches a lesson about citizenship itself. It says your right to know is not a

foundational democratic guarantee but a request that the state may accommodate if

it finds your wording tidy, your persistence modest and your curiosity manageable.

That is a corrosive lesson in democracy.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than that. They deserve a government

that meets requests with urgency, not excuses; a government that strengthens proactive

disclosure instead of pausing it; a government that invests in records systems instead

of blaming applicants for asking hard questions; a government that remembers why freedom-of-information

laws exist in the first place. It’s not to protect the comfort of the executive but

to protect the sovereignty of the citizen.

So let us stop pretending this is neutral. Let us stop pretending that no values are

at stake. Let us stop pretending Bill 9 simply updates an old statute for a digital

age.

This bill changes who carries the burden. It changes who gets the benefit of ambiguity.

It changes who controls the pace. It changes who can call scrutiny unreasonable. It

changes who decides whether a request is acceptable. In every one of those changes,

the balance tilts the same way, toward government and away from the public.

[3:10 p.m.]

That is why this House needs to reject the spin on Bill 9. Read the words “in the

opinion of the head of the public body.” Read the words “without unreasonable delay.”

Read the words “abusive or malicious.” Read the words “repetitious or systematic,”

“excessively broad,” “unreasonably interfere with operations.” Those are not words

of a government opening windows. Those are words of a government installing thicker

curtains.

Freedom of information is not a courtesy extended by the powerful to the powerless.

It is not a favour. It is not a gift. It is a democratic right rooted in a simple

proposition in a free society, that people must be able to know what their government

is doing.

Bill 9 weakens that right. It makes access less timely, less certain and more dependent

on the judgments of the institutions being scrutinized. It expands the state’s ability

to say no. It broadens the language available to defend, delay and disregard. It arrives

in a climate where proactive disclosures have been paused, and critics from across

the spectrum are warning that British Columbia is moving from freedom of information

toward freedom from information.

For all of those reasons, this bill is not modernization. It is retrenchment. It is

not balance. It is bureaucratic self-protection. It is not transparency reform. It

is a retreat from transparency, and it needs to be defeated.

Dana Lajeunesse : I’m pleased to rise to speak in strong support of Bill 9 and the proposed amendments

to British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

This legislation is about something very simple but very important: making government

work better for people while continuing to protect their privacy and their right to

access information. These amendments reflect the reality that the way people interact

with government has changed dramatically over the past decades, while the systems

underpinning those interactions have not always kept pace.

Today’s amendments are a thoughtful, balanced response to two urgent, interconnected

challenges: the need to modernize government service delivery through connected digital

services and the growing strain on our freedom-of-information system, which must remain

strong, fair and accessible to everyone.

At their core, these changes are about efficiency, transparency and respect — respect

for individuals’ time, respect for public servants and respect for the principles

of privacy and access that British Columbians value deeply.

The proposed amendments are not about sweeping for the sake of change. They’re targeted,

measured and intentionally structured around three clear objectives: enabling connected

services, improving FOI efficiency and making minor but necessary clarifications and

operational fixes. Each of these categories responds directly to long-standing challenges

identified by the FOIPPA special committee, by public bodies across the province and

by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This is not legislation

developed in isolation. It reflects years of practical experience, consultation and

oversight.

Enabling connected services for British Columbians. Let me begin with the connected

services provisions because they go right to the heart of how people experience government.

Too often government still operates as a collection of silos. Individuals are asked

again and again to provide the same information to different ministries and programs

— their name, their address, their eligibility documents, their personal details.

This is frustrating, inefficient and unnecessary.

[3:15 p.m.]

A government that works as one. The connected services provisions in this bill will

help to enable government to operate as one unified system rather than as disconnected

parts. These amendments will allow public bodies to securely share information within

government on the people’s behalf and with their permission so that services are simpler,

more predictable and more streamlined. This is about building a system that reflects

how people actually live their lives, not how government is organized internally —

a single gateway, not a centralized database.

Let me be very clear, because I know this concern will and has been raised. Connected

Services B.C. does not create a massive new centralized database of personal information.

That is simply not what this legislation does. Instead, connected services are designed

to use existing systems, facilitate secure, appropriate sharing and reduce unnecessary

collection of information overall. The goal is not consolidation; it is coordination.

Public bodies will continue to hold only the information they need to deliver their

programs.

What changes is that with appropriate safeguards, information can be shared, where

necessary, to deliver services more effectively and more respectfully. Strong privacy

protections remain in place. Privacy protection remains foundational.

FOIPPA already contains strong security requirements, and this bill goes further by

allowing the minister to publish specific privacy and security requirements for connected

services, requiring notification to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

when a connected services provider is established and providing discretion for the

OIPC to review privacy impact assessments. These safeguards ensure that modernization

does not come at the expense of privacy; it strengthens it.

Part 3, improving the freedom-of-information system. The second major category of

amendments focuses on the freedom-of-information system itself, and this is essential.

FOI is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. Access-to-information rights are

non-negotiable, but it is also true that our FOI system is under significant strain,

a system under pressure.

Across this province — in ministries, municipalities, school districts and health

authorities — public bodies are facing increasing volumes of requests, growing complexity,

administrative backlogs. These pressures affect everyone — applicants waiting longer

for responses, staff pulled away from other vital duties. Delays that undermine trust

in the system. Doing nothing is not an option. These amendments are designed to relieve

pressure without reducing rights.

Part 4, clarifying requests and improving communication. One of the most practical

and sensible reforms in this bill concerns clarity in FOI requests. Under the current

act, applicants are already required to provide enough detail to allow public bodies

to identify records with reasonable effort. What these amendments do is formalize

and improve the process for achieving that clarity, a formal clarification process.

The bill introduces a clear, transparent process for public bodies to seek clarification

when a request is unclear. This is not about forcing applicants to narrow their requests.

Let me repeat that clearly. Applicants are not being forced to narrow their requests.

[3:20 p.m.]

This is about ensuring that the public body understands what records are being sought

and the applicant receives information that actually meets their needs. Ambiguous

requests help no one. They slow the process and create frustration for both sides.

Clear communication improves outcomes for everyone involved.

Stopping the clock, responsibility and transparency. Some have raised concerns about

allowing the 30-day FOI clock to pause while an applicant is clarifying their request.

This is not stalling. It is about honesty and fairness. Currently the clock continues

to run even when a public body is waiting for clarification. This creates unrealistic

timelines and unnecessary tension. Under this amendment, timelines become more accurate,

applicants are encouraged to engage promptly, and public bodies can focus their efforts

on meaningful searches. This reform supports transparency, not delay.

Addressing abusive and malicious conduct. One of the most sensitive but necessary

aspects of this bill is the amendment allowing public bodies to apply to disregard

requests in cases of abusive or malicious behaviour. Let me be absolutely clear about

what this does and does not do. Oversight remains with the OIPC. Public bodies cannot

unilaterally disregard requests. They must apply to the Office of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner, which retains full oversight and decision-making authority.

These circumstances are described clearly, narrowly and explicitly — rare but real

situations. Examples include patterns of harassment, intimidation, threats to staff

safety. These situations are extremely rare, but when they do occur, they’re highly

disruptive and divert resources away from processing legitimate requests. This amendment

protects public servants while preserving applicants’ rights through independent oversight.

Part 7, proactive disclosure of personal information. Another important improvement

is the ability to proactively disclose personal information back to individuals. Currently

approximately 60 percent of FOI requests are for personal information. This bill introduces

mechanisms to improve access for individuals seeking their own information, reduce

unnecessary formal FOI requests, particularly support former children in care and

others who rely on these records. This is a compassionate, practical reform that improves

service while easing system pressures.

Part 8, fees and access. There has been significant public discussion about FOI fees,

and I want to address this directly. This legislation does not change application

fees. At the same time, important exemptions remain. There’s no fee for individuals

requesting their own personal information. Indigenous governing entities are not required

to pay an application fee. Evidence shows that the existing fee structure has reduced

broad cross-government requests, while encouraging more targeted requests without

reducing access for individuals.

At the same time, government has expanded proactive disclosure, making frequently

requested information available without the need for an FOI request at all. That is

meaningful access.

[3:25 p.m.]

Consultation and oversight. These amendments were not developed behind closed doors.

The ministry has consulted extensively with the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner, engaged with the FOIPPA special committee and responded to long-standing

operational concerns from public bodies. The commissioner has indicated comfort with

the amendments, and oversight remains firmly in place. This balance between access

and service delivery is essential if the system is to work fairly for everyone.

Part 10, a bill about people. At the end of the day, this bill is not about systems

or statutes in isolation. It’s about people — people trying to access services without

repeating themselves endlessly; people seeking information that they’re entitled to

receive; public servants working under increasing pressure; families, seniors, businesses

and communities relying on timely, accurate government service. This legislation helps

meet those expectations responsibly and transparently.

In conclusion, these amendments do not weaken FOIPPA; they strengthen it. They do

not diminish access; they improve clarity, efficiency and fairness. They do not compromise

privacy; they modernize safeguards in a digital world. This bill reflects good governance

and careful reform that responds to real challenges while preserving the values we

hold dear.

For those reasons, I’m proud to support this legislation and urge all members of this

House to do the same.

Claire Rattée : Today we’re speaking about Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act.

I want to begin by grounding this conversation in something that I think is absolutely

fundamental to our role in this House. That is the understanding that freedom of information

is not simply an administrative tool, it is not a bureaucratic process, and it is

not just about efficiency or timelines or internal systems. It is one of the only

mechanisms that British Columbians have to understand what their government is doing,

to verify that decisions are being made in the public interest and to hold those of

us in positions of authority accountable for the decisions that we make.

At the end of the day, the information we are talking about does not belong to government;

it belongs to the people of British Columbia. Government is simply the custodian of

that information. We’re entrusted with it, we manage it, we organize it, but we do

not own it.

When we start to blur that line, when we start to treat public information as something

that government controls, rather than something that the public has a right to access,

we fundamentally change the relationship between government and the people that it

serves. That relationship is supposed to be built on trust.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

When people believe that they can ask questions and get answers, when they believe

that government is transparent, when they believe that information is accessible,

even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable, that is what builds confidence in public

institutions. But when that starts to change; when people feel like they cannot get

answers; when they feel like information is being withheld, delayed, filtered or controlled,

that is when trust starts to erode.

Once that erosion begins, it does not take long for people to lose confidence, not

just in government but in our entire system. That is what makes this bill so concerning.

For the last nine long years, the public’s trust in this government has more than

eroded; it has collapsed. This legislation is the icing on the cake.

I think a perfect example of why this is so important is something that happened this

morning in the chamber, in question period. My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke

was asking questions about some FOI documents that our party had received from the

government, in regard to a signing that happened on xʷməθkʷəy̓əm territory, involving the Premier.

The FOI that we’d received was so heavily redacted, and the Premier tried to pull

a gotcha: “How did you not know that this was a letter that was in opposition to it?”

Well, we didn’t know, because the FOI that we received only told us that there was

a letter involved.

[3:30 p.m.]

Then when the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth tried to heckle us over it, I said:

“These are your documents. This is your information.” Because government gets to decide

what is released and what is proactively disclosed to people and what is available

to us as opposition while we’re trying to do our jobs, that’s part of the problem.

Making that weaker, making it so that there’s even less information that we can access

or more things that the government is allowed to control whether or not opposition

can access or the public can access, is only going to make that problem even worse

than it already is today.

I want to acknowledge, because I think it’s important to do so honestly, that there

are aspects of the FOI system today that are not working in the way that they should.

We know that there are delays. We know that people are waiting far too long to receive

responses. We know that the system can be frustrating and, in some cases, incredibly

inaccessible. I’ve experienced it firsthand, and I recognize that there is a need

to improve this system.

What is deeply concerning about this legislation is that instead of addressing those

problems and instead of fixing what is broken, it moves us in the opposite direction.

It does not improve access; it restricts it. It does not increase certainty; it introduces

ambiguity. It does not strengthen accountability; it weakens it.

Right now British Columbians are already waiting months — in some cases, close to

a year — to receive responses to freedom-of-information requests. That is not a small

issue. It’s not a minor inconvenience. That is a system that is fundamentally failing

to meet its most basic obligation.

Instead of tackling that problem head-on, instead of asking why those delays exist,

instead of investing in the systems and processes needed to actually deliver timely

responses, this legislation lowers the standard.

It replaces a requirement to respond without delay with a requirement to respond without

unreasonable delay. That might seem like a small change, but it is not, because “without

delay” is a very clear expectation, but “without unreasonable delay” is subjective.

It introduces flexibility for the institution, not certainty for the public. We see

that same pattern repeated throughout this bill — more subjectivity, more discretion,

more room for

interpretation.

I want to ground this in something very real, because for me, this is not theoretical.

It is not a hypothetical concern about what might happen if this bill passes. This

is something that I am already experiencing in real time. Since June of last year,

I’ve had freedom-of-information requests in for Dr. Daniel Vigo’s quarterly reports.

These are not obscure documents. These are not peripheral reports. These are documents

that are directly tied to government policy, particularly in the context of the addiction

crisis and concurrent disorders. These are reports that are being used to justify

decisions that are affecting communities across this province, or not. I wouldn’t

know because I haven’t been able to see them — not a partial disclosure, not heavily

redacted records, nothing.

I asked about it again in today’s question period and received a non-answer, just

more obfuscation and attempts to distract. The reality is that this is taxpayer-funded

work, work that is costing the taxpayer over $1 million in a salary plus expenses,

plus covering the salary cost from UBC.

There is no justifiable reason why these reports should not already be a matter of

public record. To be honest, a freedom-of-information request should not have even

been necessary, but here we are. Nearly a year later I haven’t even received some

heavily redacted version — just silence. How am I supposed to effectively do the job

that my constituents elected me to do if I can’t even access the information that

is required of me to be able to do it?

This government is operating like the gatekeepers on information that belongs to the

public, and this legislation is attempting to close that gate even tighter than before.

If I have already been unable to access that information with the current system,

what will happen if this legislation comes into force? What other information will

the public not be able to access?

At the same time, I have also had requests in for the work being done by Larry Campbell

on the Downtown Eastside, work that the government itself has publicly acknowledged

as being critical to understanding what is happening in one of the most vulnerable

communities in British Columbia, one that my critic portfolio is deeply intertwined

with, and, again, nothing — no transparency, no accountability, no answers.

As I said before, what makes this even more concerning is that I should not even have

to be filing FOI requests for this information in the first place. These are reports

that taxpayers are funding. They are reports that are informing government decisions.

There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for why this information should not

be publicly available — none. Yet here we are, forced to file requests, wait months,

pay fees, just to try and access information that should have been proactively disclosed

from the start.

What’s incredibly frustrating about both of these situations is that they’re not one-offs.

This just happens to be something that’s relevant to my critic portfolio. This is

happening all throughout our caucus. We have freedom-of-information requests in that

we haven’t received any responses to. We haven’t gotten any answers.

[3:35 p.m.]

These are just two examples of government contracts that the government has repeatedly

justified as being incredibly necessary to inform the work that they need to do. In

the case of the Downtown Eastside, I believe it’s work that sitting MLAs should be

doing, not an outside independent contractor, but here we are.

There has been zero justification for the taxpayers’ money that has been spent on

it. We’ve reviewed the contracts. The contracts clearly state there is a requirement….

Interjection.

Claire Rattée : We are still on Bill 9. This is incredibly important because I’m talking about the

freedom-of-information requests that I have in right now with your government that

have been sitting for over a year that I haven’t received a response to.

I’m talking about the contracts in relation to those freedom-of-information requests.

I’m talking about how….

Deputy Speaker : Members, just a reminder, comments through the Chair.

Claire Rattée : Thank you, Chair.

I am talking about the freedom-of-information requests that I have been waiting on

for a year now. They relate to documents and contracts that this government has, that

they’ve justified as being crucial and necessary taxpayer-funded work that has been

done. Reports that were tied into those agreements, reporting deadlines that…. I don’t

know if they’ve been met. I have no idea. No one in the public does, because we can’t

scrutinize them.

I’ve been waiting almost a year now for any of these reports, and these are reports

that were quarterly, which means there are multiple reports which would have been

put in, at least in the case of Dr. Vigo, and I’ve received nothing. So if we make

this system even worse, if we make it even less accessible, then what?

There’s absolutely no reason, in the first place, why these should require a freedom-of-information

request. The taxpayer is funding this work. There’s nothing in it that’s going to

be sensitive or dangerous and that can’t get out into the hands of the public. They

deserve to know. They have a right to know what is informing their government’s decisions

on how they’re approaching policy.

What’s particularly concerning about this is that in the case of Dr. Vigo, statements

that he has made publicly completely contradict the direction that this government

has gone in, which makes me think that those reports are things that they really don’t

want anybody else to see, because they’re not following the advice that they’ve been

given. This is not transparency, and it is not openness. It certainly isn’t accountability.

That is a system that is designed to control information.

If I, as a member of this House, cannot get access to this information in a timely

way, what does that say about the ability of everyday British Columbians to access

it? What does that say about a worker trying to access records for a workplace dispute

or a journalist trying to investigate government spending? What does it say about

a family that is trying to understand what happened to a loved one?

Freedom of information is not just used by politicians or by the media. It is used

by people who are trying to navigate real situations in their lives — people who are

trying to get clarity, people who are trying to get fairness, people who are trying

to get answers. From where I am sitting, the system is already failing them. Instead

of fixing that failure, we are being asked to pass legislation that makes it easier

to deny requests altogether. That is backwards.

I will say this. Given this government’s track record, it is certainly not surprising,

because this is not the first time we’ve seen this. This is a part of a pattern. This

is a government that has been called the most secretive in Canada, and that label

does not come from one decision or one bill. It comes from years of behaviour. It

comes from delays. It comes from refusals. It comes from redactions. It comes from

a consistent unwillingness to release information in a timely and transparent way.

We’ve seen it not just in FOI but in how this government approaches legislation more

broadly. Increasingly, we are seeing legislation that lacks clarity, legislation that

defers critical details to regulation, legislation that asks this House to approve

a framework without knowing how it will actually operate in practice.

That matters, because when decisions are made in regulation instead of legislation,

they are made with less scrutiny, less debate and less accountability. They are made

outside of this chamber. When you combine that with vague legislative language, you

are not just creating flexibility; you are concentrating power. You’re shifting control

away from transparent processes and into discretionary decision-making, and Bill 9

fits squarely into that pattern.

When you look at clause 13, what you see is a significant expansion in the government’s

ability to apply to have FOI requests disregarded, using terms like “malicious,” “abusive,”

“repetitious,” “excessively broad” or requests that “unreasonably interfere with the

operations of government” — terrifying.

None of those terms are properly defined, not one. That’s not a minor oversight. That

is the core issue, and it was likely intentional. When terms are not defined, discretion

expands, and when discretion expands, accountability declines. It means that the same

request could be considered reasonable one day and dismissed the next. It means that

legitimate scrutiny can be reframed as interference. It means that access to information

becomes conditional.

[3:40 p.m.]

When the institution being scrutinized is the one deciding whether that scrutiny is

valid, that should concern every single one of us in this House. It is, perhaps, the

most terrifying language of all, because there is a lot that this government would

likely classify as interfering with the operations of government.

I’ve seen the way that this government views opposition, the eye-rolls and insults

when we are just trying to do the jobs that British Columbians elected us to do. I

can only imagine which parts of our work that we carry out here every day this government

would deem as interfering with the operations of government — likely most of it, if

I had to guess.

But transparency is not supposed to be convenient. Accountability is not supposed

to be comfortable. Government is not supposed to operate without scrutiny. That is

the point. These jobs are hard. They are hard for a reason. Yet this bill moves us

in the opposite direction.

At the same time, while expanding the ability to deny requests, this bill introduces

new barriers on the other side. Clause 21 allows public bodies to charge fees for

information that is already available without an FOI request.

Now not only can requests be dismissed more easily, but access to information that

is already public can be subject to cost. Again, on its own, that might seem like

one small adjustment, but when you layer it together — delays, undefined language,

expanded discretion, new fees — you start to see the full picture.

Barrier after barrier, and that is how access is eroded. It’s not always through outright

denial but through friction, delay, cost and uncertainty, until eventually people

stop asking. That is the risk with this bill, because when you step back and look

at all of this together, a very clear pattern emerges. This is not a bill that strengthens

transparency. It is a bill that manages it. It gives government more control over

what is released, when it is released and under what conditions it is released.

That is not what freedom of information is meant to be. Freedom of information is

supposed to be a right. Not a privilege, not conditional and certainly not dependent

on whether the request is convenient or comfortable for the government. It’s supposed

to be a guarantee that the people of this province have the ability to understand

what it is that their government is doing and to guarantee that we, as elected officials,

are accountable to them.

There is an opportunity here to actually improve the system, to address delays, invest

in proper information management, ensure that proactive disclosure is truly proactive,

define clear standards and reinforce the principle that this information belongs to

the public. But this bill does not do that, and until those issues are addressed,

I cannot support it.

This is where I think it’s important that we take a step back and actually recognize

what access to information has already accomplished in this province. It is very easy,

in a debate like this, to talk about the system in abstract terms or to talk about

legislation and clauses and

definitions, but what often gets lost is the very real

impact that access to information has had in exposing decisions that would not otherwise

have come to light.

Over the past year alone, we have seen repeated examples of this through the work

of organizations like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who have used freedom-of-information

requests to uncover how public money is being spent in ways that British Columbians

would otherwise never have known about and certainly are not happy about.

We are talking about thousands of dollars in gift card spending for government employees

that could not properly be accounted for. We are talking about tens of thousands of

dollars in travel expenses, receptions and discretionary spending that only came to

light because someone was willing to file a request and push for answers.

We are talking about contracts and procurement decisions that raised serious questions

about transparency and fairness — again, only revealed because of access to information.

I think that matters, because none of that information was proactively disclosed.

None of that information was voluntarily brought forward.

The realities of what is happening in our hospitals. Much of what we know about the

wait-lists for surgical and diagnostic care has only been made available through freedom-of-information

requests. We only know how many people have died on those same wait-lists because

of this work. Government certainly wasn’t proactively disclosing it. It came to light

because the system, imperfect as it is, still allowed people to ask questions and

eventually get answers.

That is the role that access to information plays in a functioning democracy. It is

not there for convenience or for comfort. It is there precisely because governments

do not always choose to share information on their own. In the case of this NDP government,

I would go so far as to say it often does not.

It exists so that the public does not have to rely on what government is willing to

disclose but, instead, has the ability to seek out that information themselves.

[3:45 p.m.]

That is why this matters so much, because when you make it harder to file those requests,

when you introduce even more fees, when you expand the ability to dismiss them, when

you normalize delay, you are not just changing a process. You are limiting the ability

of that kind of work to happen.

You are limiting the ability of journalists to do their jobs. You are limiting the

ability of organizations to hold government accountable. You are limiting the ability

of the opposition to do the work that they were elected to do. Ultimately, you are

limiting the ability of British Columbians to understand how their own money is being

spent.

That is what this comes down to. This is taxpayer money. This is public money, and

British Columbians have a right to know how it is being used. They have a right to

know when money is being spent in ways that do not align with their expectations.

They have a right to know when decisions are being made that affect their communities.

They have a right to know without having to jump through more and more barriers just

to access that information.

Government would be very wise to not lose sight of that, because, from where I am

standing, it appears that they may have already.

When we look at Bill 9 through that lens, it becomes very clear why there is so much

concern, because the tools that have allowed that information to come to light, imperfect

as they may be, are the very tools that this bill makes weaker. That is not something

that we should be comfortable with.

We are already seeing the real-world consequences of this approach to transparency.

This is not happening in a vacuum. It is happening at the same time that this government

has made the decision to pause proactive disclosures, disclosures that British Columbians

rely on to understand how their money is being spent. That includes things like ministerial

briefing notes, purchase card records, travel expenses and government contracts that

are awarded without a competitive process.

These are not minor documents or administrative details. These are exactly the kind

of records that allow the public to see how decisions are being made, how money is

being spent and whether government is acting responsibly. Right now those disclosures

have simply been paused, with no clear timeline for when they will return.

This really does speak to a broader issue that we see throughout this government and

the way that they have approached things, specifically over the last year and a half,

because this government is also eliminating an independent Office of the Merit Commissioner.

The Merit Commissioner’s role is to be an independent office that reviews whether

merit is applied in hiring within the public service.

In his last report, the commissioner found that 10 percent of hires were merit-not-applied

hires, the highest rate since 2017. This should concern this government. But rather

than address these concerns, the government thinks that it is simpler to just eliminate

the independent oversight. This is relevant because it speaks to a broader issue that

we see with this government, an apparent allergy to accountability.

At the exact same time that access to information is being restricted through legislation,

the proactive disclosure of information is also being reduced, and the independent

oversight is being removed. That is not a coincidence. That is a pattern, one where

fewer questions are answered and fewer decisions can be scrutinized. That does not

strengthen accountability; it weakens it.

I think this is where the concern that many people have raised, that this is an assault

on transparency, really starts to resonate. When you take all of these pieces together,

it is not just one change. It is certainly not just one bill. It is a series of decisions

that all move in the same direction: more barriers to access; more discretion to deny;

more ability to delay; and less obligation to provide clear, timely answers. That

is not modernization; it is a step backwards.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is a very simple question. If government is confident

in its decisions, if it is confident in how it is spending taxpayer money, if it is

confident in the policies it is putting forward, then why is there a need to limit

access to information about those decisions in the first place?

Transparency should not be something that government fears. It should be something

that it embraces. But what we are seeing here is the opposite. That is why this bill

is so deeply concerning, because this government does fear transparency. Transparency

is not about what government chooses to share; it is about what the public has a right

to know.

Scott McInnis : It’s a real pleasure here today to speak in very staunch opposition to Bill 9. It’s

nice to say welcome to all the guests in the gallery today and, I’m sure, the tens

of thousands of people at home watching on TV.

[3:50 p.m.]

Very simple here. I have a lot of things I want to cover here today. I want to have

some fun with this, because I certainly don’t think…. I’m sure everybody in the gallery

and everybody at home would agree with me that it is a public government’s responsibility

to walk towards transparency and accountability when it comes to freedom of information,

not away from it. That is exactly what we’re seeing with these amendments in Bill

I appreciate the Minister of Citizens’ Services for bringing the bill forward in the

two-minute introduction speech. If the vote was based on those words, we would probably

all vote unanimously in favour of this bill.

But after peeling back the layers, it is very obvious that this government, which

has a pattern and a reputation of not being overly transparent, to say the very least….

Not from the official opposition, this is in the public. This further adds to that,

and it is extremely concerning.

I want to thank my friend the member for Saanich North and the Islands for his very

eloquently put speech a number of weeks ago on this. As far as I recall, he was involved

in the original drafting of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

several decades ago. I agreed with just about everything he said.

This is outrageous, what we’re seeing here with Bill 9. The public deserves to have

timely access to information. To put up barriers to make it slower and less efficient

is an abdication of responsibility on a public government. I can’t believe that we

are seeing this bill come forward.

At a time when the FOI system is already in somewhat of a crisis…. I’ll get to the

details here in a moment. I’ve got lots of great examples to share on the record.

The government response times are now the worst in 13 years. If I send in a request

for a freedom-of-information response, we are in the slowest response time in over

a decade.

There’s nothing in here that even attempts to speed that process up. In fact, it’s

going to dramatically slow it down. The OIPC found the province takes an average of

85 business days to respond to a freedom-of-information request, the longest delay

on record. And 5,100 requests in recent years were delayed without any type of legal

authority, forcing applicants to wait an extra 192 business days on average.

I don’t understand why we’re trying to make this system more delayed and more complicated.

I certainly, when I get to sit in government, would welcome the opportunity to have

the public understand how we are spending their money, as quickly as possibl