Contents

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Harwinder Sandhu: Once again this year I am standing here proudly to recognize our amazing community members and friends, Brian Misko and his wife, Corinne, as well as their entire team from House of Q in Vernon. They are here on the precinct, busy barbecuing for us.

House of Q, as I shared in previous years, started by using mom’s stock pot, I believe, in 2005. They make award-winning barbecue sauces and spices — one of the most awarded barbecue sauces and rub companies around, which has won over 200 prizes in 17 years. Brian and his team will barbecue again today. It’s their 14th year of doing this and making B.C. Beef Day very special. If you’re more curious to know about them, I highly encourage you to check houseofq.com.

Would the House please join me to welcome Brian, Corinne and their team — not only to welcome but also to thank them.

Harman Bhangu: I would also like to welcome Brian, from House of Q, to the House.

A few years ago, way before I got into politics, CFOX, the radio show, used to have drive-through barbecues. I was always an avid listener of the CFOX show and a huge fan of Brian. I actually have a lot of his rubs and barbecues at my house. I use them all the time. He has always put on great events and stuff for the drive-through barbecue, and it’s great to connect with him and have him actually come to the workplace, finally.

It’s an honour having him here — a good friend, and he’s a great person. He does a lot for the community.

Would the House make him feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Ministry of Labour estimates.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will continue our debate of Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

[1:35 p.m.]

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I rise today to speak on Bill 9, as someone who has used the Canadian public system, as an important…. I now represent the people of Surrey North. I see access to information as a basic test of how open and accountable government is.

This bill is being presented as an improvement, but it is not. It is a shift of power away from the public and towards the B.C. NDP government. This bill is not really about better access to information. It is about more control over who can get information, when they can get it and how. Once this kind of change happens, it is very hard to reverse.

Freedom of information is not just a rule or process. It is how the public checks what the government is doing. If this system becomes weaker, accountability also becomes weaker.

Let’s look at the facts. In 2024-2025, 7,063 FOI requests were received, and 6,818 requests were completed. This shows that thousands of people are using this system every year. These requests are not small. They involved about 2.18 million pages of government records. So this is a large detailing, dealing with a huge amount of information.

Now let’s look at how the system is working. The average time to complete a request is 65 business days, but the legal standard is 30 business days. So it takes more than double the expected time. Also, 81 percent of requests can be completed on time. That means one out of five is late. This shows the system is already under pressure.

Now let’s talk about Bill 9. It may be called a modern update, but the effect is what matters. It makes delay easier to justify, gives more power to refuse requests, adds more rules before people can ask, allows a fee in more situations, gives more choice to government officials. Overall, it makes access harder.

The bill changes “without delay” to “without unreasonable delay.” This means delays are more acceptable now. People must now give more detailed requests, but what counts as enough detail is not clearly defined. So government officials can decide more easily to reject or delay requests. Government can refuse requests if they are called abusive, repetitive or too broad, but these words are not clearly defined. This gives a lot of power to reject requests.

The bill also allows a fee, even for the records that are already public. So people may now have to pay for information that should already be available. In 2024-2025, 3,592 documents were shared publicly, but in earlier years, that number was higher. Fewer things are being shared automatically. This means the public must now file more FOI requests to get information.

In 2024-2025, 6,186 privacy breaches were reported, and 5,641 were confirmed. But only a very small number were reported to the public. This raises concerns about transparency and data safety.

In 2024-2025, $70,000 was collected in processing fees, and 214 requests had extra charges. This shows access is becoming more expensive. Bill 9 continues this trend.

[1:40 p.m.]

Other provinces are moving forward — faster access, more open data, fewer barriers. But British Columbia is moving in the opposite direction — more delays, more rules, more fees, less access.

Think about a parent. If someone goes wrong in the public system, they want answers. They file an FOI request. Under this bill, they may be told: “Your request is too broad. It needs more detail.” It takes too long, or it may be refused. Eventually many people will stop trying, not because they got answers but because the process is too hard.

If this bill is about transparency, why make access harder? If it is about efficiency, why are delays still so long? If it is about openness, why add more features?

I ask the government: will you remove this fee on public records, yes or no?

This bill does improve more administrative parts, but it also makes access harder. A faster system that gives less information is not better. Good reform should make timelines enforceable, clearly define refusal rules, reduce fees, improve oversight. Bill 9 does not do this.

Public trust depends on access to information. When access becomes harder, trust goes down. Freedom of information is not a burden. It is a key part of government accountability.

For these reasons, I cannot support Bill 9 in its current form.

Trevor Halford: I want to thank my colleague for his remarks on Bill 9 and his comments that went with it.

Listen. It’s going to be no secret. Obviously, I’m in opposition to Bill 9. I think that it’s a shortsighted piece of legislation that continues to set us back when it comes to the importance of freedom of information.

We have been in cases before where this government has completely failed to uphold the FOI system. In that structure, when you look at what FOI is intended to do, it is intended to actually give us the ability to seek information that is coming into government.

I think one of the challenges that we have is that this is a system that has been basically overrun by political will. When you see things like the fee increases that have come into effect, the frustration of the system…. In fact, they’re doing that in different ways to circumvent the reality of actually providing British Columbians with information that they are, basically, entitled to.

There are certain elements of this bill that I think are incredibly troubling. When you talk about the proactive release of personal information, yes, 60 percent of requests are for one’s own records. Streamlining that is fine on paper, but when the government bundles it with centralized Connected Services B.C., a single gateway, that actually means the data across the ministries. The minister has the power to dictate the data standards, and we should all pause and take note of that. I think that that’s massively important there.

I want to put forward a motion here that’s a hoist motion:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 9) intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

Do you want to take a brief recess while we distribute?

Deputy Speaker: We will take a brief recess to circulate the motion amongst our members.

The House recessed from 1:45 p.m. to 1:48 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll call the chamber back to order where we have the Leader of the Official Opposition moving that the motion for second reading of Bill 9, intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

Thank you very much for the motion, Member. Take it away.

On the amendment.

Trevor Halford: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that due diligence there.

Listen, I understand that FOI…. I want to just illustrate what FOI has done, over the last little bit, in what we’ve learned.

We learned through FOI that the Minister of Finance charged the taxpayers $6,000 for limo rides when she was in Boston. We got that information through FOI. We actually know that tens of thousands of dollars were spent on gift cards. We actually know that spending $100,000 per year on a public servant to mail out EV stickers…. That’s what we got from FOI. We also got from FOI…. We noticed that the Premier’s office received the invitation to the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm ceremony.

That’s why I think we’ve got to get this legislation straight, because it allows us six months. I believe it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. But the fact that the Premier stood in this House and said that he just wandered into a ceremony without actually understanding what was going on.…

[1:50 p.m.]

It was through FOI that we were able to find out that he actually did get an invitation to his office. They signed off on it. That’s what FOI does.

It’s also through FOI that we know about high-end vehicle leases for well-paid public servants. We also know through FOI that this government spent $165 per cup on American health care, and this minister has still failed to educate us on how many of those health care workers are now coming up to British Columbia because she bought them a $165 cup of coffee.

Kirk LaPointe — 3,000 FOIs filed — teaches media law at UBC. He says, regarding Bill 9: “strategic legislation to defer, delay and deny the public’s right to know.” I think it’s a pretty strong quote.

Vaughn Palmer says: “The NDP is quietly moving to weaken the public access provisions.”

Again, when legislation comes before this House, I do often believe that it’s well-intended. I do understand what they are trying to do, but with doing that, they are actually weakening a system that they have already decimated. Even in mid-debate, the minister amended her own bill with, her words, “minor adjustments” for additional clarity. You don’t amend a bill that’s already ready. Two weeks of debate forced amendments, so I believe that six months will force a better bill or, even better, no bill at all.

When you look at the 2022 report, it called for an all-party committee. For four years it sat on the shelf. Then we know that Bill 9 was drafted behind closed doors. This is why, I believe, it’s so important that this government take the time to get this bill right.

The 2020 report was built on consensus. If you look at the total requests, 10,205 down to 7,063 — over a 30 percent drop. General FOIs, 8,347 — now down to 4,691, almost cut in half. In the government’s own FOIPPA report, the commissioner already blocks frivolous requests. So the government is already arguing against itself in there.

We have a problem here. Bill 9 has what I would call a transparency problem. No one term is defined, whether it’s “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,” “unreasonably interfere with the operations” or “reasonable amount of time.”

Another couple of quotes here, again from our friend Vaughn Palmer: “The bill makes the officials themselves the judge of what is and is not reasonable.” Again, he says: “Imagine how that power could be abused to ashcan potentially embarrassing requests.” Assurances aren’t statutes. Definitions are.

I think it’s important here that we recognize that, yes, some things come out about government that are embarrassing. At a time when you have a Finance Minister that is preaching austerity, that is now implementing additional sales tax on businesses that have security, I can imagine when freedom-of-information requests come out about her international travel that have her in a limo for $6,000, that would be embarrassing. I understand that.

But the public does have a right to know how the ministers, how the Premier, are spending their money. That’s what freedom of information does. Can you imagine a world where government can actually say, “No, we’re not going to accept that request. We’re not going to do it that way”? I think that is a very, very dangerous precedent.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to talk about some of the things the minister has said directly. She says there’s no timeline change; the bill changes “without delay” to “without unreasonable delay.” She says no refusal of legitimate requests; Bill 9 adds four undefined refusal grounds. She says no new fees; clause 21 adds one to proactive disclosure. So I don’t even know if the minister has actually read her own bill.

The intention of this hoist motion is pure. This is a government that, when you look at some of the most important legislation that has come before us, or lack of…. Let’s take DRIPA for a second. Let’s take the fact that the Premier of this province and the Attorney General said that doing this legislation was imperative. It was our legal responsibility to do. It had to be done. He was going to attach confidence to it.

That didn’t happen. Obviously, with the poll results today, we understand why. That’s fine. But what they said was, “We’re going to delay it. We’re going to delay it six months,” because in the Premier’s words, they had to do more consultation. What we didn’t know is that they actually signed into a co-governance.

That’s their decision. Well, it wasn’t my…. I don’t know whose decision it was, but when it comes to this, this actually makes a lot of sense to me. It makes sense that we would take the time and really look at this bill.

I can tell you there’s nobody outside of that cabinet and that NDP caucus that is excited and calling for Bill 9. There’s none. Where is the battle cry for Bill 9? It’s in the Premier’s office, because they want to stop the embarrassment. It’s in the Minister of Finance’s office, because she wants to stop the embarrassment. I don’t blame them, but maybe they should stop doing embarrassing things. That might help.

Let’s take the time and get it right or not do it at all. I think that might work as well.

Barbara McLintock’s rule, quoted by Palmer: “Don’t go by what the minister says in the House, and don’t be fooled by the news release. Read the bill itself.” Now, I have done both, and I can tell you the bill does not match the press release. It’s another reason why I’ve introduced this hoist motion today.

There are some simple things. In 2019, $2 million was spent fighting 615 opposition FOIs about ministers’ personal email. In 2021, they added $10 application fees. Right now government has stopped publishing the Premier’s calendar and no-bid contract lists. Last update was December 2025.

Now Bill 9. April 2026, a companion bill letting ministers personally hide cabinet records from judges. That’s in there. One session, two bills — the same pattern. This is a government that has now become carried away with secrecy.

Kirk LaPointe says: “A document released 18 months late is often indistinguishable from a document denied.” I think this one is actually really important, his next quote here. He says: “Transparency is the price of public trust. Bill 9 makes that price negotiable. Once transparency becomes negotiable, accountability soon follows.” I think that that quote is bang-on.

Six months isn’t delay. It’s the bare minimum I think this Legislature owes to British Columbians. I understand that this session has been tough for the government. It has been embarrassing for the government. I would hope that we’re going to have a fall session. But at the end of the day, why would we not take the time to get this piece of legislation right?

If the government has nothing to hide, they should welcome this kind of scrutiny. A government amending its own bill at second reading? Can you imagine?

[2:00 p.m.]

They’re not amending their own bill at committee stage. They’re doing it in the middle of second reading. That tells you that this government clearly does not have its act together when it comes to even drafting their own legislation, or maybe they’re trying to get support with other members of this House. I don’t know. But I can tell you what they’re doing is completely undemocratic. It’s an affront on the system, and this legislation clearly speaks to that.

The fact that the government even stops publishing the Premier’s calendar while writing new powers to refuse FOI demands scrutiny.

We need to have a bill that British Columbians can trust. I do not believe that this is it. I believe that this government, this cabinet, this minister and this Premier need to go back to the drawing board, rework Bill 9 into something that is actually palatable to British Columbians when it comes to freedom of information. I would expect that that’s the bare minimum to do. If they can put something as important as DRIPA on hold for a minimum of six months, I actually don’t know why they could not do this.

With that, I’ll let anyone else that wants to speak to my amendment. I thank you for the time.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

This is, of course, a debatable motion, but I hope that comments made this afternoon will obviously relate to the motion itself. I know that we’ll be back and forth between the bill and the motion, but you have to demonstrate, of course, that link.

Bruce Banman: It is actually an honour and a privilege to stand here as the designated speaker for this motion. I believe this is the first time I’ve been a designated speaker to respond to a motion, so I look forward to that, and I believe that I have up to two hours upon which to make some points. I’d like to start by explaining the motion in plain language.

I rise to speak to the amendment for the motion for the second reading of Bill 9. The amendment, which I have in front of me, says: “Delete the word ‘now’ and substitute the words ‘six months hence.’”

For those that are watching at home or are unfamiliar or are watching late tonight and perhaps have insomnia, a hoist motion, as this is called, is one of the oldest tools in parliamentary tradition. I would explain to people that a hoist motion is not a motion to actually kill a bill. That’s not its purpose. A hoist motion is a chance…. Whenever there is legislation that comes on the floor that there have been problems with — as an example, in this case — a hoist motion is a motion to pause it, to send it back and get it right.

Already there have been, which I will get into in a few moments, a number of changes by the minister herself where they’ve realized: “Oops. In our rush to get it here, there have been a couple of errors already.”

A hoist motion is now, in this case, going to give us six months, which is the bare minimum. We could have asked for longer, but FOIs are so important and getting freedom-of-information requests right is so important that this side of the House wants to make sure that….

The minimum amount of time allowed in a hoist to get it right is six months. What that will do is allow them, over the summertime, as an example, to be able to ponder this particular motion, look at it carefully, sort out the errors that are in it and actually get it right. I think that this Legislature owes this to the people we serve.

Now, I was the critic for Citizens’ Services. It was actually my first critic role when elected back in 2020, and FOIs were one of the things that were hotly debated then.

[2:05 p.m.]

I think it’s important for the public to understand what’s at stake here. Freedom of information is a request that people put in to their government, and it allows them to get access either to the decisions that were made or how that decision came to be or what’s important when it comes to finding out how government has been acting. It is that safety net that has been put in there to ensure that government is acting responsibly. It is that ability to make sure that government is not using funds in an inappropriate way.

My interim leader just spoke of a few embarrassing things that were brought up from an FOI. Government’s natural tendency is to say: “No, no, we really don’t want to have anything embarrassing.” Sometimes it’s an innocent enough thing that has happened, but it’s embarrassing nonetheless.

Now, I spoke in this House about a very embarrassing incident that happened to me personally when I was the mayor of Abbotsford, and that side of the House has used that example many times, used it as an example to try and embarrass me. Well, I’m not embarrassed by it, because an FOI actually, in this case, exonerated me.

Yeah, if you’ve done something inappropriate, it may not always exonerate you. I am sure the Minister of Finance absolutely hates hearing about her $6,000 limo ride — which, she has pointed out, was actually an SUV, but it was a $6,000 bill nonetheless.

In my case, what had happened was that chicken manure had been used to deter a homeless encampment from coming back. It was FOI’d to death, because there’s nothing more juicy than that one.

The press and people in the public wanted to make sure that…. I was the mayor, so they were convinced that I had ordered that to be done, that I knew about it and that I didn’t put a stop to it. Nothing could be further from the truth. My cell phone was taken. My computer was taken. Every shred of paper that they could get their hands on there was taken, because it made international news.

An FOI actually is a double-edged sword. While people were looking to literally tar and paper me with this — not feather — they found out, at the end of the day, that I actually did not know about it. Upon further FOI requests, they found out that there was actually a bunch of intermediate staffers that had gotten together and come up with this horrific idea to do, to spread chicken manure on a homeless encampment after it had been cleaned up, because they were frustrated with the cat-and-mouse game.

It was a bad idea. I wore it because I was the mayor. I took responsibility for it because I was the mayor. In fact, then what I did to ensure that that would never happen again.… I implemented a committee to deal with the issues of homelessness in Abbotsford, so that it would never, ever, ever happen again.

My point on this is that an FOI, while embarrassing, actually can prove that government did no wrongdoing. It’s not always going to embarrass government. It is a healthy tool that has been put in place to ensure that the press, the public and the opposition can request an FOI, a freedom-of-information document, get it in a timely manner and hold government accountable. It is, I believe, one of the foundations of democracy.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, with regards to this hoist motion that is before this House at this moment, this debate currently is not about whether the FOI system needs reform. Well, it does. Everybody agrees, on both sides of the House. That’s, in fact, why this bill is here and why this amendment is here now. We know that the FOI system is broken. It does not serve the public as well as it could, and it needs to be addressed.

It’s not about whether the public bodies are facing pressure. Well, clearly, they do. Public bodies are under enormous pressure. FOIs, quite frankly, when I was the mayor of Abbotsford, were an absolute pain to deal with. It gobbles up staff time. They have to find out where the information is. They have to photocopy it. They have to retract certain things and certain names on it. It does take up time.

You know what else takes up time? An absolute pain in some people’s minds that cities have to deal with are building inspections. They’re there for a good reason. We want to make sure they’re safe. We want to make sure that the buildings are done correctly.

The reason that the Information and Privacy Commissioner agrees that reform is needed…. The BCFIPA agrees, and the 2022 all-party committee agreed unanimously. There was already a committee that dealt with the bill that is in front of this House, and it came up with recommendations. The debate is not whether or not we need to reform FOIs. That is clear, and that is why this bill is here. The secret now is that we must ensure that we get it right. We owe it to the public to get it right. We owe it to democracy itself, in fact, to get this right.

What this debate is really about, and why we have put this hoist here, is to answer the question: does this bill weaken the public’s right to know, or does it strengthen the systems that deliver on that vital democratic right? On that question, the evidence is overwhelming. Bill 9 is the wrong answer. There have been mistakes that have been pointed out already, and that is why we are asking for a very legitimate pause to be able to strengthen it. Six months, the minimum time, because this is of the essence, is the time this Legislature needs to find the right solutions to this bill.

It is a reasonable request and, I believe, a very much required request, especially when one considers that in the democratic process, checks and balances are required. Government without checks and balances is not a healthy thing at all. That is why we are called His Royal Majesty’s Opposition. We’re not here to stop government. We are here to oppose bad legislation and suggest ways in which to improve it, to keep government accountable and to actually come up with better legislation than what has been placed. This hoist will allow us that time to do this.

Now, part of why we’ve done this is because the minister herself made the case for the hoist. Let me go over a few reasons as to why.

[2:15 p.m.]

The first thing is that the minister actually amended her own bill in mid-debate. That is worth repeating. The minister amended her own bill in mid-debate. The Minister of Citizens’ Services tabled amendments to her own legislation two weeks into the second reading. That clearly states that there were problems within the bill already.

I didn’t say amendment. I said amendments.

In her words, they were minor adjustments to provide additional clarity. Well, I think that this hoist will help, in fact, to define what those minor adjustments and that additional clarity will mean.

I would say part of the reason why the minister has made the argument or the case for this hoist is…. If a bill is ready for this House, if it is clearly ready, if it has been well-thought-out, one does not need to amend a bill that is ready. The bill was not ready. The bill had errors and flaws in it when it was presented on this floor. You do not need to provide additional clarity on legislation that was clear when you tabled it.

The minister realized that there were problems in the bill. She said: “We need to make some minor adjustments. It’s not clear. We’ve made a mistake already.” That is one area, so the act of tabling those amendments is itself an admission the bill just was not ready for debate.

That’s okay. It’s okay that the bill was not ready, because this system has in its place this exact motion, a hoist, to be able to go: “You know what? Hang on a minute. We’ve messed up. Let’s think about this in a better term. Let’s allow a wholesome debate on this. Let’s send it to a committee to figure out what else may be wrong with this bill and go at it so that we can come back with a bill that is before this House that is ready.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I get you to reserve your place in debate and adjourn ours.

Bruce Banman: I take this opportunity to adjourn the debate and reserve my right to continue.

Bruce Banman moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Rohini Arora: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completeness of the Estimates of the Ministry of Labour and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’ll get back to the fun of my colleague’s speech. In this House, we’ll continue second reading on Bill 9.

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued).

Bruce Banman: On this rare occasion, I will agree with the minister that actually debating bills in this House is fun. It may be a perverse kind of fun, but it is fun nonetheless. Democracy itself is fun. While flawed, it’s the best system we have come up with thus far. I do appreciate the minister’s kind words.

Now, getting back to this hoist, I had said earlier, just a minute before the interruption, that the minister herself had actually made the case for why this bill was not ready. She had introduced an amendment to it already.

The first case she made was that there were minor adjustments and additional clarity, and because of that, the bill was not right. The act of tabling those amendments in itself was an admission the bill was not ready in its best form to be in front of this House, which is why this side of the House has asked for six months to go over this.

The second admission is that she thanked, in her statement, MLAs who engaged in good faith on improving the legislation. Well, that, too, is an admission that this bill was not ready and it was flawed.

[2:20 p.m.]

The legislation as drafted, as presented to this House, needs improving. The minister basically said it herself. So I believe that we should take the minister on her word, take the minister on her actions and say: “You know what? Six months is required, as is in hoist, to take a careful look at this bill to ensure that it is proper, clear and well-thought-out before it’s placed on the floor of this House.”

What this bill needs is input from members willing to actually read the bill and identify not only the problems that have been agreed to by the minister herself…. But there are others. Let’s go through it and make sure it’s right. Again, I talk about…. This is freedom of information. It is one of the cornerstones of holding government accountable.

This is not a bill that can be easily changed later. It is vital. I will go through in some detail as to why that is vital.

One of the things, especially on a bill when it comes to things like freedom of information, is that wholesome, meaningful consultation is required. If two weeks of debate forced amendments — only two weeks — imagine what six months may do to improve it. And those amendments actually improve the bill. What could six months of wholesome, intentful debate…?

Now, what could we do with six months of debate? Well, we could have six months of public hearings if we wanted to. We could listen to those that actually pay for this building as to what they want to see when it comes to FOI requests. They would be able to hear government’s side of the story as to what the problems are and come up with suggestions on what would actually improve what they think freedom of information should be.

I remember back in the day, as I said, when I was the critic for Citizens’ Services when FOIs came up, that some First Nations also had issues with the then new FOI rules that were being put in place. They felt that sometimes even in their own negotiations, they wanted to know what decisions were made behind closed doors that they didn’t have privy to, so that they had better understanding of what was going on and what government’s intentions were.

Six months of engagement with the BCFIPA, journalists, academics…. I know that we just had the University of British Columbia that was here just the other day, yesterday. What about the journalistic schools that go on? I know that journalistic students are learning to do FOIs. This government put in a fee for FOIs. We want to make it easier for our young minds and our students to be able to learn how this system works, and an FOI is a much-needed part of doing that.

We also have the legal community. There are sometimes legal reasons why you would want to have easy, timely access to a freedom-of-information request.

First Nations are also, as I’ve mentioned….

Then there are municipalities. Municipalities also have a valid reason for wanting a freedom-of-information request to make sure that government is, in fact, doing what they promised they would do in meetings or not or spending appropriate moneys in a community. They want to make sure that they have the ability to do that freedom of information.

Six months gives time to implement the 2022 all-party committee recommendations that have been sitting on the shelf for four years.

[2:25 p.m.]

There’s another big problem. Why in god’s name did we bother to implement an all-party committee to come up with ideas if we’re just going to take all that stuff, put it on a shelf and not bother to read it? What was the point?

Maybe, just maybe, if we take a look at that report, we’ll find areas in this particular motion that’s in front of the House and go: “Oh yeah. What were we thinking? It was right here. Here’s the answer to our problems. We should have just read this. Well, we forgot because it was done…. Well, we knew best.” Or whatever the reason may be. Maybe I’m totally wrong.

Why go to all the trouble to have an all-party committee to come up with ideas for something as important as an FOI if you’re not going to bother to read it? It’s insulting. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money. It is a waste of members’ time. It is a waste of staff’s time. If you’re going to ask them to do this, have the decency to implement those recommendations.

This six months will give us a chance to go through there and read what the recommendations were and whether they’re actually in this legislation. Maybe some of them, many of them, are. But maybe a few of the important points were left out — either unintentionally or, worse, on purpose. That is this side of the House’s job, to make sure that something was not omitted to make government’s job easy.

Democracy ain’t easy. It shouldn’t be. It needs, what we like to say…. The scrutiny of sunlight sterilizes it. What that means is to open it up to public visualization and debate so that you make sure that what you’re getting are good laws that benefit everyone, not just government. If this just benefits government, that is a very dangerous, slippery slope. It never turns out well for the public who are paying for it.

It is government’s natural tendency to try and make things difficult because, as $6,000 limo rides have pointed out, it can be embarrassing. As chicken manure can point out, it can be embarrassing. I don’t care if someone’s embarrassed. The public has a right to know how their money was spent. It has a right to know how legislation was drafted and the thought process that went behind it.

It is not a recommendation. It should be a diehard right and a dead-hard rule of any legislation that gets put on the floor of this House. That is this side of the House’s job.

The hoist, getting back to that, will give six months to address the upstream records management problems that Jason Woywada, the executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, has identified as the real cause of FOI delays.

Now, this government has been complaining, and this bill is in part because FOI delays are a huge problem. Well, maybe the executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has the right answer. Maybe he has got the key that we need, and this six months will give us a chance to wholesomely look at his recommendations and implement them if they’re good ones.

We have six months to engage the people who actually use the FOI system every day — journalists, cities, lawyers, First Nations, academics and general citizens who are self-appointed watchdogs. We dismiss them as being problems. They’re not problems. They’re actually helping keep government accountable, which is every single taxpayer’s right.

[2:30 p.m.]

At the end of the day, we are accountable to them. I believe we should be answerable to them, and I believe that something as important as an FOI should not just be rammed through this House because government finds it convenient. We’re not here to make it convenient. We’re here to make it just and right, and these six months will allow this to take place.

I actually think it should be longer than six months to get it right. But in essence, I think we can get a much, much better bill by having wholesome, well-intended, non-partisan debate, because one day soon, if you take a look at the polls, we’re going to be on that side of the House, and the current government, who will become opposition, will be complaining about the very things that they put in place and that the next government actually can take advantage of.

It’s about levelling the playing field. This isn’t about trying to make government look bad. It’s about levelling the playing field and coming up with justifiable legislation. The minister’s press release versus the bill — well, they don’t quite line up. Let me go over why.

The minister also accused opposition MLAs of making false claims about the bill. She said the bill does not change FOI response timelines, does not allow refusal of legitimate requests and does not introduce new fees. Well, we’re going to boil that one down a little bit in a few minutes. Every one of those claims is contradicted by the text of the bill on the floor — every one. Let me go over a few.

The bill changes “without delay.” Now, that’s important. When you’re doing an FOI — if you’re a lawyer, as an example, and you are trying to defend your client — “without delay” is important. We already have complaints that the court system gets dragged out for way too long, and there could be some guidelines or some deadlines that you have to have your argument ready for the courts by, a certain timeline.

They’ve changed that “without delay,” which expresses the urgency of a freedom-of-information request, to “without unreasonable delay.” Well, that is a change to timelines. The minister has contradicted herself, whether she intended to or not. The reality of it is that if you change “without delay” — that means post-haste: “You know what? We’ve got an FOI. Get on it” — to “without unreasonable delay….”

Well, okay, what’s unreasonable? “I’ve got a haircut. I’ve got my nails that I’ve got to go in and get done for my manicure. It’s Friday afternoon, and I’m supposed to be meeting some friends, so I’ll get to it on Monday. I’ve got a pile of other stuff to do.” What does “unreasonable” mean? Unreasonable to whom? What’s unreasonable to me may be very unreasonable to someone else.

The minister herself has stated that there were false claims, when, in fact, there was a change to the timeline. The bill expands the grounds for disregarding requests to four….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a general reminder that we’re not debating the bill. We’re debating the motion.

Bruce Banman: No, Mr. Speaker, we’re not. This is why, within that, having the hoist to be able to identify these things is important. I want to thank you for reminding me of that.

Within this hoist, we’ll be able to say the bill expands grounds for disregarding requests to four new undefined categories. That is an expansion of the refusal authority. In the hoist time frame of six months, we’ll be able to actually go down, in depth, into what these are and figure out whether or not they are, in fact, reasonable or whether they should be modified.

[2:35 p.m.]

Rather than waste this House’s time, the time that we have left in this session, by going through this, amendment after amendment, the hoist will allow a non-partisan committee to go through that.

Now, clause 21 authorizes a fee on proactive disclosures that currently require none. That’s a new fee. The minister.… What she said in her press release versus what’s in the text doesn’t jibe, and I believe that the hoist will help us figure out whether the minister misspoke.

When you’re in front of a press release, and the cameras are there, I get it. You can misspeak. I’ve done it myself. I’ve probably misspoken a couple of words here already in this debate, because standing up here, talking about things, often you get a nuance wrong or you say words in an incorrect manner and what you thought you said is not actually what you said.

The hoist will allow us to boil down and find out whether that was the minister’s true intention or not. Based on the text, there’s clearly a problem with what she said versus what was written.

The press release does not match the legislation she has tabled. Six months will give this House time to reconcile the differences. We are being asked to vote on a bill while the minister tells us via a press release that the things in the statute don’t really say….

I think it is reasonable to go into the hoist, take this six-month pause to sort that out. The minister can sit there and explain for herself what she meant and figure out how to reconcile the differences between what she said versus what was written. That’s fair and reasonable.

Now, the other thing is that during the hoist, we’ll be able to go through why the work has already been done, as I mentioned, yet ignored. Again, I said to you, it’s disingenuous to have this House form a committee to come up with a solution to a problem and then to totally disregard the problem.

Now, I don’t know if she totally disregarded the problem, but the hoist, the six months, will allow us to get to the bottom of that and take a look at it and figure out whether, in fact, there were some errors in the haste to get the bill forward, because government is in a panic sometimes to get a bill on the floor. “What are we going to talk about? What are we going to get? What are we going to pass? What are we going to do? We brought everybody over here. What are…?”

It’ll give that calm moment to be able to go: “You know what? Did we actually look at the 2022 all-party special committee that undertook a comprehensive FOIPPA review? Let’s take a breath and in a non-combative way, which is how committees work.

I know we have people in the gallery here. They watch question period, and they think it’s combative all the time. It’s not in a committee. Much of the time, actually, committee members have lunch together, and we sit and actually talk about what good legislation is. Generally, we come to what’s called a meeting of the minds and you end up with better legislation. That’s exactly what this hoist will do.

Members from every recognized party in this House heard from stakeholders all across the province. They had dozens of submissions from journalists, advocates, public bodies, everyday British Columbians, some of my faves. They produced a report with dozens of recommendations to modernize this system.

It is a problem. We’ve already admitted that it’s a problem. Now, hoist will give us the opportunity to review those submissions, review those modernizations. It’ll also maybe answer why the heck this thing sat on a shelf for four years.

Again, I go back to: why ask people to do stuff if you’re not going to pay attention to what it is they did? It’s a waste of everybody’s time. It isn’t cheap to run committees. It’s disrespectful to disregard taxpayers’ money if you’re not going to use the work that they went to do. There’s a reason why that committee was struck.

The contrast with Bill 9 in the hoist will also be able to go. The 2022 report, cross-partisan consensus and public consultation was an open process, as opposed to what’s going on right now.

[2:40 p.m.]

By doing a hoist, it will allow this to be open again, because Bill 9 was drafted behind closed doors without any consensus. It was all one side. Actually, worse than that, it was in a silo within the minister’s office. I don’t even know if there was cross-ministry consultation done on this. The hoist will allow us to find out whether that question had been answered.

Bill 9, in many cases, goes in the opposite direction of what the committee recommended. The hoist will allow the minister to sit there in the hot seat and explain herself as to why…. There may be valid reasons. Why is it the committee recommended this and you put that in there? Explain to me — my favourite thing — like I’m a six-year-old why we didn’t do what the committee recommended. Why is it that the minister decided to go in a totally different direction? The hoist will allow us to do that. I think that that is worthy.

The other thing it will do is allow the architect, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, from the Green Party….

Now, for those that don’t know, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands is actually a lawyer. I listened to him speak not that long ago. It was epic, and he spoke on this very thing. He led the drafting of the original 1992 FOI law under Premier Mike Harcourt’s NDP government at the time. He was a staffer. Maybe the architect of FOI laws might have a thing or two to say, and maybe we should get him on the hoist as well, because I believe his comments could be very, very valuable.

I know that I was taken away when I sat down. As a matter of fact, I stood up and applauded. It was that good. His rationale and his reasons for why the committee had come to that, why an FOI law was put in place to begin with was, I found, not only from a history perspective, interesting, but the rationale behind it was also extraordinarily wise.

The hoist will give us a chance to revisit that and perhaps have a second sober thought, as we like to say, as to whether or not we have this Bill 9 going in the right direction or whether it has totally missed the mark.

Now, that bill…. I will remind this House and these members that I was not there at the time. I don’t think…. Maybe one of the members…. I don’t know if anyone was here. Well, I guess maybe on the other side, there might have been a couple. That bill was passed unanimously through this House, and it was lauded as the best in North America. It was the best that had ever been passed in North America. It was the gold standard.

The MLA from Saanich North’s recommendation today, the MLA who built the gold standard, the best in North America…. His recommendation today: withdraw Bill 9 or, at a minimum, the sections that reduce openness and implement the 2022 recommendations.

The hoist will allow us to say, “What the heck went wrong?” where the very architect — the grandfather, so to speak — of the best legislation in North America when it comes to FOIs has now said: “Nah, nah, nah. This thing is garbage. It needs to be changed. There are serious flaws and problems with it.”

I know I want to hear why, and I think the public has a right to hear why, and the hoist will give us that opportunity.

It’s not a partisan demand. The architect of B.C.’s original FOI law is asking the government to actually do what government is supposed to do — its homework.

[2:45 p.m.]

He’s asking, rightfully so as opposition, for government to get it right, for government to take accountability. We often say right now that we live in a time when people refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Well, here’s an opportunity for government to set the stage, take responsibility for their actions, pass this hoist and get this right. It’s not a sign of weakness to say that you got it wrong. It’s actually a sign of strength. It’s a sign of courage. It’s a sign of just.

This hoist will allow government to do that very thing and say: “You know what? Our best of intentions somehow got off the track of what was originally intended, and we want to put it right.” The public deserves the best. The public deserves the gold standard to continue, which this House actually put in place.

Six months would let this House honour that work. It would honour the ability to implement the 2022 recommendations this Legislature has already endorsed. What could be more noble than that? That’s what a hoist can do. It will allow this House to build on consensus and not just bulldoze through it.

Right now, at a time when government distrust is at an all-time high, this government could actually restore some of that trust by saying: “You know, the opposition has a point. Let’s get it right, let’s honour what was done in the past, and let’s pass some of the best legislation we possibly can.”

We don’t want to bulldoze through this. Government has that opportunity in this hoist to say: “We don’t want to bulldoze through it. We know that this is important. We were stressed out with a problem because staff were complaining that FOIs were gobbling up all this time, and we weren’t able to meet our guidelines. There are problems within it that we don’t know how to fix, and we were just trying to get something on the floor to try and fix it.”

The hoist will give us the time to get it right and pay respect to the gold standard of North America, which was implemented by this very House. Let’s continue that good work. That’s what a hoist will do. It will help restore the law’s original intent. The intent is that people have a right to how governments may make decisions. They have a right to know how their money is being spent. They have a right to hold government accountable, and they have a right to know.

When this House passed the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands’ law in 1992, every party voted yes. Every party.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m going to just interrupt you for a moment.

Janet Routledge: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Member.

Introductions by Members

Janet Routledge: I am thrilled to see a class from Capitol Hill Elementary School in Burnaby North here with us. They’ve come in, in the middle of a debate.

We’re debating freedom of information. I hope you enjoy it. I hope you’re here long enough that we have an opportunity to have a discussion about what you heard and what you saw. Again, welcome.

Heather Maahs: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Member.

Heather Maahs: I would like to thank and welcome the grade 10 students from Timothy Christian School. Nineteen of them are in the House today.

I would just like the House to make them welcome.

[2:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Welcome to everyone in our gallery today.

Debate Continued

Bruce Banman: I, too, would like to welcome those from Burnaby North, I think the member said, and from Timothy Christian School. I’m a Chilliwack boy myself. I remember going on a few events with those from that school, although they would be our rivals, I believe, on some sporting events. Nonetheless, I welcome them.

What we are debating here is what’s called a hoist. For those of you that are all around and up in there, a hoist motion is a motion to take a bill that is on the floor and basically put a pause on it because this side of the House and, actually, the minister — you missed that part — herself, who put it on there, have come up with a few amendments, so the bill is not perfect or anywhere close to it.

What we are doing is discussing a hoist, a six-month pause to actually go over the details of this bill so that both sides of the House can improve on it and get the public, who actually pay for this building, the best that they can get. It’s a little on the boring side at times, because you’re going to hear me talk a lot.

I am what’s called the designated speaker, and the designated speaker gets up to two hours to debate a hoist, whereas for most motions that come on the floor, you get up to 30 minutes. Just so you know, the reason why I’m going to be talking for as long as I have is that, lucky me, I drew the short straw, and I get to bore this House for two hours, if I so wish.

I do thank the Speaker for his indulgence on having listened through this. For the most part, hopefully I don’t bore you so bad that you nod off, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try and keep it a little lively.

As I was saying. When this House passed the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands’ law in 1992, here is the amazing thing. Every party voted yes. Every party. It’s a rare thing, as we know, to not have a contrary vote in this House. Every party said yes. That is the standard, and that is a very high bar indeed.

This hoist will allow us to continue with the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands’ good work, keep this as the best in North America, as the gold standard. That should be the goal of all legislation, to become the gold standard of not just here but across jurisdictions, into other provinces and even other countries. That FOI bill did exactly that. It was considered to be the best.

Here’s the next part. I want to talk a little bit about why the government’s central justification for Bill 9 requires the hoist. Currently this is what the government said — that the public bodies are absolutely overwhelmed by freedom-of-information volume.

Now, I can tell you, having been in the city, that when FOIs became popular, yeah, it almost created a separate department, because somebody has got to go through cell phones or laws or calendars. I remember Premier Harcourt saying: “What? Do you want to go through my…? Do you want to see what games I play on my laptop?” I remember that. It is an annoyance and a cause of work for staff, and this is government’s point — that larger, more complex, far more resource-intensive requests are now coming in.

They also would say that they are struggling under the administrative pressure and that this is the cause for Bill 9 that it rests on. What we’re going to do in a few minutes is test some of those things.

The first thing I would say is that I find it ironic that, in a time when we have seen the largest growth in the public sector ever, they can’t figure out how to get FOIs out the door faster. There are a few things that hoist could discuss to actually help with that problem.

[2:55 p.m.]

The numbers from the government’s own FOIPPA…. It’s interesting. We had to do an information, you know, FOIPPA…. We had to get it from the annual report that the total access requests received were 10,205 in 2020-2021. That dropped to 7,063 in ’24-25. While government staff went up by 30 percent, the overall requests dropped by 30 percent. So the hoist will allow us to say: “Well, wait a minute. You’re saying there are more, yet that’s not what the numbers are telling us. The numbers are saying it’s less.”

The general FOI requests alone were 8,347. That dropped to 4,691. That means that number was basically cut in half. They’re saying that due to the uptick in demand, they need more time, when the numbers are saying: “Well, wait a minute. That’s a 50 percent reduction.” The hoist will allow wholesome discussion on that, because there could be extenuating circumstances as to why the overall work level went up.

These are the government’s own numbers, in the government’s own report, signed by the very minister that has brought this bill onto the floor. So it’s the same minister that said: “Hey, it’s taking us more time. We’re doing less numbers and less work” — it would look like a 30 percent drop or 50 percent, in half — “yet we need to do something because we’re overwhelmed.”

I would say, at the very least, on that, that that should be reason enough alone to justify this hoist bill, to get it into committee and actually boil it down. It is too complex to be able to debate it on the floor in its current state.

Now, the commissioner already has the power to debate the increase in work. Section 43 of the existing act already lets the Information and Privacy Commissioner authorize public bodies to disregard frivolous, vexatious or unreasonably broad requests. That power exists today, and it has been used today.

Maybe the power…. The hoist will say, “Well, are you actually using this, or do you just get a request in, and you just blindly do it? Are you really…? You’ve got a tool here. Are you actually using the tool that was put in place?” That’s fair. Maybe they are. Maybe they’re not. That’s why we want to go to a hoist.

There is no evidence being put forward in front of this House that the existing power is insufficient. I have a tendency to agree that I think that the commissioner already has enough leeway to say: “No, that is way too broad. No, send it back and narrow it down. No, this is frivolous.” There’s already power within the commissioner now, and I think the minister should explain to the commission why those rules, if they have or have not been used…. If they have been used, why they need to be improved upon.

You want to also now go anticipate the counter — pages, not requests. The government will say, and we’ve heard them, that pages processed grew from 1.64 million in 2021 to 2.18 million in 2025. The average general request grew from 146 pages to 508 pages. Okay. But the hoist will allow us to go: “Well, what difference does it make?” The photocopier is working harder to produce them. If it’s a file in an email, the number of pages could be insignificant.

Yes, the volume of requests has grown, and that is in fact real. The hoist will allow the committee to look at it and say: “That’s a record management problem and not a transparency problem.” Maybe there’s a way to fix that, especially in our new modern technology with AI. AI is capable of doing all kinds of wonderful things that did not exist even six months ago, probably when this bill was even looked at to come forward.

[3:00 p.m.]

That’s another thing for the hoist, to be able to ask that question.

The diagnosis from the experts. The executive director of BCFIPA says: “Access delays are often a symptom of recordkeeping failures. You cannot fix systemic information management problems by weakening public access rights.” In other words, in English, just because your system sucks doesn’t mean that the public doesn’t have a right to have timely access to it already. It’s not the public that’s the problem; it’s you and your system. What are you going to do to fix it? The hoist will allow us to ask questions like that.

The 2022 committee that was struck, the all-party committee that was struck, identified upstream records management as the actual real fix. Let me go over that again, because it’s important. The all-party committee that was struck to deal with this very problem identified the upstream records management as the real fix.

The hoist would allow meaningful discussion: “Well, what did you do to fix the upstream problems? Here’s your bottleneck. What did you actually implement? Did you do a single darn thing?”

It’s way too easy to restrict freedom of information, which is a public right, and we’ve gone over that. Just because you haven’t been able to sort out your problem, doesn’t mean that you should then further restrict the public’s access to this information, that they already paid for and have a right to, in a timely manner. Your inability to fix the upstream problem is not everybody else’s problem. Go fix your own problem, basically. This hoist will allow that discussion.

Maybe the minister needs to direct their staff to actually fix the problem, which is upstream management. It’s a fair question. It’s fair to ponder that. It’s fair to ask for a hoist to be able to figure out, in-depth: “Look. You’ve said that there’s a problem. You’ve got these backlogs. You can’t get the information out the front door in a timely manner. Is the problem really you?”

Clearly, based on the number of requests, it ain’t the public and the opposition and everybody else. The requests are way down, yet you still can’t get the job done. Maybe it’s your system. Maybe you need to fix the system. Maybe what we should be looking at is how to fix and improve the system versus denying access and making it more difficult for people to get the information they paid for and have a right to look at.

A hoist will allow that discussion to happen. Six months would actually, potentially, let this Legislature implement the fix, and there would be no need for this legislation in the first place. Maybe that’s the simple fix. Wouldn’t that be nice? Quite often the most simple explanation is generally the solution.

Bill 9 doesn’t address records management. It addresses the public’s right to ask. Never in a democratic process does it work out well when you make it more difficult for the public, the press, the opposition, First Nations, students, lawyers and municipalities to get freedom of information. It does not work out well for democracy, it does not work out well for the citizens, and it does not work out well in the long term for government itself. Why would you fix anything if you put in laws that say you don’t have to?

[3:05 p.m.]

Our goal is to be better. Our goal is to go back to the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands’ gold-standard best in North America. We owe it to that member, who is an MLA of this House now, to continue to do his great work and improve upon his legislation, not make it worse. That should be the goal of this House.

That hoist will allow us to be able to look at that and say: “You know what? Here it was all along. This is the issue. This can fix it.” There is no need to make it more difficult, because really…. I go back to one day….

Again, if you take a look at the polls, we’re up by ten points. If the election were called today, it’s saying that there would be a massive Conservative victory.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can we get back to the motion that we are debating?

Bruce Banman: I can, Mr. Speaker, when the reason that the hoist is important is because, fair turnaround, this government will be yelling and screaming that we are delaying and dragging our feet and unnecessarily blocking their right to information and the public’s right to information. I use that example with intent, because governments change all the time. That’s why this hoist will allow for better legislation. What the hoist will implement is actually a non-partisan approach.

As I said earlier, I was the mayor of the fifth-largest city of British Columbia. Freedom of information was just starting, and they were horrendous to deal with from a staff perspective. But you want to make sure that the public has a right to those. In my case, it exonerated me, as I mentioned. In some cases, it doesn’t.

It becomes imperative on this House that, during this hoist, we come up with the best legislation that we can to serve the citizens of this fine province. That should be the goal of every piece of legislation we do. This hoist is going to give us that chance to take a breath and come up with legislation that not only will work….

As the minister admitted herself, there were already a couple of problems. That is why she did the amendments. So it was already flawed. In the haste to get it here, it was already flawed. The hoist will allow us to go through that.

Now, the other thing in this that the hoist will allow us to do is actually go through some rather disturbing words that are in this legislation. The hoist…. Let me go over those words. They’re undefined words, and words matter.

My wife tells me that all the time. Words, language matters. Intent matters.

The undefined words are…. The bill expands the grounds for discharging FOI requests. What that means to those that are watching from the public is that government has said: “You know what? We’re having trouble with this, so we need to come up with reasons to say no to a request. No. Sorry. You can’t have it.”

Well, I don’t like that idea, and most of the public and the press don’t like it either. Like I said, the hoist will allow us to go back to the commissioner and find out whether or not that tool is enough. Let’s listen to what the commissioner has to say. But here are the words: “We can now deny or disregard.” That’s even worse. I’m just going to disregard you. It’s horrible language.

Anyway, they can disregard FOI requests for “abusive….” Well, what does that mean? I came in and I threatened somebody? You didn’t like the tone in my email? What does it mean? It’s just a word. It’s pretty broad.

I mean, we could go look it up in the dictionary and find out what the definition of abusive is. They didn’t even bother to put that in there. They just tossed a word in there, “abusive.” “I didn’t like the way you looked at me.” Is that abusive? “I didn’t like your tone.” “Well, it was an email.” “Well, I know, but I read something into the email that I just didn’t care for — the tone.” What does abusive mean?

[3:10 p.m.]

“Malicious.” Okay. Well, what do you mean by malicious? Give me a definition. You can’t just toss a word into something as important as FOIs and not have a definition with it.

What the hoist will allow us to do is say: “Okay. Please give me examples of abusiveness, of maliciousness. Can you please come up with a definition?” I think if you’re going to put a bill on this table, it should come with definitions of what those words mean.

Don’t think I assume what you’re doing. We all know that old saying about assuming, and I won’t bother to get into it because I’ll probably get out of here, have to retract my language as being unparliamentary. But we’ve all heard what happens when you break down the word assume. Don’t assume that people understand what you mean.

Then there’s “repetitious.” Okay. “Well, you asked twice.” “What?” “Well, you’ve asked for the same thing twice.” Is that repetitious? Is three times repetitious, four, five, six, 106, 4.257 million? What’s considered repetitious?

This is the basics 101. It should have been in this bill. This is why this bill is full of problems.

The hoist will allow us to go through and reasonably say, and I think the minister has an obligation to say, please define for what repetitious is. Give examples — clear, concise examples — and the committee will be able to go back and forth and come up with what everybody can agree is a reasonable explanation and definition for these words. If you don’t, you have a risk and, I would dare say, a very real risk.

The other one was “unreasonably interfere with the operations” of the government of British Columbia. Again, there’s a bunch of word salad. Gee, we’re holding you accountable. “Well, that’s a little unreasonable, don’t you think? I don’t want them to know I had a $6,000 limo bill. I don’t like this. It’s going to make me look bad. That’s just plain unreasonable.” Well, too bad. Too bad.

This is why we all take this on. We know that it is a reasonable expectation that someone from the public is going to hold us accountable. To “unreasonably interfere with the operations” of the government of British Columbia — please tell me what that means. I guess if an FOI stops a major project of some kind, just in the mere asking of the FOI, that could be considered unreasonable. But come on.

I think the hoist will give us the ability to define these words.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the member’s arguments. It was just really to be clear that this is really about the need for six months. It’s not about debating the bill itself.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your input on that, Member.

Bruce Banman: I always appreciate when the minister stands up to help make me better. I will endeavour to make his life easy and not unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government of British Columbia, whatever the heck that means.

This is what the hoist will do. The very reason why the minister stood up is a clear, concise example of why definitions matter and why this hoist is required. Had this bill been put forward in a proper way, the minister would not have needed to stand up. We would not be having this debate right now.

It’s actually a bit of a black eye for government to have put stuff in here that misses the basics of a decent bill. That’s why we have got to go to the extreme of a hoist to actually fix the hodgepodge that’s put in front of this House. It’s, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

I digress.

[3:15 p.m.]

A hoist will actually help come up with decent definitions so that everybody knows and can stand on solid ground of “no, your request and the very nature of it was abusive. Let me explain to you why it was abusive, because — oh, that’s right — I have a definition right here of what ‘abusive’ is. I have a definition of what ‘malicious’ is.” The hoist will allow us to do that.

The hoist will give us a number, of whether it’s repetitious or not. It will do that. Within that definition, during the hoist, opposition asks a lot of things. Are we now going to say, “Well, opposition, you’ve asked ten FOIs. You can never ask any more, because that’s now repetitious,” or “I’m sorry, CBC, but your reporter has asked 13. That now has gone surpassing…”? Is it that one particular item? Is it in government as a whole?

We shouldn’t really be talking about this and really shouldn’t be talking about a hoist at all, had government actually implemented the recommendations from the 2022 committee and actually done their job properly. That’s why we are talking about a hoist.

I get that it makes the minister uncomfortable, but had government thought through this legislation that’s before us, I would not be taking up two hours of this House’s time talking about why a hoist is required in the first place. Not a single one of these terms is defined in the bill. That is a massive oversight and, I would dare say, almost negligence of duty.

A hoist is definitely required, just to deal with these definitions alone. On that particular thing alone, this House should unanimously agree that a hoist is required to clean that up.

The new sufficiency test adds even more vague language. I’d like to say that those few things were enough. But wait. There’s more. “In the opinion of the head of the public body.…”

Well, you know what they say about opinions. Again, I will refrain from saying it in this House, because it’d be unparliamentary language, but I really don’t care what someone’s opinion is. Is it a legal opinion? Is it an opinion because they had a bad day at the office? What does that mean? Is it just that it’s “in my opinion, I don’t want to do it, because it’s going to make us look bad”? A hoist will help clear that up.

“A reasonable amount of time.” Well, there’s an absolute treasure trove on that one. “A reasonable amount of time.” You know, it’s reasonable that it could take 400 years to get your FOI request. What the heck is “reasonable”?

What’s reasonable to you is not reasonable to me. What’s reasonable to me may not be reasonable to a reporter or a lawyer, as I’ve said in previous…. Or to a family that’s trying to figure out why the heck it is their loved one committed suicide, and they didn’t get a phone call saying they were being released, because they had mental issues.

A reasonable amount of time — that has got to be the most vague, nonsense piece of garbage I have ever seen, and it is meaningless. You want to talk about “abusive.” That could be very abusive, depending on who it is that defines what “reasonable” is. I think the reasonable thing to do would be to put this to the hoist, so that we can figure out what the heck that means.

“Reasonable effort.” Well, there’s another good one. “I did my best.” “Well, your best ain’t good enough, because, quite frankly, you don’t know the job, you’re no good at the job, and somebody who actually can do the job needs to replace you. I don’t care if you thought it was a reasonable effort. It wasn’t good enough.” We have courts that decide these kinds of things all the time — “a reasonable effort.”

Explain to me in English what that means. I’m reading the word. I know it’s in English, but what does it actually mean? The hoist will actually help define what the intent of that was.

[3:20 p.m.]

Maybe it’s a good intent, but it is ripe for abuse. It is ripe for an escape plan on all of these, and that’s why a hoist is needed.

The problem with all of these is that the head of the public body becomes the judge of what is now deemed reasonable. Now, I’ve dealt with people in power before, and they can become very unreasonable because nobody can question what they do and they’re not held accountable. We’re not talking about an MLA that every four years you get a chance to reasonably figure whether they’ve done a good job and say: “I don’t like that one anymore. Let’s have somebody else, please.”

This could be someone that is put in a position that becomes very, very unreasonable, because: “You know what? It is unreasonable that I’ve got to put up with all these FOIs. I don’t like them. They are a pain. I just don’t want to have to deal with them. So I am going to find every single reason I can not to do the job that the public demands of me. I find it unreasonable.”

I think it’s reasonable to put this to a hoist to figure out what all of this nonsense means. It is ripe for abuse. That is not reasonable. That is totally unreasonable, and it deserves scrutiny and better definition.

The response timeline is now weakened. The current law responds “without delay.” We now go “without unreasonable delay.” The hoist needs to clean that up, define what that means. Officials themselves get to decide what’s unreasonable or not. Wow, what could go wrong with that, eh? Some faceless bureaucrat can decide whether it’s reasonable or unreasonable with no repercussion, necessarily, because we’ve heard time and time again where ministers will say: “Hey, I can’t interfere with staff. It’s not my job. I can’t. The legislation says I can’t.”

I think it is reasonable to assume that during the hoist, we will be able to figure out what is meant by these definitions, whether or not they’re actually reasonable even being placed on the floor. This is why undefined terms matter.

Let me tell you what. If you don’t…. Okay, I get that the other side of the House goes: “Oh yeah, it’s MLA Banman just trying to be obstructive, just wasting two hours of our time. We really don’t care what his opinion says. The MLA for Abbotsford South….”

Deputy Speaker: Member, I ask you not to use any names.

Bruce Banman: I’m not allowed to use my own name either, right?

Deputy Speaker: I would prefer you didn’t.

Bruce Banman: Okay, I talk to myself all the time, but I guess I shouldn’t name myself all the time either.

Anyway: “The MLA for Abbotsford South is just getting up here pontificating. I really don’t care what his reasonable definition is or opinion.”

Let’s talk about what some of the experts have said, shall we? Would you like to hear what the experts have said?

Interjection.

Bruce Banman: Yeah, let me tell you. Thank you for that.

Why a hoist matters. Vaughn Palmer from the Vancouver Sun, legislative columnist — he sits over there all the time in question period — says: “The bill makes the officials themselves the judge of what is and is not reasonable.”

Okay, if you don’t like what I have to say about it, how about somebody that has covered this House for many, many years? This is why a hoist…. He’s basically saying there are problems with this bill, and he is building the case as to why we need to put it to a hoist.

Palmer’s warning is: “Imagine how that power could be abused to ashcan potentially embarrassing requests at the time of a supposed fiscal restraint.”

I will say that my experience with staff when I was the mayor was that staff didn’t want to embarrass the public figures, because they took it personal, as if it was a personal lack of duty, and they would intentionally or, most of the time, unintentionally err on the side of caution because they didn’t want to embarrass their boss.

[3:25 p.m.]

A hoist needs to sort these definitions out to take that bias away from a non-elected official. Without definitions, every disputed application becomes a fight before the commissioner.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

This is why the hoist is important. We need to figure out what these definitions mean, because as I was saying earlier, definitions matter, and the hoist will help sort this out. That six months will help sort these out.

Welcome to the chair, Madam Speaker. We were just going over why the hoist is required in this case and why we have put it forward to the floor. We were talking about definitions of words or the lack thereof. There are many…. Would you like me to go over the words for you, Madam Speaker? I know you were away. Shall I just continue?

Deputy Speaker: I’ll try and pick up. Thank you, Member.

Bruce Banman: I’ll just continue.

Without these definitions, the applicants for an FOI now face a constantly moving target based on whatever official it is they go to, whether they’re having a good day, a bad day or what one official deems to be reasonable and another not. It’s not like there’s going to be a TV replay to find out whether or not the official actually called the right call or not. The only replay we have in this House is to actually lock down what these definitions mean so that there is no doubt as to whether an application is used.

We don’t ever want to have a public official having to be a referee, except in extreme cases. The way the hoist will do…. It will help improve the definitions of the words that I’ve mentioned and the terms that I’ve mentioned, and it will make it much clearer and therefore apply a way that the original intent, which is the gold standard, which was written by the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands…. It was deemed to be the gold standard, the best in North America, the original FOI law. It will actually improve upon it, not weaken it.

Without definitions, the commissioner reviews against exactly what? On what grounds? On what basis? I can tell you that if I was the commissioner, I would not be very happy with this, because I would be under review myself every time I said no. Government has set the commissioner up for failure, has set this entire bill up for failure because they have not bothered to define what words mean.

I find it incredibly ironic coming from the side of the House that talks about how words mean things all the time and that words matter. That’s the irony of this.

A hoist…. Six months will help us define these words, come up with scenarios for these words and actually improve the bill. It’s a simple, I believe, reasonable request. If the standard is whatever the official thinks, there’s nothing to review against it. So where’s the playbook? How do I know whether the commissioner is just trying to protect his boss, having a bad day, doesn’t like me because I’m a reporter that puts in a lot of requests or doesn’t like the opposition or may have a bias that’s undescribed?

We need to define these words clearly so there’s certainty. They need to be done in public, not in the minister’s closed doors, and the committee that this hoist will allow will get us to that exact point, where it will be done in an unbiased, all-party atmosphere.

Here’s the risk. I talked about this prior to you coming here, Madam Speaker. One day this side of the House will be on that side of the House and form government. So just play with me for a second on that, Madam Speaker.

What stops a future government from declaring that an FOI into the Premier’s office unreasonably interferes with operations? Right now if I don’t like the sound of the request, I get to make the call. I don’t like that person’s eye colour. I don’t like…. They were abusive with their tone of their email.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Kelly Greene: My husband is on the precinct right now. For some strange reason, he is not super enthused to be in the chamber at this very moment. But I just wanted to say, if you see him around, please say hi. Make him welcome.

It’s really amazing to be able to be supported by such an incredible human being. I never thought that I would ever be this lucky in my life. He is kind and strong and is the reason I can breathe. Please make him welcome when you see him.

Debate Continued

Bruce Banman: I’ll try not to take that personally, because I know he would have been riveted with this debate, I’m sure. Why he would not want to sit and look at the charming…? Never mind, I won’t have…. I’ll let it go, but thank you very much.

What stops a future government from declaring that an FOI into the Premier’s office unreasonably interferes with operations? Here’s how a hoist is going to help with some of these. What stops a deputy minister from declaring that a journalist’s pattern of requests is repetitious? What stops a public body from declaring that an advocate’s persistence is abusive? Or the tone of their email, whatever that means?

“I didn’t like your tone.” “You read a tone in there that wasn’t implied.” “How do you know what’s in my head and what I was thinking?” “You’ve read in there something because you’re defensive, potentially.” The bill’s text does not stop any of these scenarios.

Six months of a hoist — what that would allow the House to do is calmly and clearly define each term. It’s going to set objective tests. They’ll be able to have a scenario where there is actually a way of not only having a subjective test but maybe a way to appeal a decision. Same as I was mentioning, in a hockey game where you get to have a replay, a video replay…. It will build in safeguards for both sides. It will limit discretion to what is genuinely necessary.

Right now this bill writes a blank cheque. It is way too ripe for abuse, not only for current government but for future governments. Six months will allow us to make this bill better and to keep it the gold standard of North America, the best FOI request in North America, which is what it was, originally done.

I have a few more minutes left. I’d like to go through some of the clauses on this and why a hoist is important to these clauses.

Clause 21, what it actually does…. Well, it allows public bodies to charge a fee for records made available without an FOI request. Well, wait a minute. Now we’re asking people to pay for what they’ve already paid for. It’s the public’s information. The records the government has already decided should be public can now get a fee.

Well, proactive disclosure is supposed to reduce FOI volume. Why a hoist is important is so we can discuss why it was felt necessary in clause 21 to now charge a fee to reduce requests when we have shown by government’s own records that requests are actually dropping, in some cases 30 to 50 percent. The whole point is to make information freely available without the request.

Let’s, in the six months, discuss why this has become a problem and even necessary. It turns the proactive disclosure stream — worse than that — into a paid service. As I mentioned, the public has already paid for the information. What is the point of proactively disclosing it if you’re going to charge people for it in the end anyway? I think during that six months, these are questions that should be answered versus on the floor.

[3:35 p.m.]

The minister’s denial versus the actual bill. In the hoist, we’ll be able to talk. The minister can explain why she says the bill does not introduce any new fees, but when you look at clause 21, it explicitly authorizes a fee.

The hoist will allow the minister to explain whether she misspoke or, worse, maybe was misleading. I think, and I hope, she misspoke in the heat of the moment, but the bill itself is in direct opposition to the words that the minister used.

The hoist will also be able to explain in detail and talk about who actually gets hurt with these new, sweeping changes. Will it affect a journalist’s job to routinely check up on government spending?

If I was the Minister of Finance, I’m not so sure I’d be happy that they found a $6,000 SUV-limo bill. I would want to restrict that, too, because it’s embarrassing. But the public has a right to know. The minister will probably get over it anyway. Two weeks in politics is a long time. They’ll soon forget. But journalists have a right to check up on our spending. So do others.

Researchers tracking program outcomes. I think that those researchers have a right to know whether or not, for instance, things such as cancer outcomes are improving or not. If they have to do an FOI request for this, we will need to know, and the hoist will allow us to see, whether or not researchers that are doing necessary work will inadvertently get caught in a meat grinder of a trap of this, and it ends up costing a bunch of money, and unable to do their jobs.

Citizens asking how their tax dollars were spent. It’s annoying, but it’s their right. It’s beyond their right. Personally, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a citizen to say: “You know, you charged me this much tax. Where did my money go? Are you really spending my money wisely?” Sometimes both sides get pointed out where things can be done better. The hoist will help us go through some of these, whether or not that impairs citizens to do that.

Indigenous governments tracking treaty implementation — 100 percent legit. I don’t think we want to hurt them. The hoist will allow us to make sure that we don’t.

Foster children seeking their own care records. Again, do we really want to stand in the way? We want to make sure we get that right.

Employees seeking their own personnel files. I think we also have a right to be able to know whether or not those people will get hurt.

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me, just for a minute.

Amelia Boultbee: I stand on a point of order. I have one point of order with two points.

I would reiterate what my friend, the member across the aisle, has said, which is that the member, respectfully, continuously is debating the merits of the bill, which is actually what I thought committee was for. In addition, there are some factual inaccuracies in there, such as that there is no cost associated with proactive disclosure. I fear that in getting into the merits of the bill without being in committee, where these corrections can take place, that’s a problem.

We’re also not hearing a lot about why we need a delay of six months.

My last point is just that, for my clarity, the parliamentary practice book says that it’s currently held that the adoption of a six-months hoist or the negativing of a motion on second reading of a bill is fatal, as no future day is appointed for consideration of the bill at that stage, and the introduction of a new bill in substantially the same terms is out of order.

So just a clarification with my point of order. If there is a hoist motion successfully, is it actually a delay or is the bill over?

[3:40 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: To answer your question, yes, a hoist motion is fatal.

Just a reminder to the member to speak to the hoist motion explicitly. Notice there has been a wide degree of latitude.

Bruce Banman: Thank you very much for the direction, Madam Speaker.

To reiterate, in the hoist, we’ll be able to answer some of the ambiguity of the definitions or lack thereof. The hoist will give time for this House to actually improve upon this bill and make sure that this bill sticks to the standard that was originally set back in, I think it was, 1992. The hoist will be able to answer such questions as: who will this bill unintentionally hurt if passed as-is without any changes?

The other thing that I think is important that will allow this bill is whether or not there is a pattern of secrecy that is either intentionally or unintentionally put forward. What the hoist will allow the debate and the discussion of is whether or not this document stands alone or is part of a multi-year pattern.

In 2019, $2 million was spent fighting 615 opposition FOIs, as an example. That will be able to be talked about in the hoist. The opposition filed FOIs about ministers and staffers using personal email for government business. The then FOI minister, Jinny Sims of Citizens’ Services, had been caught doing exactly that. Will this bill now, as it stands, create a hindrance for anyone to be able to make sure that inappropriateness was not being put in place, whether intentional or unintentional?

The government deployed taxpayer-funded lawyers back in the day to fight the requests and argue that they were vexatious or frivolous. Back in the day, and this does relate to the hoist, they argued the opposition committed a privacy breach by using publicly available email addresses. The adjudicator, Lisa Siew, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, ruled against the government on every count, and that cost the taxpayers $12 million.

We want to avoid a case like that, and the hoist will allow us to have wholesome discussions such as this and figure out whether or not there are any unintended consequences that could actually put government in harm’s way in the future, to make sure that the bill actually does the intention.

Again, I go back to the intention of this bill. Government is saying they were unable to be able to process the FOIs in a reasonable time. The committee that was formed in 2022 said that the problem was upstream. This hoist will allow, whether or not that particular bottleneck had been addressed or not…. It’s not addressed, and it cannot be found in this bill.

This bill may or may not be necessary in its current form. Perhaps government needs to just fix the bottleneck. That will then get rid of much of the undefined language that’s in this bill and be able to change the bill.

Again, I go back to the taxpayers. This is probably one of the most important things that taxpayers have in front of them, because they have a right to the knowledge that they’ve paid for.

Rob Shaw’s verdict at the time of the one I mentioned in 2019: “The government deployed a series of time-honoured countermeasures — delay, obfuscation, stonewall — and eventually deployed the lawyers to try and slow down.”

We don’t ever want to get back to that point, which is why we modified the bills to begin with. Part of the hoist motion will be to make sure that, once again, we are not inadvertently or intentionally trying to put things in place so that we can obfuscate, stonewall and deploy lawyers to try and offset people from getting to the truth that they actually have a right to.

[3:45 p.m.]

The default principle of the law, that public documents are public, was in the case, and the onus is on government.

There have been some issues which I think the hoist will allow us to discuss in their totality. There was a $10 user fee implemented. The late Premier John Horgan’s NDP government introduced the $10 non-refutable application fees on every FOI. Why it needs to be in the hoist is that it is part of the overall discussion of what is intended by the legislation. It was opposed by the independent Information and Privacy Commissioner, Indigenous governments, journalists and a coalition of civil society organizations.

Yet the government did it anyway, and there is a problem with how the government did it, which was not known at the time. This hoist will again be able to talk about the bill in its totality because it is tied to other freedom of information. What happened is that, inadvertently, that $10 fee magically became $280. How that happened is that the government realized that, technically, each ministry is a separate public body underneath the act, and, therefore, 28 ministries equal 28 separate $10 fees. The whole-government fee for a simple request can now be $280 to apply.

There are processing fees on top of that. So the cost of asking government, as an example, how much they spent on catered lunches is now $280, plus processing fees. This needs to be discussed in the hoist as, again: what is the intent of Bill 9? Have we now put in place monetary restrictions which are beyond the pale of reasonable, and should they be addressed and brought into Bill 9 to actually fix them?

The commissioner’s verdict on the 28-minister practice, which was Michael Harvey, Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia…. Can government do this? Yes. Should government do it? I’d argue that what they should do is take a close look at how they respond, find a way to respond that sends a message to the public about transparency. I think that that’s important to be able to include in the hoist. Remember, the hoist is to actually improve the legislation that’s in front of this House.

The part that you were not here for, Madam Speaker, was that the minister has already set the case that the bill in front of us is imperfect, because within two weeks, she brought forward amendments of her own. She set the stage for a hoist because she has admitted that the bill is flawed, so we are reasonable to ask that a committee….

In addition to that, the 2022 commission that was put in place…. That report was shelved for four years, and we do not know whether it was even looked at before Bill 9 was brought in place, because many of the things in Bill 9 contradict what the recommendations of the committee were. There needs to be an explanation, which could happen within that six months in consultation with others and in a wholesome, all-party discussion to come up with whether or not this is actually reasonable, intentional or overlooked.

This is the foundation of transparency in government. This is why we have put a hoist on the table. This is why we are debating, perhaps in broad terms at times, why this hoist is required, because you cannot separate this particular bill without talking about the bills that came before it that set the foundation and the precedent that is in this bill.

The problem now is that we have an Indigenous corporation that is going to be paid $280 for a request if it goes across 28 ministries, and that seems to be the norm. Getting more forward, the freshest piece of evidence is….

[3:50 p.m.]

Bob Mackin, the journalist and publicist of theBreaker.news, reported in April 2026 that the Eby government has stopped publishing the Premier’s calendar and a no-bid contracts list. The last update to that was December 2025. Five months of the Premier’s calendar are missing. Five months of no-bid contracts are missing, and Mackin’s headline is: “David Eby’s NDP: Carried Away with Secrecy.” This is happening right now while we debate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder. We don’t use names.

Bruce Banman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I digress. I was reading a quote. So thank you.

The NDP government got carried away with secrecy. This is right now, while we debate Bill 9. Why we think that a hoist is more than reasonable is to include discussions such as this to make sure that this particular bill, flawed — admittedly, by the minister — is inadvertently setting up another stage where.… Did we overlook something in the haste to get it here?

There is only one good method to fix this, and that’s to have a hoist which has an all-committee report. Why we’ve said a minimum of six months, which is the minimum….

In February 2026, Bill 9 itself, tabled by the minister, expands government’s discretion to delay, disregard, refuse FOI requests. That goes counterintuitive to why we have an FOI in the first place. A hoist will help separate, sort out and discuss how we actually either open up freedom-of-information requests to the public by proactively disclosing them, which is not really that transparent in this bill, or, if it is overlooked, come up with ways not to overlook it.

In April ’26, the companion bill, amendments to the Judicial Review Procedure Act, allows ministers to personally certify which cabinet records are off-limits to courts. In one session, there were two bills and two entirely different patterns. I think that that also can be discussed during this six-month hoist to figure it out.

Then a non-partisan voice, albeit from the press…. Rob Shaw, who has covered 17 years of B.C. politics, says it’s broken, borderline useless and now monstrously expensive, and the blame for all of that lies solely at the feet of the NDP government.

The hoist could help address some of these very issues that Rob Shaw brings up so that we’d actually have journalism that works again and some unintended consequences that were perhaps put in and could be included in this bill…. It will allow the all-party committee over the next six months to consult, review, come up with definitions and make sure there aren’t any unforeseen consequences.

If you want to listen to some of the cross-partisan coalition, we have the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who drafted, as I said, the original 1992 law, which is a North American gold standard. Why a hoist is necessary….

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I know speaking for two hours is challenging, but the member has used the same anecdotes and the same quotes a number of times now. It is getting a little repetitive. I wonder if he might have some new material to bring to the argument for why six months is appropriate.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Just a reminder to the member to introduce new arguments to the motion. If you don’t have any further, you’re welcome to take your seat for the next speaker.

Bruce Banman: I do thank you for your direction again, Madam Speaker, and I always look forward to when the minister stands up to point something out.

Let me talk about Mike Larsen, then-president of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. He states: “The bill contains really bad stuff.” One more good reason to have a hoist.

Jason Woywada, from the executive directorate of the BCFIPA, says: “You cannot fix systemic information management problems by weakening public access rights.” Another reason why we need to take it to the hoist. The BCFIPA news release: “The bill weakens access rights at a time when government has failed to meaningfully implement its own recordkeeping law.”

[3:55 p.m.]

Journalists who do this for a living, which are new, and why we need to talk about this over the next six months…. Vaughn Palmer, who has been here for over 40 years: “The NDP is quietly moving to weaken the public access provisions.” That’s damning.

It is interesting that we find out whether or not there is any truth to that, and that will be discussed in the hoist. I do believe…. I’m going to read this out here. That was just handed to me, and it says:

“Although a hoist motion could be fatal to the bill as a result of prorogation or dissolution, as the member has brought forth in her point of order in this case, the six months in this case falls within what this House considers to be one complete session before prorogation.

“Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that within that six months, the bill is withdrawn to improve the language that opposition finds problematic on the principle, which is not typical to debate in committee stage. We also know that, typically, opposition amendments are not accepted by government, so we have no hope of having the other egregious pieces of this legislation to be fixed in committee.

“We must debate and canvass these larger, fundamental principles in second reading debate via the hoist in order to highlight exactly why it cannot be saved in a committee via any amendments that we see put forth by government and, therefore, actually needs to be revamped, even if they need to redraft and bring forward a brand-new form of legislation.”

In the time that I have left, Bob Mackin, from theBreaker.news, basically has stated: “A government carried away with secrecy.” Rob Shaw, from CHEK News, has stated: “The system is broken, borderline useless and now monstrously expensive.” And a North Shore News editorial: “A stain on the Premier’s record.”

As I’ve mentioned, the hoist will allow us, in a more wholesome way, to be able to discuss the ramifications of what others are saying, be they government or not, and actually help get better legislation in front of this House.

The historical record on Barbara McLintock’s rule, the late Barbara McLintock, legendary legislative reporter for the Province newspaper, quoted by Palmer: “Don’t go by what the minister says in the House, and don’t be fooled by the news release. Read the bill itself.” Well, we have read the bill, and the bill does not match the minister’s press release and talking points. For that reason alone, it should go to a hoist and be debated over the next six months.

Also, more than 10,000 British Columbians have signed the Canadian Taxpayers Federation petition calling on the government to abandon Bill 9. There is public support to take and improve the bill through hoist as well. That was a petition that was delivered to this Legislature.

Then consensus on this. Conservative MLAs, Green MLAs, civil society advocates, journalists who have covered this Legislature for decades and tens of thousands of British Columbians agree that this bill needs to be improved. The minister herself has admitted that the bill is flawed, with her amendments that were put on the floor.

They are all saying the same thing: Bill 9 is not ready as written — every single one, including the minister. Six months is the bare minimum that the people we actually serve and have vowed to serve are owed to improve this bill so it actually fits the needs of modern society and meets the needs and demands that the aforementioned groups have been talking about. The hoist is the most effective way to do that.

[4:00 p.m.]

What would the six months accomplish? Let’s get to that, as I close. It would withdraw the provisions of Bill 9 that reduce openness. Transparency is a beautiful thing in democracy.

It would implement the dozens of recommendations of the 2022 all-party special committee.

The hoist would end the 28-ministry $280 practice through legislation or regulation. We never intended to harm journalistic students and put in there an impossible fee that they can’t afford.

It would properly resource the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It would invest in upstream records management reform, which we have noted and I have stated is pointed out as the real cause of delays as per the BCFIPA.

It would expand proactive disclosure, not discretionary withholding. It would probably, most importantly of all, define the words this bill leaves dangerously undefined. I think it is unconscionable that a bill came on the floor of this House that did not have definitions to it when they are pivotal in changing what’s required in an FOI. It’s fundamental.

It would restore free general interest and FOI access for journalists, researchers and Indigenous governments. The six months would allow this House to hold proper public hearings to hear from the people who actually use the system, such as journalists and those that I’ve mentioned, and engage the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner formally, on the record.

It would consult First Nations, municipalities, journalists, the legal community, the academy, and it would produce legislation built on consensus, not legislation crafted secretly behind closed doors. That’s pivotal.

The six months of the hoist would allow the government to match the level of consultation that produced the original 1992 act, the act that is held in North America as the gold standard. It would honour the work of the 2022 all-party committee. It’s disrespectful to ask a committee to work and then just toss their work on a shelf and not consult it.

It would bring forward a bill this House could pass with the same unanimity that passed the original bill. That’s what we want. We want to be able to have something that is unanimously passed by every single member in this House, to uphold the great standard that was put in place on the floor in 1992. That’s what we should be holding ourselves to.

What the hoist is it’s a pause. It’s not a kill. The bill may come back in a different form, but it’s not really a kill. It’s a process motion. It’s not a partisan one. It’s a request for time backed by the architect of the original law, the BCFIPA, the journalists who cover the beat and the 10,000 British Columbians who signed a petition.

Here’s what the government has already conceded and why a hoist is required. By tabling its own amendments mid-debate, the government has admitted Bill 9 was not, in fact, ready. By accusing the opposition of false claims in the same breath as amending the bill, the government has admitted the bill needs clarification. The hoist will do that. By stopping the publication of the Premier’s calendar and no-bid contracts while asking for new powers to refuse FOIs, the government has shown its hands, and it needs to stop.

What the opposition is asking for is six months to let this legislation do its job. Six months to honour the work of the 2022 committee. Six months to define the undefined that’s in there clearly. Six months to listen with intent to British Columbians. Six months to come back with a bill this House can pass with confidence, that all members in this House can get behind and that British Columbians can trust in a time when people do not trust government.

A government with nothing to hide welcomes scrutiny. If this government rams this through, what are they trying to hide? It sends a message, whether they intend to or not, to the public to further distrust.

[4:05 p.m.]

A government amending its own bill before its second reading needs scrutiny. It was rushed. It was done in haste. A government that stops publishing the Premier’s own calendar, while writing new powers to refuse FOIs, demands further scrutiny. It’s a red flag. Six months is not really a delay, not in the overall scheme of things. It is the bare minimum this Legislature owes the people that we vowed to serve.

I am encouraging this House to send it back. Send it back. Do the work, the hard work. We’re ready to work. Come back with a bill that British Columbians can trust and be proud of. Come back with another gold standard, of the best in the land, of FOIs, like the original bill of 1992. Honour that bill. Honour that tradition. Honour scrutiny and transparency.

I urge every member in this House — government, opposition, Greens, independents — to support this hoist so that we can get it right and do for the citizens of this fine nation and this fine province what they deserve, which is to be proud of a bill on something as important as freedom of information.

We owe it to them, we deserve it to them, and they’ve paid for us to do this work. We’re ready to do this work. Let’s all get behind this hoist and get the best legislation we possibly can when it comes to something like an FOI.

Thank you for the time to speak on this. It has been a privilege and honour, and I look forward to the passing of this hoist.

Deputy Speaker: I’ll remind the House that a hoist amendment is a dilatory motion. If passed, it would have the effect of killing the bill, as it would be removed from the order paper.

Jody Toor: It’s always an honour to be able to get up in this House and debate different bills. I just want to thank the member for Abbotsford South for doing an amazing job and for speaking for two hours. I also want to thank my colleague from Surrey–White Rock for bringing in this hoist motion earlier today.

Today I want to take this time to talk a bit more on the hoist motion that has been brought forward for amendment to second reading on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 — that the motion for second reading of Bill 9 be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

At first glance, this amendment may appear moderate. It does not reject the bill, nor does it attempt to halt the legislative process altogether. It does not deny debate, nor does it prevent this House from alternating or making any kinds of decisions. What it asks for is something far more measured and, I would argue, far more reasonable. It asks for time — time to reflect, time to listen and time to ensure that what we pass in this chamber is worthy of the principles it is meant to uphold.

This is not a procedural delay. This is not an obstruction. This is a necessary pause — a pause rooted in responsibility, a pause grounded in respect for the people of British Columbia and a pause that reflects the seriousness of what is at stake.

Bill 9 is not simple. It’s not another piece of bill moving through the routine processes of this House. It is not administrative housekeeping, nor is it a minor technical adjustment that can be addressed without deeper consideration. It speaks directly to the relationship between government and the public. It shapes how information is accessed, how decisions are scrutinized and how accountability is exercised in practice. In that sense, it is not just about process; it is about principle.

As I said earlier in my debate, freedom of information does not belong to government. It belongs to the citizens it seeks to serve here in B.C. That principle is not new. It is rooted in the very foundation of democracy itself — the idea that government is accountable to the people; that authority is not owned but is entrusted; and that those who govern do so on behalf of the public, not above them.

[4:10 p.m.]

Access to information is one of the clearest expressions of that principle. It is how citizens see decisions being made, not simply after the fact but in the way that allows them to understand the reasoning behind those decisions. It is how they understand how the public resources are made and used. It is how they hold institutions to account.

Yet I cannot count the number of times I hear from people in my community of Langley-Willowbrook who say: “My voice doesn’t matter.” That’s why this motion is important. They feel decisions are made without them. They feel the system moves forward whether they are heard or not.

That is why this moment matters. Pausing now, choosing to take that time to listen, to reflect and to get this right, sends a different message. It signals that their voices do matter, that their concerns are not an afterthought, that this House is willing to hear them before moving forward.

Without access, accountability weakens. Without accountability, trust erodes. Without trust, democracy itself begins to fracture. When we change access-to-information laws, even in the small ways, we are not simply adjusting process. We are reshaping the relationship between government and the public. We are redefining how power is seen; how it is questioned; and, ultimately, how it is held to account.

Why do six months matter? The question before us is simple. Why six months? Why not proceed now? The answer is equally simple. It’s because we are not ready.

This is not a partisan statement. It is an observation, grounded, and the government’s own actions prove that. The minister has already brought forward amendments to this bill during the course of this debate. That alone tells us something very important.

It tells us that the bill originally introduced was not completely, thoroughly thought through. It tells us that the concerns raised in this House and across this province were very valid and require a response. It tells us that even now, the government is still adjusting its approach.

If this bill were as clear, as precise and as well understood as the minister suggests, we would not be seeing amendments mid-debate. So the question becomes: if the government recognizes the need for change, is it unwilling to recognize the need for time?

Amendments do not solve the problem. Let us be very clear on that. The amendments that have been brought forward do not address the core concerns with this bill. They move language. They adjust structure. They do not resolve the underlining issues.

Clause 2 still leaves critical decisions in the hands of the head of the public body without clear definition. Clause 3, even with proposed removal, highlights confusion in the drafting itself. Clause 13 continues to expand the ability to deny requests using terms that remain undefined: “abusive,” “malicious,” “unreasonable,” “broad,” “interference.” None of these have any sort of definition within the bill.

These are not minor wording issues. These are powerful, optional tools, and when those tools are not clearly defined, they create uncertainty. Uncertainty in access to information does not benefit the public. It benefits the institution holding that information, and that is the NDP government right now.

Let us not pretend that these amendments fix the problem. They do not. They reinforce the need for pause, and that is why we brought in this hoist motion today for an extension for six months for revision.

[4:15 p.m.]

Here are examples of how these terms, if left undefined or loosely written, can be translated in ways that can cause real harm. “Abusive” could be understood as a requester who files multiple requests or follow-ups. A journalist asking repeated questions on the same issue or a citizen seeking clarification after incomplete answers could be labelled as abusive simply for being persistent.

The risk there? Legitimate scrutiny gets discouraged, and people are penalized for holding the government to account.

“Malicious” could be translated as intent rather than behaviour. A request that is politically inconvenient, critical by government or tied to an investigation could be framed as malicious, even when it is entirely legitimate. The risk there? Motive becomes a tool to deny access, allowing subjective judgment to override a citizen’s right to know and get the information they need.

“Unreasonable” and “broad” could be understood based on the capacity of the public body rather than the nature of the request. A request covering a wide time frame or multiple departments could be rejected, not because it lacks merit but because it requires effort. The risk there? Complex or systematic issues become harder to investigate, especially when they require a broader scope to understand fully.

“Interference” could be interpreted as anything that creates pressure, workload or inconvenience. A request that exposes internal decision-making, requires coordination or arrives during a busy period could be seen as interfering with operations. We know how things get busy in this House, but that could be referred to as interfering with regular operations. The risk there? The threshold for refusal becomes tied to operational comfort rather than public interest.

Why does all this matter? When these terms are not clearly defined in this bill, decisions shift from objective standards to subjective understanding. Power rests within the institution holding the information, which is this government. Citizens are left uncertain about their rights. Transparency becomes inconsistency.

In practice, this creates a chilling effect. People stop asking. Journalists narrow their scope. Organizations hesitate to pursue accountability, and over time, access to information does not disappear outright. It simply becomes harder, slower and more uncertain. That is how trust erodes.

We do not have to guess what good reform looks like. We already have a roadmap. In 2022, the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act brought forward a comprehensive report — a report grounded in consultation, a report built on evidence, a report focused on strengthening transparency and accountability. Yet here we are, debating this bill that does not fully reflect that work, that does not uphold anything that was reported in that 2022 special committee review.

A six-month extension would allow this House to properly align Bill 9 with those recommendations, ensuring that the changes we make are consistent with the evidence and the consultation that has already taken place during that 2022 special committee report — not selectively, not partially, but meaningfully. Modernization should not be rushed. It should be right. We’re already seeing, with those amendments brought forward by the minister, that things are not right with this bill.

Modernization is very important, but it must be done carefully. It must be done in a way that strengthens the system rather than introducing new uncertainties.

We need to listen to British Columbians. This debate is not happening in isolation. Thousands of British Columbians have expressed concerns about this bill. A few weeks ago I tabled a petition with over 10,000 signatures from B.C. citizens. Their concerns came from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. They got these signatures within a week before I tabled them. We need to listen to those stakeholders, we need to listen to those citizens, and we need to understand their concerns regarding this bill.

[4:20 p.m.]

Journalists, advocacy organizations, Indigenous communities, legal experts and everyday citizens are confused. Thousands of British Columbians have expressed concerns about this bill. They are not confused. They are not misunderstood. They are very much engaged, and they are asking those hard questions. They’re asking for something that is very reasonable — time to be heard, time to understand how these changes will affect them, time to provide input before decisions are finalized. A six-month pause creates space for that. Bills that affect public rights should not move faster than the public understanding.

Trust is built through process. This bill raises important questions about transparency, but how we pass this bill is just as important as what is inside of it. If we move forward too quickly despite unresolved concerns, despite incomplete alignment with prior recommendations from the special committee in 2022, and despite ongoing amendments and incomplete alignment with the prior work, we send a message that process does not matter, that speed is being prioritized over substance.

That message is that process does not matter, but process does matter. Trust is not built by saying: “We’re transparent.” It is built by demonstrating it. A six-month delay is not a sign of weakness. It is a demonstration of confidence — confidence that this bill can withstand scrutiny, which will strengthen this bill; confidence that input will improve it when we listen to our stakeholders, when we listen to B.C. citizens that can bring up their concerns; confidence that getting things right matters more than getting things done quickly.

This is the government’s position. The minister has stated that the bill maintains strong access to information, that it does not change timelines and it does not restrict legislative requests. If this is true, then there should be no concern with taking additional time. Strong legislation does not fear review; strong legislation welcomes it.

Again, the question becomes: if there is nothing to fix, why were there amendments needed? Why did the minister table amendments mid-debate? If amendments were needed, why is more time not justified?

Real-world impact requires careful work. Earlier in the debate, we spoke about how even small changes in language can have real-world consequences, as my colleagues have given many examples of. We spoke about timing, we spoke about access, and we spoke about accountability. Those impacts do not happen in theory. They happen to real people.

A parent seeking answers. A parent files a request to understand why their child’s special education support was reduced midyear. We’ve been seeing this right now with autism funding. A lot of parents have a lot of concerns and are trying to access information through FOI. They are told the responses will come without delay — unreasonable delay.

Weeks pass, then months. By the time the records arrive, the school year is nearly over. The opportunity to advocate is gone. That child has already gone without support, and a decision that could’ve been challenged in real time is now a simple fact that cannot be undone.

Another example. A journalist investigating public spending. A journalist uncovers early signs of a cost overturn on a major infrastructure project funded by taxpayers. They file a request for internal communication and decisions records. The response is delayed — not denied but delayed, just delayed.

In that time, that project moves forward. Contracts are extended. Public messaging is sent. By the time the documents are released, the story has passed its moment. What would have been front-page accountability becomes a retroactive article. What could have triggered scrutiny becomes a footnote. The public loses the chance to ask questions when it mattered the most.

[4:25 p.m.]

A business trying to understand procurement decisions. A small, local company believes a government contract was awarded under unclear critic…. They request documentation to understand how the decision was made. The response comes after the next round of contracts has already been issued. They miss their chance to adjust, compete or challenge the process. Larger players continue to dominate, and the confidence in fairness begins to erode.

Why this all matters? Delay is not neutral. It shifts outcomes. It limits action. It reduces accountability in the moment when it matters the most.

That is exactly why this cannot be rushed. That is exactly why the member for Surrey–White Rock has put in this hoist motion to make sure that we have the six months to understand and to make sure that this bill is thoroughly examined, that we have discussions with different stakeholders, that citizens put in their input and their concerns are actually being reviewed and seen. That is what six months allows us.

A six-month extension would allow for meaningful consultations with stakeholders; proper review and implementation of the 2022 special committee recommendations that haven’t been taken into consideration with this bill right now, clear definitions to be developed and debated, the alignment between government intent and legislative language and transparency in how power will be applied. Most importantly, it allows for reflection not just within this government but across this House and across the province, across all British Columbia.

This is not about delay; it is about responsibility. We’re not asking to stop this bill. We’re asking to strengthen it. We’re asking to ensure that when it passes, it reflects the values it claims to uphold — transparency, accountability and public trust.

Once this bill is passed, its effects will not be temporary. They will shape how information is accessed for years to come. That is not something we should rush. That is something we should definitely look through.

I understand that the minister has also taken out clause 3, deleting clause 3, and made changes to clause 13 and made changes to clause 2. But that’s just not enough. Clearly, the minister sees flaws in this bill and sees that there are things that are of concern to citizens. Those things are not something small.

As I just mentioned, once this bill passes, its effects will not be temporary. They will become the law, and that is very worrisome for a lot of people in British Columbia that have brought their concerns forward.

This amendment is simple. Replace “now” with “six months hence.” This amendment is simple in its wording but major in its implication. It asks us to choose care over speed, reflection over assumption and trust over convenience.

In closing, what it represents is major. It represents a decision about how we legislate. Do we move quickly, or do we move carefully? Do we prioritize timelines, or do we prioritize trust? Do we assume we are right, or do we take the time to make sure we are?

Freedom of information is not a technical matter. It is a democratic principle. A democratic principle deserves careful consideration, and a democratic principle deserves the time required to uphold this government properly. Six months is not too much to ask.

We are doing this on other bills, as indicated, because we need that time. We need that time in consultations. We need that time to discuss with different stakeholders. In fact, given what is at stake, that is the least we can do right now.

[4:30 p.m.]

We can take that six months to thoroughly go over this bill and make sure that there are no flaws, that we do talk to the citizens of B.C. and we talk to the stakeholders that have concerns. Clearly, the minister had concerns with the language and clause in this bill, and that’s why there were amendments that were put forward mid-debate.

I would really hope that we take this hoist motion into consideration and really have the minister and the other side take direction on what we’re asking for and why we’re asking for the six months. We really want to make sure that every citizen is heard, their concerns are put forward and we clearly do that consultation and make this bill stronger, not have it weakened.

Deputy Speaker: I’ll remind the House that a hoist amendment, if passed, would have the effect of killing the bill, as it would be removed from the order paper.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that’s an excellent reminder because that is exactly what this government should be doing with this terrible piece of legislation that is an absolute affront to openness and transparency in the province of British Columbia.

On that note, I rise in support of the motion before this House to kill this bill, 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,” because that is exactly what this bill deserves.

Currently in the province of British Columbia, six months is not enough time to get an FOI return back. There are bigger problems than this bill is willing to address. What this bill does is hide the truth from British Columbians across this province. That should make everyone in British Columbia and in this House, on both sides of this House, extremely worried. As I said in my previous speech on Bill 9, it’ll be a very different story when the Birkenstock is on the other foot.

Now, what we need to do with this bill is scrap it, because we’ve seen from this minister that changes are dramatic and changes are clearly required. This amendment that she’s proposing absolutely goes to the core of why the motion is so critically important in this House today. It tacitly admits that this government got it wrong, that this bill does not deserve to see the light of day, that it is not worthy of consideration in this House and it does not fix the fundamental problems with freedom of information in this province.

This bill should not proceed. If it does proceed, it should proceed six months hence. As Madam Speaker says, that will effectively kill this bill. That’s the motion. That is the argument, and I intend to keep coming back to it because this House should not be distracted from the central point.

The question before us is not whether the minister can still stand up and pretend this was all a misunderstanding, that this was: “It just slipped through. It was a clerical error. I didn’t see it.” The question before us is whether Bill 9 should move now or whether this government should be told to sit down, take six months and come back with something that is workable for British Columbians, is in the benefit of British Columbians and is in the benefit of transparency for democracy in the province of B.C.

This government doesn’t need this motion to do that. This government could kill this bill today on its own merits. They’ve admitted as much in their proposed amendments. The government has already admitted the bill is a disaster, and that’s what the amendments mean. They can dress it up in whatever lipstick they like. They can call them clarifications. They can call them targeted adjustments. They can call them minor refinements, tweaks, nibbling around the edges, but the House knows exactly what they are.

They are an admission, an admission that the bill they introduced was not ready to see the light of day, should never have seen the light of day and was a mistake in the first place. Now this government is desperate to try and show that they still have the confidence of this House. I can tell you that they do not.

This is an admission that this government, on a bill dealing with the public’s right to know, still couldn’t get it right the first time. When a government has to start patching a freedom-of-information bill while second reading is still underway, that is not a sign the House should hurry up and just pass it. It’s a sign that the House should say: “Not now. Six months hence.”

[4:35 p.m.]

Six months is not some procedural gimmick. Six months is what seriousness looks like in the development of a bill, seriousness that was clearly not considered when this bill was in its draft form. Six months means the government stops trying to repair a bad bill in midair.

Six months means it goes back to the drawing board, gets the proper scrutiny that it should’ve had on the first pass and comes back to this House in a way that is presentable and acceptable to both the opposition and the people of British Columbia. Six months means it finally does the work that it should have done before, dragging Bill 9 into this chamber unready.

Six months means the public gets a chance to examine something more than a rushed first draft and a panicked set of amendments that they only came up with after massive push-back from members likely in their own caucus to the affront that this bill is to the democratic process and openness and transparency in the province of British Columbia.

That is why this motion matters, because this bill was not brought here in a condition that deserves passage, not now. But if the government chooses, they can fix this bill and bring it back for real consideration.

We do need to address problems with the FOI system, backlogs in FOI. Right now that system is truly broken. This government cannot even disclose proactive disclosure on time. They are now three months behind. Ministerial calendars — hidden. Non-compete contracts — hidden.

This is not a government acting in good faith in the best interests of British Columbians. This is a government that is desperate to change the channel. They think that these amendments may do that. I am sorry to say to everybody in this House that that is not the case. What needs to happen is this motion needs to be voted on. It needs to pass, and this bill needs to be taken off the table and treated exactly the way it should be — shoved in a closet or taken to a draft table and started again.

This bill proves the government thought it could get away with broad, vague, overreaching language, slip it through the net, and only when people pushed back did the government begin to retreat on this bill. That is not thoughtful law-making. That is a government desperate to hide its failures. That is political damage control in a state I have not seen since taking this House. There has been some truly flawed legislation put before this House. This bill takes the cake.

That is why this House should tell the government: “You do not get to salvage this on the fly. You get to come back in six months and try again.”

Let us remember what freedom of information actually is. It is not some annoying administrative burden. It is not some nuisance process for troublesome citizens. It is not an inconvenience for ministers who would rather hide their calendars and their non-compete contracts and internal records that may be damaging to the narrative that the government has decided to spin.

It is one of the only real tools the public has and the opposition has to force truth out of the government. That is what it is. It is how journalists get past the talking points and partial truths of press releases. It’s how researchers get past the spin and partial statistics of press releases. It’s how opposition members get beyond the press conference and into the actual documents, where the rubber meets the road, where the promises meet results. It’s how British Columbians find out what government knew, when they knew it and what they were trying to hide.

That is why governments that are short on answers are often tempted to tighten control, especially as we see the end of a reign coming. All of those decisions are now on the government of the day. When the government of the day was the government also of yesterday, the chickens tend to come home to roost.

That’s what Bill 9 looked like from the start, and that’s why the answer is not passage now. The answer is six months hence. If this bill were sound, the amendments proposed by the minister would not be appearing in the order papers today. If this bill were careful, these amendments would not be appearing today. If this bill were well drafted, well-thought-out and well rounded, these amendments would not be appearing today.

If this bill sought to remedy the description that we heard initially from this minister, we would not be having this discussion today. But it did not do that.

This bill attacked the democratic process, openness and transparency in the province of British Columbia, and now this government is desperately trying to change the channel and turn the page.

[4:40 p.m.]

If this bill genuinely reflected the kind of transparency regime this government claims that it wants, then this House would not be watching ministers scurry around trying to sand down the roughest edges before a critical vote. That is the point. The amendment does not save this bill. It condemns this bill. This motion condemns this bill. They tell this House the government itself knows the original version couldn’t withstand basic scrutiny. If the original version could not withstand scrutiny, then this House should not move it now. It should send it away, six months hence.

One of the clearest examples of why six months are necessary is health care, because if there’s one field in this province where freedom of information is not theoretical, it is certainly health care. In health care, freedom of information is often the only way to get past the slogans and net numbers. It is the only way to get past the ministerial talking points. It is the only way to compare what government says publicly with what its own internal records say privately. It casts a light on the state of the system. That is information that should be the right of all British Columbians to access.

Now, what is the reality in health care today? Not timely access, not openness, not a system functioning the way the law says it should. We are seeing health care FOIs take roughly eight months to come back — some, years. Eight months is not a modern system of FOI disclosure. That is not a responsive, open and transparent government that is responsible to those that pay their bills and elected them to be here. That is not transparency. That is a backlog so severe that the truth arrives after the damage is done.

What did this government decide to do in the face of that compounding failure? Did it prove it could meet the standard already in the law before trying to change the law itself? No. It brought forward Bill 9. That is exactly why this bill should not proceed now. It should go away, six months hence.

The bill was already offensive enough on the formal FOI side, but even proactive disclosure, as I described earlier, is falling behind, three months behind, in areas where government is supposed to be proactively putting information into the public domain so that the FOI system — which isn’t collapsed, which is the point of this bill — can be avoided.

If the government comes out and gives you the data, guess what goes away? The need for freedom-of-information requests. Transparency should be the default setting of government. We should not have to kick, pull and scream for basic disclosure out of government.

What did this government decide to do in the face of the failure of these backlogs? Three months behind, this government now wants to tell the House that what it really needs to do is a new bill touching access law. Nope, what it needs is six months to go back and explain why it cannot even operate the system that it already has. That is why the motion says “six months hence.” It kills this horrible, undemocratic bill.

Health care is where we have used FOI again and again to shine a light on what this government would rather leave in the dark. FOI is how both this opposition and members of the public have brought records forward on emergency room closures. FOI is how briefing materials, internal warnings, staffing realities and operational failures come into clear focus. FOI is how the public gets beyond the stagecraft and the politics and into the substance.

Without FOI, people get the headline. With FOI, they get the truth behind the headline, which is why this bill is so dangerous and needs to be killed today. That is why these amendments, even now, are simply not good enough, because the government has already shown us the instinct behind the bill. The instinct was not openness. The instinct was not humility. The instinct was not to strengthen trust in our institutions. The instinct was to manage scrutiny.

A government with that instinct should not be rewarded with the passage of a damaging bill like that now. It should be sent away for six months hence and killed. If this House needs one more reason why Bill 9 should not proceed but should be sent away, the government cannot even manage the freedom-of-information system that it already has. That is not some abstract concern. That is not a theoretical concern. That is not an opposition invention designed to grab headlines.

[4:45 p.m.]

It’s not just us. The Green Party agrees with us. The press agrees with us. What’s the saying? Don’t pick a fight with people that buy ink by the barrel. Well, you certainly have picked a fight with a group of people that buy ink by the barrel — or bandwidth, at this point.

That is the lived reality of people who actually use the system — the journalists that file those requests, the researchers who track ministries, the advocates who are trying to get records. The ordinary citizen is just trying to find out what the government is doing in their name, with their dollars. They’re actively tracking these delays.

Many people have reached out to me over the FOI requests — many people who do deep dives into the state of health care in British Columbia and rely on a functional, efficient and reasonably expedient FOI system so that we can have eyes on what is going on in our province.

What are they finding? The FOI returns are not coming back in anything close to a reasonable time — not 30 days, not promptly, not in a way that makes the right to freedom of access meaningful. They are stretching out towards a year — eight months, on average. Just stop to think about what eight months are. We’re only asking for a six-month delay, with this motion. Eight months to get records from a government, in a system that is supposed to be built around timely public access.

Eight months is not a delay. Eight months is a culture that has been built by this government. Eight months is not a hiccup. Eight months is a management failure. Eight months means the truth arrives after the decision is made, after the damage is done, after the 24-7 headline has moved on and after the minister has already stood up in this House, delivered talking points, in hopes that that information doesn’t get out in time to damage them further.

That is not access to information; that is access to stale information. It does not help steer decisions. It does not improve transparency. It needs to be fixed. That is a government making sure that by the time the records arrive, they’re no longer politically dangerous.

I refer back to many conversations about limousine rides, gift cards and the like. I know it’s a sensitive topic, in this time of austerity, with a $13.3 billion budget.

Now the same government wants this House to believe that what we really need is Bill 9. No, what the system needs is not Bill 9. What the system needs is a six-month delay — which would, in effect, as the Speaker so rightly pointed out, kill this terribly damaging bill in the province of B.C., to the benefit of all British Columbians — six months to ask a very basic question.

If returns are stretching to eight months already, why is the government touching the law before it fixes the administration? Perhaps that’s the real issue here. Perhaps what this government should be looking at is not how to give the department more tools, more language and more direction for cover. Perhaps what we should be looking at is the management of the department itself. If the people using the system are telling us that requests are taking the better part of a year, then something is clearly wrong with the FOI system.

That is how this bill was sold to this House. “We’re going to fix the system. This will speed it up.” What was buried in there was: “We’re going to speed it up by just doing less, because you don’t deserve the information. We are not willing to be transparent with the province of British Columbia. We are ashamed of our record, and we are going to hide from it.” Very, very shocking, very sad but very telling of a government that is out of ideas and running from its very own record.

If people who are using the system are telling you that these requests are going wrong, you need to deal with it. Is it staffing? Is it workflow? Is it prioritizing FOIs? Badly wrong. Something is badly wrong with the basic administrative culture of our freedom-of-information system here in B.C., because the default setting on government should be transparency, not obfuscation.

That is before we even get to proactive disclosure. I’m going to keep hitting on that, because I know it’s a sensitive subject for many ministers here. Proactive disclosure is supposed to reduce the pressure on the formal FOI system. That is the theory of proactive disclosure. If a government proactively releases materials in a timely way, then fewer people need to file far-reaching requests in the first place.

The people that do have an idea of where to start looking…. If there’s a questionable meeting in a ministerial calendar, they can request those records. If there is a meeting with a drug company, they can specify that they would like information on that meeting, not go on a broad, sweeping, dragnet search, wasting people’s time.

[4:50 p.m.]

I will agree with you. I have gotten many, many FOIs back myself that were a complete waste of both my and the bureaucrats’ time. You know why? The document I knew was there, that I had a copy of, that was handed to me by a concerned citizen, was covered in nothing but black lines. That is not transparency. That is not good governance. That is the opposite.

If government proactively releases materials in a timely way, then fewer people need to find those requests in the first place. But what’s happening there? That is behind too, not by a few days, not by a harmless little lag — again, by nearly three months. Three months behind on proactive — and I’ll say the word again: proactive — disclosure. We’ve got the front door jammed up, the side door is now jammed up, and the formal FOI process is bogged down. The proactive disclosure stream is bogged down.

The government’s answer is not to clean the house, not to tighten management, not to restore performance, not to properly resource the department, not to ask what on earth is happening in a department run by a former deputy minister, I might add, from Newfoundland who clearly understands the troublesome, pesky annoyance of what can happen when disclosure is set to open as a default.

This government’s answer was Bill 9, which is why this motion, and I’ll come back to it so I do not get called out of order, looks to push this six months hence and kill this terrible, destructive bill. That is one more reason that this House should support this motion and say that this bill should not proceed now. Six months would allow this House and the public to ask the questions that really matter, consult the stakeholders that have been affected and do the actual work on this bill to get it right.

If we have a problem with the process and the bureaucracy operating behind this bill and the function of this bill in reality, let’s have that conversation. But let’s not do it behind closed doors. Having a closed-door conversation on a freedom-of-information bill is, to say the least…. I’ll leave it there.

Why are the requests taking eight months? That’s a question that this government should ask. Who is tracking that performance? Again, we should be asking that. Who is accountable for that performance? Well, actually, in fact, it is this government that is responsible for that performance, and that performance is that proactive disclosure is now taking three months.

Ministerial calendars, non-compete contracts and the like, all forcibly and legislatively required to be disclosed, are now being dragged. That is not including FOIs that are just in the queue taking eight months. That is ministers hiding from public scrutiny.

You should be ashamed, truly, truly ashamed.

Before any of that has been honestly dealt with, is this government asking for legislative changes instead of managerial compliance? Are we trying to legislate changes onto a department when what they really need is new management? I think that’s a question we should ask, and I believe six months may be the appropriate time required to answer that question.

I did google a few things on my way over here. I was looking for some good examples of things that would take six months to do. I’ve got some very interesting examples. Dostoyevsky wrote The Gambler in 26 days. That’s a fairly considerable and lengthy classic. The Apollo 8 planning and training mission to the moon was completed in four months, much less than the six months we’re asking for here. The Alaska Highway took just over six months at 7.7 months, 1,700 kilometres from border to border. They got an entire highway built.

I believe we can probably fix this flawed legislation in six months, bring it back and pass it. If we’ve got enough time to fight a war, land on the moon, negotiate an armistice or write a novel, we should probably be able to fix a fairly simple, straightforward housekeeping bill that should’ve been a fairly straightforward housekeeping bill.

But that is not what this bill was. This bill tried to backdoor opaqueness and remove scrutiny on a government desperate to change the page. If that’s the case, this bill should not proceed now. It should come back, if it comes back at all, six months hence, after the government has demonstrated that it can manage the system it already controls before it dares ask this House for more breathing room and room to manoeuvre, more ability to cover up what they’re already covering up, more ability to hide from their own performance problems.

[4:55 p.m.]

If the existing system is taking eight months to over a year to produce basic records of government and proactive disclosure is now three months behind, then the first reform this government should undertake is not legislative. It’s managerial, it’s administrative, and it is cultural. Until that work is done, this House should be very wary of letting this government touch this important law at all. Again, not now — six months hence.

Another reason we need six months is because this file was already studied. This is not a new issue to this House. There was a special committee. There was a 2022 report by that special committee. There were already recommendations on how to improve British Columbia’s access and privacy laws while strengthening transparency and accountability.

What possible excuse does this government have? This government issued that 2022 report. This House loves to use the wayback machine, so let’s go way back to 2022 and ask ourselves who the government was in 2022. Certainly, I feel dusting that off might be a start.

It cannot say there was no roadmap. It cannot say there was no prior work. It cannot say no one had thought seriously about FOI reform. All of that had already existed, which means the case for six months is even stronger. The problem was not a lack of time before introduction; the problem was the government had used that time badly.

Even if some of those recommendations made it into Bill 9, this government decided to try and backdoor the ability to hide more information from British Columbians, not allow more visibility on that information to British Columbians. That is why this government needs to be punished for their poor decision-making.

You don’t go to war with people that buy ink by the gallon. When the government uses its time badly, this House should not reward it. It should let that government take another six months to try and do the job properly.

I want to keep tying this back to the original motion because I know the government members will try to pull the debate somewhere else. They will want to say: “Well, surely the member agrees that some reform is needed.” Yes, I don’t disagree. I don’t disagree that reform is needed, but that reform needs to improve transparency, not reduce transparency.

“Well, surely the member sees some merit in parts of the bill.” That’s not the question before us today. The question is whether this bill should proceed now in the shape that it is in, and that answer is clearly no. The minister has admitted that that’s clearly no by tabling amendments before committee has even started, trying desperately to get an independent or two to jump on board and prop this government up. We’re not going to let you do that.

The amendments prove the concerns of this side of the House were real. The concerns of all the stakeholders were real. Because those concerns were real, this House should not proceed now. It should proceed six months hence. That is the motion, that is the test, and that is the standard.

One of the most revealing things here has been tone. The government’s tone has not been grateful that people read the bill carefully. It has not been reflective. It has not been humble. It has been irritated that people noticed, irritated that people objected, irritated that the broad overreach in this bill was actually recognized for exactly what it was — a government trying to hide from their terrible, decades-long record and hide from British Columbians.

Now, having tabled amendments, the government still wants to act like it’s no big deal. Nothing serious here. Nothing to see. This pretty much describes Bill 9 in a nutshell: “Nothing to see here. Just a simple housekeeping bill affecting the transparency that we’re terrible at, by default, that now we’re not even doing by legislated proactive disclosure. No, no. We’ll just try to slide a few more so we can delay and defer longer.”

That is why, Madam Speaker, the six months’ delay, as you said, kills this bill.

That is exactly what this House needs to do. This House needs to accept this motion, kill this bill, go back to the drawing board and come back to British Columbians with something that works in the benefit of all British Columbians, not just government.

This side of the House believes that the default setting of government should be open and transparent. You are responsible for the finances and the decisions being made here, but it is the people of British Columbia that will keep you honest. Honesty is driven by the ability for the citizens to access information in a timely, meaningful way; to ensure that you’re not hiding behind press releases, that you’re hiding behind deliverables.

[5:00 p.m.]

On that, this government has failed. By every measure in health care, things are going backwards. Things are going backwards in affordability. Food bank use is probably the only metric that is rising rapidly under this British Columbian government currently.

In conclusion, I fully support this motion, and I believe that this government has the opportunity to ring a bell that they will be unable to ring should they pass this terrible bill. You will wear that, and the worst part about it is the next government will have the same lack of transparency applied to it, and you will be the ones that laid the trap.

Korky Neufeld: It’s always a privilege to rise in this House to speak. I never take that for granted. Not only do I represent the citizens of Abbotsford but, I believe, in many ways, the residents across this province.

I rise today to speak to the motion for second reading of Bill 9, entitled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, to “be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months hence.’” Therefore, it’s called the “hoist.”

The need to pause Bill 9 introduced by the opposition is paramount to getting this cornerstone legislation to our democracy right. There’s a saying, a true saying, that said there’s nothing new under the sun. It’s very interesting that on the other side of the planet, in Australia, they went through the same process here in March.

I just want to read this article for you. It’s a short couple of brief notes from it. “A win for democracy: Labor abandons freedom-of-information laws change that would have reduced transparency. The Labor government has dumped its controversial changes to the freedom-of-information request system, which would have imposed new fees and further reduced transparency.”

As we are going through this process, so is the government in Australia going through the same process. But they saw the light of day. They saw the light of day, and they pulled it before we got to this point where we’re asking to delay it for six months hence.

“The government’s changes to the FOI system would have imposed tighter rules on accessing information, including new grounds to refuse requests based on cabinet confidentiality” — sounds familiar — “banning anonymous requests” — sounds familiar — and “rules to deter what the government characterized as vexatious and frivolous requests.”

That is why we need to delay implementation of Bill 9 as it stands in order to get it right this time around, because the bill amends one of the most important statutes in our province. The act is not administrative housekeeping, as has been stated. It is not procedural fine print. It is not bureaucratic technicality.

The reason a six-months-hence is required is because this bill is the backbone of government transparency and the legal guardian of citizens’ privacy rights in British Columbia. It is the mechanism by which journalists uncover waste. That’s why we need six months to look at and say: “Is this the right bill? Is this going to increase transparency, or is this going to limit transparency?”

It is the tool citizens use to hold government to account. We need a delay to look at this. It is the safeguard that ensures personal information is not casually collected, casually shared or casually exposed. Today Bill 9 weakens both transparency and privacy at the very same time, and that is precisely why a six-month extension would allow for a more careful, responsible approach to getting this legislation right.

We need a pause of this bill as it stands today because it is not modernization. It is a shift, a complete shift, a lane change in power.

Well, another reason for six months hence is because the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has sent the alarm, and it has reached deaf ears on the other side.

[5:05 p.m.]

We want to make sure that the delay of six months minimum would allow these people who understand freedom of information…. Many of these people who crafted the original document have deep concerns. Here’s one of them. They’re warning that that weakens access rights at a time when government has failed to meaningfully implement its own recordkeeping law and that that fails to address needful reforms to the act.

That is why six months hence is absolutely necessary. We need to look at those people and talk to those people who understand freedom of information and say: the amendments, do they go far enough? Are the amendments too restrictive? How does this change the intent of the original document to the point where it’s ineffective?

The government has framed the bill as a modernization effort to improve digital service delivery. However, FIPA notes that the real source of FOI delays is upstream. It is inconsistent record creation. So it’s basically saying here that the amendments put forth in Bill 9 actually aren’t the issue. The issue is record creation, record classification, record retention and digitization practices across the ministries. We need to delay this bill in order to review the government’s handling of this file in its entirety.

They also say…. “Access delays are often a symptom of recordkeeping failure,” said FIPA executive director Jason Woywada. We cannot fix the system’s information management problems by weakening public access to rights. Another reason for pausing this bill.

We’re not talking for an infinite amount of time. It’s six months. Would it kill the bill? Well, we’ll see.

There are also some glaring absences. Bill 9 is deeply flawed because of what it does not include. FIPA says the bill ignores the work of the last special legislative committee that reviewed FIPPA back in 2022. That is four years ago.

The report, entitled FIPPA for the Future, listed 34 recommendations. So the reason for a six-months-hence is to look at how many of these 34 recommendations were actually thought through or implemented in this bill. We have rushed this through. We need to slow it down. We need to look at it again.

To improve and modernize access to information and privacy rules in British Columbia’s public sector…. Bill 9 represents a failure to act on these recommendations. That’s what FIPA says. So we must delay to look at how the implementation of these 34 recommendations would either strengthen or weaken this legislation.

They also bring forward…. “This is worse than missing the opportunity,” said FIPA president Mike Larsen. It reflects a pattern of successive governments receiving clear advice on gaps in the act and then completely disregarding this guidance.

Six months hence allows us to go back to the drawing table and say to these people: “Okay, what are we missing? How are we missing it? What would make it clearer? What would make it better?”

Here is a comment they make which is kind of alarming. Why, after the Legislature wood splitter scandal and the subsequent joint recommendations by B.C. independent regulators, does Bill 9 not extend FIPPA to cover the administrative offices of the Legislative Assembly?

We need to delay in order to ask these questions, to review this document, so it makes it stronger.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member.

Stephanie Higginson: I stand up on a point of order. The Chair has said that the amendment will kill the bill. The other side is speaking to the amendment and saying it will delay the bill and that they want to make changes to the bill. I’m just seeking clarity on whether this bill will be killed or it will be delayed.

Deputy Speaker: To clarify, I remind the House that the hoist amendment, which is on the floor debating currently, if passed, would have the effect of killing the bill, as it would be removed from the order paper.

Korky Neufeld: Our amendment is what? To delay it henceforth six months, correct?

Deputy Speaker: Yes, it’s a hoist amendment.

Korky Neufeld: Right. Thank you.

The government frames the bill as modernization, as efficiency, as streamlining. More time would allow proper implementation of the 2022 special committee report’s 34 recommendations, many of which directly address backlog reduction and access of improvements. The government has already tabled amendments, as we’ve seen, and those proposed amendments from government show that they themselves recognize issues exist.

[5:10 p.m.]

So for us to say: “You know what? Let’s not rush this through. Let’s change the word ‘now’ to ‘six months hence.’” Why? So we can get this right, even if they do not yet acknowledge the full extent of the problems of this legislation.

Let me be clear. On this side of the House, modernization is welcome when it strengthens access and protects privacy. To be fair, not every clause in this bill is problematic. Formatting updates, clarifications in section 7, information-sharing agreements with other jurisdictions under section 42 — these are administrative changes that may improve coordination.

Efficiency matters, because efficiency is time, and time is money. Administrative clarity matters, but efficiency cannot come at the expense of accountability. This is why a pause, a delay or a termination of this bill would allow this House to get it right.

We support modernization when it improves service delivery without undermining rights, but that is not what the bill primarily does. That’s why removing the word “now” and replacing it with “six months hence” is so very important.

When we examine this bill, clause by clause, we see a pattern. If this gives us the opportunity to look at what those patterns are, can we fix them? More discretion for government, fewer clear timelines, broader authority to ignore requests, greater centralization of personal data, new financial barriers to accessing information. Individually, each change may appear technical, and yes, it would be administrative. But collectively, they move the centre of gravity away from the citizens of British Columbia towards the executive.

By delaying this bill, removing the word “now,” replacing it with “six months hence,” we’ll collectively make sure that citizens’ rights to access information are not sidelined.

Who is to say this government won’t argue that any request touching the Premier’s office interferes with the operations of government? By replacing the word “now” with the words “six months hence” and delaying the bill or removing the bill, we can assess the intended consequences of these changes.

The law requires public bodies to respond to FOI requests without delay. That language is intentional. It creates urgency. It created expectation. It created accountability. The amendments to Bill 9 from this government replace the words. “Without unreasonable delay” is not neutral editing. “Without unreasonable delay” sets a lower bar. More time would allow proper alignment with best practices and ensure these standards remain objective, enforceable and fair.

That is exactly what the public wants. In fact, the people who look at these FOIs want to make sure that they are objective. They want to make sure that it’s enforceable, and they want to make sure it’s fair. I think British Columbians would love that. But that’s not what this bill does.

By pausing this bill, replacing the word “now” with “six months hence,” we can answer the following questions. Who defines what is unreasonable? There’s no answer. Who suffers the consequences? Well, we kind of know who does — the person requesting the FOI.

Let’s remember the context. From 2022 to 2023, FOI applicants waited an average of 192 additional business days beyond the statutory timelines received for response. That is nearly a working year.

By re-pacing this bill — maybe that’s a better word to use because I think they understand that word, “re-pacing” — or delaying it, we can review these contradictions. Instead of tightening compliance, instead of imposing consequences for chronic delays, instead of resourcing the system properly, the government is softening the language.

Access delayed is access denied. Bill 9 normalizes delay instead of fixing it. By replacing the word “now” with “six months hence,” we can address these unacceptable wait times.

Clause 2 changes section 5(1)(a), making it the opinion of the head of the public body whether a request contains enough detail. The pause that we’re asking for…. We can address this vague criteria. Previously this was an objective standard. Now it has become subjective. Well, now the person taking the FOI, instead of having guidelines to say whether it meets the criteria or not…. It has become more subjective. So it really depends on who gets that FOI request. That is why we need to replace the word “now” with “six months henceforth.”

[5:15 p.m.]

If a citizen submits a request and government decides on its own opinion that it’s insufficient detail, the request can be rejected or stalled. That is why delaying this bill is essential by replacing the word “now” with “six months hence.” The public needs time and to have fair access to their information.

The amendment also adds that the record must be identifiable in a reasonable amount of time. By delaying this bill, we can research the answers to vital questions such as: what is reasonable? Because there’s no definition in the existing bill, we need time to look at that and say: “Well, let’s look at what is reasonable. Is there a time frame that we can put down?” Who decides? It’s not very clear. We need time to look at who decides that.

Freedom-of-information legislation was designed to overcome bureaucratic resistance, not institutionalize it. The change tilts the balance toward the gatekeeper. The request for delay by changing the word “now” to “six months hence” allows both sides of this House to make sure access to freedom of information is fair for all British Columbians.

By pausing this bill, we can address one of the most egregious clauses in this bill, and that’s clause 13. It expands the categories under which government may apply to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard requests. This is why we need to pause this. This is why we need to remove the word “now” and do “six months hence.”

New language includes “malicious,” “abusive,” “repetitious,” “systematic,” “excessively broad” and “requests that unreasonably interfere with the operations of government.” A six-month extension would allow for these terms to be clearly defined in statute, not left to interpretation, and would ensure they’re applied fairly and consistently. That’s what FOI should be.

The pause of implementation of Bill 9 allows us to assess the unintended consequences of these terms, because these words are not defined — not “malicious,” not “abusive,” not “excessively broad,” not “interference.” Government will argue that the commissioner can still decide, but I think it’s important. Once legislation is put through, it needs to be clear so those who are making the decisions understand the criteria with which they’re making these decisions.

By delaying this bill as it stands, it allows us to review that this bill does not give disproportionate power to the government. More time would allow proper legal review of this retroactive application and ensure fairness for applicants already navigating the process in good faith.

If we do not delay this bill, the government now has far more grounds to attempt dismissal, such as investigating journalism, which is systemic. Opposition oversight — if we want to ask a question, if it’s repetitious, if we ask it more than once, more than twice, three times, four times…. It doesn’t say. Corruption inquiries, which often begin broad. Transparency, which is often inconvenient. That is exactly the point of freedom of information.

We must pause this bill and the implementation of this bill and remove the word “now” and put “six months hence” to evaluate the imbalance of power. We should not be empowering government to characterize persistence as abuse. We should not be expanding the categories under which scrutiny can be shut down. The amended request for delay, removing the word “now” to “six months hence,” allows us all time to assess.

The most troubling of all is on the new grounds applied retroactively under clause 28. This needs more time. This needs more scrutiny. This needs some difficult questions to be asked. Requests already filed can now be subject to broader dismissal arguments. Changing, midstream, rules undermines fairness and trust. Changing the rules mid-game is unfair, and it undermines trust in the entire system.

FOI is probably the most democratic document that we have. I believe those people who put the original document together would say that the changes now are massive and they undermine the intent with which it was originally written. We need time to look at that.

What was the intent of the original FOI document? Why are these changes now and how are these changes now going to affect British Columbians for years and years to come? By delaying this rule in the bill, we can review its broad, unintended impact. That is why changing the word “now” to “six months hence” is absolutely essential.

[5:20 p.m.]

Clause 21 allows government to charge a fee for copies of records that are available without filing an FOI. Currently proactive disclosures are accessible without fees, and British Columbians appreciate that. Proactive disclosure should mean open access, not pay-per-view governance. This is yet another tax on British Columbians seeking information about their own government.

By pausing Bill 9, removing the word “now” for “six months hence” to make sure there are no financial barriers for British Columbian residents in accessing FOI….

We’ve heard from other speakers that there has been a huge drop in FOI requests since the $10 fee was put on there. You have to ask the question: are some people deciding to request FOI just on a small monetary thing like $10? You have to ask: why? Why are there less? We must pause Bill 9, remove the word “now” to “six months hence,” to make sure that there are no financial barriers to B.C. residents to access FOI.

This is not administrative housekeeping. We must pause. We must remove the word “now” and put in “six months hence,” because, as this bill stands now, it is a new financial barrier for many British Columbians.

Let us not forget that government already introduced a $10 filing fee in previous amendments. We were told the fee was necessary. Now we see further expansion of this financial barrier. Transparency should not depend on the size of a person’s wallet. They are taking the “free” out of freedom of information.

A six-month extension would allow government to consult with stakeholders, with journalists, with civil liberties groups and the public. The real-world impact of expanding fees before locking them into law….

That’s why this is so important. That’s why we brought it forward. We felt it was rushed. We felt the word “now” was too quick, and it changes the intent of the original document, and we need time to look at it. We need time to see: hey, what are these changes going to mean for the intent of the original document?

By delaying this bill, by changing the word “now” to “six months hence,” it gives time to evaluate the financial impact on the public to access their information. The public already paid for these records through their taxes. Charging again to access them is not modernization. It is monetization of accountability. Transparency should not be a privilege for those who can afford it or navigate bureaucratic barriers.

We must delay the implementation of Bill 9, remove the word “now” and put in “six months hence,” in order to get this right.

Clause 7 introduces a new section, 16.1, allowing the refusal of disclosure of communication from judicial officers about policy, programs and legislation. That is a significant expansion, and we’re rushing it through. A pause, a delay, removing “now” to “six months hence,” would give us time — time that we need to get it right.

Section 16 already protected sensitive intergovernmental and Indigenous regulations. Here is the crux of this. A six-month extension would allow constitutional experts — we’re not constitutional experts — and legal scholars to weigh in on the implications of these new exemptions, because this is going to become law for British Columbians for years to come.

That is why we need to remove the word “now” and put in “six months hence” to get it right. By delaying this bill, we can see if this is redundant or if it adds another layer of secrecy by and for government.

This bill, as it stands today, goes further, shielding policy communications involving judicial officers. Judicial independence is absolutely fundamental, but transparency in executive policy-making is also fundamental. If members of the judiciary are communicating with government about legislation and programs, the public has an interest to understand the context.

That’s where FOI comes in, and that’s why it’s important that it’s in a timely manner. Imagine if there’s something going on, and you ask for an FOI. It takes a year to come to you. By that time, the legislation is already through, and you don’t have the opportunity to speak to it or to rebut it or find out the intent of it.

This new exemption expands secrecy into new territory. More time would allow robust privacy safeguards to be built in from the outset. We’ve seen, with some of the amendments that the minister has made in the middle of debate in second reading….

[5:25 p.m.]

It shows that there are some things that they have missed. There are some things that could be clearer, and that’s exactly what we’re saying. Let’s remove the word “now.” Let’s put in “six months hence.”

More time would allow robust privacy safeguards to be built in from the outset rather than retrofitting later. It is much more difficult to retrofit something in after, so we must delay Bill 9, remove the word “now” and put in “six months hence,” to bring certainty to the public’s ability to access information, not to strengthen secrecy.

Clauses 8, 9, 11 and 20 establish and empower a connected service provider. This is what we need to review, and that’s why we need time to review it, and that’s why the word “now” needs to be replaced with “six months hence.” It’s because this entity may operate centralized digital platforms, facilitate sharing of personal information across ministries. How much personal information? Who’s going to be able to see that? For how long does that person have that personal information? That’s your information. That’s my information. It’s private. It doesn’t state. We need time to look at this.

Identify program eligibility. Share categories of personal data between public bodies. Here we go again. The minister may issue binding directions regarding what data is shared. That’s why it is so important that we delay the implementation of Bill 9, remove the word “now” and put in “six months hence.” What data is shared? How much is shared? Which resources must be used? Which categories of persons are affected? All by ministerial direction.

By delaying Bill 9, removing the word “now” for “six months hence,” we can create clear guidelines for ministerial oversight. Yes, privacy impact assessments must be shared with the commissioner upon request. But there’s no veto, no mandatory approval, no binding oversight. That is why it is essential. Remove the word “now” and put into there “six months hence” to give us time to look at that.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

We are centralizing data authority while weakening statutory guardrails. In an age of cybersecurity risks, AI analytics and data breaches, expanding executive control over data sharing should come with stronger, not weaker, constraints. That is why it is important for us to remove the word “now” and put in there “six months hence” to make sure we get it right. By delaying Bill 9 as it stands, it allows us to evaluate how it strengthens statutory guardrails instead of weakening them.

Clause 15 allows the commissioner to extend review timelines beyond 90 days. Currently there is a hard limit. Applicants have already waited nearly a year for responses. Instead of accelerating the reviews, the government is adding flexibility to extend them. Efficiency should mean faster resolution, not more elasticity to delay. A six-month extension would allow focus to shift toward reducing delays, not legitimizing them. By delaying Bill 9, by removing the word “now” to “six months hence” in order to minimize access-to-information delays and streamlined processes requests, not to further delay access….

Freedom-of-information laws exist because government is not naturally leaning towards transparency. They lean towards control. They lean towards convenience. They lean towards risk management. That is human nature. That is why strong legislative guardrails matter. That is why we need to replace the word “now” with “six months hence” to get it right. By delaying Bill 9, we can make it better and more effective for all British Columbians, not just the government that is in power.

Don’t forget that there will come a day when someone else will be in power. These same FOI rules that we are trying to push through now, they will have to live with, along with 5.7 million British Columbians.

By inserting strong statutory language which counters that instinct, like: “Let’s put in clear timelines….” That’s a novel concept. Narrow exemptions, not broader. Define standards. Limit discretion. The government has already tabled amendments, which shows that they believe this legislation is fundamentally flawed. Then they should have no issue allowing additional time to ensure it’s done properly.

That’s why we need to replace the word “now” with “six months hence.” Let’s pause Bill 9 so we can get it right. Bill 9 moves in the opposite direction. It creates looser timelines, undefined standards, expanded dismissal categories, new fees, centralized data authority. Individually these may appear incremental. Collectively they represent a philosophical shift from citizen-first access to institution-first discretion, from transparency to manageability, from accountability to control. Transparency in policy development is not optional in a democracy.

[5:30 p.m.]

A six-month extension would allow for the necessary fixes, proper consultation, full implementation of prior recommendations, ensuring that this legislation strengthens rather than weakens public trust.

Once the trust is broken, it is hard to get it back. That is why replacing the word “now” with “six months hence” is absolutely critical for this piece of legislation. By pausing Bill 9 for a set amount of time, it gives us the opportunity to get it right.

You may be asking: “What should we be doing?” Solutions from this side of the House. We need time to review, and that is why removing the word “now” and replacing it with “six months hence” is essential.

By agreeing to pause Bill 9, it shows that this government is serious about strengthening the system by imposing enforceable standards, funding backlog reduction, narrowing exemptions, expanding proactive disclosure, strengthening the binding authority of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, limiting discretionary refusal powers and protecting access rights from retroactive applications.

That is modernization. That is reform. That is democratic strengthening. That is why delaying the implementation of Bill 9 by removing the word “now” for “six months hence” is absolutely required for freedom-of-information requests and oversight to remain central to our democracy.

Let me just explain the word “delay.” I looked it up. It’s a period of time by which something is late or postponed. A pause is a temporary stop in action — six months, not an endless time, but a specific timeline. Re-pacing, which the other side of the aisle understands very clearly, is a process of repositioning, a form of re-intervention.

That’s what we’re asking for. We’re asking for the word “now” to be replaced with “six months hence.” I’m a firm believer in democracy and freedom of information. That’s what we need.

Sheldon Clare: It’s always a pleasure to be speaking in this House. I enjoy it immensely. I rise today to support the hoist motion for amending the motion of second reading of Bill 9 by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

I think it behooves us well to consider exactly what a hoist motion is and what it does. We’ve had some discussion about that in this House, but, to be clear, a hoist motion delays the second reading of a bill for the purpose of careful examination in some time hence. Sometimes it could be three months. It could be six months. That’s typical.

Such a motion removes the bill from the order paper. In this case, that would have the effect of killing the bill, but that’s not a terrible thing, necessarily. What that means is that this bill can, in fact, be carefully recrafted to meet the real needs of what should be happening with freedom of information and protection of privacy and making sure that what we’re dealing with here is something that will better serve everyone. It will serve the people of British Columbia, it will serve the members of government, and it will better serve the members of opposition.

As my learned colleague has pointed out in his previous remarks, what has to happen here is that a consideration needs to be made that what happens in any act or bill — although it may serve the purposes of government in one time, in one term, when a particular government is in office — may not be all that convenient for the members of that particular government, were they to be sitting in opposition.

If we’re going to be considering a bill like this, I think it goes back to looking very carefully at why we want to change this to a six-month delay, which would effectively kill the bill. When we’re looking at the concerns expressed by various speakers about why this delay, this hoist motion, is necessary, I think it goes back to words I was speaking yesterday about the social contract and where the social contract comes from.

[5:35 p.m.]

The purpose of such a hoist motion is really to protect the social contract. Now, what is the origin of the social contract that we’re talking about here that affects this particular hoist motion? Well, when we look at philosophers of political thought and philosophy of how people interact with governance, we look at writers such as Rawls or Hobbes or Rousseau or John Locke.

They all represent fundamental differences in the relationship of people to government. If we’re going to be considering those fundamental differences of the relationship of people to government, we need to understand that in this House there are considerably different philosophies about what that means.

The social contract that exists that gives legitimacy to government is directly affected by this motion to effectively kill this bill. When this bill is removed from the order paper, we need to understand that there are a number of particular philosophical positions that do apply.

Now, if we’re looking at Rousseau, for example, the life and being of the state is considered to be…. The state, in Rousseau’s thought, is a moral person, and it is to be subordinate to the general will. He has a concept of citizenship as organic and social as compared to a more individualistic view held by John Locke.

Now, when we are looking at considering what happens to this particular bill and it being delayed for a time six months hence, I think that we also need to consider the role of surrendering independence and natural liberty to attain political liberty, because this is Rousseau’s central argument. It means that all individual rights must be subordinate to the general will. He would argue, for example, that property rights must be subordinated to the general will as well. This is something I fundamentally disagree with.

Rousseau basically supports equality of outcome, and the competing philosophy supports equality of opportunity.

When we’re looking at the social contract with regards to this particular hoist motion and how it changes what would happen with this particular bill, I think we need to understand that philosophical basis that is affecting the political desire to put the bill forward in the first place.

In Locke’s social contract, the state of nature is characterized by the absence of government but not by the absence of mutual obligation and responsibility, because people do have responsibilities in a society to be able to fulfil their particular roles as citizens in civics. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believes that individuals are naturally endowed with the rights to life, liberty and property and that the state of nature surrounding those things could be relatively peaceful.

This is a difference, I think, between a philosophy which is more Rousseau-like, which has been the essence of creating the particular bill before us, which I am arguing needs to be laid for six months….

The natural rights that precede the establishment of civil society are really important. I think they’re important to British Columbians, not just in an abstract sense but in a very real sense. We are seeing a lot of division in our province, our country, dare I say even the world, over basic elements of how people interact with government and governance.

These particular situations are affecting all of us, and they are affecting how we are treating this particular bill. When we put a hoist motion forward to look at this bill, those essences of how one views the world are central to how we are going to deal with that particular situation and philosophy.

What you get when people become unhappy is you get revolutionary movements. The American Revolutionary War, for example, was arguably a direct result of this desire for people to recapture what they felt were their natural rights that had been eroded by the circumstances that they were under.

Now, regardless of how one feels about that particular conflict and how good King George was maligned at that time, it’s an important thing to realize that when you put a hoist motion forward on a particular bill, it will kill the bill that’s before the House.

[5:40 p.m.]

We need to understand that this does allow a pause — as my learned colleague put it, a re-pacing — to rewrite the bill so that it actually performs some useful purpose and makes it so that the people who are going to be affected by this bill can actually learn about its existence, learn about the changes that are proposed in it and make due representation to government and to committees to ensure that this particular bill gets the due hearing that it should have.

When we are considering…. I mentioned Rousseau, and I mentioned Hobbes and Locke. If you compare Hobbes with Rousseau, for example, on social contract — because that’s what this is, a social contract — Hobbes saw human nature as selfish and competitive. Rousseau, on the other hand, saw people as being naturally good but corrupted by society. The state of nations under Hobbes was seen to be brutal and warlike — perpetual conflict.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I can appreciate what you’re trying to draw our attention to. I hope that you will relate this at all times to the motion before this House.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do really want to emphasize that this is about why it’s necessary to take out “now” and substitute “six months hence” in this particular legislative proposal in this bill. The change goes to the essence of why this legislation is before us at all.

Anyway, in Rousseau’s view of a peaceful society, such a thing would not be necessary, really. It would just be a wonderful time, and everybody would be rainbows and unicorns, if you like.

Hobbes also contrasts why a social contract is necessary with the view of Rousseau. Hobbes would argue that it’s a fear of death, fear of the imposition of sanction that drives why people rely on government and are prepared to give up their rights and freedoms. Rousseau, on the other hand….

Interjection.

Sheldon Clare: We can get more into Locke if you like.

Deputy Speaker: What I would be interested in hearing about, Members, is the motion. That is what I would like to hear about.

Sheldon Clare: Yes, and I understand that.

The motion is, and I’ll make sure I read it out so everyone understands that this is essential: “That the motion for second reading of Bill 9, intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word ‘now’ and substituting ‘six months hence.’” Duly signed and all of that. It was received by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on the 5th of May in the year of our Lord 2026, in Victoria, British Columbia.

Getting back to the philosophical basis for why it’s necessary to hoist the bill, it goes back to these philosophical differences between Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and Rawls. They are quite different, and there are differences of political philosophy that are based upon these particular views of the world.

Now, Hobbes, for example, argued that there was an absolute monarch, a leviathan, if you like. Rousseau argued that it was, in fact, the collective community that would benefit. So if we’re looking at this difference, and we look at this particular legislative proposal of amending the proposal for moving the bill forward by substituting “six months hence” for the word “now,” this really is why we are here.

We are lawmakers. This is what we do. We have before us a law, and we have to decide if this law has value and if we need to move it forward. If we decide that we don’t want to move it forward, at some point we’re going to have a vote. It will either pass or fail, and that will determine the result.

[5:45 p.m.]

There are, of course, different views about freedom. When we look for freedom of information, freedom is an essential aspect that we must consider as part of what we’re doing here. That is the essential word. People want the freedom to know what their government is doing.

If we don’t allow for this hoist motion to go forward, I’m not sure that we would be best serving the interests of the people. Bill 9 will be killed by this hoist motion. I think that’s pretty clear. It has been asked about. It has been discussed. We’ve seen members raise the point: “Well, this would kill the bill.” Well, I think that’s probably pretty obvious if you look at the legislative calendar.

We could go through the legislative calendar to see if that was, in fact, the case. We could go through it, day by day. I think we have a short pause between the legislative calendars coming up in May. It will give us a time to reflect carefully on the work we are doing here and make sure that what we are going to be working on is valuable to our constituents, to the province and to this House.

Now, getting back to that contrast between Hobbes and Rousseau that I was discussing a moment ago, I think it was once said — and the name of the philosopher escapes me at present, but I could go look it up and come back — that those who would surrender a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security deserve neither.

When we’re looking at freedom, surrendering freedom for safety is part of what Hobbes said. If we’re looking at Ben Franklin, who gave the quotation I crudely paraphrased, I think that’s the point of what he was saying. That contrasts with Rousseau.

When we’re looking at substituting “six months hence” for “now,” I think that’s really an important aspect of the philosophy behind this. Rousseau’s social contract is that the legitimacy of government is retained through the general will of the people. He takes this drastic lament for the fatal concept of property, because if someone believes in private property, you’re probably not a big supporter of Rousseau. You would be what we would call a socialist.

If you believe in private property, you’re more akin to the philosophies of John Locke. Individual rights, freedom and the value of personal and private property are essential.

When you have that belief in things like life, liberty and property as an essence, it’s really important to consider, when you examine the motion before us about deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence,” that there is a basic social contract that exists that this is directly the fruit of.

When we’re considering how people view different aspects of how they want to be governed and how they view governance and how they view the relationship of the people to the government, this goes right to it. They want to get information. They want to have transparency. They do not want their access to that information to be fettered.

This motion would help to make sure that this bill is killed. If it needs to come back in a form that better serves the people, well, then so be it. We can have that happen. We’ve already seen bills in this House be paused or delayed or re-paced. Perhaps when we consider this particular government bill and we look at this hoist motion to make sure that it is delayed for six months and considered six months hence….

Would it come off the order paper? Well, of course it would. It would come off the order paper just as a bill I once proposed did and then was brought back. We’ve seen how this can happen. Now, the bill that I brought back didn’t have a word changed in it. It was the same bill. The only thing changing was the number.

This bill needs a lot more changes, and I think the six-month pause would generously give the government time to reconsider, repurpose, re-pace and reconstruct this flawed legislation and make it something that might be supportable, because it clearly isn’t in its present form.

[5:50 p.m.]

It’s very, very important that all of us take a really good look at what we’re trying to do when we’re talking about changing the timing of a particular bill by hoisting it and giving it another six months for due consideration. We, on this side of the House, are great believers in efficiency. We are great believers in freedom and individual rights. We live to serve, as do all members of this House. We’re all here to serve the people.

When we considered Bill 9, and we looked at it carefully, we realized that this bill may have some problems in fulfilling that mandate of serving the people. Hoisting that bill to six months in the near future is probably the best way that we can serve the people.

Administrative improvements in a bill? Hey, that sounds great. However, there are proposals in that bill that people have legitimate concerns about, and they deserve the right to be able to have a full and informed public hearing about what is in the bill. Six months of delay is not too much to ask for a due consideration.

Upon reflection, perhaps the members on the side of the government, the NDP, will look at this very carefully and realize that perhaps they need to adjust their philosophy a little bit and broaden it out so that they can bring forth a little bit more individual freedom and a little less government heavy-handedness. Maybe they can consider that there are elements of some of these philosophers that I’ve spoken about that have value that they may not have considered.

It’s not okay to make it harder for people to get access to information. It’s not okay to delay access to information. It’s not okay to make it more expensive for British Columbians to get information from their government. When we delay this bill for six months hence, that gives people the opportunity to have a look at this legislation, get a better understanding of it and make sure that they are fully informed as to what it means, what it says and the effect that it will have on them and their lives.

When we have clauses like clause 13, which significantly expands the circumstances under which the government can apply to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard an FOI request because of these new categories which we discussed, there is no doubt that delaying this legislation for six months is a good idea.

The new categories of words include looking at requests and deciding that they’re malicious. Who decides if something is malicious? Is there a court? Is there an appeal process, or is it just arbitrary? Arbitrariness is the enemy of freedom. “Abusive.” If something is abusive, well, I think we may have to have a consideration of what “abusive” might mean. But if it’s not something that can be appealed or examined carefully, then maybe it’s not something that should be in the legislation.

A request that’s excessively broad could also be turned down. Well, when somebody wants some information, and they’re going to try to look and see what’s available, they may have some trouble with their phraseology.

Not all of us in the world are lawyers. Not all of us understand the limitations of legislation. Not all of us are able to navigate the complexities of government bureaucracy and technology, and we need to have due consideration for those who want access to information, need access to information, deserve access to information and, dare I say, are entitled to that information.

Shocking to me is that the government would try to block requests that unreasonably interfere with the operations of government. If anything else in this bill is a problem, then that is a great reason for a six-month delay for due consideration, pause, rewriting, reconsideration and everything else.

[5:55 p.m.]

Now, the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act put out a pretty thorough report about the matter. There were a number of members in this House who were on that committee: the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam; the member for Nechako Lakes; the member for North Vancouver–Seymour; the member for Burnaby North, who was on that committee for part of the time.

They all participated in this, and they reviewed this particular legislation. They had a number of powers to look at this, and all of them relate to things that they made as recommendations, which may be something that should be considered in a revised, rewritten, redrafted Bill 9. So a six-month delay is certainly not unreasonable.

That committee examined a great deal of information, and when they came through and started to look at how they were going to deal with this, what they wanted to make sure is that there was a culture of transparency. This hoist motion will help to make sure that that culture of transparency is maintained and, if it isn’t existing, it is completely rebuilt and reconstructed.

That is an essential part of ensuring that people are getting the information they need. It should be all duly documented. It should all be duly reported upon. It should all be what is needed to help protect the interests of the people of British Columbia. If we forget why we’re here, which is to make sure that we’re making good laws for the people of British Columbia, then we are making a very big mistake indeed.

When we look at a hoist motion as a means of stopping something that has some mistakes — and it’s pretty clear that the government agrees that there are some mistakes in this legislation, by putting forth amendments to it — then maybe this whole thing needs to be reset. This hoist motion will allow for that reset to occur. It will allow for a very due legislative process to make sure that people’s access to information, which they have paid for, is duly taken into consideration.

We don’t want to be putting something as a barrier to people. People deserve to know what’s going on in the hidden corridors of power. When we have a hoist motion before us to consider how we may consider that, well, this would kill this problem, this uncertainty, this difficulty, these problems which the members of the opposition have, obviously, brought forward. It gives time for government to recraft a much more shiny bill which will not have that odoriferous issue that might make it unpalatable.

If we’re going to make sure that we are doing our due diligence in our primary role, which is to make law, I encourage everyone here to support this hoist motion and delay to get some good justice for the people of British Columbia when they’re looking at access to information, their ability to freely access information and have their privacy protected at the same time.

It’s certainly the case that sometimes when you make a request, you get a whole bunch of redactions on it. I’ve been fortunate in at least one of my FOI requests to get a document of nearly 1,000 pages that did not have a single redaction. I couldn’t believe it. I was astounded. It has got to be the first time that that ever happened in history.

When my learned colleague from Saanich North and the Islands has played a central role in crafting legislation way back when, in ancient times, and when we look at this legislation now and we see that he shares my concerns and others with this legislation, this hoist motion appears to be essential. When you have the Greens and the Conservatives and independents all agreeing that there might be a problem here, I think we represent a pretty broad cross-section of this province, and I don’t think that’s something that should be taken lightly or ignored.

[6:00 p.m.]

When you look at a map of the province, and you put some colour to what is represented where and whom, there’s geographic representation, and there’s representation by large centres and big clusters of population. It concerns me that sometimes those of us who are beyond Hope, the geographic location, are sometimes feeling a little left out.

I think a six-month pause is an excellent way of ensuring that there is due representation about this hoist motion so that we can certainly do our due diligence, make sure that what we have is what we need and that the people of British Columbia’s interests are well served and that they understand the philosophies that brought this legislation forward and understand how those philosophies differ about information, how they differ about views of governments and the legitimacy of government and what that means for each and every man, woman and child in British Columbia and beyond.

If we don’t do our job and if we don’t get this right, how are we going to go back to our communities and look people in the faces when they come to our offices and say, “I asked for some information, and they told me my request was too broad, so they denied it,” or, “They said my request would interfere with the operations of government, so they denied it”?

The people of British Columbia deserve more time. This hoist motion will give them that time, and I believe everyone in this House should support it.

Rob Botterell: I rise to speak in support of this motion. As I’ve noted in this House before, this is an area of legislation that I have significant experience in.

I’d like to echo the concerns of my colleagues who spoke before me. I led the team in the early ’90s that developed this legislation, which my colleague from Abbotsford South kindly pointed out. I see Bill 9 as being the culmination of 34 years of successive governments attempting to water down and weaken that legislation.

I noted just now the member for Prince George–North Cariboo casting a look this way, so I want to take the time to acknowledge the member and his very helpful speech on the flaws in the current bill and the guidance a long-time historian brings to this chamber.

I have previously raised my concerns in this chamber and to the minister and to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I appreciate the time that has been made available to explore the problems with this legislation and to have a very candid discussion about the impact this legislation will have on freedom of information in this province.

As you’ll note, the minister has put forward some amendments to partially address a few of the issues I’ve raised — a few but not many, and only partially — and this brings me to the motion before us today. I do not believe that enough amendments can be made to this bill to support it.

[6:05 p.m.]

We know that freedom of information allows the public to see how decisions are actually made. We know that this was a founding principle that drove our work on the original legislation, and I believe that public trust depends on this transparency. When people can access information, they’re more likely to believe that government is acting fairly and in the public interest.

This legislation has been the tool that empowers journalists, researchers, citizens, British Columbians to have direct oversight over government. This keeps decision-making connected to the people it affects.

This legislation, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure the amount of information you have doesn’t depend on who you know and why you want it. It depends on the fact that you are a British Columbian, that you paid the taxes to have this information created. It’s our job — all of us, all British Columbians — to hold government to account. You can’t hold government to account when you don’t have the information.

This legislation includes a carefully crafted set of exemptions to that right of access, recognizing that there are circumstances where information must be withheld or may be withheld because of its impact on decision-making processes. If cabinet couldn’t meet in private and have candid, frank conversations, that would defeat the purpose of cabinet. You have to allow for that, but you have to balance it. This legislation provides those checks and balances.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I ask you to relate to the motion, of course, that’s before the House? I can appreciate your comments on the bill, but can you relate them, please, to the motion?

Rob Botterell: Yes. The bill as structured will defeat the original purpose of this legislation because it will create — I’ll go into some detail, Mr. Speaker, on this — a set of changes to the legislation which effectively convert freedom of information into freedom from information.

In an effort to explain what we lose by passing this legislation, I will, with your indulgence, carry on in terms of what we have now and what we won’t have, which is the fundamental reason that I and the Green caucus support the motion before the House. When people cannot meaningfully participate in public debate, that mainly means they don’t have access to the facts. When access is restricted, reduced or delayed, suspicion grows. Even good decisions can be questioned if they are made without transparency.

That is another problem with this legislation. It creates an environment where people have to guess about the basis for a decision. There may be a very good basis for the decision, but without access to information, you’re left to guess.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Point of Order

Stephanie Higginson: Point of order. The member had almost two hours to talk about the original motion, and we are now debating an amendment to the motion. I believe that you have already instructed the member to speak to the amendment and not to the original motion, which is clearly what he is speaking about.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate your comments, Member.

I would recognize the House Leader of the Third Party.

The member is correct. We are debating, of course, the motion, and we have had a pretty wide berth in here this afternoon. The reality is we are talking about the motion, so please relate your comments to that.

[6:10 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Rob Botterell: The motion is a hoist motion. I am speaking in support of the hoist motion. The hoist motion will have the effect of killing this bill.

The only way for freedom of information to be protected in this province, which is fundamental to our democracy, is by hoisting this motion. The hoist of this motion is required because the changes to freedom of information introduced in Bill 9 will fundamentally change freedom of information to freedom from information.

I am speaking in support of the motion, and for every point I make for the balance of the time I have, I will link every line to why it relates to the motion, because I definitely do not want to lose my opportunity to speak at this important juncture.

I am speaking in support of the motion. I did not come to this decision to support the hoist motion lightly. I spent a significant amount of time meeting the minister. I hope it’s okay to thank the minister and her staff for the time spent to discuss my concerns, because I did not reach the decision to support this hoist motion without having an opportunity to hear the other side. These meetings happened in good faith and were open-minded to see if there is a pathway forward.

Once again, I’m speaking in support of the motion, and I’m demonstrating that I did not come to this decision lightly.

In six months, this government can prove to us that this bill is not an attempt to evade their responsibilities to the public on openness and transparency. I support this hoist motion because it gives the government an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and determine what changes might be appropriate to enhance freedom of information rather than create freedom from information.

There are parts of the bill that solve some real issues. That I don’t have a problem with. I’m supporting the hoist motion because there are other parts of the legislation that are very problematic. But there are clauses, and they did not influence my decision, like clause 22 that allow people to access their own information more easily, and that’s important. That’s the problem.

Another reason why I support this hoist motion is because there is no amount of amendments that will save this legislation and protect freedom of information. It’s unfortunate that in this legislation there are some provisions that protect or support personal information access, but on balance, I’m supporting this hoist motion because the changes that are problematic far outweigh the changes that are supportable.

I want to note that clauses that expand the ability of government to delay, deny or to limit access to information are not changes that improve freedom of information, and for that reason, this act needs to be hoisted. I covered some of this in my second reading speech earlier this spring, but that was in a different context. That was in opening debate on the legislation.

[6:15 p.m.]

I think it’s important for the public of British Columbia and everybody who follows the deliberations of this House to understand why I support the hoisting of this bill, which is a very major step that none of us on this side of the House are taking lightly. This is a major decision for the House to make, and I think it’s important to provide an overview of the specific clauses that I see as problematic in the legislation, as the government is now proposing to amend a few of these clauses. But I don’t think that this goes far enough.

So in the absence of a point of order from the other side of the House, I’ll continue to highlight the changes that brought me to this significant decision to support the hoist motion.

There’s clause 1. It removes from FOI records the records that fall within a general class of records that is listed or identified as part of a proceeding. That section stands as it is, and it creates a whole new class exemption for general records in relation to the items mentioned in clause 1.

Clause 2 proposed amendments that would remove “in the opinion of the head of the public body,” but it still adds that requests must be detailed enough to identify the record sought in a reasonable amount of time. That is a fundamental change to this act. What it means is that….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I ask you to explain to me how that relates to the motion itself? We’ve debated the bill. Can you please relate it to the motion that’s before the House?

Rob Botterell: The motion before the House is a motion to hoist the bill. You would have to have very strong reasons to support hoisting the bill. I would submit that it’s entirely reasonable for me…. I’m not giving a one hour and 45-minute speech. I’m summarizing the reasons that I’m reaching this decision to support hoisting the bill. There are portions of the act that I find so objectionable that I’m prepared to vote against having this bill proceed further in this sitting.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. I’m just trying to guide you toward the motion itself. As I said, we have debated the bill a number of times. We are talking about the hoist motion itself, so please direct your comments to that.

Member, would you note the hour for me?

Rob Botterell: Noting the hour, I seek to reserve my place and adjourn debate.

Rob Botterell moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Lisa Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:19 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

On Vote 46: ministry operations, $201,199,000 (continued).

[1:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Would the minister like to continue?

Hon. Randene Neill: I would. Thank you, Chair.

There was a question asked by the member prior to the break, and I’m hoping we can give the member the answer now.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Hon. Randene Neill: There was $11.489 million in job action savings. So $4.3 million of these savings went toward offsetting salary increases that resulted from the negotiated collective agreements, and roughly $7 million was returned to reach an overall balanced budget.

Donegal Wilson: Thanks for that answer. Just clarifying. The minister had mentioned prior to that some of that money was redistributed. I just want to make sure that it was only to salaries. There were no other grants-in-aid or anything provided with those savings.

Hon. Randene Neill: Not from the job action savings.

Donegal Wilson: Perhaps, then, other savings in other ministries? Was there a redirection to grants-in-aid or direct-award contracts in March?

Hon. Randene Neill: In addition to the job action savings, as a result of expenditure management controls and hiring restrictions, there were some additional savings. Some of those savings were provided to offset the pressures for this year’s budget.

But as a reminder to the member, the question you’re asking is about last year’s budget, and the estimates are for this year’s budget.

[1:40 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: We’re also comparing last year’s numbers to this year’s numbers while we’re trying to decide how this budget lines up. So I’m just trying to better understand. By looking at last year’s numbers, and we’re at the status quo, what does that mean for this year? That is why I’m going back a little bit.

You said that through expense management and curtailment you were able to save some, but the minister’s number wasn’t actually disclosed on how much was saved and redirected into other contract awards. If we could have that answer, please.

Hon. Randene Neill: Approximately $19 million in other savings from last year’s budget. All of those accounts will be available to the public accounts in July.

To give you an example of the kind of proactive spending that was done to offset pressures in additional years, we gave three years of funding to the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Funding to the Freshwater Fisheries Society, the Habitat Conservation Trust fund are a few of the examples.

Donegal Wilson: Those awards for the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Habitat Conservation Trust will all be in direct-awards releases that the ministry posts. I think January was just posted, but they’ll be posted as part of February and March.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: The examples I gave to you from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Freshwater Fisheries Society and Habitat Conservation Trust fund — those are grants, not direct awards.

Direct awards are announced quarterly, but my understanding is we’re just moving to a new system so the next announcement may be slightly delayed. And the new system is within another ministry.

Donegal Wilson: So the grant funding is not included in the direct award.

Would it be included in the contracts over $10,000, or, being grant funding, would that also not be a contract?

Hon. Randene Neill: A grant is not a contract. What we can share is, whether it’s a grant or a direct award or a contract, it’s all part of the $19 million and it will be released in the public accounts in July.

Donegal Wilson: Well, I appreciate that it’s in the public accounts in July. That’s a few-hundred-page document with every organization listed and how much in which ministry — not necessarily the easiest way for myself as critic or for the public to better understand how funds are moving through the ministry.

Just quoting, I think the last time this ministry has updated their direct-award contracts was September 2025. Either there were no direct-award contracts between October and December, or they have not been posted yet. As of yesterday, January 2026 was the last time any of the direct-award contracts have been updated as well. And that list included, I think, almost $5 million from previous periods that had not been reported.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’m trying to understand how…. Is it a staffing or a technology issue? Why are these reports being updated so late, and how come the public isn’t able to access them in a timely manner?

Hon. Randene Neill: It’s the same as the answer I gave to a previous question. Citizens’ Services is undergoing a technical upgrade, so they would be the ministry to ask.

Donegal Wilson: Okay.

In your service plan, there are several public sector organizations listed, including the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors, the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority, the Mackenzie River Basin Board, the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board, the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission and the Wildlife Advisory Council.

Are these budgets all included in your budget? And can you provide me a breakdown of the annual operating costs of each of those organizations?

The Chair: And just a reminder, all remarks through the Chair.

Hon. Randene Neill: Those organizations that the member mentioned are not part of the Water, Land and Resource Stewardship operating budget. That means that their budget is not coming out of anything from the WLRS budget, so the best advice would be to reach out to those individual organizations.

Donegal Wilson: Can the minister, then, describe the reporting relationship, as they’re listed in your service plan as being responsible and accountable to you? If you’re not funding them, what is the reporting relationship?

Hon. Randene Neill: Depending on the agency, for example, their legislation would fall under the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Donegal Wilson: Just for clarity. I had mentioned the Wildlife Advisory Council. It was my understanding that WLRS was the one leading that and, to my understanding, was funding the work through that, through both the facilitator and the tables. Can we please confirm that WLRS is not funding the Wildlife Advisory Council?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I appreciate the chance to clarify and delve into this a little bit further.

The example that the member opposite gave was MWAC, which is the Minister’s Wildlife Advisory Council. We do provide some funding to them because they are an advisory council of this ministry. For example, last year we provided about $130,000. Part of that were honorariums, and part of that were travel expenses.

But as the member suggested, other organizations, like Muskwa-Kechika, for example…. Those are organizations with their own legislative boards and societies, so the funding is different, and that does not come out of this ministry’s operating budget.

Donegal Wilson: We’ll dig into that a little further down.

Can the minister please provide how many regional or strategic land use plans are currently active or under development this fiscal?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thirteen.

[2:00 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: What is the total amount budgeted for land use planning this fiscal year, and can we have it broken down between how much each of those 13 are getting?

Hon. Randene Neill: For the 2026-27 land use planning and cumulative effects, $30.554 million. About half of that number goes to cumulative effects, and the other half goes to land use planning.

Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is the lead ministry for land use planning, but we also coordinate a multiministry approach to it, so MIRR, Forests, Environment and Energy and Climate Solutions. Because multiple staff work on multiple land use plans, we don’t break it down per land use plan, so we can’t give you a monetary figure on that.

Donegal Wilson: What is the mechanism that enacts the plan? When the plan is complete, what is the mechanism that we’ve all agreed, where this is the final plan and this is now how decisions are made?

Quite often we see these plans in their very early stages, yet bureaucrats are making decisions like that plan has passed. I’m just wondering what the final mechanism is that says: “This plan is finalized, we’re there, and we’re now making decisions with that.”

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. I just want to go back a little bit and give you an example because I think it sometimes makes it a bit easier to understand. A few months ago we celebrated the success of the Gwa’ni land use plan, which was a multiministry, multi-year plan that started in 2021, but several folks were working on this plan locally on the ground prior to that.

This is a 166,000-hectare project in the core ʼNa̱mǥis First Nation territory near the communities of Woss and Port McNeill. It includes the majority of the Nimpkish Valley watershed. It also included the completion of the forest landscape plan, which is why we celebrated last fall, which is a joint partnership between the ʼNa̱mǥis Nation and Western Forest Products.

This is one of the first modernized land use planning processes in the province to reach the implementation stage and is projected to support increased timber harvest levels not seen in the area since 2016.

This was something that was celebrated with not only the ʼNa̱mǥis Nation but also local governments, the local communities and industry. In fact, when we went up there to celebrate it, most folks thought that it had already been in place because they’d been engaged on it for so long and were in agreement with it and celebrating the success of it for so long. So this was a project that was truly one made on the ground with all of the community support that we needed.

That was finalized by cabinet, as are all land use plans, but then they’re also enacted by legislation. Certain pieces of legislation need to be enacted. In the example that we’re using of Gwa’ni, it was section 93.4 of the Land Act, which is actually an order in council. And to enact the Gwa’ni land use plan, there were actually four OICs that were passed through the Land Act to be able to put that into legislation.

Donegal Wilson: Moving on to 30 by 30, can the minister please provide us the percentage of B.C.’s land base that we have deemed currently protected?

Hon. Randene Neill: Recently we celebrated the success of the protection of the Kootenay forest lands, so that brings us into 20 percent of British Columbia’s land protected. So 15.9 percent are protected areas, conservancies or parks, and 4.1 percent are other effective conservation measures.

[2:10 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: The minister in question period — I think it was beginning of March — had mentioned that there was another 5 percent that was going to be added to the 30 by 30. I’m wondering if we can have an update on that as well as if the actual map has been released at this point.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, the intention is…. Through land use planning, which was the member’s previous question, we hope to be able to secure another 5 percent of protected areas. Most of that is expected through the northwest land use plan, which is something that the province is undertaking right now in the northwest of the province with the Tāłtān Nation, TRTFN, Kaska, Gitanyow and Nisg̱a’a. That should bring us to about 25 percent.

Then again, you just asked about a map where we’re going to be able to publicly show and be proud and keep track of where we’re at as we count down the deadline to reach 30 percent of B.C.’s lands and waters protected by 2030. The correct ADM is here now to give us an update. We hope to have that public by this fall.

Donegal Wilson: Can the minister share what mechanism will be used to protect that particular piece? Is it going to be a park? What protection is going to be used?

Hon. Randene Neill: Those decisions on whether it’ll be a park, a protected area, a conservancy or a wildlife management area haven’t been decided yet. We’re in the middle of engagement with local communities, outdoor rec users, snowmobilers. The people who live in the area will determine the value of what they want to do with that area and what the proper types of protections are. So those decisions are still being made.

Donegal Wilson: Do we have an estimated completion date for that land use plan?

Hon. Randene Neill: By the end of this calendar year, all four land use plans should be completed.

Donegal Wilson: For the record, can we list the four plans?

Hon. Randene Neill: The first is the Taku River Tlingit land use plan; then the Tāłtān land use plan; the Kaska land use plan; and the Meziadin land use plan, which is a combination of working with the Gitanyow and the Nisg̱a’a.

[2:15 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that.

Previously we had identified that there were 13 land use plans. Can you share how many cumulative effects projects we have underway or plans?

Hon. Randene Neill: To manage for cumulative effects throughout the land in the province, we have something called collaborative stewardship forums. We currently have 13 of those collaborative stewardship forums across the province with a number of different First Nations, more than 100 nations at any given time, in different tables. We’d be happy to provide you with that list of all the collaborative stewardship forums in different regions of B.C.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll watch for that. If we could have also included the total funding for each of the tables as well, if we’re pulling it that way, if you break it up. If not, then just the total. I’m going to assume it was the other half of the $30 million that we referenced previously, but just in case, please include the total.

Last year we discussed the Kootenay Pass project. I’m just wondering if you can provide me an update on this project and if there’s any budget in here for further work on that in this fiscal.

Hon. Randene Neill: We’re currently at the stage where we’ve summarized a draft action plan. We want to show that draft action plan to our stakeholders to get their feedback before we release it publicly for public feedback. This is kind of a summary of recommended measures so we can go to that last stage of engagement and get public feedback. But as my team just reminded me, we would be happy to provide the member with a briefing.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, definitely interested in having an update on that project, and if we could also include, either in the briefing or in the response, what we spent on that project to date and the expected deliverables when we’re done.

[2:20 p.m.]

In early 2023, the ministry initiated engagement of a draft biodiversity and ecosystem health framework. I’m just wondering where that project is at today.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

You’re correct in your dates. In 2023, the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework was released, and now we’re moving into the action part of it.

We have several agreements that we’re moving forward with, including a partnership with, of course, the federal government and First Nations under the tripartite nature agreement.

We’re actively updating the Wildlife Act and reviewing it. Land use planning is a really good example of how we’re implementing the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework, because it doesn’t look at a species-by-species protection but instead a whole ecosystem type of protection.

We’ve recently added a new portfolio to one of our branches, which is the habitat restoration and enhancement branch, which will focus on, really, that biodiversity and ecosystem health work.

Donegal Wilson: I’m wondering if the minister could provide some update on the work that we’re doing, specifically around wild sheep, with the Minister of Agriculture, related to Movi.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: This ministry is working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food — you are correct — as well as First Nations and other partners to advance non-regulatory measures aimed at reducing disease transmission, such as outreach and education initiatives as well as voluntary sampling with domestic producers.

Just last month we made regulatory changes that provide government with more flexibility to manage risks to wild sheep by allowing for the removal of escaped or abandoned animals from the landscape. Also, as part of the Wildlife Act review, we’re exploring ways to strengthen our regulatory tools to help protect wild sheep from disease transfer. This work is ongoing, again, with all of our partners.

Donegal Wilson: Is the minister considering introducing legislation for mandatory testing of domestic sheep?

Hon. Randene Neill: Mandatory testing for domestic sheep would fall under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Donegal Wilson: I did ask the question to the Minister of Agriculture, and she said that you were working collaboratively on a pilot project. I was hoping to hear a little bit about the pilot project.

Hon. Randene Neill: We are working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on certain pilots. Some are for the testing and removal of wild sheep in certain areas, and some are for the testing and treatment of domestic sheep, working in partnership with farmers. That’s mostly happening in the member’s riding and some parts of the Thompson-Okanagan.

Then there are other pilots that we’re doing with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that are really trying to target those key areas where domestic sheep and wild sheep can frequently come into contact, potentially causing the transmission of disease. We’re trying to actively target and find those areas and see what we can do in partnership with the farmers on the ground to reduce the risk of transmission between the domestic and wild sheep populations.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer.

What are we budgeting, then, from the wild sheep perspective, to combat Movi in the wild sheep populations?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Apologies for the time. It took us a bit to figure it out. The approximate amount for Movi in this budget is $250,000.

Donegal Wilson: Does that budget include euthanization of wild sheep due to Movi?

Hon. Randene Neill: That was way easier. Yes, it does.

Donegal Wilson: Do we have an expected number of wild sheep that we’ll be euthanizing this year due to Movi?

Hon. Randene Neill: No. We don’t know.

The Chair: The Chair is going to call a five-minute recess, and we shall return in five minutes. And in “five minutes,” I mean five minutes, not ten minutes. Five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:35 p.m. to 2:42 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order. We are back with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Donegal Wilson: To the minister: can you share how many wild sheep were euthanized last year by the ministry?

Hon. Randene Neill: I’m hoping the member would accept if we…. It’s going to take a little bit of time, so if we get that number for you first thing tomorrow before the start of estimates.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you. That works.

It is my understanding that the ministry is working with the state of Oregon on an initiative for wild sheep that we’re calling “bringing them home,” an initiative to bring…. Some of the transplanted sheep that we gave Oregon are now coming back to supplement our herds.

Can the minister share what our budget is to support this important initiative?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We were actually quite excited to give the member an update on this and offer a full briefing, but we were just getting further information. We literally just found out that this very hopeful program is not happening because of the President of the United States. We’re happy to send along more information, more details, when we get it.

Donegal Wilson: Then I will skip a few questions and wait for the briefing.

Can the minister provide what the budget is this year for the work being done on Psoroptes in wild sheep?

Hon. Randene Neill: We support partner projects, including with the Okanagan Nation Alliance and the Wild Sheep Society. So we do in-kind staff time and then also a small participation of around $1,000 for drug or treatment trials.

[2:50 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Does the ministry have in their budget support for staff travel and accommodations to support the project in Penticton?

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes is the short answer, because it’s a wildlife health issue, and it’s critical. It is covered, and travel is funded.

Donegal Wilson: Going to figure out how to ask this delicately. My understanding was that for the last fiscal year, the staff’s travel was not covered by the ministry. So is that an increase in funding that you’re providing for staff travel, or is it the expectation that ONA will be paying for that out of your $1,000 contribution?

Hon. Randene Neill: I can confirm there is a work plan. Again, this is priority work that we’re doing, so the province will fund travel for this work.

Donegal Wilson: That’s great news.

It’s also my understanding that each year a sheep hunting tag is auctioned off, with proceeds going to the HCTF for sheep projects. This last year I was told that it was sold for $275,000 U.S., but when it came time to issue the permit, there was an issue within the ministry. Can the minister share what that issue was?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Okay, so I will do my best to explain to the member what the issue is.

There was a tag up for auction for $275,000. Somebody purchased it in a vacant guide territory. In this province, you can’t go sheep hunting without a guide-outfitter, so it would have required a guide-outfitter to also have purchased and paid a fee. Thus, the Habitat Conservation Trust fund was unable to get that money from that tag.

What we did is we compensated the Habitat Conservation Trust fund $500,000 so that money could go into their sheep fund — they have a sheep fund — and we are also working to resolve those policies so we don’t run into those issues in the future.

Donegal Wilson: I know we were both at the Guide Outfitters Association AGM in Kelowna this spring, and, on the stage, the minister committed to have this issue resolved prior to the next issuing. I just want to know what the timeline is for having that issue resolved.

Hon. Randene Neill: We took copious notes at the AGM for the guide-outfitters. We committed to getting that completed by November with more than enough time before the auction in January.

Donegal Wilson: Switching over to the new hunting regulations, I know that we had a public comment period on some changes to the hunting regs that received quite a bit of feedback. I’m just wondering if the minister can provide an update on what the implications are to that or what changes are being made from that public feedback and what the implications to her budget are.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, we’re lucky enough to live in a province that is among the most biologically diverse jurisdictions in all of North America, providing a massive range of high-quality hunting opportunities for people who love to hunt in this province and outside this province as well.

These regulatory changes are typically developed at the regional level through collaboration with nations and engagement with partners and stakeholders. We did put out the proposed hunting regulations and have not yet made any decisions, but we did receive a lot of engagement and feedback from folks, which is incredibly important for all of us.

While we have yet to make a decision about the updates to the hunting proposals, I will say that there was a resounding opposition to ending the printed synopses for the fishing and hunting and trapping synopses. So we did agree, and announced at the AGM for the B.C. Wildlife Federation in Salmon Arm last weekend, that the province will continue to print copies that are portable, reliable in remote communities and support education and compliance.

Donegal Wilson: It’s great to hear that the ministry was listening, because my office, as well, was inundated with people concerned about the print version of their hunting regs.

There were other changes in there as well. Did we have…? There was strong opposition, including to lead shot and a few other things. Can the minister provide any kind of timeline for when we can expect the decisions or the what-we-heard report from that consultation?

Hon. Randene Neill: As the statutory decision–maker, we will have a decision in June — there was something else in my notes there, and I can’t remember what it said — and we will have the synopsis in July.

But at the AGM for the B.C. Wildlife Federation last weekend in Salmon Arm, they made it very clear that they would like those decisions made much earlier, so that’s something that we’re going to be working on in the future for the lottery.

Donegal Wilson: Moose ticks. From my days at the B.C. Snowmobile Federation, I know that the snowmobile sector participates heavily in the moose tick monitoring program for the winter in the South Peace. But I’ve been getting a lot of reports lately of moose fatalities from ticks. They’re just laying down and dying because of the sheer number of ticks. I’m just wondering what steps the province is considering to move beyond monitoring on this problem.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Moose ticks and other types of ticks are a challenging issue and can happen on a cyclical pattern, often exacerbated or made worse by climate change, changes in fire patterns as well.

We will continue to work with partners. I have literally recently heard, in the last week, from a couple of other groups that moose ticks are a problem. This is the first time we have heard this season that they are a problem. Any additional information that the member has….

We’d love to hear from what you’re hearing as well.

Some solutions that other jurisdictions are looking at are, for example, prescribed burns — burning the ticks off those low branches so they don’t get attached to any animals. But we will continue to work with partners, listen to feedback and look for solutions.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I have had several reports in the South Peace again. I think it’s not new news up there. But definitely support the prescribed burns. I can tell you that that is something that should be easy but that is definitely not easy within government, and I encourage the minister to do what they can to support prescribed burns.

I want to pull a little bit on the Together for Wildlife strategy. I’m wondering. Last year during estimates, I did some polling on this. One of the questions I’d asked was how much the wildlife branch total budget was, and the answer I had was $6.112 million. That was provided to me in a written response afterwards.

I’m going to assume that Together for Wildlife does not live within the wildlife branch. So which branch does it live in?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: The Together for Wildlife is managed by the wildlife branch, but the funding is separate. For example, the revised fiscal year 2020 to 2024 spending on Together for Wildlife totalled approximately $32.9 million.

The fiscal year 2025-2026 annual reporting and updates to the Together for Wildlife dashboard are currently underway. It’s a public-facing dashboard, so you can go on there and look at the projects, and the monetary amounts are also listed.

As well, the Habitat Conservation Trust fund recently published their Together for Wildlife accomplishments report, which is also located online and includes fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

Donegal Wilson: The ministry has publicly stated a commitment of $10 million a year to the Together for Wildlife fund. That announcement didn’t appear to have any kind of expiry date or specific target associated with it. It was to work on the strategy overall.

I was provided a table, and I just want to read it in. For fiscal year ending in 2021, we had 129 projects at $9.029 million; 2022, we had 108 projects at $9.77 million; 2023, 104 projects at $7.49 million; 2024, 96 projects at $6.6 million; and then fiscal year 2025, we had 57 projects and had dropped to $3.57 million. So in that five years, we’re cumulatively $13 million below the commitment, with our year 5 being only one-third of our commitment.

I’m wondering. Has the ministry’s commitment to this strategy been publicly restated, or will it be $10 million this year?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We can definitely commit and confirm to the member that up to $10 million a year is committed for Together for Wildlife, and that is an ongoing commitment that will not change.

The numbers that you listed earlier where it dropped off in the last year…. Last year there were a lot of emerging priorities for wildlife, including chronic wasting disease, so we did use part of that Together for Wildlife funding to be able to go combat chronic wasting and really ensure that we keep those numbers incredibly low.

For example, as the member knows, we had an open hunt in this January of last year and tested over 200 animals for chronic wasting disease, and not a single one came back positive. So keeping on track of that and ensuring we have hunters on board, other groups on board, to really combat chronic wasting disease was a big priority for us this year.

One of the things that we have heard as well from the Minister’s Wildlife Advisory committee and other groups, including the B.C. Wildlife Federation, is that we really need to look at increasing the surcharges, the hunting surcharges particularly. And each and every one of them put up their hand and said they would willingly pay more surcharge if we reinvested that money into the Habitat Conservation Trust fund. So that’s something that we’re actively working on as well.

Donegal Wilson: Just to make sure I heard that correctly…. So the Together for Wildlife, up to $10 million. The fact that we only invested one-third is because we took money out of that to combat emerging issues? Is that correct?

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, you are correct on both counts. It is up to $10 million, and some of that money from last year’s fiscal did go into emerging priorities, like the fight against chronic wasting disease, where, for example, we diverted $1.3 million into the fight in that as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

We are also in fiscally challenging times, so I think looking at creative and unique solutions is something that’s also really important for this ministry to do. That’s why I suggested that we’re actively looking at ways to increase the surcharge. The Habitat Conservation Trust fund would be able to help so many more initiatives and programs for Together for Wildlife, and it’s something hunters and trappers have been actively asking for as well.

Donegal Wilson: Yes, they have been asking for that, but specifically to go back into wildlife, not to go into the general revenue, so I appreciate that it’s going into the HCTF. I think that is important that it’s recorded and recognized.

The up to $10 million that was committed — is that showing on the resource stewardship line of $44 million, or is it living outside of the budget documents I’ve been provided?

Hon. Randene Neill: That’s correct. It’s within.

Donegal Wilson: So up to $10 million. Is there $10 million in the budget for the Together for Wildlife strategy?

Hon. Randene Neill: Again, I’ll reiterate that we continue to commit up to $10 million for the Together for Wildlife, but we haven’t yet allocated beyond the division levels funding for this year.

Donegal Wilson: I feel like I’ll take that as a no, but I hope the minister can correct me at next year’s estimates.

If the ministry considers the Together for Wildlife a flagship initiative, I wonder why our biologists are reporting that they are unable to travel, that they don’t have basic equipment to deliver their work, and that they don’t have field communications. As I mentioned previously, ONA is paying for our biologists to support the sheep project in Penticton.

Can the minister provide some clarity on why this this flagship commitment of $10 million just is shrinking and shrinking down to a nonexistent commitment?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: When Together for Wildlife was first announced, we committed to 24 goals, and 13 of those 24 goals are now substantially in progress or complete, and nine of them are currently in progress. A lot of these goals that we set out and all agreed that we need to do as a province are well underway.

Public engagement on stewardship frameworks is ongoing. Public websites revised to be more user-friendly is well underway. Together for Wildlife continues to fund monitoring and inventory on the ground. Actually, No. 5, research…. Habitat Conservation Trust–Together for Wildlife scholarships have been established. BioHub and related transition to new systems is underway. Hunter survey revitalization projects. Mandatory hunter reporting for moose and caribou — live as of September 2024.

Action 9 continues to have the highest number of projects under Together for Wildlife that are occurring across this province. A conservation land strategic program plan was released. That was action plan No. 11. We continue to monitor and enhance and establish conservation lands. We have annual reporting occurring on the tripartite framework agreement on nature conservation. We have annual financial reporting made available via the B.C. government website and the Together for Wildlife dashboard.

We’re doing incredible work with the Together for Wildlife. We are up on our regular five-year review to look at all of the goals we achieved, the ones we haven’t, and kind of reassess where we are. Again, I think it’s something that we’re incredibly proud of as a government and we’re still working on, but we definitely have successes, and we’re absolutely committed to up to $10 million again every year to continuing this.

Donegal Wilson: I think that the minister would recognize that as a jurisdiction, though, we have one of the lowest investments in wildlife. And when I asked the question last year on how much we spend on wildlife in British Columbia, four months later I couldn’t get an answer. The ministry does not track it. It’s across multiple ministries.

We have enforcement over in Ministry of Environment and also our natural resource officers over in Forests. So how do we, as a province, measure our goals when we don’t even know how much we spend on wildlife? It’s one of our biggest resources in the province, and we’re not tracking it.

So I’ll ask the minister again. How much are we spending on wildlife in the province of B.C.?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I would just thank the member again for asking the question. This is something that we all agree on. Protecting our habitat and our biodiversity and our wild animals is something that’s extremely, extremely precious to us, and we all need to pay attention to it. We need to show the value of how much we’re putting into it and also how much value it brings us as a province.

As part of the annual report, the tripart nature report, provincial spending…. This is, again, not all wildlife spending, but provincial spending. This is a public report that we just published, I think, a couple of months ago, and it’s from April 2024 to March 2025. We spent just under $100 million on wildlife, but that, again, still isn’t the total number.

I will mention, to your point earlier, that we agree that we need to monitor and track this to be able to get more investments and more protections into our wildlife, so we are working on completing a fish and wildlife investment tracker, which we will be releasing in the future.

Donegal Wilson: I’m excited to hear that there’s a tracker coming. Tell me more. When and what is the expected delivery?

Hon. Randene Neill: This is where estimates really helps, because we can get definitive dates. I’m going to promise end of summer, early fall.

Donegal Wilson: This is me clapping. Super excited to see it, and I appreciate that the ministry is putting that work in. I think it is something that we need to monitor and track on a regular basis.

Leading into species at risk, then, how much is our budget this year for species-at-risk management?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Funding in 2025-2026 for species-at-risk recovery: $2 million for spotted owl; $9.3 million for caribou recovery programs; $1.2 million for other species, including marbled murrelet, American goshawk, western screech owl, Williamson’s sapsucker and whitebark pine; and then $2.6 million for approved wildlife habitat areas.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister.

I see we are still doing a heavy investment in caribou over other species at risk. Can the minister share how we’re measuring our success on those investments?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Apologies. I do want to make a correction. When I mentioned the last number of 2.6 million for wildlife management areas, that’s actually 2.6 million hectares protected for all those species at risk and not a monetary figure.

How do we measure success with our endangered caribou populations? We work really, really hard to measure population stabilization and growth, and we work really hard on habitat protection and restoration because we know that that’s the key requirement for our caribou to be healthy and increase in size.

In many herds, we have seen them stabilize or increase in population, and I’ll just give you a couple of really encouraging examples. The Klinse-Za herd. In 2017, there were only 60 caribou counted, and now last year there was a population of over 187. The Quintette. In 2017, there were only 68 caribou. Now there are 173. In Kennedy Siding, which is a central group herd, in 2017, the population was 63 and is now 166.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that.

Can the minister provide how much we spent on predator management or how much we’re planning to spend this fiscal year?

Hon. Randene Neill: The cost in 2025 was $1,497,650.

Donegal Wilson: I’m just going to loop back because there was a change in the last questions from a number to habitat. So the total on species at risk is $12.6 million. Can I just get clarification on my math?

Hon. Randene Neill: It’s $12.5 million.

Donegal Wilson: My math was close. Good. Thank you.

We spent $1.9 million on predator control in 2025. I did rephrase the question for what we’re planning to spend this year, and if we could add, for 2025, how many animals were removed?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, as mentioned, the total cost in 2025 for predator reduction was $1.497 million. The average in the last five years…. It averages at about $1.6 million, and in 2025, there were 366 wolves removed and six cougars.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister for that.

I know this last winter we worked together a bit on the snowmobile access management plan. It was part of the hunting regs changes, moving away from adaptive management on snowmobile access to firm outlines and firm closures.

I’m wondering if the minister can explain why that changed from adaptive management to permanent closures.

Hon. Randene Neill: This ministry is still doing an adaptive management approach. We’ve moved away from a flexible management approach.

I do want to say that I do appreciate all of the partnerships that we do in this work together. I just met this member’s predecessor at SILGA this past weekend and spent an hour with her and have an upcoming meeting with her and will definitely invite the member to be present. She spoke very highly of the work that you did and the respect she has for this member as well.

The difference between an adaptive management and flexible management approach is we’ve adapted it to and are proposing closure areas and seasonal openings based on typical caribou use and snowmobile use. This provides predictability and accessibility for any rider, whether or not they have a permit. It just provides more riders the ability to be able to go into different areas and then also gives us confidence that we are doing a good job with caribou protection.

[3:50 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I think we’re arguing semantics on words, and I look forward to the meeting with the Snowmobile Federation and the minister.

As the person who negotiated and worked through the creation of the adaptive management, disturbance is the risk factor. If snowmobiles and caribou are not present at the same time, disturbance isn’t a factor. Therefore, the reason that the adaptive management was used was to allow, if caribou moved in, that the snowmobilers would not go. It’s all done in real time via satellite mapping and all of those things.

Instead, the minister is taking a step back and going back to, if she wants to call it, flexible management, whereby we just put a circle on a map and we say that caribou are going to be present between this date and that date, and we don’t check and actually manage for that.

My question back to the minister: was there a scientific reason or something that occurred in our pilot projects on the adaptive management that caused the minister to step back from that approach?

Hon. Randene Neill: I want to say again at the outset that the work that you have done in the past leading that organization and the advocacy that you continue to put into it, I think, is remarkable and really important. I also look forward to the meeting that we’ll have.

I do want to suggest that, on several trips with conservation officers, called compliance and enforcement runs, we observed caribou and snowmobile tracks simultaneously in an area. We also have some concerns that we’re not getting proper reporting on observations of caribou in some areas during snowmobile season.

That said, it’s incredibly important that we work together, because we all share the same goals. Building that trust to be able to do those measures, to be able to look after caribou and work together to achieve that, is always first and foremost in our ministry’s mind. Any ways you have of increasing that trust and that good work that we do together, we’re always welcome to hear it.

Donegal Wilson: I think the trust was broken during the South Peace Snowmobile Advisory Committee’s work, where the community put in hundreds of hours. The Snowmobile Federation put $30,000 of our own money into that process at that time.

Before your time, Minister, but I definitely…. There was a lot of work and a lot of disregard, and the snowmobile community never asked for the permits. That was something the government actually implemented on their own, against the recommendations of the committee. I invite the minister to go back and read the committee’s report on the work that was done with the primary goal of recovering caribou.

Today I want to head over to another association, the Trappers Association. It’s my understanding that they were part of a group, the fisher working group, and that there was a mutually agreed-upon terms of reference during that.

I’m just wondering if…. I’m hearing that WLRS has terminated all conversations and all work of this group. Can the minister provide some rationale for that?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I just want to say that we do really good work with the B.C. Trappers Association and always deeply appreciative of their partnership and the work that we do together. We did set up a working group on the fisher, trying to determine whether the fisher should be red-listed and not trapped or a species of special concern and potentially trapped.

I will say I did once see a fisher in the wild when I was out hiking with my dogs, and my husband, who is a biologist, told me I was the luckiest person on the planet because they are incredibly rare and incredibly hard to spot.

Unfortunately, that working group did disintegrate because of competing interests in the science — couldn’t agree on the science. But we will continue to work with the B.C. Trappers Association to try and reach some solutions.

Donegal Wilson: I’m sorry, Chair. It’s hard to hear with everybody talking. It’s distracting.

Interjections.

The Chair: Oh, I didn’t even need to use my mom voice. I just used my mom look. Well done.

Please go ahead. Thank you.

Donegal Wilson: My understanding is that the terms of reference for this group was to review that data that was going to the Conservation Data Centre.

In August of 2024, when it seemed like people were not in agreement on the modelling, it was suddenly disbanded without notifying participants. Has the group in fact been disbanded or still operating under those terms of reference?

Hon. Randene Neill: We are still actively working on considering next steps, but for all intents and purposes, this working group, under the current conditions, is disbanded. We’re always hopeful to find a solution to create a new one, but currently this last one has been disbanded.

The Chair: I’m just going to call a five-minute recess, and we should return in five minutes, please.

The committee recessed from 4:00 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Donegal Wilson: We were talking about the B.C. Trappers, the fisher working group, prior to taking recess. I just had one more question that I wanted to follow up on, and that’s specifically when the CDC, which is the Conservation Data Centre, makes the ruling on the red- or blue-listing of a species.

When they post that, is the scientific data behind their decision publicly posted, or does the ministry participate and submit data for those postings?

[4:15 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much, Chair, and welcome to the chair. Nice to see you.

For the first part of the question from the member on who does the science, our species experts conduct the science based on national standards. We review the species every five years, and an assessment publication, which explains the rationale for how we list a species, is made available on the B.C. Species and Ecosystems Explorer publication, which is online, or on the CDC website.

Donegal Wilson: As I mentioned during the break, I think I’m going to move to fish. But I will probably go back to wildlife if we have time, just because we’re burning through the time. I could spend my entire time on wildlife.

Starting off with water, fisheries and coast, I would like to talk about, specifically, whirling disease and if we’ve had any cases since the report at Kootenay Lake, if there’ve been any further instances of whirling disease in British Columbia.

Hon. Randene Neill: The answer is no. We haven’t found any evidence of whirling disease in Kootenay Lake, but we have absolutely continued to do the monitoring.

Just to make it clear, we did find evidence of a parasite that causes whirling disease, but we found no evidence of actual whirling disease in fish in Kootenay Lake.

[4:20 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I know that in last year’s estimates we canvassed heavily on the minister’s plan to put the inspection stations at the borders. At that time, there was a hope that the Canada Border Services Agency would be a participant.

Can the minister confirm that the Canada Border Services is in fact inspecting “Clean, drain, dry” on boats and other watercraft?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question about invasive mussels. We know we’re heading into a hot, dry spring and potentially a hot, dry summer, and people are going to go to look at our lakes and water bodies for relief for all of this. Just as a reminder, the province’s invasive mussel defence program continues to monitor threats from aquatic invasive species as we collaborate with jurisdictions from across western Canada and the U.S. to ensure B.C.’s prevention and response efforts are coordinated as part of a larger perimeter defence approach.

I do remember estimates last year, where we had high hopes that we would collaborate with the federal government in terms of them helping us with the federal funding and monitoring for our invasive mussel defence program. We are still waiting for the federal government to kick in a substantial portion of funding for us to be able to help fight this disease.

The CBSA does coordinate, in that it will refer a boater coming up through the border to one of our inspection checkpoints, and that’s pretty much the extent of the help that we’ve gotten so far from them.

We do reiterate that with the federal Fisheries Minister every time we see her, not just B.C. but also Alberta. There was a presentation for the federal Fisheries Minister last August where we talked about the risk of invasive mussels coming into our province. We will continue to advocate and ask the federal government to help us combat this incredibly dangerous species.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer.

To the minister, then, I’m assuming that we still have our checkpoints at the Alberta border because the “Clean, drain, dry” is for invasive mussels as well as whirling disease. They’re meant to do both and other invasive species as well, including milfoil.

Can the minister provide assurance that we have the funding to maintain 24-7 access at our stations at the Alberta border as well?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We are maintaining the same inspection levels at our U.S. and Alberta border crossings as we did last year.

I do want to point out…. The member mentioned 24-7. Not all the checkpoints or at the border or inspection areas are 24-7. We use more of a risk management plan, depending on the crossing or the border and normally what time it’s quite busy. Sometimes in the middle of the night, we don’t have inspections. So it’s not necessarily 24-7, but the same inspection levels as last year will continue this year.

Donegal Wilson: Based on that response, does the minister feel confident that the level of protection we have in place is there to protect our lakes and waterways?

Hon. Randene Neill: That’s a tough question. I mean, we’re maintaining levels. We’re proud of the work that we’ve done, but we always need to do more because our number one focus is not to allow invasive species, invasive mussels, into the province to keep our spread of whirling disease incredibly, incredibly low or out altogether.

We’re also very proud of the legislation we introduced last year, the pull-the-plug legislation that really puts the regulatory burden on the user to be able to clean, drain and dry their boat and pull the plug and make sure that they’re not transporting any invasive mussels across waterways.

It’s also a reminder to absolutely everybody that it’s their responsibility to clean, drain and dry their vessels, whether it’s a boat, whether it’s a paddleboard, whether it’s something that you tow your dog on in the summer. If you’re taking it from one body of water to the other, you need to dry it out. And if it has a plug, you need to pull that plug and drain it to make sure that every single one of us is doing our part to ensure that these invasive species don’t get into our province.

We’ve also been working really closely with Alberta because their concern is just as much as ours is, and as well, we’ll continue to ask the federal government for substantial funding to be able to fight the spread of these invasive diseases and species.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer. And yes, I was pleased that we were able to support that legislation last year to make that happen.

I guess my concern or…. During that canvassing, we did talk about the stations. At that time — I’d have to go back through the transcripts — I did have the impression that it was going to be 24-7. That’s why we were pulling stations out of the Okanagan and moving them to the borders — to concentrate our budgets specifically to the regions where we came in.

[4:30 p.m.]

I believe the minister stated that we didn’t need to monitor within the province because we didn’t have it in the province; we only had to monitor what we were moving from outside or from the borders.

Having said that, we did see an announcement — I believe it was last week — for the Mount Robson Park, where we’re losing recreational opportunities, so that makes me believe that maybe other ministries don’t have as much confidence in our plan.

I’m just wondering whether we’re going to see more loss of recreational opportunities or we’re going to see more enforcement on the legislation that we passed in this budget, this fiscal.

Hon. Randene Neill: Just to clarify from your last question, there is one station in B.C. that is 24-7. That’s the Golden station, because it’s the highest risk and also the highest volume. All of the other stations do work on a risk management basis and have always been that way. There are risks of whirling disease within this province, so we do have more than just perimeters around the Alberta and the U.S. borders.

[4:35 p.m.]

The Robson park closure was preventative. It was proactive because of its vicinity to national parks with known cases of whirling disease in them. Out of an abundance of caution, the Ministry of Environment and Parks decided to proactively close that park, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Prevention is really the key here, and that’s something that we all need to get behind as a province. It’s much better to have one or two days of park closures than to have an entire park or body of water closed because of a disease that has made its way into it.

Donegal Wilson: I don’t think the closure was proposing one or two days. It’s closed to all watercraft, I assume, for the entire year. This is a large recreational opportunity and a big thing that is done within the Mount Robson Park.

Would the minister be able to provide some assurance that we’re not going to see similar closures in other parks? Is this going to be a recommendation she’s only supporting in Robson, or will this recommendation go to other parks in B.C.?

Hon. Randene Neill: That is the decision of the Environment Minister. We provide expert guidance and advice based on biologists who work for this ministry, but that ultimate decision is up to the Environment Minister.

Donegal Wilson: Just to close that off, I want to be clear that I’m not, not supporting the closure. But I think that the need for the closure is being created under precautionary principles because we are not using the tools that we have in our toolbox. One is the legislation that was passed. It does put the onus on the users, so that requires enforcement. The second is not properly funding the stations to ensure that we have 24-7 coverage.

Moving on, I have some questions around water pipes and asbestos, and I’m just wondering. Does that specifically fall under your ministry, the water pipes and the asbestos testing?

Hon. Randene Neill: That is definitely not our ministry. It would either be Environment or Health, depending on the issue.

Donegal Wilson: Switching pages, then. Fish bios. I’m wondering if the minister can tell me how many fish biologists we currently have in region 8.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We tend to divide it into specific regions like Thompson-Okanagan. In the Thompson-Okanagan, we have four fisheries biologists. Thompson-Okanagan is comprised of two regions: regions 3 and 8. In region 8, we have one fisheries biologist. In region 3, we have three, which serves all of the Thompson-Okanagan.

Donegal Wilson: The question that I had was specific then. How many does the Kootenay region have?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: The answer is four.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you. There’s no question further on that then. That was not the number I was given.

Since we’re talking about staffing, I also have received notice that the region 4 office in Cranbrook for fish and wildlife has currently closed to the public. I’m just wondering if the budget includes reopening that office to the public and when.

Hon. Randene Neill: Just a question for the member of clarification. Are you talking about a FrontCounter B.C. office?

Donegal Wilson: My understanding is that it’s the fish and wildlife office where the fish and wildlife staff are residing. It used to be open to the public and is no longer.

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: A few years ago, the fish and wildlife office was closed for restructuring, but everyone is welcome to go in with their fish and wildlife–related questions to FrontCounter B.C.

We did receive a letter about this, I think, a few months back from someone. The fish and wildlife office is still open, with staff available to make appointments, but it’s just not a walk-in service. You actually have to make an appointment first. So we welcome folks without an appointment just to go to the FrontCounter B.C. office in Cranbrook.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that.

I’m wondering if we could update the numbers on groundwater licensing, specifically how many…. The last numbers I had on existing groundwater licences were from May 25 of last year — 4,494. I’m wondering if we can get an updated number on that as well as water licences. At that time, it was at 2,023 water licences.

Hon. Randene Neill: The number of people waiting for their groundwater licence now stands at 3,923, and waiting for a water licence is 1,990.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for those numbers.

Looking at the service plan, it looked like our forecast for ’25-26 was to reduce our caseload to 3,167. We’re significantly over that. Can the minister provide some updates on why we’re not making the progress that she was expecting?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Just to put it into perspective, the existing-use groundwater licences went into effect in 2016. At that time, there were 7,700 files. We’ve now cleared 4,500 files, which is 60 percent of all applications. Our plan is to eliminate the backlog completely by next summer.

As well, I do want to mention that this past fall, all last fall and now in early spring, we’ve been doing a lot of engagement on regulatory and legislative amendments to the Water Sustainability Act. One of those proposals is to eliminate the need for a groundwater licence for anyone who uses less than two cubic metres a day. That would essentially eradicate that entire backlog that’s there right now.

Donegal Wilson: Can the minister share what the average processing time is on those permits? I heard that from 2016 to today, it’s ten years to get to 60 percent. I’m assuming we’re still intaking applications at the same time, so we’re barely treading water in some cases.

Can the minister provide what the average processing time is and what the oldest permit in the file is at this point?

Hon. Randene Neill: A couple things on that is…. For existing-use groundwater licences, it was low priority for our permitting team to process those because all of the users were allowed to continue using their water. It was simply a tool to encourage them to sign up for their licence so we could monitor how much water they were using.

There were some circumstances where people waited a while to be able to get their licences, and there are still 3,000 folks waiting to get their licence, but they are allowed to use the water they’ve applied for the licence for.

[5:05 p.m.]

Again, we are going to eliminate that backlog by next summer, and we’re bringing in more processes and legislative and regulatory amendments to make our permitting transformation more efficient and more streamlined.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for the answer on that, Minister. You mentioned specifically that having a licence allows you to monitor how much they’re using, even though you haven’t processed the licence. I’m just wondering if you could elaborate a little more on how you are able to tell how much water they’re using or monitoring that when you haven’t (a) got through the licence and (b)….

To my understanding, there are no metres on the water, so how do you know that they’re actually pulling what they’re licensed?

Hon. Randene Neill: If we know that the water user is there and we know that the water user has applied for a licence and is using the water, it helps us calculate how much water is being pulled or drawn from that watershed. We’re quite conservative in that estimate, because typically the user is using far less than far more. But it helps us look at the allocation and helps us determine what our future allocations are for that watershed.

The key here is that we don’t want to see watersheds oversubscribed. That’s what we see in areas in the Interior where we run into water scarcity or drought issues every year, like on the Salmon River or Bessette River. Those rivers are oversubscribed, and we always have competing issues every year that we have to make difficult decisions on.

So that’s how we monitor and look at a watershed to protect it and determine the allocations for that watershed.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

In canvassing last year, the response I got back was that WLRS doesn’t have any information relating to the number of potential applicants who have not yet applied for a groundwater licence. So I’m wondering how we factor the unknown into our calculations on what we’re distributing or approving.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I thank the member for the question. I think it’s something that we try to grapple with and solve every day. If unlicensed users are using water, then it creates a data gap, and we can’t manage what we don’t know or can’t monitor. So that’s something that….

Agriculture and Food had a Premier’s task force on agriculture. A top priority for that was water. We all, cross-ministry, need to look at ways to simplify the process, to encourage users to apply for water, to help them understand that voluntary applications to be able to help us monitor and allocate the watersheds are going to leave us all better off overall.

It’s something we’re actively monitoring, but it’s a question that we grapple with as well.

Donegal Wilson: Based on that answer, is the minister able to provide what mechanisms we have for enforcement on people that aren’t licensing and if there’s any intention to start down that road?

Hon. Randene Neill: We do have an enforcement tool, but we tend to try to start with graduated compliance. If we hear of an unlicensed user or somebody using more water than they should, we will go talk to that user.

[5:15 p.m.]

I think it goes back to anything you try to do. If you try and teach your kid why it’s so important to brush your teeth but you force them to do it every night versus them understanding why it’s necessary to do it…. You’re going to have better compliance and a better rate when they understand why they need to do it as opposed to being forced to do it. So that’s always the first step that we do. We try to get them to understand and get them into compliance.

When we get into areas of scarcity or drought, for example, a really good example is what we did last year when the Salmon River was getting quite low. We went to speak one-on-one. We sent letters, and then we went to speak one-on-one with a lot of the people using that river.

What we found, to our surprise, was that many of those folks had stopped using that water source weeks ago because they understood how critical it was, how critically low it was. So it shows that that voluntary compliance is working.

Under the Water Sustainability Act, we do have the ability to issue fines, and that falls under the water comptroller and the administration of monitoring penalties.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Can the minister provide some guidance, then, on what happens when there is a drought or a declaration made about the drought? Specifically, what happens when the people that have registered are asked to scale back on their usage and the people that are not registered are not getting any notices at all?

Hon. Randene Neill: One of the first things that we’re doing that is new this year is we start issuing drought-level information packages. We’re starting in May this year, so we’re starting substantially earlier. We issue notices to all licensees to really get them used to the idea of what the drought levels are looking like in their watershed for the year.

We also issue it on different websites; in different user groups, farm groups, rancher groups — all different types — to really spread the word. We work closely with Agriculture and Food as well, and they have an incredibly well-connected network to help us get the word out.

Then if we do get to a place of drought, where we need to potentially look at issuing temporary protection orders, we do have enforcement tools where we go to the unlicensed users first and ensure that they are no longer drawing from that water source before we issue any temporary protection orders on any licensed users.

[5:20 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Does the minister, then, have a list of unlicensed users? One of the questions I’ve had previously was: do we know how many unlicensed users? The response was no, but then I hear that when we do have a drought, the first ones we go to are the unlicensed users, so we must have a database of who they are. If the minister could provide some clarity around that first response.

Hon. Randene Neill: Again, you raised a good point, Member.

We do not have a list or a database in the province of all the unlicensed users. However, when we get into areas of severe drought or water scarcity, that’s when enforcement officers are in the region going door to door talking to folks, using compliance and enforcement to be able to figure out who is licensed or unlicensed.

In times of drought it’s also a time when people will potentially report on each other or let us know when people are not following the rules. It’s similar to stage 2 or 3 water restrictions in a more urban area. If your neighbour is consistently watering on a day when they’re not supposed to, an enforcement officer might drop by to see why they’re not complying with the rules. It’s similar to during times of drought or in areas of drought.

Donegal Wilson: I have a lot more questions on that, but I think I’ll move on, just because I need to.

I’m wondering how users are prioritized during a drought declaration. Is there a matrix that can be tabled — i.e., animals over trees, trees over vines, vines over tomatoes? What does that look like when we get down to the nitty-gritty where we’re making hard decisions?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thanks again to the member for the question. We work really closely with Agriculture and Food and/or different user groups, depending on the area or the region.

In areas of drought with farmers or ranchers, for example, Agriculture and Food works really, really closely with the farmers to come up with a list, starting with voluntary compliance — what is the most important thing that we need to value here in times of drought? — and come up with water schedules, all of those things. It really does depend on the group of users. It depends what the priorities are for the farmers that year, for example.

That’s how we prioritize those users. It’s not necessarily a very scripted, rigid prioritization of things. It is something that the users come up with together with Agriculture and Food and WLRS as well.

Donegal Wilson: One of the cases I have in my office is specifically around a municipality that has put a watering restriction on his orchard, which is detrimental to his trees. Science has proven that that is not enough water for him to maintain his trees.

I’m wondering whether the ministry has any guidance to provide municipalities or if the municipalities themselves are able to make that kind of regulation that impacts farmers’ livelihoods like that without any oversight.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Water, Land and Resource Stewardship works closely with Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, with local governments to come up with drought plans for local communities. We really…. I will say, local governments really are the leaders in ensuring that their communities do a good job with water conservation.

In fact, I was just talking to the MLA from Ladysmith-Oceanside who says their community doesn’t call it water restrictions anymore. They call it water conservation levels 1, 2, 3 or 4 because people like to conserve. They don’t like being restricted. It’s just a mental change that helps her community help conserve water.

We also work really closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Agriculture also works really, really closely with municipalities on water restrictions, on what they call fair farm practices.

If there is a farmer who doesn’t think that they’re getting enough water to be able to continue with their business or their working farm, they can reach out to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to get some help and recommendations on that. They could probably work with the municipality to make sure that everybody is taken care of and that the work that they’re doing makes sense.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide an update on the Sage Mesa water system now that the community has had their referendum and it has failed, because they simply couldn’t afford to bankrupt themselves by passing that particular borrowing bylaw for $32 million over, I think it was, 240 doors. I’m sure I’ll be corrected.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide an update now that the referendum has failed.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: During the referendum a class action was filed against the province. So because it’s currently under litigation, we can’t comment.

Donegal Wilson: Based on that response, I’ll move on.

Still not moving away from small water systems. The minister is aware that my region is disproportionately disadvantaged, I would say, with small water systems and several boil-water, do-not-consumes and areas where we just can’t drink the water. Let’s be honest.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide some guidance on what the direction is going to be, going forward. We can’t talk about Sage Mesa, but the frame around what that is, where these small water systems are being asked….

We could go to Kaleden. Kaleden irrigation district needs, I think, $4½ million to put an ultraviolet treatment on their system. Yet there does not seem to be any funding or any way or mechanism for these communities to get the necessary funding, and they don’t have the user base to pay for it.

Can the minister provide some insight in this budget or in future budgets on how the ministry intends to support these small water systems?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. This is something that we’ve had several discussions about.

Small water systems are something we understand as a province, that they need to be sustainable. But they also need to be affordable, and a lot of them are reaching their end of life. The costs to replace those are really astronomically high.

Our focus has always been to get these smaller water systems to move into their local governments or regional districts. When they do that, they get better debt-servicing rates and can apply for grants that allow them to replace or upgrade their systems.

I know that this is something that…. We are working with Health and Housing and Municipal Affairs to try to come up with long-term solutions that are, again, sustainable and affordable for the homes that need their systems replaced.

Donegal Wilson: The term “affordable” is included in a lot of our language. It’s included in just about every statement the minister mentions.

I’m wondering if the ministry itself has actually defined what affordable is. Is it a percentage of your housing? Is it a percentage of your income? What is the definition of affordable in British Columbia as it pertains to water?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thanks to the member for the question.

We don’t have a definition of affordability beyond what the dictionary definition of affordability is.

It is a principle we use to understand our impact on ratepayers, for example. We know when the water comptroller sets the rate or issues rate increases to private users, it goes out for engagement, and the engagement that comes back is how we set the rates. The water comptroller’s duty is to protect the ratepayer as well.

Going back to the answer in your earlier question, our focus has been to move these smaller private systems onto local governments, where it’s an economy of scale. They are better able to apply…. Well, they can apply for grants under that system. They can have better debt-serving rates, and they can work towards replacing that system that needs to be replaced and updated.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I think that there need to be some guidelines put around on what affordable is.

I do believe, as we move forward and these systems go, there isn’t economy of scale. That doesn’t exist when it moves into the regional district, because the other ratepayers don’t take on that debt. It still stays with the 240 doors, or the 223 doors at Skaha Estates, so going into the regional district doesn’t provide them any economy of scale.

It does provide them the ability to extend their debt for a longer period, which lowers their rates. But as we just saw in Sage Mesa…. And we won’t go into the details. I mean, it was $32 million over a few doors, which equaled $10,000 a year proposed as a rate for water. That is not affordable under any scheme. That is more than most people are paying on their mortgage payments.

I think that there need to be some guidelines put around affordable and some guidance, perhaps, provided. I could dig on this forever. I have, I think, nine water systems in my region in a similar position in different economies of scale.

I did canvass the minister, or sent a letter back over the winter, regarding the B.C. Water and Waste Association and their cut in funding. They’re the primary support system for these small water systems, providing education, outreach and training for these managers of these systems. Their funding was cut from $95,000 to $30,000.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister…. She had mentioned some groups like the Wildlife Federation and the Heritage Conservation Trust and some groups that were able to pull in some funding from her savings. Was the funding for the Water and Waste Association brought back up to $95,000 using that funding, and what is their funding level for this year?

Hon. Randene Neill: The B.C. Water and Waste Association is an amazing organization. I think they represent around 4,000 professionals who work in water for ensuring safe, sustainable and secure supply — also sewer and stormwater systems throughout B.C. I think they’re an incredible, incredible partner for us, and I’m so grateful that they exist.

Sadly, our ability to support our external partners in this fiscal is somewhat limited. So while we haven’t defined the exact funding this year, I expect it won’t be as much as last year.

Donegal Wilson: Can I get some clarity on that? Because it was dropped to $30,000 last year. If it’s going to go lower…. The association already had to pull $65,000 out of their reserves to remain operating last year. I’m concerned that if we’ve reduced funding even further, we are putting that organization at risk. Could the minister please clarify?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Just to clarify, I misunderstood you. Again, our ability to support our external partners is limited, but we know how valuable this partner is to us. So we are going to do everything we can to ensure that we bring the funding back up to the original $95,000.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you. Minister. I appreciate the acknowledgement of their work and hopefully the commitment to restore their funding.

Going into water storage and dams, I have some stock questions. But I am running somewhat tight on time, so I’m going to jump ahead a bit on this.

I want to clarify that the province has made it a clear mandate that water retention is needed in the province. I think that the minister and I have agreed on several occasions that we need to get more water on the landscape. We need to figure out how to hold water back, both for flood protection and emergencies as well as for later in the summer when we need it. But while it’s mentioned as a provincial priority, we continue to put up roadblocks to users actually holding the water back, and it comes around our dam safety.

I did hear recently that the Indian Gardens Ranch, which, in my understanding, is somewhere around Tunkwa Lake, Logan Lake, Savona area — drained one of their reservoirs for a dam inspection last fall. To date, none of the water has returned, and now they have no water going into the summer. They were forced to drain to do the inspection.

Can the minister provide any clarity on why we let that water go and what’s going to happen if the lake doesn’t replenish?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We are not aware of this specific example that the member gave. But we are happy to look into it and get back to her.

Donegal Wilson: Regardless of the specific case, do we have a policy around the need to drain a reservoir in order to inspect the dam? What is the plan if the recovery doesn’t happen? In this specific case, it didn’t happen. The water did not come back. So how do we plan for that, and what is the policy, going forward, to ensure these inspections don’t deplete the water?

Hon. Randene Neill: We are required as a province to follow national dam safety standards when dams are inspected. In some cases, they may be required to lower water levels. In some cases, according to the experts, they may be required to drain a reservoir to inspect a dam, but not all of the time.

Again, we can’t speak to this case, but if a farmer is facing a water shortage, we do work really closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to find solutions for that farmer. The most recent example is a $100 million agricultural water infrastructure program to help farmers build the infrastructure they need to ensure that they don’t run out of water.

Donegal Wilson: Just for clarification from the minister, are they allowed to use money out of that $100 million for dams specifically?

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes.

[6:05 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Going back to our previous conversation on the small water systems, we’re seeing a similar situation around affordability on dams, where we have lakes that are created, or man-made lakes, that are being held back by dams that are the responsibility of a small number of homeowners to be on the hook for.

In my own riding, Chain Lake is one of them. We have a beautiful little park on the lake. We have recreational values and properties all around the lake. It is a member of the regional district. It’s owned by the regional district.

The economy of scale doesn’t exist because the regional district doesn’t spread it over the whole tax base. They only put it over the homeowners that are around the lake, and those homeowners are being asked to cover the costs of this dam in order to maintain their lakefront properties.

I’m wondering. I also heard today that Monte Lake is another lake where they’re experiencing this, and it’s actually on seven homeowners. That dam is registered to seven homeowners. It’s maintaining a 435-hectare lake with parks and recreational opportunities, yet the cost of maintaining that dam falls on seven people or seven households.

Can the minister provide any clarity or intent from the ministry to provide funding for these important recreational features that are recreational assets for many people in British Columbia, not just the seven households that are maintaining the licence on the dam?

Hon. Randene Neill: I really want to thank the member opposite for the question. It is a very good point, and it is a very similar situation to small water systems.

In regards to Chain Lake, the RDOS did just reach out to one of our assistant deputy ministers, and they’ve just started discussions to try to find solutions. I hadn’t heard about Monte Lake with the seven homeowners, but that is a lake that I drive by every time I go visit my parents, and I usually stop and let the dogs go swim. So that is, again, something that we really need to look at.

[6:10 p.m.]

The small water systems and the dams and the replacement of the dams — these are infrastructure projects that cost a lot of money, and they are generally in the hands of very few folks. There needs to be a bigger discussion, and I think the member and I have talked about this, into ensuring that we can replace and repair these systems in partnership with the federal government.

It’s something that we need to have discussions on as well — the Minister of Health in terms of small water systems, and for both dams and small water systems, definitely the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the response, and I believe this issue is way bigger than either one of us knows.

These three cases are what came to my inbox this week. So this is indicative of a much larger issue. We’re trying to get more water on the landscape. We need more water on the landscape. We’re in drought conditions. We need to store it. We need to hold it back. But our policy and our process and our investment do not reflect our priorities, and we need to find a way to flip that.

Going back to the $100 million. I know in my own community of Keremeos, we’re trying to put in a new well. I know they’re looking to apply to this fund. It’s through the irrigation district. Don’t be confused; it’s not just agricultural water. That is our potable water for the community of Keremeos plus our agricultural water system. For economy of scale, they have been put together for our community. The question is whether they will be able to apply for the $100 million, being that they’re not only supplying agriculture.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. Because it is an Agriculture-funded program, I’m going to suggest that the most appropriate and probably most correct answer will come from the Minister of Agriculture.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:12 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $23,672,000 (continued).

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I think, perhaps, I can just go into the answer that we were preparing in regard to the member’s question about the forecasting of premium rates. There were just a few items in the member’s commentary with respect to that that I also wanted the opportunity to address.

When it comes to this issue of…. I guess, really, what I wanted to do is correct the misapprehension that WorkSafe premiums are a payroll tax. They manifestly, of course, are not a payroll tax. I mean, employers, under law, have an obligation to protect the health and safety of their employees, and that is a serious responsibility. We’ve seen what happens when risks on work sites are not properly addressed.

So rather than employers being responsible individually for managing this, we have a system of mutual insurance. That system, as we discussed before the break, came about as the result of a great compromise in which workers essentially gave up their right to sue their employers.

For the price in British Columbia right now of $1.55 per $100 of assessed payroll, employers access a system of no-fault insurance where they are supported in paying claims to their employees when their employees are injured at work. They pay pensions if there is a permanent disability. They pay pensions to those families of individuals who die. They have access to prevention and education services. This is a system that is in lieu of workers being able to individually sue for harms, profound harms in some cases, done to workers when there are failures of safety at work.

Indeed, the workers compensation system is not a payroll tax. It is the price — and, I would say, a bargain for employers, frankly — of ensuring that workers are protected at work. That is a system that has been in place for over 100 years in this province. I think we need to ensure that we are correctly characterizing what the statutory obligations of employers are and the regime that we have developed in order to ensure that employers are supported in meeting those statutory obligations.

The member also made comments with respect to the construction sector. I think we can all agree that — in the context of a trade war that we didn’t ask for, of profound attacks on our economy from the United States in the form of punishing tariffs — our government has spent the last year fighting to ensure that our economy can stand on its own two feet. We are expanding our markets. We are making significant investments in many different sectors in our economy in British Columbia. We are working with the federal government in that regard as well.

When it comes to the impacts on the construction sector, both with respect to what we’ve canvassed a little bit earlier around the injury rates in that sector…. I can just assure the member that there has been significant work done to drive down the injury rate in construction to better protect workers. The crane safety work we’ve been engaged in is an example of some of that.

[1:40 p.m.]

What we have seen, in fact, is a significant decrease in their premiums over last year. In the construction sector, according to the rate classification system that WorkSafe has developed, there are different categories of rates within construction. In building demolition, that category has seen a decrease of 29.7 percent in their premiums; concrete placing, finishing, surfacing or repair, a 11.4 percent decrease; framing or residential forming, a 39.9 percent decrease; road construction, a 35.8 percent decrease.

I just want to take a moment to express gratitude to all of the operators, the employers, the workers, the unions, the safety associations in this area who have contributed to making those work environments safer.

I understand and I appreciate that there is some concern with respect to what is happening with housing starts, particularly on the residential side where…. I think that might capture the member’s concern about a decrease in employment. Particularly, the Lower Mainland was referenced. But again, I would just note that the March labour force survey identified 2,800 additional jobs in construction. We’ve gained, in construction, 11,500 jobs over the past year.

While there is…. We’re working hard in terms of public investment and public projects to keep capital projects going, particularly in light of and understanding that there is a bit of a slowdown on the residential side, but really working to keep the tradespeople that we have in the province working. I’d be interested to hear more about any numbers or particular concerns or scenarios that the member has.

I would say overall that this is why we made such a significant investment in skilled-trades training — $242 million in skilled-trades training to double apprenticeships in this province, because we know that skilled trades are going to play a critical role in the development of our economy going forward. Of course, they will be employed by companies who will be bidding on and organizing and engaged in that work.

Having said that, it is…. With respect to the consultation on rates, the 2027 premium rate, the preliminary rate, will be announced in July. WorkSafe is about to engage in its annual consultation on rate-setting, and the board, as is their statutory obligation, will make a decision about the rate in the fall.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the response. Obviously, I was looking for the scenarios presented, but we’ll have to maybe look forward to that announcement in July, I guess, to learn more about what those are going to look like.

I think what we’re talking about is just ensuring those predictable, stable conditions for employers making business decisions. When WorkSafe has warned that upward claim cost pressures and a reduced surplus can potentially lead to increased premium rates in future years, that could potentially lead to a rate shock that could have economic effects across our economy.

Claim costs last year rose 9 percent to $3.2 billion, but our injury rate has actually improved. As I said, since this government came into power, it has improved by a total of 12 percent. According to the Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada, it’s been 15 to 20 percent on average nationally.

So B.C. does have a lot of work to do and improve, having the injury rates to come down, of course, and also to protect the integrity of our workers compensation system and also make sure that it is competitive for employers to not have massive rate increases.

[1:45 p.m.]

We did touch on a topic earlier about…. One of the pressures, obviously, was psychological claims, so I just wanted to touch on that. In the interest of time, I’m going to jump forward to that.

Obviously, preventing psychological injury proactively is absolutely critical. Also, we want to make sure that for the claims that are being accepted, the system is capable of handling what’s going on. I know that WorkSafe has hired more staff to support these particular injury claims, but when California expanded to this area in the 1980s, it caused a 1,300 percent cost spike. Victoria, Australia, also went down this road and actually had to reverse course within three years.

I think we want to make sure that their system is capable of accepting psychological injury claims when they do happen. I’m wondering if the minister could provide how many of these injury claims were accepted in the last three years, as well as the average claim cost and duration compared to physical injury claims.

Then, just in the interest of time, if there are any comments the minister could provide on guardrails, as well, for these types of claims.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Before I read the numbers into the record, just on the overall of what the member is characterizing as rate shock…. That term is just not a term that is in the WorkSafe lexicon. It isn’t an approach that they are considering. It isn’t an outcome that they are considering.

I would note that 39 percent of employers, in fact, are seeing a decrease in their industry base rate this year; 47 will see an increase in their base rate, of varying degrees, and 14 percent will see no change.

In the restaurant sector, for example, a sector that we know has been under so much pressure and that we are working hard to support, their premium rates have gone down by 26 percent, from 78 cents per $100 of assessable payroll to 58 cents of assessable payroll.

Again, I just want to reiterate the importance of the board’s prudent approach to avoid the very scenarios that I think the member is raising concerns about. There is no question that there are challenges faced by every compensation system across the country as a result of changes in the workforce, changes in the nature of work, impact of technology. There are many, many studies underway with respect to understanding the impact of risks at work for workers in these times, and all of that helps to inform the work of the board.

With respect to the specific question about psychological injury claims, let me start with claim duration first. Duration for physical claims only — no psychological aspect, no chronic pain aspect — is an average of 45 days in 2024, 45 days in 2025; psychological injury only, 218 days in 2024, 235 days in 2025; physical injury with psychological aspect and/or chronic pain, 339 days in 2024, 321 days in 2025.

And with respect to the claims costs…. Again, these are average claims costs: physical only, with no serious injury, an average of $11,000 per claim; physical only, but a serious injury, $54,000; psychological only, $156,000; physical with chronic pain, $180,000; physical and psychological, $318,000; physical with chronic pain and psychological, $488,000.

[1:55 p.m.]

I would note that with respect to the question of guardrails around psychological health and safety issues, there is a very high bar. The test is a very high test when it comes to a psychological claim.

The allow rate, I believe, was 45 percent in 2025 for all claims — that’s an average for all psychological claims — and 79 percent for those occupations that are covered by the mental health presumption.

There is, I think, as the member is aware, currently a consultation being conducted by WorkSafe on the psychological health and safety regulation. That is, of course, where everyone in the sector, employers and workers, have an opportunity to weigh in with WorkSafe experts.

Much expert analysis is brought to bear in that process to determine what is the appropriate way forward.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for reading all those numbers into the record, important numbers to note.

I do think this is just one to pay attention to, on psychological claims. We want to make sure that the system is supporting those workers who have those claims, who need that psychological support, and also that it’s not breaking the system as a whole in some way.

Prevention is absolutely key. One area, just to dive into an area where there are a lot of psychological claims, obviously, is first responders. They have a significant amount.

I met with a wonderful gentleman from First Responder Health who shared just a wealth of information about what they’re doing for firefighters on the prevention side and psychological claims. He did mention to me that the cost to service a psychological injury claim for a firefighter specifically is five times the average of physical injury claims.

The minister is likely aware of some of the efforts that the Professional Fire Fighters Association has undertaken, such as the launching of occupational awareness training. Over 10,000 members of the fire service, including B.C. wildfire in that, have now taken part. A lot of this is focused on preventing psychological claims by focusing on wellness. I do think that is something to keep in mind.

Another program launched in 2019 from First Responder Health…. There was a wellness program where, in northeast B.C., they have not had a single psychological injury claim since launching the program in 2019.

Given that…. We talked earlier about nurses, obviously, and health care professionals. There are other first responders. I’m wondering what WorkSafe is doing to focus on preventing psychological injury claims from happening in the first place by focusing on mental health and wellness, especially in high-risk occupations.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: When it comes to, in particular, first-responder mental health, and the member was asking specifically about firefighters, there has been significant work done and supported by our government over the last few years around mental health for firefighters and first responders.

[2:05 p.m.]

In fact, the programs that the member has mentioned, the occupational awareness program, was sort of developed by Dr. Duncan Shields and Matt Johnson, and just huge gratitude to those practitioners in the field who have profoundly contributed to developing programs to support firefighters.

I had the privilege of serving as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for two years and working very closely with firefighters and with experts in the field to deliver programs that have been critical to the mental health of firefighters.

So there are those programs. There is the B.C. First Responders’ Mental Health Committee, which pulls together a number of groups to provide a collaborative space for the development of programs around mental health that impact all first responders. There are specific programs that now reside in the Ministry of Health that are supported and delivered by third parties in the sector.

There is, in terms of the work internal to WorkSafe, a psychological health and safety team responsible for supporting workers and employers. That work is really integrated at every level, at every step of the WorkSafe process — from education, prevention, claims adjudication and rehab support post claim.

I would say, as well, that WorkSafe is unique in having an internal chief mental health officer that is responsible for advising on best practices; program development; adjudication, improving adjudication approaches; as well as prevention work; and, of course, advising on the regulatory project that is currently underway.

For example, I’ve spoken with firefighters who responded to the Lapu-Lapu tragedy and who have had, through these programs, training in critical incident debriefing, and have been able to deploy those skills and processes to aid in the upfront addressing of psychological injury. Early intervention helps in the impact and the duration of those injuries.

That is training and supports that are provided, as well as, on the claims adjudication side, dedicated teams that are trauma-informed to bring a trauma-informed lens to first responders who have experienced such dramatic and traumatic experiences.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response from the minister, and I believe that does conclude the allotted time that I have been given. I want to thank the minister for answering all of my questions over the past several days.

I also want to thank the government members for the support for Bill M214, the Firefighters’ Health Act. I look forward to some more conversations to come.

I sincerely want to thank the folks from WorkSafe for the work that they do each and every day to focus on the safety in our province.

I want to thank the folks at the Ministry of Labour for the very hard work that all of you do to keep healthy workplaces, safe workplaces, as well as ones that are productive across the province.

I appreciate the time, and thank you to the Chair for the time today.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the member for a good discussion and for his commitment to canvassing these issues — and to his team.

[2:10 p.m.]

I guess I will just say again that I deeply believe that we have a social contract, and that social contract is that workers show up to work every day. They build the prosperity that lifts our communities up. In return for that, it is our obligation to ensure that their rights are protected, that they have access to constitutional rights when it comes to unionization and that they are safe at work, that they come home safe at the end of the day.

I think those are values that are core to who we are as British Columbians and as Canadians. I think that in the time that we are in, when we need to have all hands on deck, all of us paddling in the same direction to make sure that our future is prosperous, our success in that regard will very much depend on the people who are doing that work to bring that prosperity.

It is a deep honour to serve in this role and to support so much of that work that is done. I am very grateful for the work of our team in the Ministry of Labour; in the employment standards branch; the folks at the labour board; and, of course, the folks at WorkSafe and all of the advocates out there who advocate for safe and healthy work environments.

With that, I will express my thanks, and I’m happy to move a motion.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister, for your remarks.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $23,672,000 — approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

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

The committee rose at 2:12 p.m.