Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 174

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Members’ Statements

Child Care Month and Salmon Stone Childcare Centre

George Chow

Xing Wu Zen Temple Society

Steve Kooner

Naturopathic Doctors

Sunita Dhir

Nursing Week and Contributions of Nurses

Reann Gasper

Emergency Preparedness Week

Darlene Rotchford

Experience as Stroke Survivor and Heart and Stroke Awareness

Pete Davis

Oral Questions

Mining Project Court Case and Involvement of U.S. Indigenous Group

Scott McInnis

Hon. Niki Sharma

Work of B.C. Law Firm for U.S. Indigenous Group in Mining Project Court Case

Scott McInnis

Hon. Niki Sharma

Government Handling of DRIPA and Concerns of Business Owners

Claire Rattée

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Health Impacts of LNG Projects and Methane Gas Flaring

Rob Botterell

Hon. Adrian Dix

Impacts of Provincial Sales Tax Expansion

Peter Milobar

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Macklin McCall

Gavin Dew

Hon. Jagrup Brar

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Brenda Bailey

Burnaby Hospital Expansion Project and Cancer Care Centre

Misty Van Popta

Hon. Bowinn Ma

Ronald McDonald House Expansion Project Near B.C. Children’s Hospital

Brennan Day

Hon. Josie Osborne

Reports from Committees

Public Accounts Committee ,

summary of activities, 2025-26

Peter Milobar

Stephanie Higginson

Children and Youth Committee , annual report, 2025-26

Rohini Arora

Kristina Loewen

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 16 — Recommittal of Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Gavin Dew

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

Rob Botterell

Claire Rattée

Heather Maahs

Teresa Wat

Peter Milobar

Lynne Block

Jordan Kealy

Linda Hepner

Hon Chan

Ward Stamer

Motions Without Notice

Recess and Sitting Hours

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

Scott McInnis

Steve Kooner

Misty Van Popta

Jeremy Valeriote

Larry Neufeld

Gavin Dew

Pete Davis

Kiel Giddens

David Williams

Brent Chapman

Lawrence Mok

Tony Luck

Reann Gasper

Amelia Boultbee

Ian Paton

Lorne Doerkson

Elenore Sturko

Kristina Loewen

Standing Order 81.1(2)

Adoption of Government Business

Schedule

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued)

Macklin McCall

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Transit

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Harman Bhangu

Jeremy Valeriote

Bruce Banman

Rosalyn Bird

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship (continued)

Hon. Randene Neill

Donegal Wilson

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Gavin Dew

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Jessie Sunner.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Bruce Banman : Sometimes as we march these hallways, we get to meet some very interesting people.

I would like to draw attention up in the gallery. We have some students from Western

Washington University. They’re poli-sci students.

I know they’re heartbroken that I won’t ask a question today, but I promised them

our very best when it comes to heckling so that they get a good chance to experience

a true question period.

Will this House please make them very, very welcome — our guests from Washington state.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : As many people who live in rural communities, I hear often that they say: “It’s not

very often that I have a constituent visiting here.” I’m very lucky because I also

have my constituency adviser, who just started about a month ago — Alison Uppal from

Prince Rupert. She is joining us today in the gallery.

Would everyone please make her feel welcome.

Hon. Kelly Greene : The Legislature’s favourite guest is here for their biannual visit. You may remember

that it is Emergency Preparedness Week, and I’m here to introduce our emergency alert

systems test. These alerts are one of the ways that we keep people safe. In an emergency,

you would receive information and instructions on how to keep you and your family

safe.

Today at 1:55 p.m., people across the province will receive an alert on their mobile

device, radio or cable television. Check your device settings. If your phone is on

do not disturb, you may not receive the alert.

Dana Lajeunesse : Today in the House, I have my two constituency advisers — Aakriti Rai, who looks

after the Sooke office, and Sarah Dinsdale, who is present every day in the Cobble

Hill office. Thank you for being here.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I, too, am delighted to get to introduce and welcome one of the members of my constituency

office team. Tony Jiang is here. I told him I would embarrass him.

I apologize now for doing so.

As we all know, our constituency staff work incredibly hard. Tony works incredibly

hard serving the neighbours in Vancouver–Little Mountain.

I also want to introduce and welcome Emmanuel Cantiller, who works in the constituency

office of my colleague in Yaletown but is a resident of Vancouver–Little Mountain,

so I am delighted also.

Will the House join me in making both of them feel welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : I rise to introduce and welcome two well-known leaders in the Surrey community, Mr.

Gaurav Bhutani and Mrs. Pooja Bhutani, who are the CEO and vice-president and creative

director of ICONS Magazine , a new platform that seeks to highlight community members who are making a positive

impact in our community.

[1:40 p.m.]

Gaurav and Pooja have toured the Legislature and enjoyed lunch at the dining room

today and are also celebrating Gaurav’s birthday, which was yesterday.

I ask the House members to please make them feel welcome and also wish Mr. Bhutani

a very happy birthday.

I have one more introduction to make. I also would like to welcome and introduce members

of the Kerala Cultural Association of British Columbia. They are joining us in the

gallery today for question period. This organization has been serving the Indian and

Malayalee community since 1989 through creating a space where Kerala tradition and

culture can be celebrated across our communities.

I am pleased to introduce my friend President Matthew John and board members Rajeev

Rajan, Prince Vengal Thomas, Jack John, Riyaz Kunju Mohammed and James.

I will ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Jody Toor : I have two introductions today. A school group from my riding of Langley-Willowbrook

— the school’s name is Belmont Elementary — is visiting with their grade 5 students.

There are 26 grade 5ers and six adults visiting with their teacher, Mr. Ronald.

Can the House please make them feel welcome.

My second introduction. The World Sikh Organization of Canada is in the chamber today.

The organization serves as a vital platform for advocating for our rights, promoting

equality, ensuring that our voices are heard.

Can the House please make them feel welcome today.

Mable Elmore : Today in the House, we have joining us the legislative tour guides and Parliamentary

Players, who tour and act at the building. Every spring there is a new cohort of folks,

all students currently in post-secondary education programs, to join the permanent

tour team and work on the grounds and in the buildings, welcoming hundreds of thousands

of visitors.

Will the House please help me welcome Taylor Bowden, Eakam Dhillon, Martin Moreno

Anderson, Niloofar Riazibeydokhti, Rowan Rallison, Cassidy Lemay, Lawrence Barss,

Lawson Farman, Louisa Whitmore, Grace Wiebe, Naomi Duska, Makayla Madill, Mariah Madill,

Marlee Young, Scott McCollom, Evan Utzinger and Jessie Hutchinson.

Let’s give them a warm welcome.

Hon. David Eby : Looking up in the gallery, I see two of my hard-working CAs. I see Sahithi and Iman.

Together with Sofia, they are the trio that keeps the office running. They are the

front line for all of the important feedback from constituents near and far.

I want to thank them for the hard work they do in Vancouver–Point Grey every single

day. Nice to see you.

Gavin Dew : Today I’m pleased to introduce two different delegations from Victoria.

Firstly, I’d like to welcome the good folks from the Greater Victoria Chamber. Unfortunately,

I wasn’t able to meet with them earlier. I was the only one from my caucus who wasn’t,

I think.

It’s good to see you guys: Corrie, Julia, Zahra, Zoë, Nicki, Maddy, Ashley, Nicole,

Hanna and Cheryl. I hope I haven’t missed anyone. Thank you so much for being here

today. Welcome.

Speaking of Victoria, I’d also like to welcome a young man named Sebastian Horabin,

who I gather might just be running for Victoria school trustee. I’m always a fan of

young people stepping up to lead in politics, so it’s great to see young people like

Sebastian getting engaged.

I understand he’s a Red Seal electrician. He’s passionate about education, trades

pathways, apprenticeships — issues that are areas of passion to many members of this

House.

Once again, I commend you for stepping up. Thank you.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I’m pleased to introduce some friends who are joining us today in the gallery from

the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They just hosted many of us for lunch and to have

a discussion about women’s heart and brain health. We learned that heart disease and

stroke are the leading cause of premature death in women and that historically, two-thirds

of clinical research has focused on men.

[1:45 p.m.]

We also learned of the Heart and Stroke’s new screening tool that targets key risks

that are unique to women and the foundation’s investment of $20 million over five

years to fund research that’s focused on women’s heart and brain health.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Robyn Jones-Murrell, Mary Stambulic and

Rebecca Ponting from the Heart and Stroke Foundation along with Dr. Jennifer Yao from

UBC. And an extra-warm welcome for Lilli Law, who shared with us so openly about the

journey that she has been on.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I, too, have a constituency assistant who’s in the House today, Kathleen Serrano,

who has been taking great care of the people in Vancouver–South Granville for a couple

of years now. She’s a true political nerd, has previously worked in Ottawa as an intern.

We’re very lucky to be served by her.

Would the House please join me in making her most welcome.

Steve Morissette : I rise to recognize my two constituency advisers, Angelika Brunner, who has taken

a pass on joining us in question period, and Sarah Brownlee up in the gallery. The

two of them do their best with the challenging job of making me look good in the constituency.

I appreciate the work they do.

Thank you so much.

Jody Toor : Sorry, I was just advised from my colleague across the chamber that my school group

has entered the building now. A school group from my riding of Langley-Willowbrook,

Belmont Elementary, is visiting with their grade 5 students and their teacher, Mr.

Ronald.

Can the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I’d also like to welcome a contingency of the World Sikh Organization of Canada that’s

here today. We have Danish Singh Brar, the national president; Gurpreet Kaur Rai,

the B.C. regional president; Sandeep Singh Toor, the B.C. regional vice president;

and Guntaas Kaur Cheema, the national director of international affairs. They’re also

accompanied by a large contingency of their B.C. regional members.

The WSO is a leading national Sikh advocacy organization that’s dedicated to promoting

and protecting the interests of Sikhs in Canada and around the world, while championing

human rights, equity, inclusion and protection of fundamental freedoms. They play

a vital role in upholding civil liberties and are at the forefront of advocacy efforts,

including in challenging Quebec’s Bill 21.

They do a number of initiatives here as well. I appreciate their advocacy. I know

they’re meeting with members from both sides of the House today, and I look forward

to meeting with them later today.

If the House will please join me in welcoming them.

Amna Shah : Somewhere up in the gallery are two incredible young men who work in my constituency

office. We are joined by Ayush Saini and Mostafa Ramadan.

I have so many good things to say about these two young men. They exhibit exceptional

compassion and care for my constituents and exceptional care and compassion with all

of my technological needs. Helping me open an email is apparently a lot more difficult

than you may think.

I do want to congratulate Ayush on his recent post-secondary graduation. I hope that

their experience here in their Legislature for the first time is going to inspire

them and that the members in here will show them what good democracy looks like.

Jennifer Blatherwick : I am very pleased to introduce the House to my longtime constituency adviser, Iti

Kalsi.

I think everyone here can empathize. I make Iti do two events every month out in the

community, and with her expertise and guidance and warmth, she makes each of those

events a delight.

If the House could please welcome her.

I am also pleased to welcome my newest constituency assistant, Negar Shaban.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I also want to introduce my dependable and creative team: Zachary Gustavson, Max

Thomson and Juliana Cotacio.

[1:50 p.m.]

They provide the most thoughtful, compassionate casework and advocate for the constituents

of the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head day after day. I couldn’t do this work without

them, and I know that the constituents thank them greatly for the work they’re doing

connecting people and ensuring people get the important services they need.

Will the House give them a warm welcome.

Rohini Arora : This morning we met with the Canadian men’s mental health foundation. It was such

a productive discussion and really amazing to see these big, jacked, ripped guys talking

about toxic masculinity and the way that the patriarchy harms us all.

I met with Kenton Boston, the president; Sachin Latti, who is a staunch mental health

advocate and podcaster — he has run across the country, raising $216,000 for men’s

mental health; and Trevor Botkin, who is a union brother. He’s a carpenter, Red Seal,

and a mental health podcaster as well.

Please join me in welcoming them.

The Speaker : I understand my CA, Gurvinder Hanjra, is also somewhere in the gallery. Is she’s

standing up? She’s the best.

Members’ Statements

Child Care Month and

Salmon Stone Childcare Centre

George Chow : May is Child Care Month and is a time to celebrate the important role child care

plays in the lives of children and the families in our communities and in our economy.

Last November Salmon Stone Childcare Centre, in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview,

welcomed children and families to this brand-new child care facility. Operated by

South Vancouver Neighbourhood House, this child care centre provides 49 new spaces

for infants to five-year-olds. This facility will also offer a family drop-in program,

which is a play-based learning opportunity for children.

The Salmon Stone Childcare Centre was jointly funded by our government and the city

of Vancouver. Our provincial government contributed $6.2 million to this project,

a very significant investment to bring necessary child care services to residents.

Located in the growing River District neighbourhood in southeast Vancouver, Salmon

Stone Childcare is literally a stone’s throw away from the Fraser River and will be

one of the only active child care facilities in the community, providing much-needed

access to affordable child care in the area.

The name Salmon Stone came from Geraldine Lalonde, a member of the Indigenous council

of the Neighbourhood House. Salmon Stone signifies life, rebirth and represents determination,

strength, protection and courage.

The child care centre will be hosting its grand opening next Saturday, May 16, during

Child Care Month.

I welcome you all to join South Vancouver Neighbourhood House, the city of Vancouver

and the residents of Vancouver-Fraserview in celebration of this opening.

Xing Wu Zen Temple Society

Steve Kooner : I rise today to recognize the outstanding contributions of Master Shi Xing Wu and

his Xing Wu Zen Temple Society in Richmond-Queensborough.

On May 2, I had the privilege of attending the society’s fourth annual multicultural

art and expo festival, held in celebration of the International Bathing Buddha Festival

and B.C. Buddhist Culture Day. This event was a powerful reflection of the society’s

commitment to building community through culture, tradition and shared experiences.

Under the leadership of Master Shi Xing Wu, the Xing Wu Zen Temple Society has become

a respected and welcoming presence in our community. Through martial arts, meditation,

Buddhist teachings and charitable initiatives, the society continues to create opportunities

for people of all ages and backgrounds to come together, learn and grow. Their events

are welcoming and community-focused, and they bring people together in the spirit

of respect, understanding and connection.

At a time when strong communities matter more than ever, this kind of leadership and

dedication makes a real difference.

[1:55 p.m.]

One significant recent example of where Xing Wu Zen Temple Society made a real difference

was when they held a stage play and charity dinner. There were donation proceeds as

a result of those events last year. The society actually donated a portion of those

proceeds to the Richmond Hospital Foundation. That’s an example of their significant

contributions within the riding of Richmond-Queensborough.

Master Shi Xing Wu society’s community efforts go beyond organizing events. They help

foster a sense of belonging and ensure positive values and strengthen the social fabric

of Richmond-Queensborough.

I want to sincerely commend Master Shi Xing Wu and all members of the Xing Wu Zen

Temple Society for their ongoing contributions and their commitment to serving our

community of Richmond-Queensborough.

Naturopathic Doctors

Sunita Dhir : I rise today to recognize May 6 as Naturopaths Day in British Columbia, as officially

proclaimed by the province, and to acknowledge the important role naturopathic doctors

play in supporting the health and well-being of people across our province.

Naturopathic doctors are highly trained, regulated health professionals who complete

extensive post-secondary education and clinical training before entering practice.

Many British Columbians rely on them for ongoing patient-centred care, including prevention,

chronic disease management and support for complex health needs. Their work reflects

key priorities of our health care system — helping people stay well, supporting continuity

of care and complementing the broader network of providers delivering care across

the province.

In rural and remote communities, naturopathic doctors are pivotal in providing increased

access to care for patients. British Columbia has been at the forefront of regulating

naturopathic doctors in Canada, reflecting a long-standing commitment to ensuring

safe, qualified and accountable care for patients.

Today is an opportunity to recognize the contributions of naturopathic doctors and

the important role they play in supporting healthier communities across British Columbia.

I would also like to congratulate the association of British Columbia Naturopathic

Doctors on their leadership and ongoing commitment to patient care and community well-being.

Nursing Week

and Contributions of Nurses

Reann Gasper : Today I want to recognize National Nursing Week, coming up next week. I want to honour

the incredible nurses serving communities across British Columbia. Nurses are there

for people during some of the most important and vulnerable moments in life. They

are there in moments of fear, relief, heartbreak, healing and hope.

As a mother of three, I know how much those moments matter. Many of us can remember

a nurse who brought comfort during a difficult time, who stayed calm in the middle

of uncertainty or who simply showed kindness when it was needed most.

Nursing is not just a career. It is a calling rooted in compassion, patience, skill

and service. Today nurses work under pressures that did not exist a generation ago.

Patient volumes are higher. Cases are more complex. Workplaces are more demanding

and, at times, more dangerous. Yet despite these realities, nurses continue to show

up. Day after day, shift after shift, they persevere not because it’s easy but because

it matters.

This week is an opportunity for all of us to pause and recognize the sacrifices nurses

make every single day — the long hours, the emotional weight they carry and the dedication

they bring to caring for others. Whether they work in hospitals, long-term care, community

health, school clinics or emergency care, nurses are truly the backbone of our health

care system.

To every nurse across British Columbia, including those serving in communities like

Mission Memorial Hospital, Abbotsford Regional Hospital and throughout Fraser Valley:

thank you. Thank you for your compassion. Thank you for the countless ways you care

for people every single day. We see you. This province thanks you, and this country

is better because of you.

Happy National Nursing Week.

[2:00 p.m.]

Emergency Preparedness Week

Darlene Rotchford : As the weather grows warmer and more British Columbians spend time exploring the

natural beauty our province has to offer, it’s an important time to recognize Emergency

Preparedness Week right here in B.C.

This year’s theme is “In it together.” It highlights a simple but powerful truth:

emergency preparedness is a shared responsibility. When neighbours know one another,

when communities stay connected and when we look out for one another when we need

additional support, we strengthen our collective ability to respond effectively in

times of crisis.

Preparedness also begins here at home, understanding the risks in our communities,

developing an emergency plan and ensuring our households have both an emergency kit

and a grab-and-go bag, which are essential steps. These practical measures help families

remain calm, organized and resilient when the unexpected occurs.

Sharing knowledge with others further strengthens the readiness of our communities

— and, more importantly, making sure we’re all familiar with resources such as PreparedBC

so we can offer valuable guidance for those to get started.

It is also strengthening emergency services, from wildfires to floods and severe weather

events. In those moments, some of our Canadian Armed Forces and our reservists, who

also happen to be our public servants in some cases, play a very critical role in

supporting operations. Whether it’s assisting with evacuations here in B.C. if needed,

delivering essential supplies or helping communities recover, the Canadian Armed Forces

are a trusted, capable partner in emergency responsiveness right across our province.

I’m particularly proud that in my community of Esquimalt-Colwood, we have the regional

joint operations centre, located right in my backyard, serving as a hub for coordinating

military support to domestic operations in British Columbia. The work carried out

there ensures that assistance can be deployed quickly and effectively when it is needed

most, reinforcing that strong partnership between our communities and those who serve.

Emergency preparedness is an opportunity for us all to reflect on our readiness and

take meaningful steps to be better prepared. By working together, staying informed

and supporting one another, we will build a safer, more resilient community right

here across our province.

Experience as Stroke Survivor

and Heart and Stroke Awareness

Pete Davis : It’s an honour to speak in this House today. Not long ago I didn’t know if I would

ever have this privilege again.

Today is day 130 since the stroke that almost took my life. In a matter of minutes,

everything changed. The stroke took my ability to walk. It took my use of my right

hand and my right arm and blurred my vision for almost five months. One moment, life

felt normal. The next, it was completely turned upside down.

You hear the words “stroke” and “heart attack” all the time, but most people don’t

truly hear it until it has happened to them or someone they love. And when it happens,

it happens fast. In stroke care, they say: “Time is brain.”

I’m here today because of the incredible people who acted quickly — the health care

professionals who knew what to do and did not hesitate and the team at STARS air ambulance

who got me to a stroke hospital within 80 minutes. They didn’t just transport me.

They gave me a fighting chance. To all of them, I owe my life, and I will never forget

it.

The reality is this. Organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

remind us that heart disease and stroke take a life every five minutes in Canada.

Here in British Columbia, around 2,300 people die each year from stroke alone. These

are parents, children, friends and neighbours, and it’s happening younger and younger

nowadays.

Stroke and heart disease do not discriminate. That’s why awareness matters. We need

young people to understand the risks and take their health seriously now, not later,

because later may be too late.

Since my stroke, I’ve had the opportunity to connect with the Heart and Stroke Foundation,

and I am proud to stand with them as an advocate. In my riding, I’m working to create

a support group so that people going through recovery don’t feel alone. Because I

can tell you this: recovery is hard, it’s humbling, and it changes you.

I am not the same person I was in December, but I’m here, and for that I’m very, very

thankful. I’m Pete Davis, and I’m a proud stroke survivor.

[Applause.]

The Speaker : Members, we’re going to have a couple of minutes of recess to allow the members to

remove their T-shirts, and then we’ll continue with the question period.

The House recessed from 2:05 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : Calling the House back to order.

Oral Questions

Mining Project Court Case and

Involvement of U.S. Indigenous Group

Scott McInnis : We need to get some serious answers this afternoon, because there’s something fishy

going on here. The sn̓ʕaýckstx case has potential to enable Americans to have serious influence in B.C. affairs,

beyond what the constitution requires.

To the Attorney General: were you aware two weeks ago, when you famously tapped the

Premier on the shoulder, that the WHY Resources case was scheduled to be heard in

the B.C. Supreme Court on May 5, yesterday?

The Speaker : Member, the question is before the courts already.

Attorney General, do you wish to answer?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll just go.

We’ve talked about this line of questioning before. We’ve talked about our decision

and the work that we’re doing to address the Gitxaała decision and that we’re hard

at work doing that. I’m not going to speak about a matter that is before the courts,

and that’s been something that I’ve said over and over again in this House.

But I will say that the obligations that we may or may not have to U.S. tribes are

something that is a matter before the court and was a matter before the court in 2010,

when the first decision came forward related to that, when we were not in government.

We did bring a fix forward in this House to make sure that our EA process can distinguish

between U.S. tribes and the First Nations of this province, who we stand behind, and

they did not support that legislation. So I’m really confused with the continual line

of questioning — that they’re unable to support a legislative fix to the problem,

but they keep asking questions about it.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Work of B.C. Law Firm for

U.S. Indigenous Group in

Mining Project Court Case

Scott McInnis : I keep asking questions because I’m not getting an answer. I didn’t ask any details

about the court case. I asked if the Attorney General knew that it was happening.

Yesterday a case involving the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy attempting to block a magnesium mine in the West Kootenay was in the

B.C. Supreme Court. On reviewing the court documents, I note that former Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Murray Rankin’s firm is acting for the

American tribe, the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy, in at least three cases against the government.

According to public accounts, this firm has been paid millions by this government

over the past several years. Is this firm still acting for government while representing

American tribes? If so, is the Premier concerned about this?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Of course, we don’t make a choice of who is legal counsel selected by different parties

in the province. That’s their choice, and we have a free and independent court system,

along with lawyers that are free to associate with whoever they want.

If there are any issues of conflict of interest, the proper step that I would suggest

should be taken is to go to the Law Society.

The Speaker : Member has a second supplemental?

Scott McInnis : I’d like to know: was it necessary for government to give its consent for that firm

to act for this American tribe, and if so, did the government, in fact, consent?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Never have I been asked such a question, of whether or not I consent to opposing

counsel acting for opposing parties. That’s not something that happens in our legal

system.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : That’s not how it’s set up in our adversarial system, where we have our own representation

and represent in the court, so I guess my answer is no.

[2:10 p.m.]

Government Handling of DRIPA

and Concerns of Business Owners

Claire Rattée : The B.C. Business Council released a survey today, and the responses speak for themselves.

Nearly 75 percent of B.C. businesses plan to decrease investment due to uncertainty

over DRIPA.

The president of BCBC said: “The message from business leaders is clear. DRIPA isn’t

working.” B.C. businesses are pulling their money out of the province.

Will the Minister of Jobs stand up for 75 percent of B.C. businesses today and address

this, or will he continue to downplay their concerns?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I would like to thank the member for the question and also note that B.C. outperformed

what the B.C. Business Council projected was going to be the GDP growth for British

Columbia last year. In fact, the headlines read, “B.C. led the country in economic

growth,” and we’re projecting that again for this next year.

The member highlighted the question around investments in British Columbia. Four new

mines have been invested in. We have $8 billion of investment that has just come from

January to now. Within the last few weeks, we’ve seen billions of dollars of investment

in British Columbia, and we’re expecting billions of dollars of more investment coming

to British Columbia in the weeks ahead.

We’ll continue to work with the B.C. Business Council. I know they’re advocating for

certain measures, and that’s great. They should do that. But let’s not get the stats

mixed up. The stats are clear. We are continuing to lead the country, and we will

do that into the years ahead.

Claire Rattée : Well, that’s interesting, because what the minister failed to mention is that much

of that investment is tied up in court right now because this government has failed

to act. And I don’t think downplaying the concerns of B.C. businesses is very becoming

of a Minister of Jobs.

The B.C. Business Council also found that 98 percent of its members are very concerned

about DRIPA. The other 2 percent said that they are somewhat concerned. That’s 100

percent of B.C. businesses that are concerned about the effects of DRIPA in some capacity

— every single one. And to note, that includes Indigenous-owned businesses. That’s

not fearmongering. It’s fact.

When will this government listen to B.C. businesses, secure investment certainty and

repeal DRIPA?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think my friend is being economical with the truth. What the stats clearly show

here in British Columbia is that we have been leaders in the country since 2017. Since

2017, the strongest GDP growth in the entire country….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We talk about small businesses — the fastest retail sale growth in British Columbia,

the strongest wage increases since 2017. We outperformed the B.C. Business Council’s

own projections. Just think about that for a second. They made a projection of what

they thought we were going to do. We outperformed that last year. We’re going to outperform

this year’s projections as well.

And $8 billion of investments have come to British Columbia over the last few months.

Guess what. We’re going to see billions more dollars in investments.

Not only that, this budget that they voted against sees significant investments in

making sure that young people have the skills and the training that they need to take

those employment opportunities. That should be celebrated in this House.

Any other province would see these results and metrics and they would celebrate it.

But only the Conservatives…. They look for bad headlines. They look for bad news,

because they can’t celebrate. They can’t be….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh. Members. Members will come to order now.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : They can’t be happy.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : They have opposed everything. The North Coast transmission line — opposed to it.

Budget that doubles skills training — opposed to it. They oppose everything. They

are now the new party of no. We’re going to continue to make investments that grow

this economy.

Health Impacts of LNG Projects

and Methane Gas Flaring

Rob Botterell : The Premier has been firm in his stance that there is no chance a pipeline will be

built to the north coast. The B.C. Greens, oddly enough, agree. Meanwhile, this government

appears willing to leave communities exposed to the potential health risks of fossil

fuels and fast-tracked projects — places like Kitimat, where asthma rates have risen

by more than 70 percent.

[2:15 p.m.]

The reality is we still don’t have a full picture of LNG’s impacts. The health impacts

have never been studied. Councils in Terrace, Squamish, Dawson Creek and Hazelton

are all calling for proper health assessments.

Will the Premier explain to these communities why their health concerns are being

ignored?

Hon. Adrian Dix : The member knows they’re not being ignored. There’s significant…. All LNG facilities

— indeed, all such facilities in B.C. — are subject to strict regulation. All of them

have been through environmental assessment processes led by the outstanding staff

at the environmental assessment office. All of those processes include substantial

study and review of the impact of projects, whatever they may be, on human health.

There is an absolute and continuing obligation on the part of regulators to ensure

that the conditions on projects are followed. When there are issues, action is taken,

as has happened recently by the B.C. Energy Regulator with respect to the issue of

black smoke. And we’re going to continue to see those actions taken.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell : I’m glad this government wants to be precise with their language. So perhaps B.C.’s

Minister of Climate Solutions would like to correct the record when he said B.C. has

the lowest-emission LNG in the world, strongest provincial oversight.

It was recently reported that LNG Canada flared, or burned off, 350 million cubic

metres of gas in 2025, more than anywhere in the world. This would be enough natural

gas to meet the annual heating needs of approximately 130,000 homes in Canada. Just

like the U.S.A., this government will say that there’s no need to study the noise

and chemical emission health impacts on British Columbians like you and I.

So will the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions explain what reality British

Columbians should live in — the world of what he says or the reality of what’s actually

happening and is not being studied?

Hon. Adrian Dix : It’s simply not the case. The B.C. Energy Regulator and other provincial regulators

take action on these questions.

For example, in the case of LNG Canada, provincial air quality data in the area and

additional data from measurement requirements put in place by the BCER — and are requirements,

indeed, of LNG Canada — continue, in the present moment, to be in normal range.

That said, as of December 26, 2025, LNG Canada completed commissioning and start-up

activities and entered the operational phase of phase 1. Flaring is expected during

operation, with volumes depending on the operation of train 1 and train 2. It is common

for LNG facilities to experience changes in flaring volumes, and that has occurred.

A condition in their permit states that flaring must not result in the emission of

black smoke. Black smoke during flaring indicates incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon

gases. Action has been taken by the BCER on this question in order to ensure full

information to the people who live in the community, the people of B.C. This is the

regulatory action that is required.

It seems to me that if we believe in environmental assessment — we believe in that

work, we believe that conditions applied should be followed — then when officials

act on those, that process should be respected.

Impacts of Provincial Sales Tax Expansion

Peter Milobar : Well, before the Green interlude, the minister was getting quite the round of applause

from the Mutual Admiration Society across the way, so I’ll give them another chance

for an applause line about their economic track record.

Fastest deficit growth.

Interjections.

Peter Milobar : Keep it up.

Fastest deficit growth. Fastest debt growth. Five credit downgrades in a row.

Come on, let’s hear ya. Come on.

In just five years, this government has hiked tax revenues by 50 percent, yet they’ve

never been further from a balanced budget.

It’s sure quiet again over there.

This government is so unbalanced that they’ve decided to hike taxes on B.C.’s smallest

businesses at a time when it’s harder than ever for those businesses to stay alive.

This government just ignores those concerns.

To the Minister of Finance: why is this minister’s fiscal mismanagement being placed

on the shoulders of B.C.’s smallest entrepreneurs?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s great to see my friend who’s running for the leadership come up and speak today.

In fact, I think he spoke more today than he spoke at the last leadership debate that

he was in.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, let’s focus on the subject matter, please.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : For sure, hon. Speaker. I appreciate that.

We continue.…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Minister will continue.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We continue to support small business. We have lowered the small business tax for

small businesses, 25 percent lower than when these members — they used to be the B.C.

Liberal Party; now they’re B.C. Conservatives — sat on this side of the House. They

claim they’re not B.C. Liberals, but when their new leader comes in, they’ll be reminded

really fast about the history that they have on this side of the House.

Not only have we lowered small business tax, but we continue to see strong economic

growth here in the province. We heard from small businesses that they wanted expansion

of the chronic property offending program, which was a direct response to them, part

of the budget, $16 million. We heard from them that they wanted more skilled people

to be able to take employment opportunities. We provided that as well. This is why

we continue to lead the country in economic growth.

I’ve got a lot more to say. I hope they use the rest of the question period for more

questions.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Peter Milobar : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, from the party that doesn’t know what a leadership race actually

is.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Peter Milobar : It’s interesting. I’m trying to move two chairs, and so are two people two chairs

away from the Premier currently. So it’s an interesting seating diagram in this House

right now.

The Speaker : Let’s focus on the subject matter, please.

Peter Milobar : Small business owners like Caren McSherry are at their wits’ end. They’re forced

to respond to the chaos on the streets all on their own. The Gourmet Warehouse is

just one, and it has been forced to hire security. Now this government says: “You

know what? You should pay tax for that security as well.” Caren has said: “Not only

can we not protect you and your property and your businesses, but now we’re going

to tax you on what we can’t do.”

Again, to the Minister of Finance: why is this government expanding taxes to services

that this Solicitor General has completely failed to provide to the public?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’d like to remind my friends across the way that we didn’t take out our leader.

We support our leader on this side of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Members. Members, order.

Members will be quiet.

The minister will continue.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : As I mentioned to the member already, we on our side are proud of the record of lowering

small business taxes by 25 percent right when we formed government — in fact, much

lower than when they were on this side of the House. We have one of the lowest small

business taxes in the country. Not only that.…

Yes, I figured they’d be clapping to that as well.

Not only that, but we heard from small businesses. They wanted us to expand the chronic

property offending program, because they were seeing the results. They were seeing

that people that were the repeat offenders had wraparound supports put around them

so they couldn’t have the impacts that they were having.

I’ve shared in this House before that my family ran a small business a few blocks

from here. I know how stressful it is for a small business to have their window broken.

That’s why these programs are important. That’s why the supports we put in place are

so vitally important for their growth.

Macklin McCall : Well, this PST will cause business owners to pass additional costs onto their customers.

René Rossignol, with Themis Security, said: “For us, for our pricing as well, we are

going to have to take into account that bills are going up substantially, more than

a normal inflation rate.” That ripple effect will be felt by everyone.

Can the minister explain to business owners across British Columbia how expanding

the PST on essential security services is helping British Columbia?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, I’ve mentioned this to my friends, but I’ll repeat it because the question

continues to be the same one over and over again.

We heard from small businesses that they wanted a few things.

They wanted us to expand the programs that were targeting repeat offenders. We put

money in the budget to do that.

They told us that they needed more skilled people to be able to take the jobs that

they’re creating in their businesses. We doubled the training dollars in this budget,

the largest investment in skills training in the history of this province, because

we wanted to meet that moment.

We heard from our small businesses they wanted us to cut red tape. We’re doing that,

the largest reduction of intraprovincial trade barriers in the history of this province,

in the history of this country.

We’re going to continue to do the things that are needed to support our small businesses.

We’re proud of that record. We have much more to do, and we’re going to lead the country

in economic growth not only this year but in future years as well.

Gavin Dew : It’s not just storefront businesses that have been impacted by this government’s

PST expansion. Here’s a quote from the CEO of the Association for Mineral Exploration:

“Leading up to the provincial budget, there was never a single mention of a potential

expansion of PST costs that would impact service providers that are required to move

an exploration project forward.”

At a time when DRIPA has shattered confidence in the claim-staking system, did the

Minister of Mines even try to stop the Minister of Finance from blindsiding the mining

sector with her PST expansion?

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Thanks to the member for the question.

If there’s one thing the industry has been asking for, including under the B.C. Liberals,

that was certainty and stability in the business sector, particularly in the permitting

process. They had been there for 16 years. They failed to take any action. We are

taking actions every day to provide that certainty and stability to the business community

for permitting processes.

We have reduced major mine permitting process timelines by 35 percent. Also, we introduced

fixed timelines for the permitting process for the exploration sector. We are the

only province to do that, and we have $3 million attached to it to have more staff

members to make sure we implement that fixed timeline for the exploration sector.

I want to say to the member that last year the investment in the early exploration

sector was $751.9 million. That was highest in the history of this province.

Donegal Wilson : This government has a dismal record and already has the most projects with cost overruns

in B.C.’s history, yet this Finance Minister has decided to try and balance her budget

by taxing her own government. Applying PST to provincial infrastructure projects doesn’t

balance the budget, and it doesn’t make these projects any more affordable for British

Columbians.

A simple question to the minister. Did government exempt themselves from their own

PST expansion, yes or no?

Hon. Brenda Bailey : The members opposite began this line of questioning with the question of the deficit.

This side of the House is taking serious measures on reducing our deficit.

We’re reducing the size of the public service by 15,000 people. This is serious and

important work. We’ve found more than $3.5 billion in savings through our efficiency

review. We’ve made moderate changes to some of the revenue impacts.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : But it is very important to point out two things. What would the other side do in

these difficult circumstances? What would they do?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : We know that Alberta is at a $9.4 billion deficit. We know that Ontario is at $14

billion. What would the other side do?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : Well, we don’t have to go too far to find out, because the member for Fraser-Nicola

told us: “If education and health care are the biggest line items on the budget, they’re

the ones that are going to have to take the brunt of this somehow.”

Interjections.

The Speaker : Member for Abbotsford South.

Minister, hold it.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker : Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : These modest changes help us address the challenges we face, supporting health care

and supporting education. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House.

Burnaby Hospital Expansion

Project and Cancer Care Centre

Misty Van Popta : It’s interesting to hear from the Finance Minister talking about cuts when, in fact,

it was her budget that cut $3 billion of infrastructure projects from this year’s

budget, not Conservatives.

Earlier this week the Minister of Infrastructure talked about being upfront with the

residents of Burnaby. The president of the Burnaby Hospital and Community Foundation

said: “The assistant deputy minister confirmed that the final project proposal was

received in January 2026 and was within the approved $1.8 billion budget.” Yet on

Friday, the Premier told reporters it was “over budget.”

So which is it? According to the minister’s assistant deputy minister, the project

was on budget, but the Premier said it was over budget. That’s not being upfront with

the residents of Burnaby.

To the minister: who is telling the truth? Does she agree with the comments made by

her assistant deputy minister or the Premier?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : I was in that meeting with the associate deputy minister and the hospital foundation,

and that is not the correct characterization of what the associate deputy minister

said.

What we said is that the latest fully funded, properly cost-counted plan that we received

was over budget. There was an additional plan that was presented that had not been

fully costed but had the intention of bringing the total project cost down to below

$1.8 million.

However, upon review by the independent peer review board, it was also determined

that that plan was not going to be successful in doing what it was hoping to achieve.

I apologize. I’m taking a bit of time. My lungs are compressed, and I’m sick.

What we had from Fraser Health in regards to Burnaby Hospital phase 2 was either a

project budget that was well over budget or an alternative plan that included scope

reductions that we did not believe would successfully meet the service needs of the

community. That’s why we’re going to be working with Fraser Health to come up with

a renewed plan that can do both.

The Speaker : The member has a supplemental?

Misty Van Popta : It appears that the goalposts are always moving on this project. The minister said….

I’m glad that she mentioned the peer review panel. The minister said that they were

currently considering the 25 recommendations from the independent peer review panel

and working towards refreshing the plans. That review panel, in its report from January,

when speaking in regards to the alliance team that was in place, said they “will be

able to achieve a functionally effective, affordable, approvable and successfully

delivered project.”

So 65 percent of the recommendations in that report were assigned to the alliance

team, which was comprised of a panel of construction and design experts. But just

last week this minister fired that alliance team.

Will this minister…?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

The member will continue.

Misty Van Popta : You know, there’s a lot of chirping from Burnaby in regards to their hospital, but

I hear a lot of silence when they’re fighting for their hospital.

Will this minister tell us why she fired the very team charged with streamlining this

redevelopment when it was already on budget?

Hon. Bowinn Ma : I want to take a moment to thank the members of the government caucus who serve Burnaby

so diligently for their stalwart advocacy and continued support for the expansion

of Burnaby Hospital. Not a week goes by when I don’t receive their advocacy for their

community and their reminder of how important the hospital expansion project is for

people in the region.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are confident that we are going to be able to deliver a plan that is both cost-effective

for taxpayers and capable of meeting the service delivery needs of Burnaby and the

broader region. We’ll continue to do that work with Fraser Health.

Ronald McDonald House

Expansion Project Near

B.C. Children’s Hospital

Brennan Day : Very, very quiet from the five members of the NDP from Burnaby.

Today is McHappy Day, a day when Canadians step up to support families with seriously

ill children.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Brennan Day : But here in British Columbia, those same families are being asked to carry more and

more of the burden themselves.

Interjection.

Brennan Day : I’m sorry. Am I interrupting the member opposite?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Brennan Day : This government has already made significant cuts to the travel assistance program

for families of sick kids in the latest budget. Now Ronald McDonald House’s 75-suite

expansion beside B.C. Children’s Hospital is at risk because the government hasn’t

stepped up.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Brennan Day : The federal government has stepped up. Donors have stepped up.

The Speaker : Question, Member.

Brennan Day : Ronald McDonald House has stepped up.

The question to the minister is simple. Will this NDP government step up today and

help sick kids and their families, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne : We are so fortunate in this province to have partners like Ronald McDonald House,

like Variety, like Hope Air, like Angel Flight, who work with government to provide

access to the services that families need at a time when they need it most.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, let the minister answer, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne : It is a terrible thing for a family to have to experience needing to support their

sick children. That’s why this government is here for them — through assistance programs,

through partnerships with charities — to do this work.

What the member says is inaccurate. We have increased the funding for the B.C. family

residence program, for example. We have increased supports to the travel assistance

program that helps people come in from remote communities by ferry, for example, making

sure that we can do everything we can to support those people.

This government understands why it’s important. That’s why we do the work, and we’re

not going to stop.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Public Accounts Committee

Peter Milobar : I am pleased to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts for the second session of the 43rd parliament, titled

summary of activities,

’25-26.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Peter Milobar : I ask the leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Peter Milobar : In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts reviews the reports of the Office

of the Auditor General, engaging in important and productive discussions, providing

a public forum for the scrutiny of effectiveness and efficacy of government programs

and services. Through its work, the committee plays a key role in strengthening accountability

and transparency.

This report summarizes the committee’s work from February 26, 2025, to March 31, 2026,

including its examination of the performance and information reports on government’s

administration of a variety of program areas, as well as the Auditor General’s reports

on the financial audit work for the fiscal years 2024-25 as well as ’25-26.

The committee also reviewed the Office of the Auditor General’s follow-up report on

performance audit recommendations issued between 2019 and 2023 and strengthened its

follow-up process to support ongoing accountability. In reviewing this report, the

committee also had select audited organizations appear before the committee to provide

updates on implementing recommendations.

This part of the committee’s work is an important part of ongoing accountability,

and I would like to thank all the organizations for their engagement with the committee.

On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank the Auditor General, Bridget

Parrish; Nicole Wright, comptroller general; and their staff for the important work

that they do. The committee would also like to thank Sheila Dodds for her service

as acting Auditor General.

[2:40 p.m.]

On behalf of the committee, I’d like to express my appreciation to the staff in the

Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services for their support as well.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to all committee members, including

the Deputy Chair, the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside, for their hard work and dedication.

Stephanie Higginson : I’d like to thank and acknowledge all the committee members for their contributions

and engagement to the committee. I would like to also recognize the Chair, the member

for Kamloops Centre, for his work on the committee.

Over the course of the last year, the committee considered reports across a broad

range of program areas, including legal aid representation services, carbon projections

and child care licensing capacity.

The committee also reviewed the Office of the Auditor General’s annual follow-up report

on performance audit recommendations from 2019 to 2023 and received follow-up presentations

on select reports.

During our consideration of all reports and in following up with some audit organizations,

committee members engaged in constructive and valuable discussions on complex and

important issues, helping to promote public sector oversight and accountability in

B.C.

I will say that committee work, despite what we witness in question period, often

reminds us that there is more that unites us than divides us.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the Office of the Auditor General, the office

of the comptroller general and to the numerous senior public servants who took time

to appear before the committee and answer all of our questions.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff from the Parliamentary Committees Office

and Hansard Services, who helped the committee in its work.

The Speaker : The question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Children and Youth Committee

Rohini Arora : I move that the report for the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, intituled

annual report, 2025-2026, be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Rohini Arora : I seek leave to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker : Please continue.

Rohini Arora : I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief

comments.

Our annual report summarizes the committee’s work from April 1, 2025, to March 31,

2026, during which time the committee reviewed five reports from the Representative

for Children and Youth, including two annual reports and service plans.

The committee provides an important opportunity to foster greater awareness and understanding

of the province’s child welfare system. Over the past year, we have reviewed reports

on issues within this sector, including with respect to workforce challenges, supports

and services for children and youth with disabilities and the unique needs of children

and youth living with mental health challenges.

In addition to reviewing reports, the committee also followed up with the Ministry

of Children and Family Development on the status of implementing the representative’s

recommendations in two of her reports.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to recognize and thank the representative,

Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, and the staff at her office, for her dedication and ongoing

advocacy and work on behalf of the children, youth and families throughout British

Columbia.

I’d also like to acknowledge the many public servants working in the child welfare

system for the important work they do in the support of children, youth and their

families in our province.

I also want to recognize the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard

Services, who mean the world to me as someone living with a disability who requires

closed captioning. It is incredibly important to have the support of Hansard, so I

thank you — and the committee, as well, that they supported in our work.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation to all committee members for their ongoing

dedication and collaboration. I would especially like to thank the Deputy Chair, the

member for Kelowna Centre, and the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Penticton-Summerland,

who supported this committee for the last year, for their contributions and leadership

in this committee.

Kristina Loewen : I’d like to rise for a few moments to talk about this report and the work of the

committee.

[2:45 p.m.]

I had the privilege of joining this committee last fall. I very much value its important

role in raising awareness of challenges across the child-and-youth-serving system.

The presentations that we have received have been insightful, and I appreciate the

ability to seek further information from the representative. This has helped me to

continue to advocate for children and youth in British Columbia, and this is not something

that I take lightly.

Children and youth are a precious gift. At a time when social and economic pressures

rise, I feel that it’s more important than ever that we work together in the committee

in a non-partisan manner. I’m proud to do that work.

On that note, I want to thank the member for Burnaby East for her leadership and guidance

as well as the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Penticton-Summerland, and all

members of the committee for their commitment to this work.

I, too, want to extend my gratitude to Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, the Representative

for Children and Youth, and her team for their expertise and passion in this field.

On top of the reports they have provided, they presented to the committee a wealth

of information, allowing committee members to have meaningful discussions about ways

to improve services and supports to children and youth in British Columbia.

Lastly, I’d like to recognize the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and

Hansard Services for their support.

The Speaker : Members, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 16 — Recommittal of

Bill M217, Dashboard Cameras

in Commercial Vehicles Act

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 16 on the order paper.

I move Motion 16, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which

recommits Bill M217 to the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private

Members’ Bills.

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 86, the order for third reading of Bill (No. M 217)

intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act be discharged and that the bill be recommitted to the Select Standing Committee on

Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills;

That the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills reconsider

clause 1 of Bill (No. M 217) intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act for the purpose of considering amendments to that clause; and,

That the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills report

Bill (No. M 217) intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act to the House within 20 sitting days.]

I want to be very clear that as the Minister of Transportation, I support this bill

and look forward to it receiving royal assent. My recommittal motion is to fix an

error that my ministry identified once the committee reported to the House.

Specifically, this motion is to give instructions to the committee to consider two

amendments to clause 1. There are two small amendments that we hope to see. One is

to revise the proposed definition of “commercial vehicle” to mean a commercial vehicle,

as defined in the Commercial Transport Act, that has a gross vehicle weight rating

of more than 11,793 kilograms. And two, to define “gross vehicle weight rating” to

mean gross vehicle weight rating as defined in the Motor Vehicle Act.

These changes will narrow the scope of the mandatory dashboard camera requirement

to apply to the heaviest types of commercial vehicles that regularly cross borders

and for which there is the greatest need for consistency among the federal and provincial

regulatory frameworks. As the bill is written now, it would apply to taxis, Uber,

pizza delivery drivers and not the heavy commercial vehicles that the MLA who brought

in this bill has intended.

This would make the mandatory dashboard camera requirement consistent with the requirement

for these vehicles to be equipped with speed limiters. The narrow scope of the application

will ensure that the mandatory dashboard requirement does not unintentionally apply

to smaller commercial vehicles such as delivery vehicles and landscaping trucks.

“Gross vehicle weight rating” is defined in the Motor Vehicle Act to mean the value

specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. The

gross vehicle weight rating is the maximum total safe operating weight of a vehicle

as determined by the manufacturer, including the vehicle itself. That is curb weight,

passengers, fuel, accessories and cargo.

[2:50 p.m.]

The gross vehicle weight rating acts as a crucial safety standard to prevent overloading.

It is an easily discernible measure for enforcement purposes because it is found on

the driver’s side door jamb label. I bet you didn’t know that.

Finally, I know that the Chair of the committee and the vice-Chair of the committee

are following these proceedings closely, and I request that the committee work on

these very small amendments expeditiously so that this bill can receive royal assent

before we adjourn for the summer on May 28.

Gavin Dew : As the Deputy Chair of the committee, I certainly want to affirm that we appreciate

the very clear communication from the minister in the House. This is consistent with

what our expectation is around how we’re working on this, and we’re certainly thankful

for the very constructive process that has played out in committee around this bill.

That’s all I have to say.

The Speaker : Members, the question is adoption of the motion.

Motion approved.

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

and Privacy Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, we call the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and

Transit.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, Committee of Supply for the estimates of the Ministry

of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2026

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : We’re resuming the debate on the amendment to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, the amendment which was moved by the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

On the amendment (continued) .

Rob Botterell : I rise to continue speaking in support of the motion, and I’d note that I will be

the designated speaker for the Green caucus.

I support the motion because it will allow six months for further consultation with

all those impacted by the provisions of Bill 9. It allows additional time to consider

the recommendations from the 2022 special committee report on FOI and privacy. It

allows, during that six months, to consider in much more detail the sweeping new powers

contained in Bill 9 and to ensure, in that six-month period, that there is actual

evidence, not anecdotal evidence, to support the changes.

[2:55 p.m.]

By way of explanation, in that six-month period, we can overcome a major flaw in the

legislative process with respect to Bill 9, which is that it is not enough to consult

within government. There needs to be robust consultation. That certainly cannot be

accomplished in the time available to the end of May, but the six-month period will

give the government ample time to properly pursue consultation.

By way of comparison, in 1992, when the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act was introduced in this Legislature, a discussion paper was released publicly.

There was feedback sought from all interested parties — including journalists, including

future users of the act, including organizations, including businesses — essentially,

any British Columbian and any British Columbia organization or business that had an

interest in the legislation, either because it intended to use the legislation or

because it wanted to ensure the legislation was robust.

I note that after that feedback was provided on the discussion paper, there was actually

a televised debate regarding the legislation, involving the minister and others. The

submissions made during that period of time were made public. This all resulted in

amendments to the legislation, which is a far different process than the process that’s

been undertaken for this bill. It gives a clear indication of the type of work that

could be conducted over the next six months if this motion is adopted.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that type of process over the next six months

will ensure that the legislation that is brought forward is fashioned by the public

in B.C. and for the public, because it is the public’s right to know. It’s certainly

not enough to have these changes based on anecdotal evidence. I’ll come back to that,

and I’ll explain how this six-month period can be used to facilitate that.

I also would note that that six-month period will also…. Should the government proceed

on the basis that we’d certainly suggest in how they use that six-month period, they

would, as part of the release of a discussion paper and the gathering of feedback,

be able to include in that discussion paper an explanation of why not or why they

would proceed with the recommendations of the all-party committee. And with all of

that information, that six-month period will enable it to be properly gathered, considered,

made public, analyzed and used to inform changes to the legislation or new legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

On the issue of new legislation, I think it’s important that that six-month period

would also allow for the development of new legislation that incorporates the parts

of the act that the Green caucus certainly supports — those provisions in the act

that are particularly focused on ensuring that individuals seeking their own personal

information can do so more easily.

That six-month period and the work done during it will help to ensure that not only

do we end up with a stronger act with a better, broader base of support, but it will

also be a way to ensure that we don’t lose the good parts of the act which we support.

I want to just talk a bit about some of the specific ways in which that work can be

undertaken over the six-month period and illustrate some of the benefits. I don’t

plan to revisit earlier speeches in relation to this legislation, but I do want to

illustrate, in respect to some of the sections, the work that would be undertaken

over the six months and that has not been undertaken to date.

section 1 of the act, there’s an amendment that relates to the production of documents

in a proceeding. As I mentioned, that six-month period allows for further consultation.

To date, there has been no consultation with the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C.,

the Canadian Bar Association or the broader public around the implications of this

broadened exemption.

From an evidentiary point of view, there has been no data gathered regarding how many

FOI requests were made in the past year that would be excluded from the act if this

amendment were in force and what metrics there are that are available. That’s the

type of work that would be undertaken during this six-month period in relation to

that clause.

We also have a

section 2 that deals with introducing a phrase “with a reasonable effort.”

This is another avenue that can be pursued over the next six months and that hasn’t

been pursued yet, which is to consult with applicants who have used this legislation

regarding this change. To date, we have only seen, as I understand it, consultation

with the administrators of the legislation, not with the applicants who would be impacted

by this change.

There’s also no data available in terms of the delay to processing the request and

how the forecast has been made about the impact of “with a reasonable effort.”

So it’s not just about the plain meaning of the act. It’s also about taking those

six months to properly consult the public, the applicants — those impacted — to assess

the implications.

I’ll touch on some other examples. I don’t propose to go through all of the amendments

that need to be given further consideration. But I will say that one of the key changes

that is affected, that needs to be studied further in the six months allowed for that

study, involves the amendment to

section 43.

[3:05 p.m.]

That amendment, as you’ll recall, provides and enables, on application, for requests

to be either denied or delayed because they would unreasonably interfere with the

operations of the public body or, as is the current amendment, the ministry responsible

for the administration of this act.

From a consultation perspective, there is a need to take time to actually survey and

get input from those applicants — what they think of that type of change, what their

perspective is — and other journalistic organizations, business organizations and

so on and to have some specific analysis done, over that six-month period, of the

number of requests that would be excluded.

There are a number of other provisions in the act that, effectively, make operational

considerations a basis for delaying or not dealing with a request. In that regard,

as an example, over the next six months, through a discussion paper process or some

other form of thorough public consultation, there will be opportunities, like the

applicant for information — and I’ll use this to illustrate, because they have not

been consulted — on the incorporation of Okanagan Falls as a municipality. Their experience

is instructive and needs to be factored in, in this discussion paper process over

the next six months.

By way of background — I’ll be brief — they made an application on August 8, 2025.

On August 20, they paid a fee of $420 to have the FOI application dealt with. On August

20, they received the invoice, and on September 20, they paid the fee in full. Then

on October 10, 2025, the applicant received a letter from the Ministry of Housing

and Municipal Affairs discussing their request.

At the bottom of the first page of the letter, they say: “As we advance this process,

I recognize that transparency is essential to building trust with partners and communities,

especially during a change in governance such as municipal incorporation. Our goal

is to provide clear and timely information while working collaboratively with our

partners.”

That was October 10, 2025. The request was made August 8. To date, they have still

not received a response to their request. It was extended on October 16, November

28, January 20, February 11, March 9 and just recently on April 20, so that the current

date for release of information is June 4, 2026, when they made the request on August

8, 2025.

I remind the House that this legislation provides for a response within 30 days. It

seems to me it’s a lot longer than 30 days. My point here is not to delve into the

detail of this request but to illustrate that this is exactly the type of applicant

that has not had an opportunity to participate in the process of the development of

these amendments.

[3:10 p.m.]

In the next six months, through a discussion paper process and other mechanisms, maybe

we could even have a debate, like we did in 1992, but I don’t think it’d be televised.

It would probably be on YouTube or Zoom. We could actually have full public engagement

in these amendments, because that will build trust in the ultimate result.

The type of evidence that should be available that can be gathered over the next six

months is information related to the specific forecast impact of each amendment and

the current number of requests that are being dealt with under each amendment, the

impact on budgets of public bodies and service plans and other items.

As I mentioned, over the next six months…. It’s confounding to me, for example, that

the consultative committee provided for in

section 67 of the act is not active. It

would be helpful in the discussion paper to understand why. Perhaps many of the reasons

we need to spend six months doing this work could have been avoided if there had been

a consultative committee in place to offer advice on the changes proposed and to also

provide a way to seek public input in addition to the discussion paper approach.

The other item that we…. I’m not going to go through all the amendments, but some

of these provisions would be made retroactive if the amendments were adopted. That,

over the next six months, needs some close scrutiny too, in terms of the number of

requests that it’s expected would have these provisions apply retroactively to either

enable them to be stopped in their tracks or to be put on a slower frame or to be

held back pending operational resource availability.

I look at the request I mentioned earlier from an applicant. If this legislation were

passed and it’s retroactive, is the idea that this applicant that’s been waiting since

August 8, 2025, to get a response would be out of luck?

The six-month process is the opportunity to dig into these issues in a lot of detail

through a discussion paper process, through activating the consultative committee,

through gathering robust public input that isn’t simply focused on what those inside

public bodies and inside government see as being the best approach forward but, actually,

results from extensive consultation with users of the legislation.

This approach that we have of considering a hoist motion is an opportunity to use

that six months to really do the work that wasn’t done before these amendments were

introduced. In that way, we will create a level of understanding of the amendments

and will be able to have a proper consideration of which parts of the act could be

reintroduced in the form of a new bill.

[3:15 p.m.]

As I’ve mentioned, we in the Green caucus support the changes that increase the ability

of individuals to seek their own personal information on a more proactive basis through

MCFD, but we see a significant degree of change here that we cannot support and that

requires, over the next six months, much more scrutiny.

It’s not just to ensure, from our perspective, that a new piece of legislation incorporates

the public’s wishes in terms of the 2022 special committee report.

It’s not just to ensure that any provisions related to the administration of the FOI

Act are done in a way that truly reflects the broad base of interests — not of those

who, either intentionally or unintentionally, would look through their lens of ways

to reduce administrative burden — but to encourage and really be reflective of the

applicants, the public, those that are behind wanting this legislation.

It’s to ensure that they are able to access information, not based on who they are

or why they want it, and are also able to access the information in a period of 30

days, rather than over a year.

The solution that we would like to see canvassed over the next six months is alternatives

to making access to information subject to not interfering with operational convenience.

We have not had an opportunity to really canvass — in any way, shape or form — alternatives

to the approach proposed in this legislation. We definitely would like to see that

six-month period as an opportunity to understand what other options are available,

rather than enabling the reduction of access to information.

Six months gives the government the chance to rewrite provisions that weaken freedom

of information, or freedom to information — six months for the government to build

broad-based public trust in the changes, rather than having it seen as an effort to

reduce access in the goal of administrative convenience; six months to show that the

government is prepared to approach amendments with transparency and with openness

— to ultimately ensure that the legislation, when recrafted and reintroduced as a

new bill, has a much broader base of support and has a full understanding of the implications.

I can only go back to when the legislation was originally introduced, and I would

point out that a number of organizations accepted the legislation as being the gold

standard at the time, not because they were thrilled with every provision but because

they had been involved directly and listened to, in terms of how to strike the balance

between competing interests.

That work has not been done. Over the next six months, that is the work that can be

done, that will rebuild trust in this legislation and that will offer an opportunity

for members of the public and others to recommend additional changes that they see

as needed.

[3:20 p.m.]

A good starting point for that is the recommendations in the 2022 all-party special

committee report.

For all of those reasons, I simply want to conclude by saying that the Green caucus

supports this work and supports this motion that the motion for second reading of

Bill 9, entitled the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act,

2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

Claire Rattée : I’m rising today in support of the hoist motion that’s before this House, the motion

to amend second reading of Bill 9 by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six

months hence.”

I want to be very clear from the outset about why this hoist motion is needed. This

motion is not about preventing discussion on freedom-of-information legislation, and

it is not about saying that the current system is perfect. In fact, I think that everyone

in this House recognizes that there are issues within the current FOI system that

need to be addressed. The reason that this hoist motion is necessary is because Bill

9 is not ready to proceed.

A six-month delay is necessary because this legislation raises serious concerns about

transparency, accountability and access to information — concerns that have not been

adequately addressed by government, despite widespread criticism from journalists,

legal experts, watchdog organizations, opposition members and even people who helped

build British Columbia’s original freedom-of-information framework. To be clear. A

six-month delay is less time than the average wait right now for access to a freedom-of-information

request.

Frankly, the government’s own actions over the last several weeks demonstrate exactly

why this six-month hoist is justified. After second reading debate had already begun,

the government tabled amendments to the bill, not immediately but weeks later. It

is a clear acknowledgement that there were problems with the legislation as originally

drafted. Those amendments can’t even be tabled until the committee stage.

It’s also important to note that during committee stage, we can’t receive extra presentations

from people that will be affected by this legislation, so making the further amendments

that are necessary at committee stage would not be possible. That’s why this hoist

motion is important. We need that six-month pause to be able to do this work properly.

Government ministers have attempted to frame these amendments as minor clarifications.

We heard the minister say that these were simply targeted adjustments to provide additional

precision. But if these issues were truly minor and if this legislation was truly

ready to proceed, then why were amendments necessary at all?

It seems highly unlikely and unconventional, to be honest, and I think that a lot

of it comes down to much of what has been said over the course of the discussion that

we’ve had around this piece of legislation on second reading and the recognition that

there are a lot of problems.

More importantly, why do these amendments still fail to address the core concerns

that have been raised throughout this debate? Even after the amendments, the same

fundamental problems remain. The bill still expands discretion for government, it

still weakens clarity around access rights, it still introduces vague and undefined

language, and it still shifts the balance of power further away from the public and

further toward the institution being scrutinized. This is exactly why this House should

support the hoist motion and allow six more months for proper review and reconsideration

before proceeding with second reading.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of this six-month hoist is the fact that

the government has largely ignored the work already completed by the special committee

on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 2022.

On that note, I think it’s important to talk a little bit about why that work should

have been included here, the frustrations with the fact that it wasn’t and why I think

that this hoist motion is necessary so that we can make sure that that is incorporated.

As somebody that has been sitting on committees since I’ve been elected here…. I spent

a lot of time on the Finance Committee last summer. We did a lot of very hard work.

It ate up most of my summer, to be honest, putting together recommendations for the

Finance Minister.

I can’t help but notice that most of them went largely ignored in this year’s budget.

I understand that maybe this is different times that we’re in, but I don’t understand

what the purpose of doing all that work was if it was going to be ignored.

I think that it’s frustrating for people that were on this special committee because

it probably feels like a lot of their hard work has been ignored with this piece of

legislation. I think that it does need to be incorporated, and it needs to be listened

to.

[3:25 p.m.]

That committee produced a comprehensive all-party report with 34 recommendations intended

to modernize and improve the FOI system while protecting transparency and accountability,

and it focused on improving administration of the act to meet current digital-era

demands. Yet instead of implementing the majority of those recommendations, the government

introduced Bill 9, legislation that focuses heavily on expanding refusal powers, increasing

discretion and making requests easier to dismiss.

That raises a very important question. If there was already extensive committee work

done on improving FIPPA, why are we rushing ahead with legislation that ignores so

much of that work? A six-month hoist would provide time to properly review and implement

those recommendations, instead of moving forward with legislation that has generated

such significant concern.

The special committee received extensive input from private citizens and experts,

such as the Canadian Association of Journalists — work that clearly was not done by

this government in the drafting of this bill. The bill itself failed to address many

of the core recommendations that came out of that special committee report.

To inform its work, the special committee also held open consultation and heard from

97 organizations and individuals, including the Ministry of Citizens’ Services themselves

and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Again, it begs the question:

why did the resulting report that came from that special committee not inform the

work that was being done on Bill 9? I think that 97 different organizations and individuals

would provide an awful lot of context on what’s needed to make the improvements that

are necessary for the Freedom of Information Act.

The need for the six-month delay becomes even clearer when we examine some of the

specific clauses that remain deeply problematic even after the government’s amendments.

Take clause 2, for example. Even with the proposed amendment, the bill still leaves

it to the opinion of the head of the public body to determine whether enough detail

has been provided in an FOI request. That language still introduces subjectivity.

It still allows government bodies to determine whether a request is sufficiently detailed,

and it still includes undefined concepts like what constitutes a reasonable amount

of time.

The government may have removed some wording, but the fundamental issue remains exactly

the same. There is still no definition of “experienced employee” provided, rendering

the clause exactly the same as it was before the potential amendment. That is precisely

why this hoist motion is necessary.

The same is true of clause 13. Even after the potential amendment, the bill still

expands the grounds upon which requests can be disregarded. The legislation still

relies on vague and undefined terms like “abusive,” “malicious” and “excessively broad,”

and requests that may “unreasonably interfere” with government operations. None of

those terms have been clearly defined. When the legislation grants broad discretion

without clear

definitions, accountability weakens.

That concern has not only been raised by members of the opposition though. It has

been raised by legal experts, journalists and advocacy organizations across British

Columbia. That’s why this hoist motion is important, because we need to have the opportunity,

government needs the opportunity to make sure that those recommendations are incorporated

here by the people that it’s going to impact the most.

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association warned that these changes

shift the balance of power away from the requester and toward government. Former architects

of British Columbia’s FOI legislation have raised concerns. Journalists have raised

concerns. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has raised concerns and delivered a petition

signed by thousands of British Columbians opposing this bill.

When that many people from that many different backgrounds are sounding the alarm,

perhaps this government should not be rushing the legislation through.

I know that this government frequently seems very comfortable with ignoring what others

are saying to them about their legislation and trying to urge them to listen, but

I think that this is a time where they really do need to listen. I think that perhaps

we should support this six-month hoist motion so that we have the time to get it right.

Another reason this six-month delay is necessary is because transparency in British

Columbia is already under strain. People are already waiting months, sometimes close

to a year, for FOI responses. Proactive disclosures have already been paused in several

areas. Independent oversight mechanisms are already being weakened.

Against that backdrop, Bill 9 moves us further in the wrong direction. This House

should not proceed with legislation that risks further eroding public trust without

taking the time to properly address the legitimate concerns that have been raised.

Ultimately, that’s what this motion is about. It’s about ensuring that legislation

impacting fundamental democratic accountability mechanisms receives the scrutiny that

it deserves. It’s about ensuring that we do not rush forward with flawed legislation

simply because government believes it has the votes to do so. It’s about recognizing

that transparency is not an inconvenience for government to manage; it’s a democratic

obligation.

For all of those reasons, I support the motion to hoist Bill 9 for six months, and

I would encourage all members of this House do the same.

[3:30 p.m.]

I think that I want to read, at this point, a couple of different quotes so that government

can recognize the need for this motion and that it’s not just coming from this side

of the House. It’s not just coming from opposition members. It’s coming from the people

that rely on this legislation and that need it to be able to do their jobs.

On April 29, from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I’ll read a couple of quotes

here:

“‘Bill 9 is an attack on British Columbians’ most basic democratic rights,’ said Carson

Binda, B.C. director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. ‘Any MLA from any political

party who supports Bill 9 is endorsing an attack on transparency. The government claims

it needs the powers to crack down on the volume of FOI requests. However, the total

number of FOI requests has substantially decreased in recent years, from 8,300 requests

in 2020-21 to 4,700 requests in 2024-25. Taxpayers deserve more accountability, not

less,’ Binda said. ‘FOIPPA already allows the Information Commissioner to block frivolous

or vexatious requests, and the total number of requests are trending downwards.’”

Which, again, is why this motion is necessary. I think it’s disingenuous to claim

that there isn’t already a way to be able to block those issue requests. We already

know that the volume has come down, so it can’t be an issue of dealing with increasing

volume. Again, the minister needs to take this piece of legislation back and do some

more work on it before it should be getting passed in this House.

On April 23, Les Leyne:

“The last big change to FOI was five years ago when the NDP introduced a $10 fee on

requests for anything except personal information of the applicant. That was roundly

condemned, but at least it was up front. The government admitted it couldn’t handle

the workload, so it set out to reduce it.

“The most recent FOI report shows requests are down about 45 percent over the last

five years. The number of requests closed has dropped at the same rate.”

March 12, Kirk LaPointe:

“In plain terms, government now has more latitude to say no and more flexibility about

when it must say yes. That may ease workload pressures inside ministries, but it does

nothing to strengthen accountability outside of them.

“For more than two decades, I have taught access-to-information law to journalism

students at UBC. Every year we begin with the principle that access rights are only

as strong as the culture that supports them. Investigative journalism is, by definition,

systematic.”

Again, issues with making changes that would not allow for requests that are deemed

to be systematic in nature.

“It involves follow-up requests, pattern analysis and persistence. Under the amended

language, that persistence can more readily be characterized as burdensome. No statute

will openly criminalize scrutiny, but delay is its own form of deterrence. A document

released 18 months late is often indistinguishable from a document denied.

“The province insists that oversight by the Information and Privacy Commissioner remains

intact — technically correct. But oversight is reactive. It requires appeals. Appeals

require time, sometimes years, and resources, sometimes thousands of dollars. In the

interim, decisions are implemented, contracts are signed, projects advance and public

debate moves on.

“When the right to know becomes harder to exercise, fewer people try. This government

would surely know that and would also know that if it wished to modernize the system,

it would strengthen record-creation duties, enforce retention standards, resource

FOI offices adequately and reduce backlogs.”

In closing, I don’t know why anyone on the government side would disagree with this

hoist motion, to be honest. The government has already tabled amendments, even though

it is mostly performative, because they can’t actually do that until we’re in committee

stage. They chose multiple times to put second reading on the order paper and then

pull it for weeks at a time, then put it back on the order paper.

Clearly, they recognize how flawed this legislation currently is. They may not have

said it out loud, but they’ve made it clear in their actions. In my opinion, our caucus

is actually doing them a favour. We’re giving them an out that saves them the embarrassment.

So I would urge everybody in this House to vote for this hoist motion so that we can

make sure that the legislation that we’re voting on has been consulted properly, drafted

properly and everyone has been listened to.

Heather Maahs : I’m very pleased to speak to this hoist motion today, not simply to oppose Bill 9

but to defend one of the most important democratic principles we have in British Columbia:

the principle that government must remain accountable to the people it serves.

[3:35 p.m.]

I rise to defend the principle that information does not belong to politicians, ministers,

bureaucrats or governments. It belongs to the people.

I rise today in support of the hoist motion before this House because the concerns

surrounding Bill 9 are too serious, too numerous and too unresolved for this legislation

to proceed without a pause. This is not a routine amendment. It is not a harmless

administrative update. It is not simply modernization, no matter how many times the

government repeats that word.

Bill 9 fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and their government.

It changes the balance between transparency and control, which is why the hoist motion

is so necessary. When legislation carries consequences of this magnitude, this Legislature

has a responsibility to stop; reflect; scrutinize; and, at the very least, reconsider.

This is precisely why a hoist motion exists, and this is precisely why this House

needs to support a six-month pause on Bill 9. A hoist motion is not obstruction. A

hoist motion is responsibility. It is a parliamentary mechanism designed specifically

for situations where legislation raises profound concerns that require deeper public

examination before moving forward. Bill 9 unquestionably meets that threshold, because

opposition to this bill is not isolated. The concerns surrounding Bill 9 are broad,

serious and credible.

Former architects of British Columbia’s freedom-of-information legislation have raised

alarms. Journalists have raised alarms. Transparency advocates have raised alarms.

And when legislation designed to govern access to information generates this level

of concern about transparency itself, this House has an obligation to proceed with

caution, not speed. This is why a hoist motion matters, because legislation affecting

democratic accountability deserves more scrutiny, not less.

Let us remember why freedom-of-information legislation exists in the first place.

The original FOI legislation was introduced in British Columbia in the 1990s and was

built on a very simple but powerful principle: government information belongs to the

public.

That principle shaped the legislation as it was originally written. The law was designed

not to protect government from scrutiny but to protect the public’s right to scrutinize

government. It was designed to ensure that citizens could understand decisions made

in their name and with their tax dollars. It was designed to ensure accountability.

It was designed to ensure transparency, and it was designed with the understanding

that democracy cannot function properly when information is hidden from the people.

That original vision matters because Bill 9 moves us away from it. And one of the

strongest reasons to support the hoist motion is to allow this House the opportunity

to reconsider whether legislation remains faithful to the original principles of freedom

of information as it was conceived in the 1990s.

[3:40 p.m.]

A former architect of British Columbia’s freedom-of-information system warned us that

this bill risks turning FOI into “freedom from information.” We heard that today from

the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands. This is not partisan rhetoric or political

theatre. This is a serious warning from someone who helped build the very framework

this government is now altering.

In the Times Colonist , it was argued that this government appears to no longer care about access to information.

Again, those are not casual criticisms. Those are fundamental warnings about the direction

this legislation takes us.

When warnings of that magnitude are raised, the responsible response is not to rush

the legislation forward. The responsible response is to pause, to listen and to reconsider

— to hoist the bill for six months, so that the public can fully examine what is being

proposed.

The irony here is impossible to ignore. A bill dealing with access to information

is itself being pushed forward without sufficient openness and scrutiny. That should

concern every member of this House.

One of the most troubling changes in Bill 9 is the weakening of the response timelines.

Under the current legislation, government is required to respond to requests “without

delay.” Bill 9 changes that standard to “without unreasonable delay.” At first glance,

this may seem insignificant, but it is not insignificant at all. Words matter, especially

in legislation. Standards matter. This change fundamentally weakens the obligation

placed on government.

“Without delay” creates urgency. It creates accountability. It creates a clear expectation.

But “without unreasonable delay” introduces flexibility and also introduces

interpretation

and subjectivity. Most importantly, it gives government greater room to justify delays.

That is not strengthening transparency; that is weakening accountability.

Changes of that magnitude deserve far more scrutiny than this government appears willing

to allow. That is exactly why this bill needs to be hoisted. When government weakens

the standard for responding to information requests, this House should not simply

wave it through. It should pause. It should examine the consequences carefully, and

it should ensure that any reforms remain faithful to the original spirit of the legislation.

Another deeply concerning aspect of Bill 9 is the expanded authority for government

to reject requests. Under this bill, requests may be dismissed if they are considered

“abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,” “systematic,” “excessively broad” or “interfering

with operations.”

Let’s think carefully about those terms. Who decides what is repetitious or systematic?

Who decides what is excessively broad? The government does — the very institution

being scrutinized. This is a profound problem. It makes me think of a term that we

sometimes use, which is the fox guarding the henhouse.

[3:45 p.m.]

Freedom-of-information legislation was never intended to allow government to define

the limits of accessible scrutiny, yet that is precisely what Bill 9 risks doing.

A journalist investigating a pattern of conduct could now be described as systematic.

An opposition member pursuing repeated follow-up questions could now be described

as repetitious. A citizen attempting to obtain comprehensive information could now

be described as excessively broad. Once those labels are applied, requests can be

rejected. That is not transparency; that is control.

When legislation increases government control over public access to information, that

legislation deserves more scrutiny, not less. That is why this hoist motion is necessary.

Kirk LaPointe warned that Bill 9 will make access to information slower, less predictable

and more discretionary. Those three words should concern every member of this House

— slower, less predictable, more discretionary. Transparency only functions when access

is timely, reliable and governed by clear standards.

When delays increase, accountability weakens. When predictability disappears, confidence

in the system erodes. This should be greatly concerning to government. It certainly

is on this side of the House. When discretion expands, government gains greater power

to decide what the public gets to know. That is not modernization; that is regression.

LaPointe also warned that this legislation enables government to defer, delay and

deny the public’s right to know. Again, those are not minor criticisms. Those are

warnings about the democratic accountability system in and of itself. When legislation

raises concerns about democratic accountability, this House should not rush forward.

It should pause, and it should certainly support the hoist motion.

Transparency advocates have described Bill 9 as an assault on government transparency.

Whether members agree with that exact wording or not, the fact remains that there

is widespread concern that this legislation weakens public access rather than strengthens

it. That concern is not isolated. It is repeated again and again across multiple sectors.

That alone should justify a six-month pause.

But legislation affecting transparency should itself be subjected to the highest possible

level of scrutiny. That is what the hoist motion would, in fact, accomplish — more

scrutiny, more public input, more consultation, more accountability, not less.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of the hoist motion is that it would allow

government the opportunity to return to the original principles of freedom-of-information

legislation. I’ve mentioned this.

The original FOI laws, introduced in the 1990s, were designed to expand transparency.

Bill 9 risks narrowing it. The original legislation placed the burden on government

to justify secrecy. Bill 9 risks shifting the burden onto citizens to justify access.

The original legislation recognized that scrutiny strengthens democracy. Bill 9 risks

treating scrutiny as interference.

[3:50 p.m.]

That is a profound philosophical shift, and philosophical shifts of this magnitude

deserve deep public examination before legislation proceeds. That is why the bill

should be hoisted.

The government may argue that these changes are necessary for efficiency, but the

public is not the problem. Citizens asking questions are not the problem. Journalists

seeking accountability are not the problem. Opposition members demanding answers are

not the problem. The problems are internal. Record management systems need improvement.

Resources need investment.

Instead of addressing those issues directly, Bill 9 shifts the burden onto the public.

That is the wrong approach, and wrong approaches should not be rushed through the

Legislature. They should be paused and reconsidered. And that is precisely what a

hoist motion would allow.

Let us also consider the cumulative effect of these changes. One change weakens timelines.

Another expands refusal powers. Another increases discretion. Another narrows access.

Individually, the government may attempt to portray each change as modest, but collectively,

the direction becomes unmistakable. The cumulative effect is reduced transparency,

reduced accountability and reduced public access.

When legislation moves us steadily away from openness and toward control, this House

has a duty to intervene. That is why the hoist motion is so important. It allows us

to stop before those changes become law. It allows us to reassess. It allows us to

ensure that democratic accountability remains the guiding principle.

This bill does not simply affect journalists or opposition members. It affects ordinary

citizens — citizens trying to understand decisions that impact their lives; citizens

trying to obtain records about services, policies or actions affecting them personally;

citizens who rely on freedom-of-information laws because they have nowhere else to

turn. And what will happen under Bill 9? Requests will take longer, face more barriers

and be subject to more discretion. Eventually, some people will simply give up. You

have to wonder if that’s not part of the purpose here.

That is how transparency erodes, not suddenly but gradually, through delay, through

frustration, through exhaustion. That is why the House must proceed carefully, and

that is why this bill must be hoisted.

A six-month hoist is not unreasonable. In fact, given the scale of concern surrounding

this legislation, it is the minimum responsible course of action. Six months would

allow more public hearings; more expert testimony; more consultation with journalists,

watchdogs and transparency advocates; more examination of how these changes compare

to the original principles of the FOI legislation; more consideration of whether this

bill truly strengthens access or weakens it. Most importantly, six months would allow

for more public scrutiny, not less, because transparency legislation should never

move forward without maximum transparency in its own review process.

If this government truly believes Bill 9 strengthens access to information, then it

should welcome a six-month pause, it should welcome scrutiny, it should welcome debate

and it should welcome public input. Good legislation only improves with scrutiny.

Only weak legislation fears it. And if this bill cannot withstand six more months

of public examination, then perhaps that tells us everything we need to know about

the legislation itself.

[3:55 p.m.]

When I was on the school board, I used to say: “Public scrutiny and complaints contain

improvement information.” That is what we truly need to be looking after and looking

for.

This debate is, ultimately, about trust — trust between government and citizens; trust

that government remains accountable; trust that transparency is being strengthened,

not weakened. Trust cannot be built through secrecy. It cannot be built through delay.

It cannot be built through expanded discretion and increased barriers. Trust is built

through openness, through accountability and transparency. Those principles shape

the original freedom-of-information legislation in British Columbia, and those principles

should continue to guide us today.

That is why the House must support this hoist motion — because the concerns surrounding

Bill 9 remain unresolved; because the public deserves more scrutiny, not less; because

democratic accountability deserves stronger protection, not weaker standards; and

because legislation that reshapes public access to information should never be rushed

through legislature without full and proper examination.

Transparency is not a nuisance, and scrutiny is not interference. Accountability is

not optional. Those principles mattered in the 1990s, when British Columbia first

established its FOI legislation, and they matter just as much, if not more, today.

Once transparency is weakened, it becomes very difficult to restore. Once accountability

erodes, public trust declines. And once public trust is lost, democracy itself suffers.

That is why this House must pause and reconsider, why this House must support the

hoist motion before us — not to obstruct accountability but to strengthen it; certainly,

not to reduce scrutiny but to ensure more scrutiny, more consultation and more public

examination before this legislation proceeds any further.

To conclude, for those reasons, I will support Bill 9 be read a second time this day,

six months hence.

Teresa Wat : It is a great honour for me to rise today in the House on behalf of my constituents

in Richmond-Bridgeport to support the motion for second reading of Bill 9, the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, to be amended by deleting

the word “now” and substituting it with “six months hence.”

This is not a procedural tactic. It’s not an attempt to delay for delay’s sake. It

is a deliberate and necessary step to ensure that legislation of this magnitude is

examined with the seriousness, diligence and care it deserves.

This is called a hoist motion, which is one of the oldest tools in parliamentary traditions.

I would like to explain to my constituents what a hoist motion is so that they clearly

understand why the Conservative caucus of British Columbia has to move a six-month

hoist of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act,

Whenever there’s legislation that’s introduced in this House that opposition parties

see serious problems with, as in this case, a hoist motion is necessary to pause it,

to send it back and get it right for the benefit of all British Columbians.

[4:00 p.m.]

This is what this hoist motion is about. It would set Bill 9 aside for six months,

effectively halting it for this session. That time should be used to consult British

Columbians, define sweeping new powers left dangerously vague and implement the recommendations

of the 2022 all-party special committee that have sat on the shelf for four long years.

When the report was released in 2020, the executive director of the Freedom of Information

and Privacy Association, FIPA, Jason Woywada, said: “Despite government actions which

undermined committee efforts, they received and made recommendations that would improve

government transparency and accountability. If enacted, these recommendations could

go a long way to restore trust in public bodies and better protect the privacy rights

of British Columbians.”

FIPA president Mike Larsen said: “One of the central themes of this report is the

need to create and sustain a culture of transparency in the public sector. Senior

officials set the tone, and we want to see a movement away from the current culture

of secrecy. Decisive and sustained action from those officials is necessary.”

FIPA added:

“The recommendation in the 2022 all-party special committee makes clear that government’s

earlier efforts did not make meaningful improvements to transparency and accountability.

Their actions fall short, and their recent amendments do not address many long-standing

and important issues.

“FIPA is grateful for the work of this special committee to review the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act and heartened to see that the report was

informed by submissions from a broad cross-section of civil society. The key step

forward and test will be whether the provincial government acts on this recommendation.”

It’s extremely puzzling to see this government ignore the recommendation made in the

2022 special legislative committee report. This recommendation would have strengthened

transparency. Yet we don’t see them in Bill 9. Instead of strengthening accountability,

Bill 9 focuses on administrative convenience. Why would we move forward without fully

incorporating the work of this special committee?

That’s why this six-month pause will allow the government to seriously review the

recommendations of this special committee and act in good faith to incorporate the

recommendations into the bill and ensure that they are not overlooked.

At its core, Bill 9 is not technical. It is not administrative. It is foundational.

It governs how power is exercised, how information is controlled and how trust is

maintained between government and the people we serve.

When we are dealing with something as fundamental as access to information and the

protection of personal privacy, we must be absolutely certain that we are strengthening,

not weakening, the democratic principles that underpin this province. That is why

our whole caucus supports this hoist motion.

There are two pillars at the heart of this legislation: transparency and privacy.

They are not competing values. They are complementary ones.

[4:05 p.m.]

Transparency ensures accountability. It allows citizens to understand decisions, scrutinize

actions and hold government to account. Privacy, on the other hand, protects individuals.

It ensures that personal information is not misused, exposed or exploited. A healthy

democracy requires both, and it requires balance. If transparency is eroded, accountability

disappears. If privacy is weakened, trust collapses, and once trust is lost, it’s

extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.

This amendment for a six-month delay is grounded in a very simple question. Does Bill

9 strengthen openness and accountability, or does it consolidate control and restrict

access? That question has not yet been satisfactory answered, and until it is, we

should not proceed.

We have heard this government describe this bill as modern, effective and necessary,

yet at the same time, we are told that amendments are already being introduced to

correct gaps. That contradiction should concern every member of this House, because

legislation that requires fixing before it has even passed second reading is not fully

formed legislation.

It suggests that consultations may have been incomplete, it suggests that stakeholder

concerns may not have been fully incorporated, and it suggests that scrutiny required

for a bill of this importance has not yet been fully exercised. That is why this pause

is needed.

Let me now turn first to the issue of access to information. Freedom-of-information

laws exist for a reason. They are not a convenience; they are a cornerstone of democratic

governance. They allow journalists to investigate. They allow citizens to ask questions.

They allow opposition members to fulfil their duty — our duty to hold government accountable.

Unfortunately, over time, we have seen troubling trends. Response times have lengthened.

Redactions have become more extensive. Exemptions have been applied more broadly.

And in many cases, the process has become so slow and so complex that it discourages

people from even trying. This is not openness. This is not accountability. That is

erosion.

My colleague representing Prince George–North Cariboo, in his comments yesterday in

support of this amendment motion, went at length to talk about his firsthand experience

as a sitting MLA in submitting an FOI request last year, seeking documents related

to the Quesnel bridge located in his riding.

By the way, I was so grateful for this member for Prince George–North Cariboo having

taken me on a walking tour of this Quesnel bridge last summer, because it really shocked

me how terrible the condition of this bridge was.

[4:10 p.m.]

It took my colleague a full year to get a response from this government. But when

he got the response, you know what? It came with a hefty bill attached. My colleague

was told that if he wanted the document, he had to first pay the bill. As an elected

MLA trying to obtain information about a public infrastructure project in his community,

he has to wait for a year and then he has to pay for the privilege of seeing it.

We should all applaud our colleague for doing his job for his constituents. Instead,

this government places so much obstacle in his line of responsibility.

We can see how ridiculous and troubling it is in the current FOI legislation, and

now Bill 9 makes it even more difficult to do that. It is not helpful at all to transparency,

not helpful at all for all our elected officials to do our jobs. It certainly isn’t

helpful to the people of British Columbia, who deserve to know what we are doing here,

how we are doing it and why we are doing it.

We should all thank our colleague from Prince George–North Cariboo fo