Contents

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Jessie Sunner.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Bruce Banman: Sometimes as we march these hallways, we get to meet some very interesting people. I would like to draw attention up in the gallery. We have some students from Western Washington University. They’re poli-sci students.

I know they’re heartbroken that I won’t ask a question today, but I promised them our very best when it comes to heckling so that they get a good chance to experience a true question period.

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

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: As many people who live in rural communities, I hear often that they say: “It’s not very often that I have a constituent visiting here.” I’m very lucky because I also have my constituency adviser, who just started about a month ago — Alison Uppal from Prince Rupert. She is joining us today in the gallery.

Would everyone please make her feel welcome.

Hon. Kelly Greene: The Legislature’s favourite guest is here for their biannual visit. You may remember that it is Emergency Preparedness Week, and I’m here to introduce our emergency alert systems test. These alerts are one of the ways that we keep people safe. In an emergency, you would receive information and instructions on how to keep you and your family safe.

Today at 1:55 p.m., people across the province will receive an alert on their mobile device, radio or cable television. Check your device settings. If your phone is on do not disturb, you may not receive the alert.

Dana Lajeunesse: Today in the House, I have my two constituency advisers — Aakriti Rai, who looks after the Sooke office, and Sarah Dinsdale, who is present every day in the Cobble Hill office. Thank you for being here.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I, too, am delighted to get to introduce and welcome one of the members of my constituency office team. Tony Jiang is here. I told him I would embarrass him.

I apologize now for doing so.

As we all know, our constituency staff work incredibly hard. Tony works incredibly hard serving the neighbours in Vancouver–Little Mountain.

I also want to introduce and welcome Emmanuel Cantiller, who works in the constituency office of my colleague in Yaletown but is a resident of Vancouver–Little Mountain, so I am delighted also.

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

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I rise to introduce and welcome two well-known leaders in the Surrey community, Mr. Gaurav Bhutani and Mrs. Pooja Bhutani, who are the CEO and vice-president and creative director of ICONS Magazine, a new platform that seeks to highlight community members who are making a positive impact in our community.

[1:40 p.m.]

Gaurav and Pooja have toured the Legislature and enjoyed lunch at the dining room today and are also celebrating Gaurav’s birthday, which was yesterday.

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

I have one more introduction to make. I also would like to welcome and introduce members of the Kerala Cultural Association of British Columbia. They are joining us in the gallery today for question period. This organization has been serving the Indian and Malayalee community since 1989 through creating a space where Kerala tradition and culture can be celebrated across our communities.

I am pleased to introduce my friend President Matthew John and board members Rajeev Rajan, Prince Vengal Thomas, Jack John, Riyaz Kunju Mohammed and James.

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

Jody Toor: I have two introductions today. A school group from my riding of Langley-Willowbrook — the school’s name is Belmont Elementary — is visiting with their grade 5 students. There are 26 grade 5ers and six adults visiting with their teacher, Mr. Ronald.

Can the House please make them feel welcome.

My second introduction. The World Sikh Organization of Canada is in the chamber today. The organization serves as a vital platform for advocating for our rights, promoting equality, ensuring that our voices are heard.

Can the House please make them feel welcome today.

Mable Elmore: Today in the House, we have joining us the legislative tour guides and Parliamentary Players, who tour and act at the building. Every spring there is a new cohort of folks, all students currently in post-secondary education programs, to join the permanent tour team and work on the grounds and in the buildings, welcoming hundreds of thousands of visitors.

Will the House please help me welcome Taylor Bowden, Eakam Dhillon, Martin Moreno Anderson, Niloofar Riazibeydokhti, Rowan Rallison, Cassidy Lemay, Lawrence Barss, Lawson Farman, Louisa Whitmore, Grace Wiebe, Naomi Duska, Makayla Madill, Mariah Madill, Marlee Young, Scott McCollom, Evan Utzinger and Jessie Hutchinson.

Let’s give them a warm welcome.

Hon. David Eby: Looking up in the gallery, I see two of my hard-working CAs. I see Sahithi and Iman. Together with Sofia, they are the trio that keeps the office running. They are the front line for all of the important feedback from constituents near and far.

I want to thank them for the hard work they do in Vancouver–Point Grey every single day. Nice to see you.

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

Firstly, I’d like to welcome the good folks from the Greater Victoria Chamber. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to meet with them earlier. I was the only one from my caucus who wasn’t, I think.

It’s good to see you guys: Corrie, Julia, Zahra, Zoë, Nicki, Maddy, Ashley, Nicole, Hanna and Cheryl. I hope I haven’t missed anyone. Thank you so much for being here today. Welcome.

Speaking of Victoria, I’d also like to welcome a young man named Sebastian Horabin, who I gather might just be running for Victoria school trustee. I’m always a fan of young people stepping up to lead in politics, so it’s great to see young people like Sebastian getting engaged.

I understand he’s a Red Seal electrician. He’s passionate about education, trades pathways, apprenticeships — issues that are areas of passion to many members of this House.

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

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m pleased to introduce some friends who are joining us today in the gallery from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They just hosted many of us for lunch and to have a discussion about women’s heart and brain health. We learned that heart disease and stroke are the leading cause of premature death in women and that historically, two-thirds of clinical research has focused on men.

[1:45 p.m.]

We also learned of the Heart and Stroke’s new screening tool that targets key risks that are unique to women and the foundation’s investment of $20 million over five years to fund research that’s focused on women’s heart and brain health.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Robyn Jones-Murrell, Mary Stambulic and Rebecca Ponting from the Heart and Stroke Foundation along with Dr. Jennifer Yao from UBC. And an extra-warm welcome for Lilli Law, who shared with us so openly about the journey that she has been on.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I, too, have a constituency assistant who’s in the House today, Kathleen Serrano, who has been taking great care of the people in Vancouver–South Granville for a couple of years now. She’s a true political nerd, has previously worked in Ottawa as an intern. We’re very lucky to be served by her.

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

Steve Morissette: I rise to recognize my two constituency advisers, Angelika Brunner, who has taken a pass on joining us in question period, and Sarah Brownlee up in the gallery. The two of them do their best with the challenging job of making me look good in the constituency. I appreciate the work they do.

Thank you so much.

Jody Toor: Sorry, I was just advised from my colleague across the chamber that my school group has entered the building now. A school group from my riding of Langley-Willowbrook, Belmont Elementary, is visiting with their grade 5 students and their teacher, Mr. Ronald.

Can the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d also like to welcome a contingency of the World Sikh Organization of Canada that’s here today. We have Danish Singh Brar, the national president; Gurpreet Kaur Rai, the B.C. regional president; Sandeep Singh Toor, the B.C. regional vice president; and Guntaas Kaur Cheema, the national director of international affairs. They’re also accompanied by a large contingency of their B.C. regional members.

The WSO is a leading national Sikh advocacy organization that’s dedicated to promoting and protecting the interests of Sikhs in Canada and around the world, while championing human rights, equity, inclusion and protection of fundamental freedoms. They play a vital role in upholding civil liberties and are at the forefront of advocacy efforts, including in challenging Quebec’s Bill 21.

They do a number of initiatives here as well. I appreciate their advocacy. I know they’re meeting with members from both sides of the House today, and I look forward to meeting with them later today.

If the House will please join me in welcoming them.

Amna Shah: Somewhere up in the gallery are two incredible young men who work in my constituency office. We are joined by Ayush Saini and Mostafa Ramadan.

I have so many good things to say about these two young men. They exhibit exceptional compassion and care for my constituents and exceptional care and compassion with all of my technological needs. Helping me open an email is apparently a lot more difficult than you may think.

I do want to congratulate Ayush on his recent post-secondary graduation. I hope that their experience here in their Legislature for the first time is going to inspire them and that the members in here will show them what good democracy looks like.

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

I think everyone here can empathize. I make Iti do two events every month out in the community, and with her expertise and guidance and warmth, she makes each of those events a delight.

If the House could please welcome her.

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

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

[1:50 p.m.]

They provide the most thoughtful, compassionate casework and advocate for the constituents of the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head day after day. I couldn’t do this work without them, and I know that the constituents thank them greatly for the work they’re doing connecting people and ensuring people get the important services they need.

Will the House give them a warm welcome.

Rohini Arora: This morning we met with the Canadian men’s mental health foundation. It was such a productive discussion and really amazing to see these big, jacked, ripped guys talking about toxic masculinity and the way that the patriarchy harms us all.

I met with Kenton Boston, the president; Sachin Latti, who is a staunch mental health advocate and podcaster — he has run across the country, raising $216,000 for men’s mental health; and Trevor Botkin, who is a union brother. He’s a carpenter, Red Seal, and a mental health podcaster as well.

Please join me in welcoming them.

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

Members’ Statements

Child Care Month and
Salmon Stone Childcare Centre

George Chow: May is Child Care Month and is a time to celebrate the important role child care plays in the lives of children and the families in our communities and in our economy.

Last November Salmon Stone Childcare Centre, in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, welcomed children and families to this brand-new child care facility. Operated by South Vancouver Neighbourhood House, this child care centre provides 49 new spaces for infants to five-year-olds. This facility will also offer a family drop-in program, which is a play-based learning opportunity for children.

The Salmon Stone Childcare Centre was jointly funded by our government and the city of Vancouver. Our provincial government contributed $6.2 million to this project, a very significant investment to bring necessary child care services to residents.

Located in the growing River District neighbourhood in southeast Vancouver, Salmon Stone Childcare is literally a stone’s throw away from the Fraser River and will be one of the only active child care facilities in the community, providing much-needed access to affordable child care in the area.

The name Salmon Stone came from Geraldine Lalonde, a member of the Indigenous council of the Neighbourhood House. Salmon Stone signifies life, rebirth and represents determination, strength, protection and courage.

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

I welcome you all to join South Vancouver Neighbourhood House, the city of Vancouver and the residents of Vancouver-Fraserview in celebration of this opening.

Xing Wu Zen Temple Society

Steve Kooner: I rise today to recognize the outstanding contributions of Master Shi Xing Wu and his Xing Wu Zen Temple Society in Richmond-Queensborough.

On May 2, I had the privilege of attending the society’s fourth annual multicultural art and expo festival, held in celebration of the International Bathing Buddha Festival and B.C. Buddhist Culture Day. This event was a powerful reflection of the society’s commitment to building community through culture, tradition and shared experiences.

Under the leadership of Master Shi Xing Wu, the Xing Wu Zen Temple Society has become a respected and welcoming presence in our community. Through martial arts, meditation, Buddhist teachings and charitable initiatives, the society continues to create opportunities for people of all ages and backgrounds to come together, learn and grow. Their events are welcoming and community-focused, and they bring people together in the spirit of respect, understanding and connection.

At a time when strong communities matter more than ever, this kind of leadership and dedication makes a real difference.

[1:55 p.m.]

One significant recent example of where Xing Wu Zen Temple Society made a real difference was when they held a stage play and charity dinner. There were donation proceeds as a result of those events last year. The society actually donated a portion of those proceeds to the Richmond Hospital Foundation. That’s an example of their significant contributions within the riding of Richmond-Queensborough.

Master Shi Xing Wu society’s community efforts go beyond organizing events. They help foster a sense of belonging and ensure positive values and strengthen the social fabric of Richmond-Queensborough.

I want to sincerely commend Master Shi Xing Wu and all members of the Xing Wu Zen Temple Society for their ongoing contributions and their commitment to serving our community of Richmond-Queensborough.

Naturopathic Doctors

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to recognize May 6 as Naturopaths Day in British Columbia, as officially proclaimed by the province, and to acknowledge the important role naturopathic doctors play in supporting the health and well-being of people across our province.

Naturopathic doctors are highly trained, regulated health professionals who complete extensive post-secondary education and clinical training before entering practice. Many British Columbians rely on them for ongoing patient-centred care, including prevention, chronic disease management and support for complex health needs. Their work reflects key priorities of our health care system — helping people stay well, supporting continuity of care and complementing the broader network of providers delivering care across the province.

In rural and remote communities, naturopathic doctors are pivotal in providing increased access to care for patients. British Columbia has been at the forefront of regulating naturopathic doctors in Canada, reflecting a long-standing commitment to ensuring safe, qualified and accountable care for patients.

Today is an opportunity to recognize the contributions of naturopathic doctors and the important role they play in supporting healthier communities across British Columbia.

I would also like to congratulate the association of British Columbia Naturopathic Doctors on their leadership and ongoing commitment to patient care and community well-being.

Nursing Week
and Contributions of Nurses

Reann Gasper: Today I want to recognize National Nursing Week, coming up next week. I want to honour the incredible nurses serving communities across British Columbia. Nurses are there for people during some of the most important and vulnerable moments in life. They are there in moments of fear, relief, heartbreak, healing and hope.

As a mother of three, I know how much those moments matter. Many of us can remember a nurse who brought comfort during a difficult time, who stayed calm in the middle of uncertainty or who simply showed kindness when it was needed most.

Nursing is not just a career. It is a calling rooted in compassion, patience, skill and service. Today nurses work under pressures that did not exist a generation ago. Patient volumes are higher. Cases are more complex. Workplaces are more demanding and, at times, more dangerous. Yet despite these realities, nurses continue to show up. Day after day, shift after shift, they persevere not because it’s easy but because it matters.

This week is an opportunity for all of us to pause and recognize the sacrifices nurses make every single day — the long hours, the emotional weight they carry and the dedication they bring to caring for others. Whether they work in hospitals, long-term care, community health, school clinics or emergency care, nurses are truly the backbone of our health care system.

To every nurse across British Columbia, including those serving in communities like Mission Memorial Hospital, Abbotsford Regional Hospital and throughout Fraser Valley: thank you. Thank you for your compassion. Thank you for the countless ways you care for people every single day. We see you. This province thanks you, and this country is better because of you.

Happy National Nursing Week.

[2:00 p.m.]

Emergency Preparedness Week

Darlene Rotchford: As the weather grows warmer and more British Columbians spend time exploring the natural beauty our province has to offer, it’s an important time to recognize Emergency Preparedness Week right here in B.C.

This year’s theme is “In it together.” It highlights a simple but powerful truth: emergency preparedness is a shared responsibility. When neighbours know one another, when communities stay connected and when we look out for one another when we need additional support, we strengthen our collective ability to respond effectively in times of crisis.

Preparedness also begins here at home, understanding the risks in our communities, developing an emergency plan and ensuring our households have both an emergency kit and a grab-and-go bag, which are essential steps. These practical measures help families remain calm, organized and resilient when the unexpected occurs.

Sharing knowledge with others further strengthens the readiness of our communities — and, more importantly, making sure we’re all familiar with resources such as PreparedBC so we can offer valuable guidance for those to get started.

It is also strengthening emergency services, from wildfires to floods and severe weather events. In those moments, some of our Canadian Armed Forces and our reservists, who also happen to be our public servants in some cases, play a very critical role in supporting operations. Whether it’s assisting with evacuations here in B.C. if needed, delivering essential supplies or helping communities recover, the Canadian Armed Forces are a trusted, capable partner in emergency responsiveness right across our province.

I’m particularly proud that in my community of Esquimalt-Colwood, we have the regional joint operations centre, located right in my backyard, serving as a hub for coordinating military support to domestic operations in British Columbia. The work carried out there ensures that assistance can be deployed quickly and effectively when it is needed most, reinforcing that strong partnership between our communities and those who serve.

Emergency preparedness is an opportunity for us all to reflect on our readiness and take meaningful steps to be better prepared. By working together, staying informed and supporting one another, we will build a safer, more resilient community right here across our province.

Experience as Stroke Survivor
and Heart and Stroke Awareness

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

Today is day 130 since the stroke that almost took my life. In a matter of minutes, everything changed. The stroke took my ability to walk. It took my use of my right hand and my right arm and blurred my vision for almost five months. One moment, life felt normal. The next, it was completely turned upside down.

You hear the words “stroke” and “heart attack” all the time, but most people don’t truly hear it until it has happened to them or someone they love. And when it happens, it happens fast. In stroke care, they say: “Time is brain.”

I’m here today because of the incredible people who acted quickly — the health care professionals who knew what to do and did not hesitate and the team at STARS air ambulance who got me to a stroke hospital within 80 minutes. They didn’t just transport me. They gave me a fighting chance. To all of them, I owe my life, and I will never forget it.

The reality is this. Organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada remind us that heart disease and stroke take a life every five minutes in Canada. Here in British Columbia, around 2,300 people die each year from stroke alone. These are parents, children, friends and neighbours, and it’s happening younger and younger nowadays.

Stroke and heart disease do not discriminate. That’s why awareness matters. We need young people to understand the risks and take their health seriously now, not later, because later may be too late.

Since my stroke, I’ve had the opportunity to connect with the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and I am proud to stand with them as an advocate. In my riding, I’m working to create a support group so that people going through recovery don’t feel alone. Because I can tell you this: recovery is hard, it’s humbling, and it changes you.

I am not the same person I was in December, but I’m here, and for that I’m very, very thankful. I’m Pete Davis, and I’m a proud stroke survivor.

[Applause.]

The Speaker: Members, we’re going to have a couple of minutes of recess to allow the members to remove their T-shirts, and then we’ll continue with the question period.

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

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Calling the House back to order.

Oral Questions

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

Scott McInnis: We need to get some serious answers this afternoon, because there’s something fishy going on here. The sn̓ʕaýckstx case has potential to enable Americans to have serious influence in B.C. affairs, beyond what the constitution requires.

To the Attorney General: were you aware two weeks ago, when you famously tapped the Premier on the shoulder, that the WHY Resources case was scheduled to be heard in the B.C. Supreme Court on May 5, yesterday?

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

Attorney General, do you wish to answer?

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

We’ve talked about this line of questioning before. We’ve talked about our decision and the work that we’re doing to address the Gitxaała decision and that we’re hard at work doing that. I’m not going to speak about a matter that is before the courts, and that’s been something that I’ve said over and over again in this House.

But I will say that the obligations that we may or may not have to U.S. tribes are something that is a matter before the court and was a matter before the court in 2010, when the first decision came forward related to that, when we were not in government.

We did bring a fix forward in this House to make sure that our EA process can distinguish between U.S. tribes and the First Nations of this province, who we stand behind, and they did not support that legislation. So I’m really confused with the continual line of questioning — that they’re unable to support a legislative fix to the problem, but they keep asking questions about it.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

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

Scott McInnis: I keep asking questions because I’m not getting an answer. I didn’t ask any details about the court case. I asked if the Attorney General knew that it was happening.

Yesterday a case involving the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy attempting to block a magnesium mine in the West Kootenay was in the B.C. Supreme Court. On reviewing the court documents, I note that former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Murray Rankin’s firm is acting for the American tribe, the Sn̓ʕaýckstx Confederacy, in at least three cases against the government.

According to public accounts, this firm has been paid millions by this government over the past several years. Is this firm still acting for government while representing American tribes? If so, is the Premier concerned about this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Of course, we don’t make a choice of who is legal counsel selected by different parties in the province. That’s their choice, and we have a free and independent court system, along with lawyers that are free to associate with whoever they want.

If there are any issues of conflict of interest, the proper step that I would suggest should be taken is to go to the Law Society.

The Speaker: Member has a second supplemental?

Scott McInnis: I’d like to know: was it necessary for government to give its consent for that firm to act for this American tribe, and if so, did the government, in fact, consent?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Never have I been asked such a question, of whether or not I consent to opposing counsel acting for opposing parties. That’s not something that happens in our legal system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s not how it’s set up in our adversarial system, where we have our own representation and represent in the court, so I guess my answer is no.

[2:10 p.m.]

Government Handling of DRIPA
and Concerns of Business Owners

Claire Rattée: The B.C. Business Council released a survey today, and the responses speak for themselves. Nearly 75 percent of B.C. businesses plan to decrease investment due to uncertainty over DRIPA.

The president of BCBC said: “The message from business leaders is clear. DRIPA isn’t working.” B.C. businesses are pulling their money out of the province.

Will the Minister of Jobs stand up for 75 percent of B.C. businesses today and address this, or will he continue to downplay their concerns?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I would like to thank the member for the question and also note that B.C. outperformed what the B.C. Business Council projected was going to be the GDP growth for British Columbia last year. In fact, the headlines read, “B.C. led the country in economic growth,” and we’re projecting that again for this next year.

The member highlighted the question around investments in British Columbia. Four new mines have been invested in. We have $8 billion of investment that has just come from January to now. Within the last few weeks, we’ve seen billions of dollars of investment in British Columbia, and we’re expecting billions of dollars of more investment coming to British Columbia in the weeks ahead.

We’ll continue to work with the B.C. Business Council. I know they’re advocating for certain measures, and that’s great. They should do that. But let’s not get the stats mixed up. The stats are clear. We are continuing to lead the country, and we will do that into the years ahead.

Claire Rattée: Well, that’s interesting, because what the minister failed to mention is that much of that investment is tied up in court right now because this government has failed to act. And I don’t think downplaying the concerns of B.C. businesses is very becoming of a Minister of Jobs.

The B.C. Business Council also found that 98 percent of its members are very concerned about DRIPA. The other 2 percent said that they are somewhat concerned. That’s 100 percent of B.C. businesses that are concerned about the effects of DRIPA in some capacity — every single one. And to note, that includes Indigenous-owned businesses. That’s not fearmongering. It’s fact.

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

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think my friend is being economical with the truth. What the stats clearly show here in British Columbia is that we have been leaders in the country since 2017. Since 2017, the strongest GDP growth in the entire country….

Interjections.

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

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We talk about small businesses — the fastest retail sale growth in British Columbia, the strongest wage increases since 2017. We outperformed the B.C. Business Council’s own projections. Just think about that for a second. They made a projection of what they thought we were going to do. We outperformed that last year. We’re going to outperform this year’s projections as well.

And $8 billion of investments have come to British Columbia over the last few months. Guess what. We’re going to see billions more dollars in investments.

Not only that, this budget that they voted against sees significant investments in making sure that young people have the skills and the training that they need to take those employment opportunities. That should be celebrated in this House.

Any other province would see these results and metrics and they would celebrate it. But only the Conservatives…. They look for bad headlines. They look for bad news, because they can’t celebrate. They can’t be….

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: They have opposed everything. The North Coast transmission line — opposed to it. Budget that doubles skills training — opposed to it. They oppose everything. They are now the new party of no. We’re going to continue to make investments that grow this economy.

Health Impacts of LNG Projects
and Methane Gas Flaring

Rob Botterell: The Premier has been firm in his stance that there is no chance a pipeline will be built to the north coast. The B.C. Greens, oddly enough, agree. Meanwhile, this government appears willing to leave communities exposed to the potential health risks of fossil fuels and fast-tracked projects — places like Kitimat, where asthma rates have risen by more than 70 percent.

[2:15 p.m.]

The reality is we still don’t have a full picture of LNG’s impacts. The health impacts have never been studied. Councils in Terrace, Squamish, Dawson Creek and Hazelton are all calling for proper health assessments.

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

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member knows they’re not being ignored. There’s significant…. All LNG facilities — indeed, all such facilities in B.C. — are subject to strict regulation. All of them have been through environmental assessment processes led by the outstanding staff at the environmental assessment office. All of those processes include substantial study and review of the impact of projects, whatever they may be, on human health.

There is an absolute and continuing obligation on the part of regulators to ensure that the conditions on projects are followed. When there are issues, action is taken, as has happened recently by the B.C. Energy Regulator with respect to the issue of black smoke. And we’re going to continue to see those actions taken.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: I’m glad this government wants to be precise with their language. So perhaps B.C.’s Minister of Climate Solutions would like to correct the record when he said B.C. has the lowest-emission LNG in the world, strongest provincial oversight.

It was recently reported that LNG Canada flared, or burned off, 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, more than anywhere in the world. This would be enough natural gas to meet the annual heating needs of approximately 130,000 homes in Canada. Just like the U.S.A., this government will say that there’s no need to study the noise and chemical emission health impacts on British Columbians like you and I.

So will the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions explain what reality British Columbians should live in — the world of what he says or the reality of what’s actually happening and is not being studied?

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

For example, in the case of LNG Canada, provincial air quality data in the area and additional data from measurement requirements put in place by the BCER — and are requirements, indeed, of LNG Canada — continue, in the present moment, to be in normal range.

That said, as of December 26, 2025, LNG Canada completed commissioning and start-up activities and entered the operational phase of phase 1. Flaring is expected during operation, with volumes depending on the operation of train 1 and train 2. It is common for LNG facilities to experience changes in flaring volumes, and that has occurred.

A condition in their permit states that flaring must not result in the emission of black smoke. Black smoke during flaring indicates incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon gases. Action has been taken by the BCER on this question in order to ensure full information to the people who live in the community, the people of B.C. This is the regulatory action that is required.

It seems to me that if we believe in environmental assessment — we believe in that work, we believe that conditions applied should be followed — then when officials act on those, that process should be respected.

Impacts of Provincial Sales Tax Expansion

Peter Milobar: Well, before the Green interlude, the minister was getting quite the round of applause from the Mutual Admiration Society across the way, so I’ll give them another chance for an applause line about their economic track record.

Fastest deficit growth.

Interjections.

Peter Milobar: Keep it up.

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

Come on, let’s hear ya. Come on.

In just five years, this government has hiked tax revenues by 50 percent, yet they’ve never been further from a balanced budget.

It’s sure quiet again over there.

This government is so unbalanced that they’ve decided to hike taxes on B.C.’s smallest businesses at a time when it’s harder than ever for those businesses to stay alive. This government just ignores those concerns.

To the Minister of Finance: why is this minister’s fiscal mismanagement being placed on the shoulders of B.C.’s smallest entrepreneurs?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s great to see my friend who’s running for the leadership come up and speak today. In fact, I think he spoke more today than he spoke at the last leadership debate that he was in.

Interjections.

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

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

We continue.…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Minister will continue.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We continue to support small business. We have lowered the small business tax for small businesses, 25 percent lower than when these members — they used to be the B.C. Liberal Party; now they’re B.C. Conservatives — sat on this side of the House. They claim they’re not B.C. Liberals, but when their new leader comes in, they’ll be reminded really fast about the history that they have on this side of the House.

Not only have we lowered small business tax, but we continue to see strong economic growth here in the province. We heard from small businesses that they wanted expansion of the chronic property offending program, which was a direct response to them, part of the budget, $16 million. We heard from them that they wanted more skilled people to be able to take employment opportunities. We provided that as well. This is why we continue to lead the country in economic growth.

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

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Peter Milobar: It’s interesting. I’m trying to move two chairs, and so are two people two chairs away from the Premier currently. So it’s an interesting seating diagram in this House right now.

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

Peter Milobar: Small business owners like Caren McSherry are at their wits’ end. They’re forced to respond to the chaos on the streets all on their own. The Gourmet Warehouse is just one, and it has been forced to hire security. Now this government says: “You know what? You should pay tax for that security as well.” Caren has said: “Not only can we not protect you and your property and your businesses, but now we’re going to tax you on what we can’t do.”

Again, to the Minister of Finance: why is this government expanding taxes to services that this Solicitor General has completely failed to provide to the public?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’d like to remind my friends across the way that we didn’t take out our leader. We support our leader on this side of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members. Members, order.

Members will be quiet.

The minister will continue.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I mentioned to the member already, we on our side are proud of the record of lowering small business taxes by 25 percent right when we formed government — in fact, much lower than when they were on this side of the House. We have one of the lowest small business taxes in the country. Not only that.…

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

Not only that, but we heard from small businesses. They wanted us to expand the chronic property offending program, because they were seeing the results. They were seeing that people that were the repeat offenders had wraparound supports put around them so they couldn’t have the impacts that they were having.

I’ve shared in this House before that my family ran a small business a few blocks from here. I know how stressful it is for a small business to have their window broken. That’s why these programs are important. That’s why the supports we put in place are so vitally important for their growth.

Macklin McCall: Well, this PST will cause business owners to pass additional costs onto their customers. René Rossignol, with Themis Security, said: “For us, for our pricing as well, we are going to have to take into account that bills are going up substantially, more than a normal inflation rate.” That ripple effect will be felt by everyone.

Can the minister explain to business owners across British Columbia how expanding the PST on essential security services is helping British Columbia?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’ve mentioned this to my friends, but I’ll repeat it because the question continues to be the same one over and over again.

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

They wanted us to expand the programs that were targeting repeat offenders. We put money in the budget to do that.

They told us that they needed more skilled people to be able to take the jobs that they’re creating in their businesses. We doubled the training dollars in this budget, the largest investment in skills training in the history of this province, because we wanted to meet that moment.

We heard from our small businesses they wanted us to cut red tape. We’re doing that, the largest reduction of intraprovincial trade barriers in the history of this province, in the history of this country.

We’re going to continue to do the things that are needed to support our small businesses. We’re proud of that record. We have much more to do, and we’re going to lead the country in economic growth not only this year but in future years as well.

Gavin Dew: It’s not just storefront businesses that have been impacted by this government’s PST expansion. Here’s a quote from the CEO of the Association for Mineral Exploration: “Leading up to the provincial budget, there was never a single mention of a potential expansion of PST costs that would impact service providers that are required to move an exploration project forward.”

At a time when DRIPA has shattered confidence in the claim-staking system, did the Minister of Mines even try to stop the Minister of Finance from blindsiding the mining sector with her PST expansion?

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

If there’s one thing the industry has been asking for, including under the B.C. Liberals, that was certainty and stability in the business sector, particularly in the permitting process. They had been there for 16 years. They failed to take any action. We are taking actions every day to provide that certainty and stability to the business community for permitting processes.

We have reduced major mine permitting process timelines by 35 percent. Also, we introduced fixed timelines for the permitting process for the exploration sector. We are the only province to do that, and we have $3 million attached to it to have more staff members to make sure we implement that fixed timeline for the exploration sector.

I want to say to the member that last year the investment in the early exploration sector was $751.9 million. That was highest in the history of this province.

Donegal Wilson: This government has a dismal record and already has the most projects with cost overruns in B.C.’s history, yet this Finance Minister has decided to try and balance her budget by taxing her own government. Applying PST to provincial infrastructure projects doesn’t balance the budget, and it doesn’t make these projects any more affordable for British Columbians.

A simple question to the minister. Did government exempt themselves from their own PST expansion, yes or no?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The members opposite began this line of questioning with the question of the deficit. This side of the House is taking serious measures on reducing our deficit.

We’re reducing the size of the public service by 15,000 people. This is serious and important work. We’ve found more than $3.5 billion in savings through our efficiency review. We’ve made moderate changes to some of the revenue impacts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We know that Alberta is at a $9.4 billion deficit. We know that Ontario is at $14 billion. What would the other side do?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Well, we don’t have to go too far to find out, because the member for Fraser-Nicola told us: “If education and health care are the biggest line items on the budget, they’re the ones that are going to have to take the brunt of this somehow.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Abbotsford South.

Minister, hold it.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: These modest changes help us address the challenges we face, supporting health care and supporting education. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House.

Burnaby Hospital Expansion
Project and Cancer Care Centre

Misty Van Popta: It’s interesting to hear from the Finance Minister talking about cuts when, in fact, it was her budget that cut $3 billion of infrastructure projects from this year’s budget, not Conservatives.

Earlier this week the Minister of Infrastructure talked about being upfront with the residents of Burnaby. The president of the Burnaby Hospital and Community Foundation said: “The assistant deputy minister confirmed that the final project proposal was received in January 2026 and was within the approved $1.8 billion budget.” Yet on Friday, the Premier told reporters it was “over budget.”

So which is it? According to the minister’s assistant deputy minister, the project was on budget, but the Premier said it was over budget. That’s not being upfront with the residents of Burnaby.

To the minister: who is telling the truth? Does she agree with the comments made by her assistant deputy minister or the Premier?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I was in that meeting with the associate deputy minister and the hospital foundation, and that is not the correct characterization of what the associate deputy minister said.

What we said is that the latest fully funded, properly cost-counted plan that we received was over budget. There was an additional plan that was presented that had not been fully costed but had the intention of bringing the total project cost down to below $1.8 million.

However, upon review by the independent peer review board, it was also determined that that plan was not going to be successful in doing what it was hoping to achieve.

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

What we had from Fraser Health in regards to Burnaby Hospital phase 2 was either a project budget that was well over budget or an alternative plan that included scope reductions that we did not believe would successfully meet the service needs of the community. That’s why we’re going to be working with Fraser Health to come up with a renewed plan that can do both.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

Misty Van Popta: It appears that the goalposts are always moving on this project. The minister said…. I’m glad that she mentioned the peer review panel. The minister said that they were currently considering the 25 recommendations from the independent peer review panel and working towards refreshing the plans. That review panel, in its report from January, when speaking in regards to the alliance team that was in place, said they “will be able to achieve a functionally effective, affordable, approvable and successfully delivered project.”

So 65 percent of the recommendations in that report were assigned to the alliance team, which was comprised of a panel of construction and design experts. But just last week this minister fired that alliance team.

Will this minister…?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

The member will continue.

Misty Van Popta: You know, there’s a lot of chirping from Burnaby in regards to their hospital, but I hear a lot of silence when they’re fighting for their hospital.

Will this minister tell us why she fired the very team charged with streamlining this redevelopment when it was already on budget?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to take a moment to thank the members of the government caucus who serve Burnaby so diligently for their stalwart advocacy and continued support for the expansion of Burnaby Hospital. Not a week goes by when I don’t receive their advocacy for their community and their reminder of how important the hospital expansion project is for people in the region.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are confident that we are going to be able to deliver a plan that is both cost-effective for taxpayers and capable of meeting the service delivery needs of Burnaby and the broader region. We’ll continue to do that work with Fraser Health.

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

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

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Brennan Day: But here in British Columbia, those same families are being asked to carry more and more of the burden themselves.

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Brennan Day: This government has already made significant cuts to the travel assistance program for families of sick kids in the latest budget. Now Ronald McDonald House’s 75-suite expansion beside B.C. Children’s Hospital is at risk because the government hasn’t stepped up.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

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

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Brennan Day: Ronald McDonald House has stepped up.

The question to the minister is simple. Will this NDP government step up today and help sick kids and their families, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: We are so fortunate in this province to have partners like Ronald McDonald House, like Variety, like Hope Air, like Angel Flight, who work with government to provide access to the services that families need at a time when they need it most.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Josie Osborne: It is a terrible thing for a family to have to experience needing to support their sick children. That’s why this government is here for them — through assistance programs, through partnerships with charities — to do this work.

What the member says is inaccurate. We have increased the funding for the B.C. family residence program, for example. We have increased supports to the travel assistance program that helps people come in from remote communities by ferry, for example, making sure that we can do everything we can to support those people.

This government understands why it’s important. That’s why we do the work, and we’re not going to stop.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Public Accounts Committee

Peter Milobar: I am pleased to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the 43rd parliament, titled summary of activities, ’25-26.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

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

The Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts reviews the reports of the Office of the Auditor General, engaging in important and productive discussions, providing a public forum for the scrutiny of effectiveness and efficacy of government programs and services. Through its work, the committee plays a key role in strengthening accountability and transparency.

This report summarizes the committee’s work from February 26, 2025, to March 31, 2026, including its examination of the performance and information reports on government’s administration of a variety of program areas, as well as the Auditor General’s reports on the financial audit work for the fiscal years 2024-25 as well as ’25-26.

The committee also reviewed the Office of the Auditor General’s follow-up report on performance audit recommendations issued between 2019 and 2023 and strengthened its follow-up process to support ongoing accountability. In reviewing this report, the committee also had select audited organizations appear before the committee to provide updates on implementing recommendations.

This part of the committee’s work is an important part of ongoing accountability, and I would like to thank all the organizations for their engagement with the committee.

On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank the Auditor General, Bridget Parrish; Nicole Wright, comptroller general; and their staff for the important work that they do. The committee would also like to thank Sheila Dodds for her service as acting Auditor General.

[2:40 p.m.]

On behalf of the committee, I’d like to express my appreciation to the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services for their support as well.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to all committee members, including the Deputy Chair, the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside, for their hard work and dedication.

Stephanie Higginson: I’d like to thank and acknowledge all the committee members for their contributions and engagement to the committee. I would like to also recognize the Chair, the member for Kamloops Centre, for his work on the committee.

Over the course of the last year, the committee considered reports across a broad range of program areas, including legal aid representation services, carbon projections and child care licensing capacity.

The committee also reviewed the Office of the Auditor General’s annual follow-up report on performance audit recommendations from 2019 to 2023 and received follow-up presentations on select reports.

During our consideration of all reports and in following up with some audit organizations, committee members engaged in constructive and valuable discussions on complex and important issues, helping to promote public sector oversight and accountability in B.C.

I will say that committee work, despite what we witness in question period, often reminds us that there is more that unites us than divides us.

I would like to extend my appreciation to the Office of the Auditor General, the office of the comptroller general and to the numerous senior public servants who took time to appear before the committee and answer all of our questions.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services, who helped the committee in its work.

The Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Children and Youth Committee

Rohini Arora: I move that the report for the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, intituled annual report, 2025-2026, be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Rohini Arora: I seek leave to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please continue.

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

Our annual report summarizes the committee’s work from April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, during which time the committee reviewed five reports from the Representative for Children and Youth, including two annual reports and service plans.

The committee provides an important opportunity to foster greater awareness and understanding of the province’s child welfare system. Over the past year, we have reviewed reports on issues within this sector, including with respect to workforce challenges, supports and services for children and youth with disabilities and the unique needs of children and youth living with mental health challenges.

In addition to reviewing reports, the committee also followed up with the Ministry of Children and Family Development on the status of implementing the representative’s recommendations in two of her reports.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to recognize and thank the representative, Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, and the staff at her office, for her dedication and ongoing advocacy and work on behalf of the children, youth and families throughout British Columbia.

I’d also like to acknowledge the many public servants working in the child welfare system for the important work they do in the support of children, youth and their families in our province.

I also want to recognize the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services, who mean the world to me as someone living with a disability who requires closed captioning. It is incredibly important to have the support of Hansard, so I thank you — and the committee, as well, that they supported in our work.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation to all committee members for their ongoing dedication and collaboration. I would especially like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Kelowna Centre, and the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Penticton-Summerland, who supported this committee for the last year, for their contributions and leadership in this committee.

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

[2:45 p.m.]

I had the privilege of joining this committee last fall. I very much value its important role in raising awareness of challenges across the child-and-youth-serving system. The presentations that we have received have been insightful, and I appreciate the ability to seek further information from the representative. This has helped me to continue to advocate for children and youth in British Columbia, and this is not something that I take lightly.

Children and youth are a precious gift. At a time when social and economic pressures are increasing, social media is taking a toll and mental health issues are on the rise, I feel that it’s more important than ever that we work together in the committee in a non-partisan manner. I’m proud to do that work.

On that note, I want to thank the member for Burnaby East for her leadership and guidance as well as the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Penticton-Summerland, and all members of the committee for their commitment to this work.

I, too, want to extend my gratitude to Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, the Representative for Children and Youth, and her team for their expertise and passion in this field. On top of the reports they have provided, they presented to the committee a wealth of information, allowing committee members to have meaningful discussions about ways to improve services and supports to children and youth in British Columbia.

Lastly, I’d like to recognize the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services for their support.

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

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

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

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

I move Motion 16, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which recommits Bill M217 to the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 86, the order for third reading of Bill (No. M 217) intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act be discharged and that the bill be recommitted to the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills;

That the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills reconsider clause 1 of Bill (No. M 217) intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act for the purpose of considering amendments to that clause; and,

That the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills report Bill (No. M 217) intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act to the House within 20 sitting days.]

I want to be very clear that as the Minister of Transportation, I support this bill and look forward to it receiving royal assent. My recommittal motion is to fix an error that my ministry identified once the committee reported to the House.

Specifically, this motion is to give instructions to the committee to consider two amendments to clause 1. There are two small amendments that we hope to see. One is to revise the proposed definition of “commercial vehicle” to mean a commercial vehicle, as defined in the Commercial Transport Act, that has a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793 kilograms. And two, to define “gross vehicle weight rating” to mean gross vehicle weight rating as defined in the Motor Vehicle Act.

These changes will narrow the scope of the mandatory dashboard camera requirement to apply to the heaviest types of commercial vehicles that regularly cross borders and for which there is the greatest need for consistency among the federal and provincial regulatory frameworks. As the bill is written now, it would apply to taxis, Uber, pizza delivery drivers and not the heavy commercial vehicles that the MLA who brought in this bill has intended.

This would make the mandatory dashboard camera requirement consistent with the requirement for these vehicles to be equipped with speed limiters. The narrow scope of the application will ensure that the mandatory dashboard requirement does not unintentionally apply to smaller commercial vehicles such as delivery vehicles and landscaping trucks.

“Gross vehicle weight rating” is defined in the Motor Vehicle Act to mean the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. The gross vehicle weight rating is the maximum total safe operating weight of a vehicle as determined by the manufacturer, including the vehicle itself. That is curb weight, passengers, fuel, accessories and cargo.

[2:50 p.m.]

The gross vehicle weight rating acts as a crucial safety standard to prevent overloading. It is an easily discernible measure for enforcement purposes because it is found on the driver’s side door jamb label. I bet you didn’t know that.

Finally, I know that the Chair of the committee and the vice-Chair of the committee are following these proceedings closely, and I request that the committee work on these very small amendments expeditiously so that this bill can receive royal assent before we adjourn for the summer on May 28.

Gavin Dew: As the Deputy Chair of the committee, I certainly want to affirm that we appreciate the very clear communication from the minister in the House. This is consistent with what our expectation is around how we’re working on this, and we’re certainly thankful for the very constructive process that has played out in committee around this bill.

That’s all I have to say.

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

Motion approved.

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

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

In Section C, the Birch Room, Committee of Supply for the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: We’re resuming the debate on the amendment to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, the amendment which was moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

On the amendment (continued).

Rob Botterell: I rise to continue speaking in support of the motion, and I’d note that I will be the designated speaker for the Green caucus.

I support the motion because it will allow six months for further consultation with all those impacted by the provisions of Bill 9. It allows additional time to consider the recommendations from the 2022 special committee report on FOI and privacy. It allows, during that six months, to consider in much more detail the sweeping new powers contained in Bill 9 and to ensure, in that six-month period, that there is actual evidence, not anecdotal evidence, to support the changes.

[2:55 p.m.]

By way of explanation, in that six-month period, we can overcome a major flaw in the legislative process with respect to Bill 9, which is that it is not enough to consult within government. There needs to be robust consultation. That certainly cannot be accomplished in the time available to the end of May, but the six-month period will give the government ample time to properly pursue consultation.

By way of comparison, in 1992, when the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was introduced in this Legislature, a discussion paper was released publicly. There was feedback sought from all interested parties — including journalists, including future users of the act, including organizations, including businesses — essentially, any British Columbian and any British Columbia organization or business that had an interest in the legislation, either because it intended to use the legislation or because it wanted to ensure the legislation was robust.

I note that after that feedback was provided on the discussion paper, there was actually a televised debate regarding the legislation, involving the minister and others. The submissions made during that period of time were made public. This all resulted in amendments to the legislation, which is a far different process than the process that’s been undertaken for this bill. It gives a clear indication of the type of work that could be conducted over the next six months if this motion is adopted.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that type of process over the next six months will ensure that the legislation that is brought forward is fashioned by the public in B.C. and for the public, because it is the public’s right to know. It’s certainly not enough to have these changes based on anecdotal evidence. I’ll come back to that, and I’ll explain how this six-month period can be used to facilitate that.

I also would note that that six-month period will also…. Should the government proceed on the basis that we’d certainly suggest in how they use that six-month period, they would, as part of the release of a discussion paper and the gathering of feedback, be able to include in that discussion paper an explanation of why not or why they would proceed with the recommendations of the all-party committee. And with all of that information, that six-month period will enable it to be properly gathered, considered, made public, analyzed and used to inform changes to the legislation or new legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

On the issue of new legislation, I think it’s important that that six-month period would also allow for the development of new legislation that incorporates the parts of the act that the Green caucus certainly supports — those provisions in the act that are particularly focused on ensuring that individuals seeking their own personal information can do so more easily.

That six-month period and the work done during it will help to ensure that not only do we end up with a stronger act with a better, broader base of support, but it will also be a way to ensure that we don’t lose the good parts of the act which we support.

I want to just talk a bit about some of the specific ways in which that work can be undertaken over the six-month period and illustrate some of the benefits. I don’t plan to revisit earlier speeches in relation to this legislation, but I do want to illustrate, in respect to some of the sections, the work that would be undertaken over the six months and that has not been undertaken to date.

In section 1 of the act, there’s an amendment that relates to the production of documents in a proceeding. As I mentioned, that six-month period allows for further consultation. To date, there has been no consultation with the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., the Canadian Bar Association or the broader public around the implications of this broadened exemption.

From an evidentiary point of view, there has been no data gathered regarding how many FOI requests were made in the past year that would be excluded from the act if this amendment were in force and what metrics there are that are available. That’s the type of work that would be undertaken during this six-month period in relation to that clause.

We also have a section 2 that deals with introducing a phrase “with a reasonable effort.” This is another avenue that can be pursued over the next six months and that hasn’t been pursued yet, which is to consult with applicants who have used this legislation regarding this change. To date, we have only seen, as I understand it, consultation with the administrators of the legislation, not with the applicants who would be impacted by this change.

There’s also no data available in terms of the delay to processing the request and how the forecast has been made about the impact of “with a reasonable effort.”

So it’s not just about the plain meaning of the act. It’s also about taking those six months to properly consult the public, the applicants — those impacted — to assess the implications.

I’ll touch on some other examples. I don’t propose to go through all of the amendments that need to be given further consideration. But I will say that one of the key changes that is affected, that needs to be studied further in the six months allowed for that study, involves the amendment to section 43.

[3:05 p.m.]

That amendment, as you’ll recall, provides and enables, on application, for requests to be either denied or delayed because they would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body or, as is the current amendment, the ministry responsible for the administration of this act.

From a consultation perspective, there is a need to take time to actually survey and get input from those applicants — what they think of that type of change, what their perspective is — and other journalistic organizations, business organizations and so on and to have some specific analysis done, over that six-month period, of the number of requests that would be excluded.

There are a number of other provisions in the act that, effectively, make operational considerations a basis for delaying or not dealing with a request. In that regard, as an example, over the next six months, through a discussion paper process or some other form of thorough public consultation, there will be opportunities, like the applicant for information — and I’ll use this to illustrate, because they have not been consulted — on the incorporation of Okanagan Falls as a municipality. Their experience is instructive and needs to be factored in, in this discussion paper process over the next six months.

By way of background — I’ll be brief — they made an application on August 8, 2025. On August 20, they paid a fee of $420 to have the FOI application dealt with. On August 20, they received the invoice, and on September 20, they paid the fee in full. Then on October 10, 2025, the applicant received a letter from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs discussing their request.

At the bottom of the first page of the letter, they say: “As we advance this process, I recognize that transparency is essential to building trust with partners and communities, especially during a change in governance such as municipal incorporation. Our goal is to provide clear and timely information while working collaboratively with our partners.”

That was October 10, 2025. The request was made August 8. To date, they have still not received a response to their request. It was extended on October 16, November 28, January 20, February 11, March 9 and just recently on April 20, so that the current date for release of information is June 4, 2026, when they made the request on August 8, 2025.

I remind the House that this legislation provides for a response within 30 days. It seems to me it’s a lot longer than 30 days. My point here is not to delve into the detail of this request but to illustrate that this is exactly the type of applicant that has not had an opportunity to participate in the process of the development of these amendments.

[3:10 p.m.]

In the next six months, through a discussion paper process and other mechanisms, maybe we could even have a debate, like we did in 1992, but I don’t think it’d be televised. It would probably be on YouTube or Zoom. We could actually have full public engagement in these amendments, because that will build trust in the ultimate result.

The type of evidence that should be available that can be gathered over the next six months is information related to the specific forecast impact of each amendment and the current number of requests that are being dealt with under each amendment, the impact on budgets of public bodies and service plans and other items.

As I mentioned, over the next six months…. It’s confounding to me, for example, that the consultative committee provided for in section 67 of the act is not active. It would be helpful in the discussion paper to understand why. Perhaps many of the reasons we need to spend six months doing this work could have been avoided if there had been a consultative committee in place to offer advice on the changes proposed and to also provide a way to seek public input in addition to the discussion paper approach.

The other item that we…. I’m not going to go through all the amendments, but some of these provisions would be made retroactive if the amendments were adopted. That, over the next six months, needs some close scrutiny too, in terms of the number of requests that it’s expected would have these provisions apply retroactively to either enable them to be stopped in their tracks or to be put on a slower frame or to be held back pending operational resource availability.

I look at the request I mentioned earlier from an applicant. If this legislation were passed and it’s retroactive, is the idea that this applicant that’s been waiting since August 8, 2025, to get a response would be out of luck?

The six-month process is the opportunity to dig into these issues in a lot of detail through a discussion paper process, through activating the consultative committee, through gathering robust public input that isn’t simply focused on what those inside public bodies and inside government see as being the best approach forward but, actually, results from extensive consultation with users of the legislation.

This approach that we have of considering a hoist motion is an opportunity to use that six months to really do the work that wasn’t done before these amendments were introduced. In that way, we will create a level of understanding of the amendments and will be able to have a proper consideration of which parts of the act could be reintroduced in the form of a new bill.

[3:15 p.m.]

As I’ve mentioned, we in the Green caucus support the changes that increase the ability of individuals to seek their own personal information on a more proactive basis through MCFD, but we see a significant degree of change here that we cannot support and that requires, over the next six months, much more scrutiny.

It’s not just to ensure, from our perspective, that a new piece of legislation incorporates the public’s wishes in terms of the 2022 special committee report.

It’s not just to ensure that any provisions related to the administration of the FOI Act are done in a way that truly reflects the broad base of interests — not of those who, either intentionally or unintentionally, would look through their lens of ways to reduce administrative burden — but to encourage and really be reflective of the applicants, the public, those that are behind wanting this legislation.

It’s to ensure that they are able to access information, not based on who they are or why they want it, and are also able to access the information in a period of 30 days, rather than over a year.

The solution that we would like to see canvassed over the next six months is alternatives to making access to information subject to not interfering with operational convenience. We have not had an opportunity to really canvass — in any way, shape or form — alternatives to the approach proposed in this legislation. We definitely would like to see that six-month period as an opportunity to understand what other options are available, rather than enabling the reduction of access to information.

Six months gives the government the chance to rewrite provisions that weaken freedom of information, or freedom to information — six months for the government to build broad-based public trust in the changes, rather than having it seen as an effort to reduce access in the goal of administrative convenience; six months to show that the government is prepared to approach amendments with transparency and with openness — to ultimately ensure that the legislation, when recrafted and reintroduced as a new bill, has a much broader base of support and has a full understanding of the implications.

I can only go back to when the legislation was originally introduced, and I would point out that a number of organizations accepted the legislation as being the gold standard at the time, not because they were thrilled with every provision but because they had been involved directly and listened to, in terms of how to strike the balance between competing interests.

That work has not been done. Over the next six months, that is the work that can be done, that will rebuild trust in this legislation and that will offer an opportunity for members of the public and others to recommend additional changes that they see as needed.

[3:20 p.m.]

A good starting point for that is the recommendations in the 2022 all-party special committee report.

For all of those reasons, I simply want to conclude by saying that the Green caucus supports this work and supports this motion that the motion for second reading of Bill 9, entitled the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

Claire Rattée: I’m rising today in support of the hoist motion that’s before this House, the motion to amend second reading of Bill 9 by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

I want to be very clear from the outset about why this hoist motion is needed. This motion is not about preventing discussion on freedom-of-information legislation, and it is not about saying that the current system is perfect. In fact, I think that everyone in this House recognizes that there are issues within the current FOI system that need to be addressed. The reason that this hoist motion is necessary is because Bill 9 is not ready to proceed.

A six-month delay is necessary because this legislation raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability and access to information — concerns that have not been adequately addressed by government, despite widespread criticism from journalists, legal experts, watchdog organizations, opposition members and even people who helped build British Columbia’s original freedom-of-information framework. To be clear. A six-month delay is less time than the average wait right now for access to a freedom-of-information request.

Frankly, the government’s own actions over the last several weeks demonstrate exactly why this six-month hoist is justified. After second reading debate had already begun, the government tabled amendments to the bill, not immediately but weeks later. It is a clear acknowledgement that there were problems with the legislation as originally drafted. Those amendments can’t even be tabled until the committee stage.

It’s also important to note that during committee stage, we can’t receive extra presentations from people that will be affected by this legislation, so making the further amendments that are necessary at committee stage would not be possible. That’s why this hoist motion is important. We need that six-month pause to be able to do this work properly.

Government ministers have attempted to frame these amendments as minor clarifications. We heard the minister say that these were simply targeted adjustments to provide additional precision. But if these issues were truly minor and if this legislation was truly ready to proceed, then why were amendments necessary at all?

It seems highly unlikely and unconventional, to be honest, and I think that a lot of it comes down to much of what has been said over the course of the discussion that we’ve had around this piece of legislation on second reading and the recognition that there are a lot of problems.

More importantly, why do these amendments still fail to address the core concerns that have been raised throughout this debate? Even after the amendments, the same fundamental problems remain. The bill still expands discretion for government, it still weakens clarity around access rights, it still introduces vague and undefined language, and it still shifts the balance of power further away from the public and further toward the institution being scrutinized. This is exactly why this House should support the hoist motion and allow six more months for proper review and reconsideration before proceeding with second reading.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of this six-month hoist is the fact that the government has largely ignored the work already completed by the special committee on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 2022.

On that note, I think it’s important to talk a little bit about why that work should have been included here, the frustrations with the fact that it wasn’t and why I think that this hoist motion is necessary so that we can make sure that that is incorporated.

As somebody that has been sitting on committees since I’ve been elected here…. I spent a lot of time on the Finance Committee last summer. We did a lot of very hard work. It ate up most of my summer, to be honest, putting together recommendations for the Finance Minister.

I can’t help but notice that most of them went largely ignored in this year’s budget. I understand that maybe this is different times that we’re in, but I don’t understand what the purpose of doing all that work was if it was going to be ignored.

I think that it’s frustrating for people that were on this special committee because it probably feels like a lot of their hard work has been ignored with this piece of legislation. I think that it does need to be incorporated, and it needs to be listened to.

[3:25 p.m.]

That committee produced a comprehensive all-party report with 34 recommendations intended to modernize and improve the FOI system while protecting transparency and accountability, and it focused on improving administration of the act to meet current digital-era demands. Yet instead of implementing the majority of those recommendations, the government introduced Bill 9, legislation that focuses heavily on expanding refusal powers, increasing discretion and making requests easier to dismiss.

That raises a very important question. If there was already extensive committee work done on improving FIPPA, why are we rushing ahead with legislation that ignores so much of that work? A six-month hoist would provide time to properly review and implement those recommendations, instead of moving forward with legislation that has generated such significant concern.

The special committee received extensive input from private citizens and experts, such as the Canadian Association of Journalists — work that clearly was not done by this government in the drafting of this bill. The bill itself failed to address many of the core recommendations that came out of that special committee report.

To inform its work, the special committee also held open consultation and heard from 97 organizations and individuals, including the Ministry of Citizens’ Services themselves and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Again, it begs the question: why did the resulting report that came from that special committee not inform the work that was being done on Bill 9? I think that 97 different organizations and individuals would provide an awful lot of context on what’s needed to make the improvements that are necessary for the Freedom of Information Act.

The need for the six-month delay becomes even clearer when we examine some of the specific clauses that remain deeply problematic even after the government’s amendments.

Take clause 2, for example. Even with the proposed amendment, the bill still leaves it to the opinion of the head of the public body to determine whether enough detail has been provided in an FOI request. That language still introduces subjectivity. It still allows government bodies to determine whether a request is sufficiently detailed, and it still includes undefined concepts like what constitutes a reasonable amount of time.

The government may have removed some wording, but the fundamental issue remains exactly the same. There is still no definition of “experienced employee” provided, rendering the clause exactly the same as it was before the potential amendment. That is precisely why this hoist motion is necessary.

The same is true of clause 13. Even after the potential amendment, the bill still expands the grounds upon which requests can be disregarded. The legislation still relies on vague and undefined terms like “abusive,” “malicious” and “excessively broad,” and requests that may “unreasonably interfere” with government operations. None of those terms have been clearly defined. When the legislation grants broad discretion without clear definitions, accountability weakens.

That concern has not only been raised by members of the opposition though. It has been raised by legal experts, journalists and advocacy organizations across British Columbia. That’s why this hoist motion is important, because we need to have the opportunity, government needs the opportunity to make sure that those recommendations are incorporated here by the people that it’s going to impact the most.

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association warned that these changes shift the balance of power away from the requester and toward government. Former architects of British Columbia’s FOI legislation have raised concerns. Journalists have raised concerns. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has raised concerns and delivered a petition signed by thousands of British Columbians opposing this bill.

When that many people from that many different backgrounds are sounding the alarm, perhaps this government should not be rushing the legislation through.

I know that this government frequently seems very comfortable with ignoring what others are saying to them about their legislation and trying to urge them to listen, but I think that this is a time where they really do need to listen. I think that perhaps we should support this six-month hoist motion so that we have the time to get it right.

Another reason this six-month delay is necessary is because transparency in British Columbia is already under strain. People are already waiting months, sometimes close to a year, for FOI responses. Proactive disclosures have already been paused in several areas. Independent oversight mechanisms are already being weakened.

Against that backdrop, Bill 9 moves us further in the wrong direction. This House should not proceed with legislation that risks further eroding public trust without taking the time to properly address the legitimate concerns that have been raised.

Ultimately, that’s what this motion is about. It’s about ensuring that legislation impacting fundamental democratic accountability mechanisms receives the scrutiny that it deserves. It’s about ensuring that we do not rush forward with flawed legislation simply because government believes it has the votes to do so. It’s about recognizing that transparency is not an inconvenience for government to manage; it’s a democratic obligation.

For all of those reasons, I support the motion to hoist Bill 9 for six months, and I would encourage all members of this House do the same.

[3:30 p.m.]

I think that I want to read, at this point, a couple of different quotes so that government can recognize the need for this motion and that it’s not just coming from this side of the House. It’s not just coming from opposition members. It’s coming from the people that rely on this legislation and that need it to be able to do their jobs.

On April 29, from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I’ll read a couple of quotes here:

“‘Bill 9 is an attack on British Columbians’ most basic democratic rights,’ said Carson Binda, B.C. director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. ‘Any MLA from any political party who supports Bill 9 is endorsing an attack on transparency. The government claims it needs the powers to crack down on the volume of FOI requests. However, the total number of FOI requests has substantially decreased in recent years, from 8,300 requests in 2020-21 to 4,700 requests in 2024-25. Taxpayers deserve more accountability, not less,’ Binda said. ‘FOIPPA already allows the Information Commissioner to block frivolous or vexatious requests, and the total number of requests are trending downwards.’”

Which, again, is why this motion is necessary. I think it’s disingenuous to claim that there isn’t already a way to be able to block those issue requests. We already know that the volume has come down, so it can’t be an issue of dealing with increasing volume. Again, the minister needs to take this piece of legislation back and do some more work on it before it should be getting passed in this House.

On April 23, Les Leyne:

“The last big change to FOI was five years ago when the NDP introduced a $10 fee on requests for anything except personal information of the applicant. That was roundly condemned, but at least it was up front. The government admitted it couldn’t handle the workload, so it set out to reduce it.

“The most recent FOI report shows requests are down about 45 percent over the last five years. The number of requests closed has dropped at the same rate.”

March 12, Kirk LaPointe:

“In plain terms, government now has more latitude to say no and more flexibility about when it must say yes. That may ease workload pressures inside ministries, but it does nothing to strengthen accountability outside of them.

“For more than two decades, I have taught access-to-information law to journalism students at UBC. Every year we begin with the principle that access rights are only as strong as the culture that supports them. Investigative journalism is, by definition, systematic.”

Again, issues with making changes that would not allow for requests that are deemed to be systematic in nature.

“It involves follow-up requests, pattern analysis and persistence. Under the amended language, that persistence can more readily be characterized as burdensome. No statute will openly criminalize scrutiny, but delay is its own form of deterrence. A document released 18 months late is often indistinguishable from a document denied.

“The province insists that oversight by the Information and Privacy Commissioner remains intact — technically correct. But oversight is reactive. It requires appeals. Appeals require time, sometimes years, and resources, sometimes thousands of dollars. In the interim, decisions are implemented, contracts are signed, projects advance and public debate moves on.

“When the right to know becomes harder to exercise, fewer people try. This government would surely know that and would also know that if it wished to modernize the system, it would strengthen record-creation duties, enforce retention standards, resource FOI offices adequately and reduce backlogs.”

In closing, I don’t know why anyone on the government side would disagree with this hoist motion, to be honest. The government has already tabled amendments, even though it is mostly performative, because they can’t actually do that until we’re in committee stage. They chose multiple times to put second reading on the order paper and then pull it for weeks at a time, then put it back on the order paper.

Clearly, they recognize how flawed this legislation currently is. They may not have said it out loud, but they’ve made it clear in their actions. In my opinion, our caucus is actually doing them a favour. We’re giving them an out that saves them the embarrassment.

So I would urge everybody in this House to vote for this hoist motion so that we can make sure that the legislation that we’re voting on has been consulted properly, drafted properly and everyone has been listened to.

Heather Maahs: I’m very pleased to speak to this hoist motion today, not simply to oppose Bill 9 but to defend one of the most important democratic principles we have in British Columbia: the principle that government must remain accountable to the people it serves.

[3:35 p.m.]

I rise to defend the principle that information does not belong to politicians, ministers, bureaucrats or governments. It belongs to the people.

I rise today in support of the hoist motion before this House because the concerns surrounding Bill 9 are too serious, too numerous and too unresolved for this legislation to proceed without a pause. This is not a routine amendment. It is not a harmless administrative update. It is not simply modernization, no matter how many times the government repeats that word.

Bill 9 fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and their government. It changes the balance between transparency and control, which is why the hoist motion is so necessary. When legislation carries consequences of this magnitude, this Legislature has a responsibility to stop; reflect; scrutinize; and, at the very least, reconsider.

This is precisely why a hoist motion exists, and this is precisely why this House needs to support a six-month pause on Bill 9. A hoist motion is not obstruction. A hoist motion is responsibility. It is a parliamentary mechanism designed specifically for situations where legislation raises profound concerns that require deeper public examination before moving forward. Bill 9 unquestionably meets that threshold, because opposition to this bill is not isolated. The concerns surrounding Bill 9 are broad, serious and credible.

Former architects of British Columbia’s freedom-of-information legislation have raised alarms. Journalists have raised alarms. Transparency advocates have raised alarms. And when legislation designed to govern access to information generates this level of concern about transparency itself, this House has an obligation to proceed with caution, not speed. This is why a hoist motion matters, because legislation affecting democratic accountability deserves more scrutiny, not less.

Let us remember why freedom-of-information legislation exists in the first place. The original FOI legislation was introduced in British Columbia in the 1990s and was built on a very simple but powerful principle: government information belongs to the public.

That principle shaped the legislation as it was originally written. The law was designed not to protect government from scrutiny but to protect the public’s right to scrutinize government. It was designed to ensure that citizens could understand decisions made in their name and with their tax dollars. It was designed to ensure accountability. It was designed to ensure transparency, and it was designed with the understanding that democracy cannot function properly when information is hidden from the people.

That original vision matters because Bill 9 moves us away from it. And one of the strongest reasons to support the hoist motion is to allow this House the opportunity to reconsider whether legislation remains faithful to the original principles of freedom of information as it was conceived in the 1990s.

[3:40 p.m.]

A former architect of British Columbia’s freedom-of-information system warned us that this bill risks turning FOI into “freedom from information.” We heard that today from the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands. This is not partisan rhetoric or political theatre. This is a serious warning from someone who helped build the very framework this government is now altering.

In the Times Colonist, it was argued that this government appears to no longer care about access to information. Again, those are not casual criticisms. Those are fundamental warnings about the direction this legislation takes us.

When warnings of that magnitude are raised, the responsible response is not to rush the legislation forward. The responsible response is to pause, to listen and to reconsider — to hoist the bill for six months, so that the public can fully examine what is being proposed.

The irony here is impossible to ignore. A bill dealing with access to information is itself being pushed forward without sufficient openness and scrutiny. That should concern every member of this House.

One of the most troubling changes in Bill 9 is the weakening of the response timelines. Under the current legislation, government is required to respond to requests “without delay.” Bill 9 changes that standard to “without unreasonable delay.” At first glance, this may seem insignificant, but it is not insignificant at all. Words matter, especially in legislation. Standards matter. This change fundamentally weakens the obligation placed on government.

“Without delay” creates urgency. It creates accountability. It creates a clear expectation. But “without unreasonable delay” introduces flexibility and also introduces interpretation and subjectivity. Most importantly, it gives government greater room to justify delays. That is not strengthening transparency; that is weakening accountability.

Changes of that magnitude deserve far more scrutiny than this government appears willing to allow. That is exactly why this bill needs to be hoisted. When government weakens the standard for responding to information requests, this House should not simply wave it through. It should pause. It should examine the consequences carefully, and it should ensure that any reforms remain faithful to the original spirit of the legislation.

Another deeply concerning aspect of Bill 9 is the expanded authority for government to reject requests. Under this bill, requests may be dismissed if they are considered “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,” “systematic,” “excessively broad” or “interfering with operations.”

Let’s think carefully about those terms. Who decides what is repetitious or systematic? Who decides what is excessively broad? The government does — the very institution being scrutinized. This is a profound problem. It makes me think of a term that we sometimes use, which is the fox guarding the henhouse.

[3:45 p.m.]

Freedom-of-information legislation was never intended to allow government to define the limits of accessible scrutiny, yet that is precisely what Bill 9 risks doing.

A journalist investigating a pattern of conduct could now be described as systematic. An opposition member pursuing repeated follow-up questions could now be described as repetitious. A citizen attempting to obtain comprehensive information could now be described as excessively broad. Once those labels are applied, requests can be rejected. That is not transparency; that is control.

When legislation increases government control over public access to information, that legislation deserves more scrutiny, not less. That is why this hoist motion is necessary. Kirk LaPointe warned that Bill 9 will make access to information slower, less predictable and more discretionary. Those three words should concern every member of this House — slower, less predictable, more discretionary. Transparency only functions when access is timely, reliable and governed by clear standards.

When delays increase, accountability weakens. When predictability disappears, confidence in the system erodes. This should be greatly concerning to government. It certainly is on this side of the House. When discretion expands, government gains greater power to decide what the public gets to know. That is not modernization; that is regression.

LaPointe also warned that this legislation enables government to defer, delay and deny the public’s right to know. Again, those are not minor criticisms. Those are warnings about the democratic accountability system in and of itself. When legislation raises concerns about democratic accountability, this House should not rush forward. It should pause, and it should certainly support the hoist motion.

Transparency advocates have described Bill 9 as an assault on government transparency. Whether members agree with that exact wording or not, the fact remains that there is widespread concern that this legislation weakens public access rather than strengthens it. That concern is not isolated. It is repeated again and again across multiple sectors. That alone should justify a six-month pause.

But legislation affecting transparency should itself be subjected to the highest possible level of scrutiny. That is what the hoist motion would, in fact, accomplish — more scrutiny, more public input, more consultation, more accountability, not less.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of the hoist motion is that it would allow government the opportunity to return to the original principles of freedom-of-information legislation. I’ve mentioned this.

The original FOI laws, introduced in the 1990s, were designed to expand transparency. Bill 9 risks narrowing it. The original legislation placed the burden on government to justify secrecy. Bill 9 risks shifting the burden onto citizens to justify access. The original legislation recognized that scrutiny strengthens democracy. Bill 9 risks treating scrutiny as interference.

[3:50 p.m.]

That is a profound philosophical shift, and philosophical shifts of this magnitude deserve deep public examination before legislation proceeds. That is why the bill should be hoisted.

The government may argue that these changes are necessary for efficiency, but the public is not the problem. Citizens asking questions are not the problem. Journalists seeking accountability are not the problem. Opposition members demanding answers are not the problem. The problems are internal. Record management systems need improvement. Resources need investment.

Instead of addressing those issues directly, Bill 9 shifts the burden onto the public. That is the wrong approach, and wrong approaches should not be rushed through the Legislature. They should be paused and reconsidered. And that is precisely what a hoist motion would allow.

Let us also consider the cumulative effect of these changes. One change weakens timelines. Another expands refusal powers. Another increases discretion. Another narrows access. Individually, the government may attempt to portray each change as modest, but collectively, the direction becomes unmistakable. The cumulative effect is reduced transparency, reduced accountability and reduced public access.

When legislation moves us steadily away from openness and toward control, this House has a duty to intervene. That is why the hoist motion is so important. It allows us to stop before those changes become law. It allows us to reassess. It allows us to ensure that democratic accountability remains the guiding principle.

This bill does not simply affect journalists or opposition members. It affects ordinary citizens — citizens trying to understand decisions that impact their lives; citizens trying to obtain records about services, policies or actions affecting them personally; citizens who rely on freedom-of-information laws because they have nowhere else to turn. And what will happen under Bill 9? Requests will take longer, face more barriers and be subject to more discretion. Eventually, some people will simply give up. You have to wonder if that’s not part of the purpose here.

That is how transparency erodes, not suddenly but gradually, through delay, through frustration, through exhaustion. That is why the House must proceed carefully, and that is why this bill must be hoisted.

A six-month hoist is not unreasonable. In fact, given the scale of concern surrounding this legislation, it is the minimum responsible course of action. Six months would allow more public hearings; more expert testimony; more consultation with journalists, watchdogs and transparency advocates; more examination of how these changes compare to the original principles of the FOI legislation; more consideration of whether this bill truly strengthens access or weakens it. Most importantly, six months would allow for more public scrutiny, not less, because transparency legislation should never move forward without maximum transparency in its own review process.

If this government truly believes Bill 9 strengthens access to information, then it should welcome a six-month pause, it should welcome scrutiny, it should welcome debate and it should welcome public input. Good legislation only improves with scrutiny. Only weak legislation fears it. And if this bill cannot withstand six more months of public examination, then perhaps that tells us everything we need to know about the legislation itself.

[3:55 p.m.]

When I was on the school board, I used to say: “Public scrutiny and complaints contain improvement information.” That is what we truly need to be looking after and looking for.

This debate is, ultimately, about trust — trust between government and citizens; trust that government remains accountable; trust that transparency is being strengthened, not weakened. Trust cannot be built through secrecy. It cannot be built through delay. It cannot be built through expanded discretion and increased barriers. Trust is built through openness, through accountability and transparency. Those principles shape the original freedom-of-information legislation in British Columbia, and those principles should continue to guide us today.

That is why the House must support this hoist motion — because the concerns surrounding Bill 9 remain unresolved; because the public deserves more scrutiny, not less; because democratic accountability deserves stronger protection, not weaker standards; and because legislation that reshapes public access to information should never be rushed through legislature without full and proper examination.

Transparency is not a nuisance, and scrutiny is not interference. Accountability is not optional. Those principles mattered in the 1990s, when British Columbia first established its FOI legislation, and they matter just as much, if not more, today.

Once transparency is weakened, it becomes very difficult to restore. Once accountability erodes, public trust declines. And once public trust is lost, democracy itself suffers. That is why this House must pause and reconsider, why this House must support the hoist motion before us — not to obstruct accountability but to strengthen it; certainly, not to reduce scrutiny but to ensure more scrutiny, more consultation and more public examination before this legislation proceeds any further.

To conclude, for those reasons, I will support Bill 9 be read a second time this day, six months hence.

Teresa Wat: It is a great honour for me to rise today in the House on behalf of my constituents in Richmond-Bridgeport to support the motion for second reading of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, to be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting it with “six months hence.”

This is not a procedural tactic. It’s not an attempt to delay for delay’s sake. It is a deliberate and necessary step to ensure that legislation of this magnitude is examined with the seriousness, diligence and care it deserves.

This is called a hoist motion, which is one of the oldest tools in parliamentary traditions. I would like to explain to my constituents what a hoist motion is so that they clearly understand why the Conservative caucus of British Columbia has to move a six-month hoist of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Whenever there’s legislation that’s introduced in this House that opposition parties see serious problems with, as in this case, a hoist motion is necessary to pause it, to send it back and get it right for the benefit of all British Columbians.

[4:00 p.m.]

This is what this hoist motion is about. It would set Bill 9 aside for six months, effectively halting it for this session. That time should be used to consult British Columbians, define sweeping new powers left dangerously vague and implement the recommendations of the 2022 all-party special committee that have sat on the shelf for four long years.

When the report was released in 2020, the executive director of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, FIPA, Jason Woywada, said: “Despite government actions which undermined committee efforts, they received and made recommendations that would improve government transparency and accountability. If enacted, these recommendations could go a long way to restore trust in public bodies and better protect the privacy rights of British Columbians.”

FIPA president Mike Larsen said: “One of the central themes of this report is the need to create and sustain a culture of transparency in the public sector. Senior officials set the tone, and we want to see a movement away from the current culture of secrecy. Decisive and sustained action from those officials is necessary.”

FIPA added:

“The recommendation in the 2022 all-party special committee makes clear that government’s earlier efforts did not make meaningful improvements to transparency and accountability. Their actions fall short, and their recent amendments do not address many long-standing and important issues.

“FIPA is grateful for the work of this special committee to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and heartened to see that the report was informed by submissions from a broad cross-section of civil society. The key step forward and test will be whether the provincial government acts on this recommendation.”

It’s extremely puzzling to see this government ignore the recommendation made in the 2022 special legislative committee report. This recommendation would have strengthened transparency. Yet we don’t see them in Bill 9. Instead of strengthening accountability, Bill 9 focuses on administrative convenience. Why would we move forward without fully incorporating the work of this special committee?

That’s why this six-month pause will allow the government to seriously review the recommendations of this special committee and act in good faith to incorporate the recommendations into the bill and ensure that they are not overlooked.

At its core, Bill 9 is not technical. It is not administrative. It is foundational. It governs how power is exercised, how information is controlled and how trust is maintained between government and the people we serve.

When we are dealing with something as fundamental as access to information and the protection of personal privacy, we must be absolutely certain that we are strengthening, not weakening, the democratic principles that underpin this province. That is why our whole caucus supports this hoist motion.

There are two pillars at the heart of this legislation: transparency and privacy. They are not competing values. They are complementary ones.

[4:05 p.m.]

Transparency ensures accountability. It allows citizens to understand decisions, scrutinize actions and hold government to account. Privacy, on the other hand, protects individuals. It ensures that personal information is not misused, exposed or exploited. A healthy democracy requires both, and it requires balance. If transparency is eroded, accountability disappears. If privacy is weakened, trust collapses, and once trust is lost, it’s extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.

This amendment for a six-month delay is grounded in a very simple question. Does Bill 9 strengthen openness and accountability, or does it consolidate control and restrict access? That question has not yet been satisfactory answered, and until it is, we should not proceed.

We have heard this government describe this bill as modern, effective and necessary, yet at the same time, we are told that amendments are already being introduced to correct gaps. That contradiction should concern every member of this House, because legislation that requires fixing before it has even passed second reading is not fully formed legislation.

It suggests that consultations may have been incomplete, it suggests that stakeholder concerns may not have been fully incorporated, and it suggests that scrutiny required for a bill of this importance has not yet been fully exercised. That is why this pause is needed.

Let me now turn first to the issue of access to information. Freedom-of-information laws exist for a reason. They are not a convenience; they are a cornerstone of democratic governance. They allow journalists to investigate. They allow citizens to ask questions. They allow opposition members to fulfil their duty — our duty to hold government accountable.

Unfortunately, over time, we have seen troubling trends. Response times have lengthened. Redactions have become more extensive. Exemptions have been applied more broadly. And in many cases, the process has become so slow and so complex that it discourages people from even trying. This is not openness. This is not accountability. That is erosion.

My colleague representing Prince George–North Cariboo, in his comments yesterday in support of this amendment motion, went at length to talk about his firsthand experience as a sitting MLA in submitting an FOI request last year, seeking documents related to the Quesnel bridge located in his riding.

By the way, I was so grateful for this member for Prince George–North Cariboo having taken me on a walking tour of this Quesnel bridge last summer, because it really shocked me how terrible the condition of this bridge was.

[4:10 p.m.]

It took my colleague a full year to get a response from this government. But when he got the response, you know what? It came with a hefty bill attached. My colleague was told that if he wanted the document, he had to first pay the bill. As an elected MLA trying to obtain information about a public infrastructure project in his community, he has to wait for a year and then he has to pay for the privilege of seeing it.

We should all applaud our colleague for doing his job for his constituents. Instead, this government places so much obstacle in his line of responsibility.

We can see how ridiculous and troubling it is in the current FOI legislation, and now Bill 9 makes it even more difficult to do that. It is not helpful at all to transparency, not helpful at all for all our elected officials to do our jobs. It certainly isn’t helpful to the people of British Columbia, who deserve to know what we are doing here, how we are doing it and why we are doing it.

We should all thank our colleague from Prince George–North Cariboo for sharing this very frustrating and challenging personal experience. That’s why this hoist motion deserves the support of each and every one of us sitting in this House.

The bill before us does not adequately reverse these trends. It maintains timelines but does not meaningfully enforce them, and a timeline without consequence is not a safeguard. It is a suggestion. If requests can be delayed without accountability, then access becomes uncertain. And when access becomes uncertain, transparency becomes optional. That’s not acceptable.

A six-month extension will allow us to properly address these systemic issues; to ensure that timelines are not only clear but enforceable; to ensure that delays are the exception, not the norm; to ensure that the right to access information is meaningful in practice and not in theory.

Let me now turn to privacy, which is equally critical. We live in a time where data is power. Governments today have unprecedented capacity to collect, to store and to share personal information — health records, financial data, location information, personal identifiers. The scope is vast and growing.

With that power comes responsibility, a profound responsibility. Bill 9 introduces provisions that expand how data can be managed and shared, often framed under modernization. But modernization cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights.

We must ask: are there clear limits on how personal information can be used? Are there strong safeguards to prevent breaches? Are there strict and enforceable rules governing retention and disposal? Are individuals fully aware of how their data is being handled?

[4:15 p.m.]

If the answers are unclear, then this legislation is incomplete. Once data is centralized, the risks multiply. A single vulnerability can expose thousands, sometimes millions of individuals. We have seen this happen in jurisdictions around the world. Data breaches are not theoretical. They are real, they are costly, and they erode public trust in ways that are difficult to repair.

That is why the principle of data minimization must be central. Government should collect only what is necessary, use it only for legitimate purposes and retain it only for as long as required. Anything beyond that is not efficiency. It is overreach. That is why to set aside Bill 9 for six months is necessary to ensure that government has enough time to come up with a proper procedure to collect data for legitimate purposes.

Another critical issue is oversight. No law, no matter how well written, is effective without enforcement. Oversight bodies must have real authority. They must have sufficient resources. They must operate independently. If we expand government powers without strengthening oversight, we create imbalance. And imbalance leads to misuse, intentional or otherwise.

Oversight should not be reactive. It should be proactive. It should identify risks before harm occurs, not after. That requires capacity, that requires clarity, and that requires commitment. A six-month extension will give us the time to ensure that oversight mechanisms are robust, effective and capable of meeting the demands of this evolving landscape.

There is also a broader issue we must confront. What kind of government are we building? Do we believe in a government that defaults to openness, where information is accessible unless there is a compelling reason to withhold it? Or do we accept a system where information is controlled, filtered and released selectively? Do we believe that personal data should be protected at all costs or treated as an administrative resource?

These are not abstract questions. They go to the heart of public trust. From our perspective, the answer is clear. We believe in open government. We believe in strong policy protection. And we believe that citizens, not institutions, should ultimately have control over their own information.

We must also consider the practical barriers that continue to exist. Fees, administrative complexity, delays — these factors discourage participation. They create inequality in access, and they undermine the very purpose of freedom-of-information legislation.

A six-month period will allow us to address these barriers in a meaningful way. We will also have the opportunity to engage more thoroughly with stakeholders, privacy commissioners, legal experts, journalists, civil society organizations and the public. Legislation of this importance should not be developed in isolation. It should be informed by those who understand the real-world impact.

Let me be clear. We are not opposed to reform. We recognize that laws must evolve. Technology has changed how information is created, stored and shared. Our legal framework must reflect that reality.

[4:20 p.m.]

But evolution must be guided by principle. Not convenience, not expediency — principle. Rushing forward this legislation that contains large gaps does not serve the public interest. It risks entrenching problems rather than solving them. It risks weakening trust rather than strengthening it. A six-month delay is not a setback. It is an investment — an investment in getting this right; an investment in building legislation that is durable, effective and worthy of public confidence.

British Columbians expect transparency. They expect accountability. They expect their personal information to be protected. They expect this House to do its job properly. That means taking the time necessary to ensure that this legislation meets the highest possible standard.

We stand ready to work constructively. We are prepared to cooperate. We are committed to strengthening this bill. But we cannot support moving forward without addressing the concerns that have been clearly identified.

This amendment provides the opportunity to do just that — to pause; to reflect; to improve; and, ultimately, to deliver legislation that truly serves the people of British Columbia. If we get this right, we strengthen democracy. That’s why I immigrated to this country. If we get this wrong, we weaken it. The choice before us is very clear.

For all these reasons, I urge each and every one of the members of this House to support this amendment.

In particular, I ask members on the other side to ponder very carefully. One day — it will be pretty soon — you will be on this side of the House. And you definitely don’t want to see the government of the day hold back all the information so that you can’t do a proper job of representing your constituents, to hold the government of the day to account.

I urge each and every one of the members on the other side of the House to give some deep and conscious thought to the rationale of the hoist motion. If all of us take up this political mission to serve British Columbians with our hearts and with our conscience, I can’t see how members on the other side would not support this hoist motion.

Peter Milobar: I rise to speak to Bill 9, the re-pacing amendment, as it were, the hoist motion to not cancel Bill 9. We’re simply just finding a new timeline, a new alternate universe that we will move forward with Bill 9 in this place. I say that as a preface to where my comments will be around this amendment, the hoist amendment, because that’s what we’ve heard from this government through this whole session so far — a need to slow things down, to take a second look.

If I look at DRIPA, it went from no amendments needed at all to: “We need to have some amendments” to “We need to pause it for three years” to “We need to pause it for one year” to “We’ll most definitely have it in while we’re sitting here, and it’ll be dealt with in the spring” to “Oh, no, no, we’re not going to do that now. We’ll have more, and we’ll wait about six months and bring that to the House.”

The government was all too willing, against the backdrop of all the chaos that has been created in our communities around DRIPA — in our business communities, investment communities and everything else — and the uncertainty it’s creating, essentially, to hoist it themselves for six months on a piece of legislative change we haven’t actually even seen yet.

[4:25 p.m.]

But in the case of the FOI, Bill 9, when it’s been brought forward, when it’s been very clearly pushed back against by opposition, by media and, most importantly, by members of the general public, somehow it’s offensive to the government that we would re-pace this bill for six months.

The hoist motion is very clear. It just is six months. We are sitting in the fall. We can deal with this before we have to worry about it being cancelled with the throne speech. We can move forward.

It might interrupt a little bit with the government’s schedule in the fall. I’m not sure. Maybe they’re not planning on having a fall sitting. Maybe they’re planning on cancelling it. Lately they’ve been changing their minds all over the place. One would think with the way the polling has been going lately, they might not want to be here in the fall.

That’s the only reason I could think that they would be so offended by the concept of a hoist motion on something as fundamentally important as freedom of information and access for people to access what the heck the government is actually doing.

It’s critically important. It’s critically important that this gets done right. It’s critically important that, now that we know what legislative changes actually are being proposed by this government, we actually have proper consultation wrapped around that before this bill proceeds forward, which is the whole purpose of having a hoist motion. Now, the opposition was very clear on the timeline in our hoist motion — six months hence.

When we talk about the Burnaby Hospital, we hear it’s cancelled. We hear it’s not cancelled. We hear it’s delayed. We hear it’s been completely put on the shelf. No line of sight, no clarity, no understanding for the five ridings of Burnaby. Nothing from the Burnaby MLAs for clarity around that. And that’s deemed to be okay. That uncertainty, that ambiguity by this government, since February, on a project like that — we’re talking 3½ months now — seems to be completely fine for them.

But a hoist motion that would provide the opportunity for the public to try to have a little bit of line of sight and certainty around what is happening for six months on a piece of legislation…. Let’s remember, no one else is asking for this legislation to change but the government. I would challenge the government to point to anyone outside of these chambers, that doesn’t sit on the government side, who has asked for this legislation to come forward in the first place.

What critical timeline are they trying to meet with this legislation? What is so dangerous about FOI laws as they stand today that the government must, and with all urgency of government, deal with it between now and not six months from now? Why not actually listen to the people for a change? Why not take a step back?

The government has been more than happy to take a step back and pull things back based on certain groups demanding that legislation either be paused or not even brought forward. In this case, just about everybody in British Columbia, except for government members, has issues with FOI and the changes that are being proposed in Bill 9, which is why we brought forward the hoist motion. In this case, only 47 people’s opinion seems to matter — those that are on the government benches. The other 5.7 million people can go to you-know-where.

The hoist motion is being brought in good faith to try to get better understanding for the public so that they don’t find out when they go to file an FOI request after this legislation is passed that they can no longer do that, that there’ll be no longer information available. Then the public will finally realize the true magnitude of Bill 9.

By enabling six months to work with groups that regularly use FOI, to better understand the true ramifications of Bill 9, we can actually have that feedback before legislative changes are made.

[4:30 p.m.]

That’s the whole purpose and the intent of a hoist motion. It’s exactly why it exists — for opposition to try to be able to actually better consult with constituents and the people that will be impacted by government legislation. Again, it doesn’t cancel; it just re-paces the bill.

Now, we see the blue book, as it were, get updated regularly with parliamentary practice. We see dictionaries update with wording all the time. I know our friend and avid viewer Rob Shaw has been making fun of the word “hoist.” Well, maybe we just change it. Maybe that’s our next procedural change in this place, and we change it to “re-pacing.”

That might be more palatable to the government, and then they would agree with the opposition’s motion right now, our amendment. Because according to the government, if we use “re-pacing,” nothing’s been cancelled. If we use “hoist,” we’re trying to cancel something. It doesn’t matter that it says “six months hence” and there are more than six months left in the year and we’ll still be sitting here in November, which is six months hence.

In the government world, in the NDP world, hoist means cancelled. Re-paced means still continuing on. We watched that play out in all its glory in question period all week so far. We’ve watched it when the budget was presented. We’ll continue to watch it play out.

If the government is willing to listen to subsets of the population wanting legislation delayed or paused or not brought forward, why are they so offended by our amendment to pause a piece of legislation that truly does impact every British Columbian and where everybody that has seen it or heard of it has deep concerns and worries around it?

Now, normally when the government brings forward legislation, especially if the opposition brings forward a hoist motion, they’re the first ones to trot out stakeholders and others in their defence as to why a piece of legislation should actually move forward in a timely fashion. I have not seen those.

I have not seen those groups put themselves forward to say: “How dare you, opposition? How dare you bring forward this amendment and actually slow down allowing the government to make itself even more secretive and remove my ability to actually get access to what the heck is going on in government documents?” I’m not seeing that and hearing that anywhere.

I’m hearing from a lot of people thanking us for fighting this as hard as we’re fighting it and trying to get some clarity on things and trying to get the government to understand just how flawed Bill 9 is.

The only way the government might actually listen…. The track record of this Premier is if enough voices say something for enough time, he will do a 180. He will bend. He will flip-flop. He will pretzel. Use whatever word you want. He does it time and again. The principles and values that were yesterday for the Premier are not what is tomorrow.

It certainly wasn’t that way with carbon tax, where it was going to be that B.C. would be the only jurisdiction to see $170-a-tonne carbon tax. It didn’t matter what the federal government did. It didn’t matter what the other provinces did. Those were the Premier’s statements until a couple months later, when it became politically expedient for him to suddenly say he was going to remove the carbon tax.

We watched it unfold with decriminalization. Most recently we’ve watched it unfold with DRIPA. We’ll likely watch it unfold with a pipeline that he’s already admitted they can’t stop provincially. We’ll just wait for that grand change of opinion on that.

I hope the Premier can understand why the opposition might be optimistic that if we can get our hoist motion, if we can re-pace this bill for six months past, that extra six months is plenty of time for the Premier to find a new-found position on FOI, on access to information, on clarity, on the ability for people to actually find out, in a reasonably timed fashion, with a reasonable scope of what they can ask about, information on what is going on with government.

[4:35 p.m.]

Again, if this was a brand-new piece of legislation implementing FOI for the first time, I could understand why the government might say we are trying to stall and we’re trying to prevent people from getting access to government information with this hoist motion. And it’s critically important that we start actually getting some transparency for government. But Bill 9 does the opposite. Bill 9 removes transparency, removes access. It creates a framework where, essentially, the existing FOI legislation is no longer relevant at all.

I think that’s why the six-month hoist motion is so critically important. I’ve seen it time and again in this place, in the nine years I’ve been here. When legislation has time to breathe, when people impacted by legislation have time to understand the impacts, they start to make their voices heard. When government knows that’s going to happen, they try to rush the legislation through.

One just has to look and think of the health professionals right now, with Bill 36. It hummed along, getting ready for implementation on April 1, fairly quietly. Now health professionals from a wide range of health professions are suddenly saying: “What the heck just happened on April 1? Where did this come from?” They weren’t paying attention to it in their busy daily lives and their professional lives, and they counted on people that were representing them at these tables. The point is that it took several years for them to find out and realize the true impacts after brushing off concerns for quite some time.

This bill is not as consequential to this act as the fundamental changes. The world, for government, will not stop spinning if, over the next six months, FOI legislation stays unchanged.

Let’s remember. This is the government, when FOI legislation was changed previously, that kept insisting the fee that would be charged for FOI needed to have further consultation before they could decide what that fee would be. Days of questioning in this chamber around FOI. So this is not the first time as an opposition — at least myself; most in this opposition weren’t here — that I’ve watched this play out around FOI. It shouldn’t be a surprise to government that we’re pushing back on this.

For days, we heard from the minister: “Well, we don’t know what the fee will be.”

“Well, Minister, will it be $10?” “Well, we don’t know. We need to consult. We need further consultation.” “Well, Minister, will it be $20?” “Well, we don’t know. Nothing’s been decided.” “Well, Minister, will it be $5?” “Well, we don’t know. Nothing’s been decided.” “Will it be $30?” “We don’t know. Nothing’s been decided. We need to have further consultations. We just need to pass the framework legislation, and then we’ll do it by order in council, by a signature of cabinet order, after we’ve done consultations.”

Days we heard that, days in this place, quite literal days, not what it probably feels like for government to have to listen to me drone on for the next 15 minutes, but actual days. And the end result of that was….

Interestingly enough, I have about 15 minutes left, and it was about 15 minutes after the bill was passed that the order was signed in the hallways to suddenly set the FOI fees at $10. Glory be, what a fast consultation process that was for this government.

Days of questioning government about the fee they were going to charge to allow people to try to get access to government information that government was trying to hide and not wanting to release, met with answers of: “We need further consultation.” That was met with a 15-minute time frame, roughly, and all of a sudden, the fee was figured out.

That’s the track record of this government that we’re supposed to have confidence in that Bill 9 hits all the right notes and really won’t be restricted more for FOI. It’s actually supposed to be a good thing.

Again, if it was really a good thing, do you not think the people that normally access FOI documents and file FOIs would be giving the opposition heck right now for trying a six-month hoist motion that slows things down for six months to get a better look at things?

[4:40 p.m.]

That’s what happens in the real world. If we were the ones that were seen by everybody that accesses government documents through FOI to be the impediment for making things better in that system, that’s what we’d all be hearing. That’s what the media would be covering. That’s what the media would be saying. They don’t like the changes to FOI that were done before. They certainly don’t like these ones.

If they did like these ones, we’d be hearing it loud and clear as opposition. The narrative would be something along the lines of: “Why is the opposition trying a hoist motion to delay more government transparency for six months?” “New and improved transparency measures sitting in Bill 9 delayed for six months by opposition.” That’s what the media would be saying if our hoist motion was actually a problem.

They’re not saying that because Bill 9 is a problem for everyone but the 47 people in government. That’s it. A government with a one-seat majority. It’s the only 47 people you’re going to find that will champion this legislation — not to the point they’ll actually get up and debate, defend it in the House and actually get their views put in Hansard as to why further restricting access to government information is a good thing. No, no, we won’t hear them getting up and defending that.

They maybe are taking lessons from how you defend a Burnaby Hospital cancellation. Just stay quiet on it, and it will go away.

The hoist motion is critical for all the reasons I talked about. It gives the public a chance. People lead busy lives in British Columbia. People don’t know what’s going on in this place on a daily basis, not because they don’t care, not because they’re not smart enough to figure it out. It’s because they’re struggling to just get along, and they entrust us to be the eyes, the ears and the overseers of things the government tries to ram through.

Bill 9 is the government’s attempt to have even less oversight. Our hoist motion, our amendment to Bill 9 right now that we’re debating simply says that in six months, we’ll pick this debate back up. Government has survived with existing FOI rules for a lot of years until this government came in and started changing them — not changing them for more transparency but changing them for less and making it harder, making it more expensive. That should be a concern.

Like I say, when I see other substantive, important pieces of legislation that this government routinely backs away from or stands down or doesn’t even introduce after promising they would introduce it for much longer periods of time than six months hence, like our amendment says, that should be a concern for everybody watching. That should be a concern for everybody watching that wonders just why the government is so adamant they need changes passed this week, not six months hence.

What FOI documents are they worried might be filed in the next six months? What possible reason would they have to make this a priority in this legislative session in the backdrop of everything else we have going on?

It might be nothing. It could just be because they don’t like to actually be questioned on things. They certainly don’t like to answer things. They certainly don’t want accountability. They certainly would rather point the finger at someone else being at fault.

I’ve got news for them. Whenever they say “the former government,” they’re the former government. They’re actually pointing in the mirror.

They don’t seem to want to support something as simple as “let’s just talk to our communities about this bill over the next six months.”

[4:45 p.m.]

When you go into a community — and I’ve been travelling the province a lot lately — when you talk to people, the first concern they have isn’t Bill 9. But I can tell you that over the last week, in conversations that I’ve been having across this province, Bill 9 is starting to come up. It’s coming up more, which is why “six months hence” gives us that opportunity to let it breathe.

If Bill 9 is such a finely crafted piece of legislation, letting it breathe for six months should be like letting a fine wine breathe for a little while. But it’s not a finely crafted piece of legislation. It’s a piece of legislation designed to block access to information so people couldn’t even have a glimmer of hope trying to figure out what exactly the government is actually doing or up to or intending — or the thought process, meetings they’ve had, stakeholders they’ve had.

As the public, over this last week or so, has started to tune in and understand, as media has been writing more articles about it, more and more questions start to arise. So I think an amendment of “six months hence” serves the public well.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member.

Recognizing the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside.

Stephanie Higginson: I’m seeking a point of information.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Stephanie Higginson: I keep hearing the member opposite talk about this being a delay. Yesterday I believe there was some discussion, and I wonder if it has changed since, so I’m asking for some clarity from the Speaker.

Six months will kill the bill; it will not delay the bill. I’m just asking for clarity from the Speaker on that.

Deputy Speaker: The amendment, if successful and passed, will result in the bill falling off the order paper.

Stephanie Higginson: For clarity, “falling off the order paper” means that the bill is killed, effectively dead.

Deputy Speaker: It’d be off the order paper.

Stephanie Higginson: Yes. Okay. There is a difference between delay and off the order paper. It would be nice if the members opposite could be factual in their references during the amendment.

Peter Milobar: Well, let’s see. Who brings forward government bills for debate? The government does. Who has the ability in the fall session, six months hence, to bring forward a bill for debate? The government does. Who could bring forward the exact same bill with the exact same wording six months hence to continue second reading debate?

“Oh, sorry. We’d have to have that procedural first reading, that pesky procedural first reading vote, Member, that everyone typically….” Except the NDP is all over the map with that these days. We’d have to have a pesky first reading vote on that. What a long time delay that would be for democracy in this province.

The government decides that. Then guess what. We’d be right back to the same spot we’re standing at here today, all of one day later. Sorry, I guess maybe for clarity, we should amend the amendment to be “six months and one day hence.” We could pick it up at the second reading spot.

This is the ridiculous part of how this government is trying to operate. They control the legislative schedule. They can get into the procedural weeds of “six months hence” killing a bill, but if they’re committed to bringing the bill back with the same wording because they fundamentally, truly believe it’s the right piece of legislation, they simply have to resubmit the same bill. This really isn’t the most complicated procedure in the history of parliamentary practice in British Columbia.

The government seems to be pretty sensitive about a “six months hence” hoist motion. They seem pretty sensitive about the word “cancel” instead of “re-pace.” They seem pretty sensitive about a lot of things these days. I can understand why. They don’t seem to have a lot of advocates for them out there these days.

[4:50 p.m.]

They certainly have zero advocates for them on Bill 9. That is why, if the government is that confident about Bill 9, they could actually support “six months hence.” They could go out, and they could find all these stakeholders that, to this point, haven’t come forward to tell the opposition how offside we are asking for a delay so people could actually understand what this government is doing.

You know, the member says: “Well, it would kill the bill.” The interesting thing is that in the spring session, a lot of times, they actually have what they call exposure bills. So they actually have some work that we can work on in the fall, when we get back here, as soon as we start. That’s a piece of legislation that gets introduced. It doesn’t get changed from the time it gets introduced in the spring session to the time we start dealing with it in the fall, and the public can actually read it and understand what is being proposed.

The government could turn around and pull this bill right now, call it an exposure bill and tell us they’re going to delay it until the fall. That would be the same effect.

You know who controls that? The government controls that. You know what tools the opposition has to control that? A hoist motion, which is why we’re here today, because the government doesn’t want to actually consult with the public…. They don’t want the public to know what they are trying to do with FOI legislation. If they did, they could have taken any of those steps I just referenced already.

Instead, they want to keep getting up — I saw members doing it yesterday as well — trying to get some procedural fine point, whether or not a hoist motion officially kills the bill or enables it to allow it to still be debated in the fall. Either way, it’s 100 percent the call of the government — the only 47 people in the province of B.C. that actually want this bill to proceed. It’s completely in the hands of them whether this bill comes back in the fall.

Even if it didn’t fall off the order paper, it would be completely in the hands of the government in the fall, six months hence, if they wanted to continue to debate it or not or to let it die on the order paper, because the government controls what gets debated when in this chamber.

If the government today, after question period, had decided we were going on to the treaties — they seem to have paused those, magically — that’s what we’d be debating today, not Bill 9. We wouldn’t continue on from yesterday’s Bill 9 debate, because the government chooses the schedule of debate. So here we are, debating our amendment of a hoist motion.

I think, if nothing else, the fact the government is so sensitive about Bill 9 and so sensitive about letting the public actually digest, for the next six months, the true impact that lack of access to FOI documents is going to create in British Columbia…. That, right there, screams loud and clear why Bill 9 is so flawed but, more importantly, why we have to approve this hoist motion as an assembly, to test the government’s theory that Bill 9 is actually a good thing.

So let’s test it. Let’s have the challenge to the government. Either call the bill an exposure bill and bring it back in the fall, support our hoist motion, our amendment to bring it back six months hence — however, procedurally, they choose to do that — or just admit that they don’t actually want to hear from the public. They don’t care what the public has to say. They know best, yet again, and they would prefer that they crack down on access to public information through FOI, through Bill 9.

The choice is actually the government’s. We’ll be voting in favour of our hoist motion to try to bring more transparency to the public discourse. It’s up to the government whether they want to do that and to ask themselves: did they actually campaign, in the last general election, to have less access to government information? Or did they actually campaign to try to have transparency? I guess their vote will tell us which way they actually meant in that equation when they campaigned last.

Thank you for the time. I wouldn’t want to use up all my time. I’ll sit down with the last 27 seconds.

Lynne Block: Ah, that was lively. I appreciate the words of my colleague before me, making it very clear what the hoist motion is all about.

[4:55 p.m.]

I rise today to speak in support of the hoist motion regarding Bill 9, entitled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, and that it be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

This is a straightforward procedural change in wording, but it carries profound legislative significance. It is, in essence, a motion to defer consideration of Bill 9 for six months, and that deferral is both necessary and justified.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

This motion to delay for six months is not about obstruction. It is about responsibility. It asks this House to recognize that when we amend legislation in real time, when government itself brings forward corrections to its own bill, it is, by definition, acknowledging that the original version was incomplete or even flawed.

That reality alone supports the logic of a six-month pause. We are not being asked to perfect a finished product here. We are being asked to continuously repair one. A six-month deferral allows this House to step back, assess the full scope of those deficiencies and ensure that what ultimately proceeds is sound in law, clear in meaning and durable in practice.

Once legislation is enacted, it ceases to be theoretical. It becomes operational. It governs real decisions, real disclosures and real consequences for British Columbians seeking access to information and protection of privacy. That is precisely why this motion to defer for six months is so critical.

In this field of law, and it is in the field of law, errors are not abstract drafting problems. They are barriers to transparency; barriers to accountability; and, most importantly, barriers to public trust. When the stakes are access to information and privacy rights, rushed correction is not good governance. It is risk accumulation.

As Benjamin Franklin wisely said, and it’s a very old saying: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” That principle is really accurate today, and it’s not rhetorical. It is structural.

The motion before us to substitute “six months hence” for the word “now” is the legislative expression of prevention. It recognizes that it is far easier to correct deficiencies before enactment than to repair or band-aid systemic issues after implementation.

Let’s be frank. This is not delay for its own sake. It is discipline in the service of better law.

The central question before this House is not whether Bill 9 proceeds but whether it proceeds in a form that is complete, coherent and consistent with its own stated objectives.

The government’s willingness to bring forward amendments already signals that refinement is definitely required. That fact strengthens — it does not weaken — the case for a six-month deferral. If amendments are necessary today, then it is reasonable to conclude that deeper issues may still remain beneath the surface.

This motion to defer for six months ensures that those critical issues are addressed comprehensively rather than incrementally under pressure.

[5:00 p.m.]

Now, modernization has been cited as justification for urgency. This is not logical, because modernization is not defined by speed. It is defined by clarity, it is defined by precision, and it is defined by accountability.

This motion to amend second reading of Bill 9 by substituting “six months hence” for the word “now” reflects that understanding. Taking additional time now is what ensures that modernization is meaningful rather than superficial. Without that time, we risk producing legislation that may be modern in appearance but definitely unstable and lacking in application.

This motion to defer for six months is justified by the extensive work already completed by the 2022 Special Committee on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I refer back to that. It was in 2022. That committee produced a multiparty…. All people gave their input. It also produced an evidence-based roadmap, very important here. It called for stronger timelines, it called for improved access, it called for enhanced oversight, and it called for proactive disclosure — all laudable and important enhancements.

If the current bill already requires amendment, it raises a reasonable concern that those recommendations, issued in 2022, have not been fully applied or integrated. A six-month pause would allow this House to properly align Bill 9 with that existing body of work, rather than attempting to retrofit alignment after the fact.

This concern is underscored when we examine the substance of this Bill 9. The 2022 Special Committee on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act emphasized clear, duty-driven standards. Yet clause 3 replaces the requirement to respond “without delay” with “without unreasonable delay.” This is not a minor drafting change. It represents a fundamental shift from a clear obligation to a more subjective, justification-based standard. “Without delay” provides a firm directive, whereas “without unreasonable delay” introduces ambiguity, subtly shifting the burden from the government to justify delays, onto applicants to challenge them.

A six-month deferral would allow the House to reconcile this departure and ensure consistency with the committee’s recommendations. Why not? Why reinvent the wheel when it is going to fall off? Why not use this committee’s recommendations to make sure that this bill is the best it can be?

Another compelling reason for this motion lies in the need for precision in legislative language. I want to come back to that in a little while too. When statutes rely on open-ended or subjective terms such as “reasonable amount of time” or “experienced employee” or “abusive” conduct without clear definitions of any of those terms, they create subjective, interpretive instability and ambiguity.

This is not merely theoretical. It leads to uneven application across public bodies, where identical requests may be treated differently depending on the individual looking at them and reading them and their interpretation.

[5:05 p.m.]

Clause 2 illustrates this risk by introducing a subjective threshold for what constitutes a valid request, based on the opinion of the head of a public body, regarding what constitutes a “reasonable” time to locate records.

Well, to me, reasonable is two days to get back to a constituent who is asking for information — two days. But maybe someone says that a month is reasonable time. There is no definitive clarification on what is reasonable time, and that’s open-ended. What is reasonable to one official may not be reasonable to another. By making reasonableness a matter of opinion, rather than an objective standard or definition, the balance of power shifts toward the gatekeeper and away from the citizen.

This concern is reinforced in clause 13, which expands the grounds….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a general reminder that we’re debating, of course, the motion. I’d ask that you relate your comments to the motion itself.

Lynne Block: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

It expands the grounds for refusing requests deemed abusive, malicious or excessively broad. Without clear, objective criteria, there is significant risk that legitimate, persistent or investigative requests, particularly those from journalists and researchers, could be captured within these categories. That’s why a six-month hoist.

The line between administrative efficiency and the suppression of transparency is very thin. If we are to treat information as the currency of democracy, then any changes as to how that currency is accessed must be principled, not merely technical. A six-month pause would give this House the necessary time to establish objective standards that distinguish between genuine misuse and legitimate efforts to secure accountability. This is essential to maintaining public confidence in the access-to-information framework.

We must ensure that discretion does not become arbitrary and that modernization does not come at the expense of accountability. Without this deferral to define these terms with precision, we risk enacting legislation that appears modern but proves unstable in its application.

Good governance requires consistency between what we study and what we enact. This motion, this hoist motion to defer for six months, provides the time necessary to achieve that consistency deliberately rather than incidentally.

Another reason that this hoist motion to defer for six months is essential lies in the need for precision in legislative language. I’ve seen this often when I’m looking at legislation coming out or motions. As an English teacher, I’m looking at the wording. It has to be precise. It has to have clarity. It cannot be ambiguous. It cannot be subjective. It has to be defined, denotative, not connotative.

When statutes rely on open-ended or subjective terms such as “a reasonable amount of time,” “experienced employee,” “unreasonable interference” or “abusive conduct,” the absence of clear definitions as to what those absolutely mean creates interpretive instability. That instability does not remain theoretical either. It results in uneven application across public bodies, where identical requests may be treated differently depending on interpretation and who is receiving those requests.

The government’s amendments already suggest that clarification is definitely required. This motion, this hoist motion to defer for six months, allows those clarifications to be done properly rather than piecemeal or band-aided, I would say. It ensures that rights under the legislation are applied consistently across the province, not shaped by variability in interpretation.

[5:10 p.m.]

Now, this becomes especially important when considering how access requests may be characterized. Without clear thresholds, and we don’t have them here, there is a risk that legitimate, persistent or necessary requests could be misclassified as excessive or inappropriate.

I’m a nag. I nag. I nag people. I go after them. “You promised me that you’d have that reply by next week. I still don’t have it. I need it because I need it to inform my constituent.” I do it gently, I do it politely, but I think it’s so important to make sure that you have that in a timely manner and that it’s clear.

The motion to defer for six months allows this House to establish objective standards that distinguish between genuine misuse of the system and legitimate attempts to obtain accountability.

Sometimes people get frantic. They need that information. They need that information yesterday. They may be on that case of that particular person who’s looking at their application, and they may be deemed not helpful. They may be deemed that they are misusing the system. That’s not fair to the person who’s getting frustrated. That distinction is fundamental to preserving public confidence in the entire access-to-information framework.

This motion also addresses a deeper structural concern — balance. Every access-to-information regime must balance administrative efficiency with democratic accountability. When the government amends its own bill mid-process, it truly raises legitimate questions about whether that balance has been properly struck in the original design. A six-month deferral allows us to recalibrate that balance carefully, ensuring that efficiency does not come at the expense of transparency.

Closely tied to this is the question of oversight. A strong system depends on oversight mechanisms that are clear, accessible and consistently applied. If those mechanisms require adjustment before enactment, that, again, reinforces the need for this motion to defer for six months. Oversight cannot be an afterthought retrofitted through amendments. It must be structurally embedded and fully function at the moment the law comes into force. That would be the minimum of expectations.

It is also important to recognize that amendments made in haste, particularly those made in response to early concerns, can create the appearance of resolution but without resolving the underlying problems — again, band-aids. Surface-level corrections may adjust wording, but they do not necessarily address structural ambiguity. This motion to defer for six months gives this House the opportunity to move beyond reactive drafting and instead pursue comprehensive, proactive legislative coherence.

There’s also a very practical dimension to this motion. Implementation is where legislation succeeds or fails — implementation. Without adequate preparation time, even well-intentioned reforms can produce inconsistent application, confusion among public bodies and increased disputes. A six-month deferral allows for the development of clear regulations, for the development of consistent guidance and for the development of proper training, so that when Bill 9 is implemented, it is implemented uniformly and predictably.

[5:15 p.m.]

I am a huge proponent of professional development and appropriate training always, for whatever. Professional development — we got it here when we first became MLAs, and I really appreciate that. That’s ongoing. Every day I learn something new, and I add it to my workbox, and I really appreciate it.

If we hoist this motion for six months, it gives time for people to be properly trained. People who are looking at submissions won’t be having their own subjective interpretation of what those terms mean. They will get professional development training perhaps.

I’ll give you an example. One of the things I used to do in my career as a teacher was to mark provincial essays from students. We’d have a team of teachers. We’d get together on one full day, and we’d divide up all the essays. We would work together on a scale of what we were looking for. We would have a practice run of three or four particular essays, and we would see how we would each score them.

It was really interesting, because sometimes what people were looking for in one essay was very different from what they were looking for in another essay. That was the subjectivity.

What we did was we applied a framework — whether it be grammar, whether it be on the topic or on the theme — to make sure that we were consistent, that we applied consistency, clarity, uniformity and, I guess, honesty to our interpretation and evaluations of those essays.

If we have a six-month deferral, I think that would be really helpful. It would be able to train people to make sure that they have the same focus, the same outlook and the same criteria when they’re looking at the submissions and that the conclusions are implemented uniformly and predictably. I think that is extremely important.

At its core, this hoist motion to amend second reading by substituting “six months hence” for “now” asks a fundamental question of legislative prudence. Do we prioritize immediacy, or do we prioritize certainty?

In the context of access to information and privacy rights, certainty is not optional. It is absolutely essential. Without it, rights become variable and accountability becomes inconsistent.

Ultimately, that is what this hoist motion to defer for six months is all about. It is about ensuring that transparency is not aspirational but enforceable, that accountability is not conditional but dependable, that rights are not vague but clearly defined and uniformly applied.

Let us be clear about what this hoist motion does and does not do. Its motive is not to stop Bill 9. It does not reject its objectives. It does not halt modernization. But what it does do is ensure that when this House proceeds to final consideration, it does so with confidence that this legislation is complete, that the legislation is coherent and that the legislation is consistent with the expert recommendations from the 2022 special committee and that it is consistent with legislative intent.

It ensures that we do not rush to implement a framework that even its own sponsor has already begun to amend. Legislation of this nature shapes public trust, not just for this session of parliament but for years to come. When government itself is adjusting its own bill during debate, caution is not obstruction; it is prudence.

That is why this hoist motion to defer for six months is not a delay tactic. It is a governance safeguard. It reflects a commitment to getting it right rather than getting it done quickly.

[5:20 p.m.]

I urge all members of this House, on both sides of this aisle, to support this motion, to endorse the substitution of “six months hence” for the word “now.” Why? It is to support clarity. It is to support accountability. And it is to support legislative integrity. In the end, the measure of this House is not how quickly we pass legislation — not how quickly — but how confidently that legislation stands once it becomes law.

Jordan Kealy: I rise today in support of the hoist amendment to Bill 9. I do so because I believe this House needs to pause, a genuine pause, and seriously reflect on what is happening here. When this many people from this many different walks of life start raising the same concern at the same time, government should pay attention. And that is exactly what is happening right now.

This is not simply opposition criticism. This is not one political party disagreeing with another political party. We are hearing very real concerns from journalists, from taxpayer advocates, from watchdog organizations, from citizens, from rural communities, from people who use the FOI system regularly, from ordinary British Columbians who are looking at this legislation and asking themselves a very simple question: why does this government seem so determined to make access to information harder instead of easier? The government members may not like hearing that question, but people are asking it more and more.

Over the last number of years, British Columbians have become increasingly skeptical of centralized power and increasingly skeptical of institutions that appear less transparent than they once were. Government members may not like hearing that, but it is true.

I think one of the biggest mistakes governments make, not just here but everywhere, is dismissing public concern as background noise instead of recognizing it as a warning sign. When distrust starts growing across multiple parts of society at the same time, governments should pay attention, very close attention. That’s what this six-month hoist gives us the ability to do — to pay attention.

What concerns me deeply about Bill 9 is that instead of responding to growing distrust with more openness and more honesty, government appears to be responding by expanding discretion and tightening control around the information itself. What a backwards way to gain the trust of the people.

I listened carefully to the government’s defence of this legislation. I understand the argument that they are making. The system is strained. There are more requests. There are more digital records. There are more communications to manage. Artificial intelligence is increasing the ability of people to file the complaints and review requests more efficiently. The Information and Privacy Commissioner himself has acknowledged that complaints and reviews are rising dramatically.

I understand all of that. But the existence of administrative strain does not automatically justify giving institutions more discretion over access to information. Those are not the same thing. If the system is under pressure, government has choices. It can strengthen capacity. It can improve records management. It can improve responsiveness. It can increase staffing. It can modernize documentation systems. It can improve proactive disclosures so citizens do not need to file requests as frequently in the first place.

Those would all be reforms designed to strengthen transparency. That’s why we need to take a pause to be able to analyze this information and take the time.

One recent commentary in the Times Colonist put it plainly: “B.C. should fix the FOI system instead of restricting it.” Honestly, that is exactly the concern many British Columbians are raising right now.

[5:25 p.m.]

If the system is strained, then strengthen the system. Improve staffing. Improve records management. Improve proactive disclosure. But when the response, instead, becomes to broaden refusal powers, soften language around timelines, expand discretionary authority and more ability for institutions to determine what quantifies as sufficiently detailed or operationally burdensome, then people are naturally going to question where this is heading. And frankly, they should.

One of the most important things that I have learned representing northern British Columbia is that trust in institutions is not automatic. It must be earned. Once people have stopped believing what they are being told, it is very difficult to get that trust back.

That’s why I believe that we need to take a pause and do this hoist. People in the north of British Columbia already feel far removed from many of the decisions affecting their lives. When you live in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Hudson’s Hope or even smaller communities across the Peace region, decisions made in Victoria can feel incredibly distant, sometimes disconnected, sometimes completely detached from regional realities.

When people feel that distance, the public’s ability to get answers becomes even more important. That is why freedom of information matters so much outside of major urban centres. For many people, it is one of the only practical tools they have left to obtain answers from institutions otherwise feeling unreachable.

When hospital services change, when emergency rooms close, when permits are delayed, when regulatory decisions affect livelihoods, when projects stall, when promises disappear, people want to know why. Increasingly, they do not feel that they are getting direct answers through ordinary communication channels, so they file FOI requests, not because they are trying to attack the government, not because they are trying to create chaos, but because they are trying to understand what is happening. I think members opposite underestimate how important that distinction is.

One of the phrases we hear repeatedly from the government is that Bill 9 is about modernization and efficiency. But transparency is not supposed to be convenient for the government. It is supposed to require effort. It is supposed to require organization. It is supposed to require the government to explain itself.

If accountability begins to feel inconvenient for institutions, that is not evidence the system is broken. That is evidence the system is functioning exactly as intended. The entire purpose of the access-to-information legislation is to rebalance power between institutions and ordinary citizens.

Government holds enormous amounts of information that the public does not have direct access to. That imbalance exists naturally. The FOI process exists to correct that imbalance, and we can’t rush that system. This is one of the reasons why I support this hoist.

Government also holds enormous power, enormous amounts of taxpayers’ money, and the people paying those taxes have every right to know where that money is going, how it is being spent, who decisions are being made for and what conversations are happening behind closed doors using public dollars. These aren’t unreasonable asks, and to dismiss them, like they are, is very telling. The government appears to tighten control around information involving public money.

The heart of the public is going to push for answers. People are already asking themselves: “Why is it becoming more difficult to access information tied to taxpayers’ dollars? Why does this government seem more focused on limiting access to information rather than improving transparency? Why are refusal powers expanding instead of narrowing? Why is discretion increasing instead of openness?”

[5:30 p.m.]

Government members may not like those questions, but people are asking them anyways.

When citizens feel shut out of the process, they do not become less curious. They become more suspicious, especially when it involves their money. That is something this government should think very carefully about before moving further down this path. When legislation gradually shifts more discretion back towards institutions and away from the public, even incrementally, people notice, especially now, especially in this political climate.

One of the things I find most remarkable in this debate is that government appears genuinely surprised by the public reaction. But honestly, why? Why would people not react strongly to legislation affecting public access to information during the time when trust in institutions is already weak? Why would people not question language that softens obligations and broadens discretion? Why would people not become skeptical when they already feel government decision-making has become increasingly centralized and increasingly difficult to scrutinize?

What concerns me most is that the government seems to believe that growing skepticism is better messaging rather than deepening transparency. But messaging does not fix this. Only openness fixes this. Only honesty fixes this. Only transparency fixes this. The more government seems focused on controlling the conversation instead of expanding openness, the more suspicious people become. That is just reality. That is why we need to take the time to pause and do this hoist amendment.

I also think government is underestimating how closely the public is watching now. People are paying attention in a way that they were not ten years ago. People are reading legislation. People are discussing procedural changes. People are questioning institutional language. People are sharing information constantly, and many British Columbians already believe governments and institutions operate, too often, behind closed doors.

When legislation appears that expands refusal powers or broadens administration discretion, people immediately become suspicious. That is the environment that we’re in. Pretending people are not upset is not going to fix this, and this is precisely why this hoist amendment is necessary.

It’s because a hoist amendment, at its core, says something very simple. Pause to listen, to reconsider. Take seriously the level of concern emerging from outside this chamber. It’s not radical. It’s responsible, especially when the legislation deals directly with the public’s ability to actually get answers from this government. This is exactly why the hoist amendment makes sense. If government truly believes this legislation is balanced, reasonable and necessary, then it will still be balanced, reasonable and necessary six months from now.

So why rush? Why the urgency to move this through while so many other concerns are still being raised both inside and outside this chamber? Why the resistance to slowing down? Listen carefully and allow fuller public debate to occur.

British Columbians are increasingly noticing a pattern in this place — a pattern where government consults selectively; listens selectively; and then, ultimately, proceeds exactly as it intended from the very beginning, regardless of how much concern is raised publicly. People are getting tired of feeling like the decision was already made before they ever open their mouths. People are already starting to feel like consultation means that the government lets you speak for five minutes and then does whatever it already planned to do anyway.

I think many people watching this debate are asking themselves a very simple question: if this bill is truly about strengthening transparency and improving public confidence, then why does this government appear so uncomfortable with extended scrutiny?

[5:35 p.m.]

Why not slow down? Why not allow more debate? Why not hear more from the people who actually use the FOI system regularly? Why not hear more from journalists, watchdog groups, rural residents, citizens and organizations who are clearly signalling concerns?

Strong legislation should withstand scrutiny. In fact, strong legislation benefits from scrutiny. If government is confident in its position, then it should not fear additional time and additional debate.

But increasingly, many British Columbians feel government is no longer governing with the public. It is governing around the public. And there is a difference. People feel decisions are becoming more centralized, more insulated, more controlled. When concerns are raised, government often seems more focused on controlling the conversation than actually addressing the issue itself.

The government members should not fool themselves into thinking people are not noticing this. People are connecting the dots.

I think members opposite also need to recognize something else. Public frustration does not emerge overnight. It builds gradually, one decision at a time, one controversy at a time, one dismissal at a time, one moment where people feel ignored at a time. I can just think of recently in this House, when I talked about the Taylor Bridge and the FOI that revealed so many defects with that bridge. What if it becomes harder for residents in my region to be able to figure out about what’s happening in our region?

Eventually, people begin connecting those moments together into a broader conclusion about whether government still respects public accountability at all. This is where the danger lies, because once citizens begin believing institutions no longer genuinely listen to them, distrust accelerates very quickly.

Frankly, I think that part of the reason there is such strong push-back to Bill 9 is because people no longer automatically assume government intentions are benign. That trust has weakened, and government should be asking itself what has happened instead of dismissing every concern as misinformation, obstruction or partisanship.

These concerns are not isolated anymore. They are broad, they are growing, and they are increasingly coming from ordinary people who simply feel that government no longer hears them.

Governments are always strongest when they remain connected to public sentiment, not when they dismiss it, not when they bulldoze past it and not when they treat public scrutiny as an inconvenience standing in the way of their goals. That approach may work legislatively in the short term, but people remember it. Every time government appears unwilling to pause and genuinely listen, more people start believing that they are actually being heard….

That is exactly why this hoist amendment matters. It gives this House an opportunity to stop, reflect and reconsider before moving forward down a path that many British Columbians clearly do not trust.

Members in this House are going to have to make a choice, because this vote is about more than just procedure. It’s about whether this House believes British Columbians deserve more time, more scrutiny and more openness when it comes to accessing information laws. If members are unwilling to even support a pause, unwilling to even support six months of public scrutiny and debate on legislation this significant, then I think the public is entitled to draw its own conclusions on where those members stand on freedom of access to information.

[5:40 p.m.]

Ordinary British Columbians are not asking for less transparency right now. They are asking for more. They are watching very closely to see who in this chamber is willing to slow down and listen and who is determined to push ahead, regardless of the concern being raised across the province.

The government members should ask themselves honestly: if this bill is truly as beneficial as they claim, then why are so many people from so many different walks of life warning them to slow down? That question alone should justify a pause, and that is why I support this hoist amendment.

Linda Hepner: I rise today to speak in strong support of the hoist motion before this House, the one that proposes a six-month delay in the advancement of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Frankly, I would prefer the bill were killed altogether. I believe it is one more of administrative management than it is of legislative flaws. But given that we are where we are, at its core, I support this motion, the hoist motion.

It’s not about obstruction. It’s not about denying progress or resisting reform. Rather, it is about responsibility. It is about ensuring that when we legislate on matters as fundamental as access to information and the protection of personal privacy, we do so with care, with clarity and with the full confidence of the people we serve.

Freedom of information and privacy rights are not abstract principles. They are foundational to a functioning democracy. They shape the relationship between citizens and the state. They determine how power is exercised, how decisions are scrutinized and how trust is built or eroded. Bill 9 proposes significant changes to that framework.

I move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to continue.

Linda Hepner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I call, in this House, continuing debate on Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

In the Birch Room, in Section C, I call the Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing our member from Surrey–Serpentine River. Apologies for the interruption.

On the amendment (continued).

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 9 proposes significant changes to that framework around trust.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that we are going to be talking about the motion, of course, this afternoon.

Linda Hepner: I am speaking directly to the hoist motion, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Linda Hepner: Changes that will affect journalists seeking accountability, citizens requesting access to records, public servants navigating compliance and vulnerable individuals whose personal information must be safeguarded — these are not minor adjustments. They are structural shifts. Yet despite the magnitude of these changes, the process surrounding the bill has, frankly, been insufficient.

[5:45 p.m.]

A six-month hoist is not a rejection of reform. It is an opportunity to get it right. It is an opportunity to consult meaningfully with stakeholders across British Columbia — privacy commissioners, legal experts, communities, civil liberty organizations, journalists and ordinary citizens. It is an opportunity to examine the unintended consequences, to refine provisions and to ensure that the legislation reflects not just administrative convenience but democratic integrity.

We must ask ourselves: what is the cost of rushing? We have seen time and again legislation passed in haste only to require correction later. This is particularly relevant to this particular bill because we’ve already seen how the government put forward two amendments to this legislation. So it has come already, obviously, to the government that it needs some revision. Sometimes when we pass legislation in haste, it comes at great expense, sometimes with damage already done. In this case, with a hoist motion, we have the chance to correct that.

When it comes to privacy, the consequences of error are not easily undone. Once personal information is exposed, it cannot be unexposed. Once access is restricted, transparency suffers. This bill touches both sides of that delicate balance. On the one hand, it proposes new structures and processes that may affect how citizens access government information. On the other hand, it introduces changes to how personal data is managed, stored and potentially shared. These are areas where precision does matter.

Let me speak first to the issue of access. Freedom-of-information laws exist to empower citizens. They are a tool for accountability. They allow journalists to uncover wrongdoing, researchers to analyze public policy and individuals to understand decisions that affect their lives. Any change that risks narrowing that access, even inadvertently, must be examined with the utmost scrutiny, which a hoist motion would allow us to do.

Have we fully assessed how Bill 9 will impact response times for information requests? Have we considered whether new provisions may create additional barriers — whether through cost, complexity or administrative discretion? These are not theoretical concerns. They are practical questions that affect real people.

A six-month delay would allow this House to hear directly from those who rely on these systems every day. A six-month delay would allow us to test assumptions against lived experience.

Now let me turn to privacy. In an age of rapid technological change, protecting personal information has never been more challenging or more important. Governments hold vast amounts of data — health records, financial information, educational histories and more. Citizens trust that this information will be handled with care.

Bill 9 introduces changes that may alter how data is stored and accessed. Have we fully explored the cybersecurity implications of that? Have we ensured that any new frameworks meet the highest standards of data protection? A hoist motion would allow us the time we need to have the answers to those questions.

[5:50 p.m.]

We must also consider the broader context. Around the world, jurisdictions are grappling with similar issues. Some have strengthened their privacy protections, while others have faced backlash for weakening them. That, too, we could assess when we had the six-month time of a hoist motion.

British Columbia has long been regarded as a leader in the field of safety around data. We should not risk that reputation, so long and so hard fought for, by moving quickly without the due diligence.

Now I turn to the matter of public trust. Trust is not built through speed. It is built through transparency, engagement and accountability. When citizens feel that legislation is being rushed, particularly legislation that affects their rights, they become skeptical. They question motives. They disengage. A six-month hoist sends a different message. It says: “We are listening.” It says: “We value your input.” It says: “We are committed to getting it right.” That is not a weakness. That is a show of strength.

Some may argue that delay is unnecessary, that the bill has already undergone sufficient review. But I would ask: sufficient for whom? Have we heard from rural communities, whose access to digital services may differ significantly from the urban centres? Have we engaged Indigenous governments, whose perspectives on data sovereignty are quite essential? Have we consulted small communities, which may face unique challenges in implementing new requirements? Legislation of this scope must reflect the diversity of our province.

And let us not forget the administrative realities. Public bodies across British Columbia will be responsible for implementing these changes. They will need the time to adapt their systems, to train staff and to ensure compliance. If we proceed without adequate preparation, we risk creating confusion and inconsistency, and that, in turn, undermines both access and privacy. A six-month delay by this hoist motion would provide us with a window not just for consultation but also for readiness.

I also want to address a concern that is often raised in debates such as this, a fear that delay equates to inaction. That is not the case here. This hoist motion is a tool within our parliamentary system that is designed precisely for situations like this when more time is needed to consider complex legislation.

It does not kill the bill, as we’ve heard. It does take it off the order paper. However, the government can bring this bill back whenever their heart desires. But it does provide us, on this side of the House, with the only element we have to ask for the delay that we think is necessary to hear from the various groups that we need to hear from for an item as important as this one is in both terms of access and privacy of our own data.

[5:55 p.m.]

It will ensure, through this hoist motion, that progress is thoughtful and it is deliberate. In fact, I’m going to argue that the motion strengthens the legislative process. It reaffirms the role of the House as a place of careful scrutiny and not rubber stamping. We are not here merely to pass laws; we are here to make good laws. And good laws do require time.

I do support the goal of modernizing the freedom-of-information and privacy framework.

I have not had a single request in my constituency office nor of any of the residents in my constituency. No one has called my office and said: “Could you please change the laws around freedom of information and privacy? I’m really, really looking for an amendment.” I’m not sure why it is urgent from the government side of the House, but I can assure you that from the constituents in my riding and from this side of the House, the urgency does not exist.

The fact that we, through this hoist motion, could take six months to look at it in a more thorough way as it affects civil libertarians, as it affects private citizens, as it affects community groups…. All of that could be done, and still the government could bring this bill back if they saw it as being so essential to the running of the province. I still believe that administrative changes could effect the same thing as what I consider today to be flawed legislation.

We must guard against the temptation to prioritize efficiency over accountability and convenience over protection. People are entitled to access information. Our whole role in government is to be accountable to the people. Transparency on the basis of what belongs to the people is the most critical thing that we could ever ask for in a democracy. I do not think there are any trade-offs that we can accept lightly.

There is a principle at stake here that goes way beyond this particular bill. It is the principle that when legislation affects core democratic rights, the threshold of scrutiny and for scrutiny must be higher, not lower. We owe that to the people of British Columbia, and we owe that to the future generations who will live under the laws that we are enacting today.

A six-month delay is not excessive. It is reasonable. It is prudent. And it is necessary. In that time, we can conduct comprehensive hearings. We can invite people to come and talk to us. We can review comparative models from other jurisdictions. We can identify more flaws. We’ve already identified a couple that have been spoken to relative to Bill 9, and the government has recognized that and identified those. We can identify more and address them before they become problems.

We can also build consensus. Legislation that emerges from broad consultation is stronger. It is more resilient. It is more likely to stand the test of time. Perhaps most importantly, it is more likely to earn the trust of the public. When it comes to privacy and access to information, I believe every single person in the public arena will have an opinion and a say.

[6:00 p.m.]

The fact that so many have already spoken out that they are not in favour of this legislation…. I think the hoist motion is the best way that we can move forward and say that we have dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s, and the government can bring this bill back when we have had a much stronger representation from the people of this province.

I want to conclude by returning to the central question before us: what kind of legislative process do we want to uphold? Do we want a process that prioritizes speed even when dealing with complex and consequential issues, or do we want a process that prioritizes care, inclusivity and thoroughness? The hoist motion offers us the latter. It gives us the space to reflect, to listen and to improve. It is not an obstacle to progress. It is a pathway to better progress.

For these reasons, I urge all members of the House, this side and the government side, to just support a six-month pause on this bill through the hoist motion until we get it right, until we have the opportunity to hear from all of those that we should have heard from and to inject the changes that you’ve already suggested.

We can take the time to do it correctly and to honour the people in this province who are going to expect the kind of accountability, transparency and the opportunity to get their own data taken care of in a careful and managed way and have access to what is going on in this House and feel comfortable that we all are taking our jobs to serve them very, very seriously and doing it in the very best way we possibly can.

I urge everyone to support this hoist motion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to it.

Hon Chan: I rise today to speak to the hoist amendment to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

I have previously spoken on this bill, and I’m genuinely pleased to see it back to this House in this form, because what we are seeing today is something very important. We are seeing movement, we are seeing reflection, and we are seeing, at least to some extent, a willingness to listen.

The government has already introduced amendments to this bill earlier in the process. That in itself is a good sign. It suggests that the concerns raised by members of this House, by stakeholders, by journalists and by the public are being heard. Now, with this hoist amendment proposed to pause the bill for six months, we are presented with another opportunity, an opportunity not to rush the legislation forward but to get it right.

That is why I rise today to say clearly that I support the hoist amendment, because this amendment is not just about stopping process. It is about improving it. It is about ensuring that when we pass legislation that affects something as fundamental as access to information, we do so carefully, thoughtfully and with the full confidence of the people we represent in British Columbia.

Freedom of information is not a technical issue. It’s not just another administrative process. It is a cornerstone of democracy. This is how journalists uncover truth. This is how researchers analyze policy. This is how opposition members hold government accountable. And it is how citizens understand what their government is doing in their name. That is why any changes to our FOI system must be approached with caution.

This hoist amendment allows exactly that. It gives all of us in this House the time to go back to our communities, to speak with our constituents, to hear from stakeholders, to engage with journalists and to consult with experts.

[6:05 p.m.]

Six months is not excessive. In fact, it is the minimum time required to properly consult, to properly review and to properly fix what is clearly a flawed piece of legislation. It gives us the opportunity to host meetings, to host town halls and to gather feedback. And perhaps most importantly, it gives us the time to come back in a future session with a better, stronger and more balanced piece of legislation.

When I look at this process, I see something encouraging. With the government’s earlier amendment and now with this amendment brought forward by the opposition, we are seeing signs of collaboration. We are seeing willingness on both sides of this House to acknowledge that this bill is not yet where it needs to be. We are seeing recognition that more consultation is required, and that is exactly what this hoist amendment is designed to achieve.

In my previous speech on Bill 9, I outlined several concerns that I believe are shared by many British Columbians — concerns about transparency, concerns about access, concerns about accountability. One of the key issues I raised was the expansion of vague and undefined terms within the legislation — terms such as “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,” “excessively broad” or “requests that may interfere with the operation of government.”

None of these terms are clearly defined, and that creates a real risk. When definitions are unclear, interpretation becomes subjective, and when interpretation is left to the very government being asked to disclose information, the balance shifts away from transparency and towards control.

The reality is this. The most important FOI requests are the ones that ask difficult questions. They’re the ones that dig deeper, and they’re the ones that uncover mistakes, mismanagement or even wrongdoing. And yes, those requests may require time, effort and resources to respond to. That may create pressure for the government, and that may even disrupt the normal operations of government. But this is not a flaw in the system. That is exactly the system working as intended, because accountability is not always convenient.

If the standard becomes that a request can be ignored because it interferes with the operations of government, then almost any serious investigation could fall under this category. A request that uncovers a scandal could be labelled disruptive. A request that demands thousands of pages of records could be called excessively broad. A request that repeatedly asks for the same issue can be labelled repetitive. Suddenly the very requests that matter most are the ones that are the most at risk of being disregarded.

That is not a concern for just members of this House but for journalists, for researchers and for the public, and what we hear is that concern is loud and clear. In the recent weeks, I’ve received many emails from our constituents expressing their concerns about Bill 9. Those are thoughtful, informed individuals who are deeply concerned about transparency and accountability. I just want to share a few of their words with this House.

One of the British Columbians wrote: “I support modernization. What I do not support is using modernization as cover for making it easier to stall, price out, narrow or delay legitimate public interest requests. Bill 9, unless amended, risks deepening it rather than fixing it.” That is a powerful observation by our constituent.

Another British Columbian wrote:

“Major public controversies in this province, like infrastructure overruns, procurement failures or regulatory inconsistency, have been illustrated not by voluntary disclosure but by freedom-of-information requests.”

And he continues.

“The most troubling aspect of Bill 9 is culture. It signals that access is a burden to be managed, rather than a democratic obligation to be honoured, and normalizes the idea that government may determine with increasing discretion what is reasonable for a public to know. This falls outside the notion of duty and into distortion of moral responsibility.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I draw you back to the motion, please. I can appreciate your quotes, but we are here to debate, of course, the motion, not Bill 9 itself.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon Chan: Yes. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

This is actually the constituent emailing us, wanting us to amend it. I’m just explaining the background information, why our constituents want us to speak on their behalf to amend this Bill 9. This is the direct quote, that they want us to amend Bill 9.

These are not the words from politicians. These are the words of British Columbians, our constituents. They are telling us something very important. They’re telling us that this bill as it currently stands raises serious concern, that more work needs to be done and that we should not rush this process.

Wait times in our government service are already far too long. From health care surgical wait times to emergency room closures, from waiting for a long-term-care bed to getting a driver’s licence through ICBC, British Columbians are facing delays across the board trying to access government services.

Freedom of information is no exception. From ’22 to ’23, FOI applications have to be waiting for an average wait time of 192 additional business days just to receive a response. That’s nearly a year of delay for information that should be timely.

Speaking of wait times, one of my constituents has been unable to see a doctor because his MSP was somehow cancelled, despite being a resident since 2021. He reached out to the Minister of Health and our office for help, and what happened? He waited for nearly a year just for a response, and his issue is still not resolved.

This is exactly why our freedom-of-information system cannot be weakened. At a time when people are already struggling to get answers from their government, we should be strengthening access to information, not making it harder.

There are some elements in this bill also carefully considered, and that is why a six-month re-pace is very important. The introduction of fees for proactively disclosed information changes the timelines, shifting from “without delay” to “without unreasonable delays.” Once again, many of these terms are not clearly defined.

It affects real people. It affects how journalists do their job. It affects how researchers conduct their work. And it affects how citizens engage with their government. That’s why I believe this House has a responsibility to get this right, and that is why this hoist amendment is so important. It gives us time — time to listen; to consult; to refine; and to ensure that when this bill returns, it truly strengthens our FOI system rather than weakening it.

I just want to echo the member for Kamloops Centre today. It seems that under this government, definitions are constantly changing. The NDP government cancelled the Burnaby Hospital with a development contract. Fraser Health even sent out a communication saying that the project was cancelled. Yet this government stood up and said: “No, it’s not cancelled. It’s just re-paced. It’s rescheduled.”

Now fast-forward to today. When the opposition introduced a hoist motion to delay this legislation by six months, suddenly this government calls it a cancellation. So which is it? If under the NDP’s definition a six-month delay equals cancellation, then I would ask the Minister of Infrastructure: does that mean any project delayed by six months is now considered cancelled? If not, then perhaps this government should first get their definitions straight.

What British Columbians are seeing is a government that keeps shifting its language depending on the situation, and when definitions keep changing, accountability becomes very hard to find.

I just want to say one more thing. This NDP government has already been labelled by many as one of the most secretive governments in our province’s history. That is not a title any government should accept lightly. Transparency is not an option in democracy. This is fundamental.

I assume and I hope this government is not willing to continue down that path. If that were the case, we would not be here today discussing amendments; we would not be seeing changes proposed to this bill; and we, certainly, would not be considering a hoist amendment that allows for further consultation and reflection.

This is an opportunity — an opportunity for the government to demonstrate that it is willing to listen, an opportunity to show British Columbians that transparency still matters, an opportunity to correct course before this legislation moves forward. No government should want to be remembered as one that limited access to information, avoided scrutiny or made it harder for the public to get answers.

[6:15 p.m.]

I believe this House can do better, and I believe this amendment gives us the chance and the time to move in that direction. So I urge all the NDP members in this House — in fact, all members in this House — to support this motion.

I do not believe that this NDP government sets out with the intention of being seen as secretive. I do not believe that this government wants to be labelled as the most secretive government in history. Perception matters, and actions matter even more. When legislation raises concerns about access to information, about fees, about delays and about the ability to disregard requests, those concerns must be addressed, not dismissed. This amendment provides the opportunity to do exactly that.

Transparency is not a partisan issue; it’s a democratic principle. It benefits everyone, regardless of political affiliation, because today’s government will not always be tomorrow’s government. The rules we set today will apply to all of us in the future. That is why we must be careful and we must be thoughtful. That is why we must take the time to do this properly.

I am encouraged by what we are seeing today. I’m encouraged that this government has already brought forward amendments. I’m encouraged that the official opposition has brought forward this hoist amendment. I’m encouraged that there appears to be recognition on both sides of this House that more consultation is needed. That is a good thing. That is how this process should work.

Our constituents are watching. They are emailing our offices. They are engaged. They’re speaking up, and they are asking us to take the time to get this right. We should listen, we should take that time, and we should come back with legislation that truly reflects the values of transparency, accountability and the openness that British Columbians expect.

This hoist amendment is not a delay for the sake of delay. It is a pause for the sake of improvement. It is a chance to strengthen this bill, to rebuild confidence and to ensure that our freedom-of-information system continues to serve the public interest.

For those reasons, I’m proud to support this amendment.

Ward Stamer: I rise today in support of the hoist amendment to delay the consideration of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information Amendment Act, 2026, for six months.

Let me be clear at the outset. This amendment is not about obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It’s not about avoiding debate, and it’s also not about preventing reform. It’s about accountability, and it’s about transparency. It’s about ensuring that when this Legislature changes the rules surrounding access to information, public oversight and government accountability, we actually understand the consequences before we proceed.

Once trust in public institutions is lost, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild. British Columbians are already asking serious questions about transparency in our government. That is exactly why we need this hoist motion.

They are asking why freedom-of-information requests are taking so long. Statutorily, it’s supposed to be 30 days and then another 30 days in exceptional circumstances. The government would lead us to believe that 84 percent of the time, those requests are being met, but that is untrue. They are not, 84 percent, being met in that timeline — not even close. I would offer that the average is probably anywhere between three and six months, and that is totally unacceptable.

As we get into this speech, when we start talking about the reasons why we have a hoist and why we want to go back and have a pause for six months, a delay, there are many in this room that have said that this is going to outright kill the bill. As my colleague from Kamloops Centre has already alluded to, it doesn’t necessarily have to do that.

[6:20 p.m.]

It doesn’t say in the legislation that this will kill the bill. Maybe because of the existing timelines, it may, in fact, do it this session. But as the member for Kamloops Centre said, there’s no reason why this government, if they are still government in the fall, can’t certainly bring this back on the very first day that we re-enter our third session in this parliament. There’s nothing stopping this government from doing that.

From all indications, from what we’ve heard from not only the media but the public and all the other organizations throughout the province, the only ones that are supporting this measure…. It’s the government. That’s why we brought forth the hoist motion. That’s why I am supporting the hoist motion.

When we talked about how long it’s taking in the freedom-of-information requests, it wasn’t that long ago when there was an all-party committee, in 2022, that basically spelled out a long list of recommendations that were to be implemented in a timely fashion. Well, there are many of those recommendations that are still not implemented, and now we have this brand-new bill that’s supposed to fix everything.

Yet everybody outside of this chamber has exactly the opposite take on what this bill is supposed to do. It’s supposed to streamline the process. It’s supposed to make it easier for us to access the information. Instead, all we seem to get are longer and longer timelines, changes in the wording in the law. We’ll talk a little bit about that when we get to that section in my conversation.

But now we’ve gone from “withholding delay” to “withholding reasonable delay.” I looked it up. “Reasonable” is supposed to mean 30 days. Why are we changing it to reasonable? If, statutorily, we’ve already got it in the law that it’s supposed to be 30 days, why are we changing it from “without delay” to “without reasonable delay”? To me, that sounds either redundant or an opportunity to expand that timeline.

We keep having to talk about the hoist amendment, because that’s exactly what we’re trying to do in this section of our opportunity to be able to speak to this motion. But there’s also a bunch of other language that is being added to this. I’ll get to that when we get through this a little bit further, because I have definitions that I have found out online through Google, Wikipedia, encyclopedia.

I’m going to be able to ask the government side: why are we using those words, and why are we allowing public servants to either interpret or misinterpret those words — words like “frivolous,” as an example?

Now, the government is kind of laughing on the other side. My question is: why are we adding that type of nondescript language? It can be interpreted many different ways. Why do we not have strict guidelines on the freedom-of-information side of it? There are many things in this amendment…. If it’s supposed to streamline the process, it should be allowing us to have better access to information.

Again, the government doesn’t own this information. The minister or the ministries don’t own this information. This information was paid for by the taxpayer. That’s whose information it is. This government is the gatekeeper of that information. They don’t own it, and there should be very strict guidelines on what information is easily obtained and what isn’t.

We’ve already seen multiple examples of some things that probably would’ve, should’ve and could’ve been buried without our existing Freedom of Information Act.

[6:25 p.m.]

Again, everybody kind of shivers on the other side when we talk about $6,000 limo rides or we talk about gift cards that may or may not be appropriate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I draw you back, please, to the motion?

Ward Stamer: A hundred percent. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

That’s exactly why this hoist motion is important, because we don’t feel, on this side of the House, that we’ve had the proper engagement — not only ourselves, but the public or anybody else that’s concerned in freedom of information or transparency in this province — to effectively be able to ask those pertinent questions to this government.

Ten years ago information was so much easier and readily available than it is today, yet everything was filed back in paperwork, and you had to go and try to find it in a library. Now it’s on a computer, so you would think that it would be way faster to get information from this government. Now, the government will say that they’re overwhelmed, understaffed and that’s why they’re having challenges with meeting those timelines.

Again, statutorily, it’s supposed to be 30 days. They try to tell us it’s 81 percent or 84 percent. It is not. Look at the statistics. It is not even close to that — not even close. That is why we need the hoist motion.

If you need it to be, Mr. Speaker, I can refer back to it every two minutes, because that’s really what it’s all about.

It’s an opportunity to speak in front of the public and to be able to go through this piece by piece. I also don’t need to be reminded about what a hoist motion is. If you look at the legislation, it doesn’t say “kill.” It says: “delay six months.”

Just because of the timelines, it may or may not kill this. The government has the opportunity to shut this down. The government has the opportunity to vote on this at any time they want. The government can decide when we actually speak to this bill. It’s not up to us. It’s up to the government.

If it’s so important and means so much to be able to be open and transparent to the public, then why did it just get dumped onto our laps? Nobody actually supports this. A citizens coalition had a 10,000-name petition. I don’t see them bringing forth a petition of 10,000 supporters that want this, as an example. I would suggest that is why we are acting responsibly to hoist this bill.

Now, the government can pull this back at any time. The government can delay it themselves if they see fit. If the government truly believed that this is what we needed to do, they could do this. They still have the opportunity to kill this motion and carry on. If they think they’ve got that much support, they can kill this motion. What are they worried about? Are they worried that we’re going to bring out information to the public that the public doesn’t know? Is that what it is?

I don’t see anybody else knocking on the door saying: “Hey, we really need this legislation.” They haven’t been able to produce anything to even prove that — nothing. They seem to think: “What’s the big deal?”

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: I’m sorry. I thought that I had the floor.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Kamloops–North Thompson has the floor.

Ward Stamer: Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Speaker. They’ll have their time to speak.

I’d appreciate to have a little bit of courtesy. And allow me to speak in the time that’s allotted for me. This isn’t question period.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, once again, Kamloops–North Thompson has the floor.

I would ask you to speak to the motion before us, Member.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the amendment is a hoist motion, to be able to delay this bill for six months. I believe that gives anybody that speaks to this bill the opportunity to frame their response in why this hoist motion is deemed necessary.

[6:30 p.m.]

I would expect to have a little bit of latitude on being able to describe exactly why we’re having this motion in the first place, because that is exactly why we’re here. Not just to fill in some time, look at our phones, maybe not pay attention. Maybe actually understand what we’re trying to do here, because you know what? Government members may not like hearing this, but these concerns are real.

Again, we’re hearing that from journalists. We’re hearing it from local governments. We’re hearing it from businesses. We’re hearing it from advocacy organizations. And best, we’re hearing it from ordinary citizens that are just trying to access records.

That is why we have put forth a hoist, to allow us the time to discuss this. Unless somebody has a burning desire to be somewhere else, I think it’s more than prudent to be able to have the opportunity to discuss this important subject.

Because a hoist amendment allows us more time — more time for broader consultation. If it was such a big hurry to get this amendment put through and this bill through, how come this government hasn’t acted on all the recommendations back from the all-party committee in 2022? They’ve been in government for nine years. It’s not like it was a different government. Why haven’t they brought forth their bill with all those recommendations or at least a big chunk of them? They haven’t.

Again, that’s why we are offering, and we’ve put forth, a hoist motion. It’s because they’re not doing the work, all right? It’s been four years. It was an all-party committee, and they haven’t done the work. They haven’t done the work.

So now we’re supposed to just take it and say: “Yep, you bet. We’ve only got two or three weeks left. Here you go. We’ve got to fill in the time somewhere.” “Oh, by the way, we have this bill that we really think is important, and we really think that we should be able to streamline it with these changes.”

That’s exactly why we brought the hoist motion forth in the first place. It’s because it is not going to streamline it. It is not going to modernize it. It is not going to make it easier for access to information. What we’ve seen in that four years since the committee was struck are longer timelines, more redactions and more things happening behind closed doors. That is exactly why we need freedom-of-information protection.

Yes, as the member across mentioned, the independent commissioner is all for this and what they can and can’t do. But one of the recommendations that was brought forth from this side yesterday was to actually support the commissioner’s office more, because that was one of the recommendations back in 2022 that this government hasn’t even implemented yet. They haven’t even implemented it yet.

If we’re going to be discussing the hoist motion, as we are….

Interjections.

Ward Stamer: It’s a good time to start. I’m glad that you’re listening because I would offer that we’ve been talking for the last 17 minutes on this. I’m glad that you’ve decided to wake up and hear what we have to say.

[6:35 p.m.]

But if this bill is truly as beneficial as the government claims, then what’s wrong with another six months? If this government hasn’t been able to implement the recommendations from 2022, which was four years ago, what’s an additional six months going to cost? Just think about that for a minute.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Kamloops–North Thompson has the floor.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m actually quite surprised that the government side doesn’t really seem to think that this is a very serious matter.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to please speak to the motion before us, which is the amendment.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I thought that that’s exactly what we have to do, and if I have to keep talking about the hoist motion every two minutes, I can certainly do that.

We just talked about….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I’m going to ask for you to cede the floor to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. Thank you.

Ward Stamer: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I think it’s fairly clear to this side of the House that a hoist motion that talks about six months…. When I say six months, I shouldn’t have to say we’re having a hoist motion for six months. It should be pretty plainly clear on that side that’s exactly what we’re talking about. So when I said, “What’s it going to hurt to go for six months?” and we get a bunch of laughter on the other side, that is exactly why we’re having this discussion in the first place.

That side isn’t serious enough about trying to get to the truth. That’s a fact.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m going to ask you to come back, please, to the bill.

Recognizing the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Yeah. Point of privilege. Just speculating on intent.

Deputy Speaker: Just to correct you, Minister, it would be a point of order and not of privilege.

Member, I’m going to ask you to stay on point and speak to the motion that is before this House.

Ward Stamer: A hoist motion in this Legislature is a six-month delay. That’s what the legislation says. Now, the other side can misconstrue it any way they want, but that’s what the legislation says. In practice, yes, it can kill a bill, but it doesn’t have to. And a six-month delay is not obstruction. It’s responsible law-making, because if a bill isn’t worth passing, it’s worth getting it right. And we’re not saying to stop. We’re saying: “Pause and fix what’s broken.”

A hoist motion brings in accountability, as well, in this bill, because you just don’t weaken transparency and call it efficiency. That’s really what this bill is going to do. I can talk about the mechanics of the hoist all day, but the reality of it is that it gives us an opportunity to test it, to refine it and to prove it. That’s the mechanism of this. It’s serious stuff.

Six months will give us time to ensure this bill protects both access and accountability, because that’s what the freedom of information is all about — accountability — and nobody in this House should be afraid of that. That is why it should be easily accessible — end stop.

With a hoist motion, it gives us the opportunity that we aren’t going to rush changes to access-to-information laws that could risk permanent damage to our public trust. How many people are constantly using social media algorithms and misinformation to be informed on what’s actually going on in their daily lives?

That is why…. It’s no different than when we had our emergency drill today. Knowing that when we have emergencies, the first thing that we do as elected officials…. We tell the public to go to an official site. That’s exactly what we do.

[6:40 p.m.]

The reason why I’m bringing that up on this hoist motion is because of authentic information. It’s not hearsay. It’s not secondhand news. It’s supposed to be coming from the source. That’s the whole idea.

When we have things that have been added — wording, language — to this bill, like “frivolous,” “abusive,” “malicious,” what exactly does that mean? Does that now mean that anybody can decide what gets released as freedom of information? Is that what it means?

If the government is able to defeat this motion, then we’ll be able to ask those very specific questions when we get to committee. I’m quite sure when we get there, either this session or next session, those questions are going to be asked. So we don’t have to dwell on that, but it is part of the reason why we brought forth a hoist motion.

Now, with this hoist motion and having a six-month delay, this gives us an opportunity to set clear thresholds for rejecting requests. Again, we should be strengthening that, not weakening it.

If we’re going to have ambiguous language in there that can be misinterpreted…. I would suggest that if we do that, we’re going to have to come back and do it again. We’re going to end up having a whole bunch more requests pile up, because somebody may or may not make the right decision on whether that information is released. It should be very simple. I mean, there should be a big difference between top secret and classified than most of the information that is readily available.

With a delay in the hoist motion, we should be able to strengthen the role of the Privacy Commissioner. We can act on those recommendations from 2022. We can also ask for input from the commissioner on any other substantial changes. We could look objectively at the ministry and the ministers themselves and be able to say: “Where exactly are the bottlenecks? Show us. Actually show us the statistics. Show us why.” Where in the past, we had it on paper, now we have it on a computer, and now there are these extra delays.

Again, we go back to the hoist motion, why we’re actually pausing it so that we can have this discussion. It’s because there are fundamental structural problems in this bill. That’s why we’re doing it. It’s not frivolous on our end by doing it, if you want to use that same word. We have a purpose — so that we can actually get to the bottom of this. Give us enough time. Give us that six months. If there’s that much opposition outside to this, let’s give us that six months.

One of the other things that six months will do on the hoist motion is to improve our freedom-of-information processing capacity, especially when we’re talking about the classified information and not just having it on a whim. “Well, maybe that’s not really a very good request. Maybe they’ve made that request multiple times, so that’s frivolous. So now we’re not going to do it anymore.”

That might be just a journalist trying to get to the bottom of something. Maybe there’s something that is a little bit uncomfortable for somebody to have to admit. Yet it’s on the public record. It has been discussed. And then it gets buried.

With the hoisting motion and the six months, that six-month window can give us the right balance between preventing misuse and preserving the transparency that we all desire in this province.

[6:45 p.m.]

If the government truly is resisting a six-month delay, what are they afraid of that will come out in that time? Why the urgency to limit the access? Why not the urgency to earn the trust?

Good legislation withstands scrutiny. Only weak legislation fears delay. I think that’s what everyone on this side mentioned yesterday and today. That’s why we’re supporting the hoist motion. It’s why we believe it’s necessary — to get the government’s attention on this important bill.

A six-month delay is not about politics. It’s actually about protecting the public’s right to know. We shouldn’t be afraid of releasing that information. So many times now, when we see publications from the government side of things, it’s more on assumptions than it actually is on facts. It doesn’t have to be that way. Nobody is perfect. Everybody makes mistakes.

But when you see publications like the one that we just saw, where assumptions of investment in this province…. The reason why I’m bringing it up is because it comes back to trust. The reason why we’re asking for the hoisting motion in the first place is…. Numbers get thrown around about investment, from $50 billion to $80 billion. Now it’s $200 billion by 2035. Yet nothing is quantified. So if, all of a sudden, I wanted to get freedom of information on where they got that information from, I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to actually get that information.

I know time is short. I believe that we’ve covered a fair amount. I believe it’s important for us to have the opportunity, with this hoisting motion, to discuss how important it is for democracy in this province.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There shouldn’t be any reason why we can’t have access to information, information that was paid for by the taxpayer. This isn’t the government’s information. This isn’t the minister’s information or the ministry’s information. This is the public’s information. So why is it so hard to get that information in a timely fashion?

I think it’s important for us to be open and transparent and fully accountable to the taxpayers of this province. And with that, I am going to be supporting the hoisting motion on Bill 9.

The Speaker: The Chair is asking the member to move adjournment of the debate.

Ward Stamer: I move adjournment of the debate.

Ward Stamer moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

Recess and Sitting Hours

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move:

[That this House stands recessed for ten minutes and thereafter sit until adjournment.]

Motion approved.

The Speaker: The House stands adjourned for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 6:49 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, calling the House back to order.

Just for the information of members, the staff, again, carefully listened to the audio. There was no indication of anybody calling division on that at all. As a result, the debate will continue.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call continued debate on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

Second Reading of Bills

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

On the amendment (continued).

Scott McInnis: Good evening. I’m here today to speak in support of the hoist motion.

I’m glad we’re staying late. I could speak all night to this.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has the floor.

Scott McInnis: As we’re discussing this hoist motion, and as government tries to pull it up….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, could I ask you, please, to take your conversations into the hallway? Thank you.

Columbia River–Revelstoke, let’s try this again.

Scott McInnis: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

As I move to speak to the hoist motion for the next 30 or so minutes.… I was prepared to speak before the fast one pulled by government, somehow thinking they can push us into a corner and not want to do this. They’re mistaken, because we in the opposition certainly don’t mind working hard. We’re ready to go as long as necessary on this.

I’m speaking in strong support of this hoist motion for several reasons this evening. Freedom of information, obviously, as we’ve learned — and as I’ve learned, as a new member to the Legislative Assembly — is extremely important. This is the one mechanism for which the media, stakeholders, opposition members and the public have access behind the curtains of what government is doing. The reason I’m supporting this hoist motion is because I don’t feel that those individuals have had the opportunity to fully understand the potentially consequential impacts of this legislation.

And I get it. I’ve spoken to several former members, government officials. FOIs are difficult. They take up a ton of resources in government. They do take up time. They’re difficult to navigate through — staffing pressures, things like that — but too bad. It is essential. Freedom of information — let’s never forget that — is an essential component of our democracy.

That’s why I’m supporting this hoist motion, because I certainly feel like more time is required in order for British Columbians to fully understand what exactly this legislation means for everybody. Again, I really applaud the member for Saanich North and the Islands and his work in pioneering this legislation, going back many decades, and his strong advocacy both in support of the hoist motion and against this legislation.

[7:05 p.m.]

This is critical. I have to start with looking at this hoist motion and why it’s so necessary to continue this work six months hence. I mentioned this in my original speech: what consultation? To what extent has that taken place to draft the original amendments to the legislation? That’s exactly what this hoist motion is intended to deliver, as I see it. It’s that really, really critical consultation with a wide spectrum of British Columbians.

Again, I can’t help but notice that, not always…. We’ve been in support and in agreement with government on several pieces of legislation, but sometimes there’s a real top-down approach here. I’m not going to get into all the weeds about it, but certainly, hearing some of the ideas around the Heritage Conservation Act amendments, for example…. I certainly haven’t heard stakeholders line up in support of that.

That’s why this public engagement around legislation is extremely critical. That’s what this hoist motion is designed to do — to continue the conversation. Again, this isn’t the kind of legislation that when you implement it, it’s easy to wind back. Sometimes this government forgets about that.

Now, I get it. There have got to be ways to modernize and fix freedom of information. I’m sure there are excellent tools in AI and different modes of technology that could probably alleviate a lot of those constraints on the freedom-of-information system. But limiting access and creating subjective language around who’s able to be let in the door and who isn’t, isn’t the way forward.

I’m happy to support, through this hoist motion, looking at ways to make things a little bit more efficient perhaps. But when I look at the legislation, all I see are subjective terms for who gets to access that information and who doesn’t. That’s not freedom of information; that’s control of information. Again, that’s why this hoist motion is absolutely essential to getting this right.

Again, I ask the question to government. I’d love to get a list of stakeholders that were consulted meaningfully on this legislation who support it. From everything that I can see, there certainly aren’t that many, if any at all. Who actually wants this legislation?

I think that’s critical, when we put forward this hoist motion, to ask stakeholders: are you in favour of your access to freedom of information being further restricted? I certainly think we can all assume what that answer is going to be. That answer is, firmly, a no.

Now, with this hoist motion, I think, one very critical stakeholder that needs to be engaged meaningfully on this legislation is the media. Media’s job is to hold government accountable. And certainly, from the headlines I see…. I’m going to read a couple into the record here.

[7:10 p.m.]

The Tyee, who I wouldn’t consider…. I read the Tyee regularly, but I wouldn’t consider it, necessarily, to always oppose the government. This is the title: “B.C. Government Accused of a Stealth Attack on Freedom of Information.” I wonder what they would think if we had a hoist motion here to discuss what’s actually in the bill and the impacts on the people who work at the Tyee over the next six months.

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Association of B.C. Again, not necessarily a media outlet, but they wrote an article entitled “2026 Bill 9 Weakens Access in B.C.” The Coastal Front, a Canadian press syndicate, says: “Critics Say B.C.’s Freedom-of-Information Bill Would Weaken Public Access to Records.” March 12, 2026.

How about a Kootenay media outlet? The Nelson Star: “Critics Say B.C.’s New FOI Legislation Enables More Government Secrecy.” I’m sure they would love to have a chance to speak with government during the time post this hoist motion to see how their access to information would be impacted.

I don’t, in my list here…. I try. I know I’m in opposition, but I try to have a balanced approach to things where I can. I didn’t find any media that said, “Hey, this is a great idea. Bill 9? Ram ’er through as quickly as possible,” or: “Overwhelming public support for Bill 9. Should receive unanimous consent in the Legislature.” Didn’t find anything. Weird. Strange.

Again, I’m assuming that, through this hoist motion, a lot of these major media outlets would appreciate the opportunity to be consulted about this legislation, because nobody uses FOIs more than the media. They’re critical, the media. They’re the conduit between the public and government. They ask the tough questions and relay the answers to the public, sometimes through FOIs, when they don’t get the answers that they’re looking for. I know there are many legislative media folks who are quite good at that process, to be honest with you.

Again, what would their feedback be, post this hoist motion, to see: is this helpful in my industry, in the media? We need to take the time here, and the media is just one of the stakeholders that is really important. We need to take the time to look at, actually, what we are trying to achieve with this legislation.

Again, I’m happy to support an efficiency, because I know, or I’ve learned, that it’s complicated. FOIs are difficult. It could be considered burdensome on government. But it’s extremely important.

So it comes back to my question, which is why we’re raising this hoist motion, I think, in the first place: why the rush? What is the hurry to get this through? Does it have anything to do with questionable government expenditures — expensive limousine rides, multi-thousand-dollar cocktail parties, all paid for by the taxpayer? What’s the harm in supporting this hoist motion to get this legislation right, without eliminating the public’s right to know this information?

[7:15 p.m.]

Now, you always have to wonder about timing of things and how issues kind of line up to make sense, reading between the lines. Now, I know, in opposition, we’re on to something, and FOIs are going to be helpful for that and have been. That issue is the increasing light drawn onto U.S. Indigenous tribes trying to gain greater influence in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: I am going to direct you back, Member, to the motion, of course.

Scott McInnis: I was just getting there, Mr. Speaker.

Again, why the rush? Why can’t we pause, figure out the efficiencies without stripping away the core foundations of what freedom of information is? We can get this right, I think, if that’s the goal here — modernization and efficiency. That’s something I would support — through a hoist motion, to look at that.

But under no circumstances would I support rushing through legislation with very subjective language that hasn’t had the time to be ironed out as to who can have access to this information. I can’t support that.

But if you want to pump the brakes….

Whether opposition is involved or not is, I guess, somewhat irrelevant. But if government can come back in six months with a list of key stakeholders and say, “Lookit, we’ve done the hard work. We’ve done our due diligence. We’ve pounded the pavement. We’ve listened to what the public has to say. Here are the necessary changes to actually make freedom of information more accessible,” I certainly wouldn’t oppose something like that.

Now, again, I’m trying to find the endorsements for the legislation.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Okay, well, the commissioner endorses it, and that’s fair. Out of respect to the commissioner….

Well, is there anybody else? We haven’t heard any stakeholders that have said they’re in strong support of this legislation. That’s what the idea of this hoist motion is — to hit the street, hit the phones and understand what the public wants.

The fear is here that this type of legislation could be very difficult to walk back in the future. So let’s take the pause, Members. Let’s support this hoist motion and get it right. I think a re-pace of how we do this is essential for British Columbians.

[7:20 p.m.]

There’s a lot we could do in that time for which we’re doing the hard work on behalf of all British Columbians to ensure that the legislation meets — not everybody’s needs; that’s unrealistic — a fair majority of people’s needs without limiting their access to information. There are lots of avenues for which we can do that fairly and openly and transparently through the hoist motion to ensure that we’re getting it right.

Again, it has been mentioned several times here tonight — the 2022 freedom-of-information report and how there hasn’t been a lot of concrete action, shall we say, taken from many of those recommendations. I’m not going to…. I’ll admit I’m not an intimate expert on the report. I’ve read through it. But unless I missed it, it didn’t say anything in there about making the access to the information more difficult.

It lines up nicely to support this hoist, to take the six months, as we won’t be sitting. At least I don’t think so. But after tonight, you just never know.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: You never know.

To canvass the public is essential — various avenues, more than just simple posting on a government website for random and anonymous feedback. You can engage the public directly — community town halls, committee work, actual engagement.

I know the government doesn’t like that we’re going through this, but again, I’m quite worried about where this legislation takes us. Without this hoist motion, it may simply walk through this Legislature, and then we have to pay the consequences five, ten years down the road. Legislation builds off of itself. Rarely have we seen legislation that is just a one-size-fits-all and is never amended. This could be an example of that. I just don’t agree with where the government is taking this, wholeheartedly.

I’ve said it many times that I think it’s government’s duty to walk towards transparency, not away from it. I know that the track record of this government is, certainly, the former. I don’t know why. I can’t wrap my head around that.

Again, that’s why this hoist is incredibly important. Let’s do the hard work. We’re open in a bipartisan fashion to get it right, to make it more efficient, to make it better for all British Columbians through the freedom-of-information legislation itself.

As I mentioned, it can be cumbersome. Let’s get it right. Let’s hear from stakeholders from across this province — the rural areas who have specific needs, urban communities, northern communities. There is a way for which this can work through this hoist motion. Six months.

[7:25 p.m.]

Again, I’m not going to pretend like I know the ins and outs of all the legislative procedures. I certainly don’t. I’ll be the first to admit that. If it is then off the order paper, we’ll come back to the table with something better. We’ve proven to government that we can work collaboratively on things where it makes sense.

Six months. That’s a reasonable time frame. I mean, government is taking six months to figure out DRIPA, I think. Certainly, freedom of information…. We could take the time to figure this out.

I’d like to hear from businesses in that six months. I’d like to hear from seniors advocates and seniors organizations during that six months. I’d like to hear from the agricultural community in that six months. As I mentioned, I’d love to hear from media. I’d love to hear from our resource sector what the potential impacts of this legislation would mean to them. I’d like to hear from First Nations around this province, the building community, the finance community. I mean, we can go on and on.

But again, as I’ve referred to several times, I don’t see anybody here that supports this legislation. If I’ve misunderstood, I’d be happy to look at a list and look through it, if that’s the case. If I haven’t seen the list and there are key stakeholders around this province that say, “Yes, we don’t need the hoist motion. Bill 9 is fantastic and will put our province in a better place,” let me see it. In three minutes and 40 seconds, I’ll be out in the hallway. Give me a copy of it.

But I’m not sure that’s possible, because I don’t think it exists, which again is why this hoist motion is absolutely necessary.

I know government doesn’t want to do that because they’re not going to like what they hear. Again, I went through a list of media headlines, and there wasn’t one that even closely referenced any semblance of support for Bill 9. Not even close. That’s the reason for this hoist motion.

My question to the government is: what are you doing? You’re creating loopholes in the legislation where you can control who gets in. That’s not an open and transparent democratic society. That’s not freedom of information. That’s control of information.

If the goal here is to create efficiencies — there’s got to be a better way than what we see with Bill 9 — which is absolutely critical why this hoist motion is supported so that we can sit down with stakeholders across this province and figure out those efficiencies. Or if we’re not ready, let’s leave the legislation alone until we are. But this legislation, Bill 9, as it sits, without the hoist motion, is nothing short of dangerous.

[7:30 p.m.]

Again, it’s hard to walk things back, and sometimes I feel like members in government feel like they’re going to be there forever. Just imagine if us as opposition brought something like this in. They know as well as I do that they would be here on the same side saying the same things that I am right now at 7:30 at night.

This hoist motion is absolutely necessary to ensure that we are doing our job, which is listening to British Columbians and creating legislation which supports people. For Bill 9, that access to information is critical. We cannot lose that. Again, referring back to my friend from Saanich North and the Islands, how passionate he is about this….

I thank you for the opportunity today. I am in full support of this hoist motion, and I hope everybody else is too.

Steve Kooner: It’s my pleasure to stand here in support of the hoist motion that is referring to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. The motion reads that the motion for second reading of Bill 9 be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.” So it’s a hoist motion, and I’m supporting the hoist motion for a number of reasons, and I’ll just get into it now.

I want to begin by stating very clearly that this motion is about getting legislation right. When we are dealing with legislation that governs freedom of information, British Columbians’ right to access government records, there is simply too much at stake to rush this legislation, to rush the original Bill 9 legislation. So it’s fundamental that we delay this legislation for a number of reasons, and this is the reason why I’m supporting the hoist motion.

Freedom of information is not an administrative process. It is not a bureaucratic function. It’s a democratic safeguard. It is how citizens understand what their government is doing, how journalists uncover facts, how opposition members hold government accountable and, perhaps more importantly, how trust between the government and the public is maintained. When access to information is strong, trust grows. When access is weakened, trust erodes. Once trust is lost, it’s very difficult to rebuild, so it’s very important that we get this legislation right now.

There have been some amendments proposed by the minister responsible for bringing Bill 9 forward. That was after a couple of weeks of debate of this bill. I have not seen any legislation so far in this House where we’ve seen amendments being brought forward on second reading by a responsible minister. I have not seen this since getting elected a year and a half ago.

When you see that happening, it’s a precedent-setting situation. When you see amendments being brought forward by the government on their own legislation, you’re like: “We only debated this so far for two weeks.” But what if we can continue to consult this legislation over the next six months? If we consult this legislation over the next six months, imagine what updates or amendments we would probably come up with in addressing that this legislation is put out rightly.

[7:35 p.m.]

That was a fundamental thing that I noticed in second reading of Bill 9. After just two weeks of debate, we saw the minister responsible come up with a pair of amendments. Those amendments, I might add, were brought forward as clarifications of the legislation, meaning that after this legislation came about and was released, there was some misunderstanding about this legislation and what it actually means.

That was only after two weeks of debate. This motion would delay this legislation for a period of six months. We have had two weeks of debate. In six months, we’d have, say, another…. We’d probably have another 24…. Sorry, two weeks, so we’d have a calculation…. That’d probably be about…. Four weeks in a month times six would be 24 weeks. Just imagine how many updates we would probably have in regards to the concerns that we would actually hear about this legislation in 24 weeks versus two weeks.

Just hearing about that fact alone and not having had a situation in this House in the past year and a half caused alarms in my mind that maybe this legislation wasn’t well-thought-through by the government, when the government is now thinking that this legislation needs to be clarified when it’s already been introduced. That was a fundamental item setting me to believe that we needed to delay this legislation so we could actually get it right — if, in fact, the purpose of this legislation is what the government says it is.

Government’s been saying that this legislation is about modernizing freedom of information. It’s about modernizing accessibility of information. The government’s been saying that. If you were going to modernize legislation, it needs to be clear.

If we’ve already had significant problems that have led to the government wanting to make a couple of amendments already to clarify this legislation, that’s more of a reason to get more time with this legislation to make sure the government is actually getting this legislation right — if, in fact, the government’s intent is to have more efficient, more modernized freedom of information so the public can access government information.

Ultimately, government information is the public’s information. This is the House of the public. All the work that is done here is for the public. So the public should be having access to this information, and it should be very clear.

This is why this motion really matters. A six-month extension would allow for something fundamental — time to review; to listen; to correct; to ensure that what we pass in this House actually strengthens, not weakens, access to information.

We must truly make sure the “free” in “freedom” stands out so the public can have access to information and the public is not precluded from getting information or prevented from getting information that is their information. Once again, the government’s information is public information.

Accountability matters. For a number of reasons, we have seen how freedom of information is helpful to the public. It’s helpful to the public. It helps hold the government accountable.

We have seen a representative from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and that organization has done great work to hold this government accountable.

[7:40 p.m.]

Through freedom of information, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has been able to find out about situations where taxpayer money was spent, and it was not spent reasonably, I might add — understatement. Some examples of what we saw, examples from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation….

Now, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is very worried about Bill 9. I have to add that, because that’s a very important point. When stakeholders are very worried and when the government feels that their legislation isn’t that clear and they’ve got to bring in amendments, that is a strong reason to make sure you delay that legislation for at least six months, to have further consultation, to make sure the legislation is the right legislation.

Some examples from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation of stuff that they found out about government funding, what came to light through freedom of information so far, is that there were thousands of dollars spent by this government on gift card bonuses for bureaucrats. Now, when that was heard in the public, there was an outcry from the public. The public would like more information such as this through freedom of information so the public can actually hold the government accountable.

Another example. Through freedom of information, through the great work of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, it was discovered that $35,000 was spent by this government on an open bar reception. Once again, when that went out into the public domain, there was outcry from the public about that. How could $35,000 be spent on an open bar reception? People work hard for that money. They scrounge up money for their taxes to pay to the government, and they expect their money to be spent wisely, not on open bars.

Another example brought forward by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation through FOI requests was that two ministers…. What was found was that two ministers were found billing taxpayers $3,900 for an Amsterdam happy hour. Again, a lot of public outcry about that as well.

That was, again, through FOI requests. That was through freedom of information, through this legislation that the government is trying to amend now through Bill 9. Now they’re trying to make further amendments by bringing those in the House after two weeks of debate on second reading.

Another example why stakeholders are concerned and there needs to be further consultation with stakeholders, why we need to have a further delay…. Particularly, I’ll address the Canadian Taxpayers Federation again. Another example that they were able to discover through freedom of information about the government was that $354,000 was spent on novelty soccer balls. Now, that was a big news story out in the public, but that news story wouldn’t have been possible if we didn’t have information coming through a freedom-of-information request.

That’s another reason why stakeholders are concerned. They’re like: “How are we going to get this information when this bill was brought quite quickly through the Legislature?” And when it was brought into the Legislature, the government actually felt that it was not clear. That’s why they’re introducing certain amendments.

There are already concerns. There are concerns. The media has concerns. Stakeholders have concerns. Public has concerns. Opposition has concerns. It’s important to mention that it’s not just one opposition caucus that has concerns. There are also concerns from another opposition party within this Legislature.

I’ll get to that point about the other caucus that’s in here, because a member of that caucus, the House Leader for that caucus, was actually instrumental, was a lead in formulating the original Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act back in 1992. That member has highlighted what his concerns are, and I’ll get to that in a second.

[7:45 p.m.]

That member also spoke to why there needs to be a delay of this legislation, why the hoist motion needs to be supported. I’ll get to that after I finish with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which is a stakeholder that feels that this legislation shouldn’t be passed at this time — more of a reason why it should be delayed and the hoist motion should be supported.

Another example that came about through the freedom-of-information request by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was that it was discovered that a minister had billed $6,600 on a limousine service. Now, when that got to the public, that raised a big uproar as well.

From the information I’ve seen from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation feels that if they no longer have the freedom-of-information legislation as it exists before Bill 9, they won’t be able to get this information out to the public. And the public wants this information, because this is how the public is going to hold the government accountable.

It’s very, very concerning. All these examples…. These aren’t small amounts of money when we’re talking about taxpayer dollars. These are huge amounts of money. At this point in time, people are really, really struggling in this province. Everything is down for the worse. Their stakeholders are thinking that they need to have more access. There needs to be more consultation on this legislation.

We’ve heard that the government wants to bring certain amendments. I’ve never seen that happen in the last year and a half. We’ve seen other hoist motions that have been brought through this Legislature. But this is the first time…. In this example, we have a hoist motion. I think there’s more of a reason to get this whole hoist motion passed. This is the first time we’re seeing amendments introduced by the government when it has already introduced legislation, because the government actually feels that the legislation is problematic.

Those are some examples where freedom of information has been effective, and there’s a stakeholder out there that feels that there are going to be issues to hold this government accountable.

Once again, government information is the public’s information. Government representatives, MLAs, are public servants. We’re here to serve the public. If the public feels that they’re going to be able to hold the government less accountable, that really needs to be looked upon.

Going a little bit further, I actually want to get into this legislation and why the hoist motion should be applied. The minister responsible that brought this legislation, like I just stated earlier, has wanted to introduce a couple of amendments and has stated that’s for clarity purposes. But there are some significant reasons why the hoist motion should be supported.

There are fundamental flaws that require further consultation. The first couple of provisions that I have an issue with, that I think the public needs more time to think about, in terms of the hoist motion, are clause 3, clause 13 and clause 21.

Now, clause 3, interestingly enough, talks about time. We are also talking about time today. Clause 3 talks about striking out the language “without delay” and putting “without unreasonable delay.” What does that mean — “without unreasonable delay”? That sounds like a bit of more ambiguous language. That doesn’t sound like clear language.

We have a couple of amendments that the government wants to bring in for clarity purposes. But going to this clause…. I became a lawyer back in 2006. It has almost been about 20 years since I’ve been a lawyer. Me reading this language…. I look at it. I’m like: “This does not necessarily bring this language of this legislation more clear. It does not.”

[7:50 p.m.]

The average litigant that may be looking at this, to rely on this bill and look at this language…. They’re saying: “Language from ‘without delay’ to ‘without unreasonable delay’ — what does that mean?” It makes things even more ambiguous. It means that maybe you might not have access to freedom-of-information records for even a longer time, because it’s uncertain.

Going back to the point that the minister responsible for this legislation now wants to bring amendments, my point is that if there are amendments that are attempted to be brought now by a minister because of clarity reasons, there’s a clause in here that is unclear. This is absolutely the correct reason for a hoist motion — providing a delay so you can have further consultation so you can get further clarity on legislation. That’s one example why we need to support this hoist motion.

Another thing here is in clause 13 of this bill. Now, when we go to clause 13, we’re going to see even more unambiguous language. Going back to the minister that wants to bring a couple amendments for clarity purposes, because you wouldn’t be getting the legislation right if it wasn’t clear…. Now we’re discussing the hoist motion where we should have delay to get this legislation clear. These are problems, and the public is going to have problems. You’ve got to do further consultation with the public.

On clause 13, for example, it states reasons why you can refuse freedom of information. Freedom of information can be refused based upon behaviour of an applicant that is abusive or malicious. What does that mean? Is somebody going to open up a dictionary to figure out abusive, malicious? How does it apply to this situation? Or is the government just going to decide: “Well, in our interpretation, this is abusive, so too bad, so sad. We aren’t giving you any records. Now, go away”?

That’s not how a government is supposed to operate, because once again, government information is the public’s information.

This language isn’t clear. It’s not certain. That’s why the minister already wants to bring amendments for clarity purposes. This is why we need a hoist motion to make sure this language is clear, to make sure the intent that the government says is behind this legislation is actually put to use — for example, making this legislation more efficient for freedom of information.

This legislation goes further: “Responding to a request would unreasonably interfere with the operation of a public body or the government of British Columbia.” “The request is an abuse of the right to make a request” under section so-and-so or “is excessively broad.” This is very broad language. It’s not very certain. It’s not very clear.

Once again the minister responsible for this legislation wants to bring a couple amendments to make this legislation clear after two weeks of debate — more of a reason that if there are so many clauses in this that are unclear, you hoist. You hoist that legislation so you can have proper consultation so you actually make sure you have clear legislation.

Another point that comes to place and supports this hoist motion is clause 21 of this bill. Now, I’ve seen a statement from the minister responsible for this legislation stating that: “Oh, it’s untrue. This bill will not add fees.” It’s not untrue. I’ll point to clarity again. When you read this legislation, go to clause 21. It states that subject to subsection 1.1, the head of a public body must engage categories of records, and it goes on and on. Then it goes…. Then these records….

Actually, let’s just say what these records would be for. Okay, the head of a public body may require a person who asks for a copy of a record available under subsection (1)(a), which applies to categories of records that are in the custody or under the control of the public body and are available to the public without a request for access under this act…. If those types of records are requested, a public body may require a fee from the applicant.

[7:55 p.m.]

The minister made a statement that: “Oh, opposition is talking about fees, and that’s untrue.” But this clause talks about a fee, that a public body can charge a fee. So either the statement from the minister is inaccurate, or if the minister believes her statement is accurate, there’s some sort of lack of clarity here. And if there’s a lack of clarity, we need to hoist this legislation, have more consultation and make sure this legislation is clear.

Looking at the wording here, it talks about a fee. The minister is saying there are no fees, so where’s the clarity in that? Once again, I personally….

I have a lot of experience reading legislation. You know, that’s what I’ve done in my professional career prior to entering politics. So if I’m having some issues, if I’m reading it and it seems like a fee to me, and the minister is saying, “No extra fees, no fees,” there’s a clear problem of clarity there. More of a reason why we should have a postponement of this legislation.

I see that we’re running out of time here. I could probably go on and on, at the liberty of the government on the other side. I wish they gave me more than 30 minutes. I could probably go longer, much longer than 30 minutes. I think I’ve done debates in this House for a very, very extensive long time when I’ve been given that opportunity. I could probably do it again. But I think I’m running out of time here.

Let me just focus on examples. I’ve got a lot of stuff to talk about because I’m very concerned about this legislation, and I’m very concerned that we need to have more time on this legislation. As you see, I’m running out of time talking about my concerns. Imagine if we had the public involved and we were consulting them. We would need extensive time to make sure we get the legislation correct. We want to make sure that freedom of information is protected.

Going back to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, he’s made numerous quotes. He was actually one of the founding members of the original Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He’s had a lot of concerns, a lot of concerns.

I just want to read some quotes from the member. A quote from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, speaking during a B.C. Legislature Bill 9 debate in March 2026: “Every single NDP member in this House must speak up. This act with those amendments completes the effort that has been undertaken over the years to eviscerate this legislation.”

There are some clear concerns from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who spent so much time and effort formulating the original legislation. He’s feeling that with the amendments the Bill 9 legislation brought forward, it will eviscerate the original freedom-of-information legislation that we have. It’s really concerning.

Going further, another quote from the member for Saanich North and the Islands: “In combination, they effectively give the government the ability, as far as I’m concerned, to delay or not deal with any requests that they find problematic or potentially embarrassing.” Another example.

We heard the member for Saanich North and the Islands talk earlier in support of the hoist motion, what those concerns were.

[8:00 p.m.]

Just to go a little bit further, another quote. The member for Saanich North and the Islands was quoted in the Victoria Times Colonist during April 2026. “The B.C. NDP used to care about freedom of information. Bill 9 could be the final swan song of British Columbians’ access to information.” Very problematic quotes for this Bill 9 legislation, and this is coming from one of the founding members that developed this original legislation.

I think we’ve got time for at least one more quote before my time runs out here. Another one is from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, quoted in a Victoria Times Colonist opinion piece dated April 2, 2026: “In 1991, I led the team that developed B.C.’s freedom-of-information legislation for Mike Harcourt’s NDP government. The next year all parties in the Legislature voted unanimously to pass what was then considered the most open FOI legislation in Canada. Since then, the system has been chipped away, piece by piece.” Huge problems.

We’ve heard, from the minister who wants to introduce amendments, clarity issues with this legislation. We need to delay this legislation so we can get clarity from the public.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you to my colleague from Richmond-Queensborough. I think I might want to borrow some quotes here at the end, so if you’ve got some extras, field them on now this way.

Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I think this is the latest I’ve ever spoken, outside of estimates last year at 2 a.m. This seems like a good time to try it out again.

I’m here today to discuss Bill 9 and why I don’t think we should finish second reading at this time, but we should move it to six months from now. A hoist motion, contrary to what people think, is not an act of obstruction. It’s not a procedural trick. It’s not partisan delay for the sake of delay.

A hoist motion or an amendment like this is one of the most ancient and deliberate instruments available to this House, a formal declaration that a piece of legislation requires more time, more evidence, more consultation and more scrutiny before it is fit to be enacted. It is, at its core, an act of responsible governance.

In the case of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act of 2026, it is not merely warranted; it is necessary.

Let me be direct about what we’re asking for on this side, which is six months — not forever, not indefinitely, not a rejection of the stated goals of modernization and administrative improvement — just six months to consult properly, to gather evidence, to hear from those most affected, to bring genuine clarity to provisions that currently lack it and to ensure that a law which touches the very foundations of democratic accountability is enacted in a form that actually strengthens rather than weakens those foundations.

Six months is not really a long time when measured against the decades this legislation will shape. Six months is a reasonable investment in getting this right. Let’s not forget that this very government was wanting to delay critical legislation around DRIPA. So asking a bill like Bill 9 to be delayed six months shouldn’t be controversial or, really, a big ask.

There is an importance of what is at stake here. Before I address the procedural arguments in favour of this amendment, I want to revisit a bit of substantive concerns with this bill, because it is those concerns that make this amendment necessary.

[8:05 p.m.]

Freedom-of-information legislation is not administrative infrastructure in the ordinary sense. It is constitutional infrastructure. It defines the terms on which citizens can scrutinize their government. It establishes whether journalists, researchers, civil society organizations and ordinary members of the public can verify the actions taken in their name with public resources.

When this system functions well….

Deputy Speaker: Member for Peace River South.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am an engineer. I think I can count. I’m wondering if we have quorum, please.

Deputy Speaker: Correct, yeah. We’re short of quorum.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Oh, okay. Here we go. Thank you.

Member for Langley–Walnut Grove continues.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you.

When this system functions well, government is visible and accountable. When it is weakened, even incrementally, even unintentionally, accountability becomes theoretical, rather than structural.

My original second reading speech on this bill identified five areas of fundamental concern, which is why I believe that this amendment is timely and required.

Those five areas of concern were: the expansion of discretionary powers that create inconsistency and reduce enforceability, risks to timelines that render information effectively inaccessible, fee structures that create financial barriers to access, definitional and scope ambiguities that could quietly narrow records accessibility and potential weakening of oversight mechanisms that ensure the system is upheld.

Not one of those concerns is minor. Not one of those has received the evidentiary response it requires during the course of this debate. That gap is precisely why this House should not proceed with second reading today and why we should all vote in favour of this amendment to delay it six months. What a six-month amendment motion like this provides is the following.… Let me explain, specifically and practically, what six months would make possible.

First and most critically, it would allow for genuine public consultation. As this bill currently stands, the government has framed it as a modernization exercise, an administrative update to bring the freedom-of-information regime into alignment with contemporary realities.

If that framing is accurate, it should be easy to demonstrate through open consultation. Six months would allow the government to publish the bill’s provisions; invite written submissions from access-to-information advocates, journalists, legal experts, civil liberties organizations, academic researchers, Indigenous governance bodies and the public at large; and return to this chamber with a record showing that the amendments have been tested against real-world perspectives.

That consultation process does not currently exist in any meaningful form. Bill 9 has not been subject to broad public access. The government has not released a detailed policy rationale explaining the evidence for each amendment. The stakeholders most affected by changes to access law have not had an adequate opportunity to review, respond and inform the final shape of the legislation. Six months would close that gap.

[8:10 p.m.]

Second, this amendment would allow for a comprehensive, independent review of the bill’s cumulative impact. One of the central warnings in my second reading speech was precisely this: that individual amendments may appear limited in isolation but that legislation must be assessed as a whole. Systems do not operate in fragments. They operate as integrated frameworks.

At this stage, there has been no independent analysis published by the government or any other body quantifying the combined effect of Bill 9’s amendments on the rate of successful access requests; on average processing times; on cost barriers; or on practical, scoped, accessible information. Six months would allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner, academic institutions, legal organizations or independent expert panels to conduct that analysis and bring it forth before the public record.

When we are reforming the law that governs transparency, we should not be operating in an evidence vacuum. We should be acting on the basis of demonstrated need, demonstrated impact and demonstrated improvement. This amendment creates the time and political conditions to produce that very evidence. The concern about expanded discretionary powers is not a theoretical objection. It goes to the practical enforceability of access rights.

Discretion in public administration is not inherently problematic. Officials must make judgments. The question is always about the scope of that discretion, the degree to which it is bounded by clear standards and the adequacy of oversight mechanisms to catch and correct errors. Six months would allow the government to work with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and legal experts to develop binding guidance or to bring forward amendments that accompany any expansion of discretion with equally expanded standards for its exercise.

Discretion that is bound is different in kind from discretion that is open-ended. The bill as currently drafted does not clearly achieve the former. If the government believes it does, it has six months to make that case with specificity and to demonstrate, through consultation and expert review, that the accountability mechanisms are sufficient. That is not an unreasonable request. It is the minimum standard of justification that the importance of this subject demands.

The timeliness problem that I had previously addressed in my first Bill 9 speech cannot be dismissed. The issue of timeliness deserves particular emphasis because it is one where the harm from inadequate reform is both immediate and ongoing. Information delayed is often information denied. That is not rhetorical flourish. It is a practical observation with a long evidentiary record.

Access requests are frequently filed because requesters need information to inform decisions, to respond to government actions or to contribute to public debate. When that information arrives after the relevant decision has been made, after the policy has been implemented, after the debate has concluded, it no longer serves its core accountability function.

My primary concern with Bill 9 is not that it explicitly extends timelines. The concern is that certain of its provisions, particularly those expanding the grounds on which requests can be limited or delayed, may have that effect in practice without clearly committing to the intent in text.

Six months would allow the government to publish projected processing time data under the proposed regime. It would allow analysis of whether the amendments would increase or decrease the proportion of requests completed within existing statutory time frames. It would allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to provide an independent assessment of likely operational impacts.

If the government’s contention is that the amendments will actually improve timelines, it should welcome that analysis, because a clear evidentiary record will strengthen the bill rather than weaken it. What is not acceptable is proceeding and finishing second reading without that record in existence. The stakes are too high to rely on assurances alone.

[8:15 p.m.]

At my second reading speech, I also raised the issue of fees and cost recovery mechanisms. It is worth returning to this concern with some precision, because it touches a question of equity that goes beyond administrative efficiency.

Madam Speaker, just give me a little latitude here, because I will wrap it back into why this amendment is really, really important.

Access to information should not be a luxury available only to those with institutional resources. Public interest organizations with legal capacity are differently situated than an ordinary member of the public who wants to understand how a decision affecting their community was made. If fee structure shifts in ways that are neutral in appearance but regressive in effect — that is, if they impose proportionately greater burdens on those with fewer resources — then access to information ceases to function as a universal right and becomes, in practice, a tiered system.

The government has not published a distributional analysis of the proposed fee changes. It has not demonstrated that access will remain practically available to individuals and small organizations.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

It has not shown that the changes will not disproportionately reduce requests from the constituencies that most depend on access to information as a lever of accountability. Six months would create the opportunity to produce that analysis. It would allow the government to model the likely impact of fee changes on different categories of requesters and to bring that modelling before public scrutiny.

If the changes are genuinely neutral in their distributional impact, that modelling will demonstrate it. If it reveals unintended consequences, the bill can be amended before those consequences become law. This is the exact kind of careful, evidence-based policy development that legislation of this kind of importance deserves and that the current timeline has not permitted. Six months is all we’re asking.

The fourth area of concern that I had spoken about in my second reading speech was definitional ambiguity, the risk that small changes in wording could have large consequences in application. This concern is sometimes treated as a technical matter better left to a committee review or regulatory guidance. I want to argue that in the context of freedom-of-information legislation, it is a first-order policy concern. Transparency does not disappear all at once. It erodes incrementally. Exemptions that were intended to narrow have been interpreted broadly.

If Bill 9 introduces provisions with definitional ambiguity in any of these areas, the risk is not hypothetical. It is structural. Unlike provisions that are clearly and explicitly restrictive, which can at least be identified and challenged directly, ambiguous provisions are more dangerous precisely because their restrictive effects may only become apparent through years of administrative practice.

Six months would allow the government to work with legislative counsel, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and legal experts in access-to-information law to identify any provisions that carry definitional risk and to tighten their language before the bill is enacted. That is not a criticism of this government’s drafting capacity. It is a recognition that legislation of this complexity benefits from this kind of deliberate, multiperspective review that the current timeline has not provided.

Perhaps the most structurally significant concern with Bill 9 is its potential impact on oversight mechanisms. Oversight is the system’s last line of defence. It is the mechanism through which the abstract commitment to transparency is translated into enforceable rights.

When I previously spoke to Bill 9, it was measured in its expression of concern about oversight, noting that any reform affecting the capacity, authority or effectiveness of oversight must be clearly understood. That is a reasonable and restrained formulation. I want to be somewhat more direct.

Oversight functions as a systematic safeguard. Its effectiveness is not limited to the cases it directly adjudicates. It shapes the behaviour of public bodies across all requests because those bodies know that non-compliance carries consequences.

[8:20 p.m.]

Six months would allow for a clear and independent assessment of whether Bill 9’s provisions individually and cumulatively strengthen, maintain or weaken the oversight function. It would allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to provide a formal and public assessment of the bill’s implications for their office’s capacity and authority. It would allow the government to bring forward amendments, if needed, that ensure that the oversight function is not merely preserved but actively reinforced.

That is the appropriate standard. Oversight should not be a casualty of administrative modernization. It should be a beneficiary of it.

There is a broader argument embedded in my original critique of Bill 9, and now it deserves to be elevated in this context. The argument is that genuine modernization of access-to-information regimes means moving from a reactive to a proactive model.

A reactive system — one built around formal requests, processing timelines and response obligations — is better than no system at all. But it is not the best available model. The best model is one in which government information is disclosed proactively in accessible and timely formats, reducing or eliminating the need for formal requests in the first place. If Bill 9 does not meaningfully advance proactive disclosure, it is not a modernization bill in any substantive sense.

Six months would allow the government time to strengthen Bill 9’s proactive disclosure provisions or to develop accompanying policy commitments that advance this agenda. It would allow consultation with civil society organizations on what proactive disclosure would look like in practice for the types of records most frequently requested. It would allow British Columbia to position itself as a leader in transparency rather than as a jurisdiction making incremental adjustments to an existing reactive system. That is an opportunity. Six months would preserve it. Proceeding today would foreclose it.

I anticipate that the government will argue. Mind you, I don’t think any of them have stood up in response to this six-month delay that we’re requesting. But I imagine that the government would argue that the concerns raised are exaggerated, that the bill’s provisions are proportionate and that any remaining issues can be addressed at committee stage. These are standard arguments against any amendment like this, and they deserve a direct response.

On the question of proportionality, the government has not released the evidence base for its proportionality assessment. We do not have modelled projections of the impact of expanded discretionary provisions. We do not have distributional analysis of fee changes. We do not have independent review of definitional scope. We do not have a formal assessment from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the bill’s implications for oversight capacity.

Without that evidence, a claim of proportionality is not a demonstrated conclusion. It is an assertion. Six months would allow that assertion to become a demonstration. If the government is confident in this bill, it should welcome the opportunity to put the evidence on record.

On the question of committee review, committee review is a valuable tool, but it operates under significant constraints. It does not typically include comprehensive….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. Just pause for a moment.

Recognizing the Minister of Environment.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we are supposed to be talking about the hoisting amendment and not talking about the bill, and I just wanted to call point of order on that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much for your input on that, Minister.

Misty Van Popta: Each of these things…. I’m talking about what the issues are and why six months would be beneficial, which is what this amendment is about. It’s about adding a six-month timeline to Bill 9. When I highlight what the issues are….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. Just pause for one moment.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I believe she’s talking about the process for a legislative bill and she’s not speaking to the hoisting amendment.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the advice from the Minister of Environment.

[8:25 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: I mean, I guess I can say that, maybe, when I talk about the process which a bill goes through. But in relation to Bill 9, it is an important step of why I don’t want it to go to committee review. I want it to be hoisted for six months instead of going to committee.

My challenge is that it is in committee review that they have…. We can’t make amendments there because there are significant restraints, so this is a very valid argument in terms of why we need a six-month delay on this bill. So I will finish this paragraph.

It does not typically include comprehensive independent analysis. It does not provide the same opportunity for broad public input as genuine consultation process. And critically, by the time a bill reaches committee, its core architecture is largely fixed. The amendments that the committee review tends to produce are at the margins of legislation, not at its foundations, and the concerns with Bill 9 go to its foundations. That’s why we need six months more to look at this bill.

They are concerns about the balance between discretion and enforcement, between access and restriction, between a proactive model of transparency and a reactive one. These are not issues that can be adequately resolved in the confined space of committee review. Six months creates the space to get the foundations right.

I want to address directly the argument that six months represents an unreasonable delay. If Bill 9 is enacted, it will shape British Columbia’s access-to-information regime for years, possibly decades. The legislation it amends has been in place since 1992. The amendments being introduced will define the terms of public access, government accountability and information oversight for a generation of public administration. Against that time frame, six months is not a delay. It is a proportionate investment in due diligence — 1992 to now.

Another six months to review this group of amendments is not unreasonable. During those six months, the existing access-to-information regime continues to operate. Requests continue to be processed. The public continues to have access to information under current law. The rights and obligations of public bodies and requesters remain in place. There is no gap in accountability during the six-month period of review.

What six months does is create the conditions under which the amendments to that process can be developed with the care they require. It creates the space for consultation; for evidence-gathering; for independent review; and for the kind of deliberate, multiperspective analysis that legislation touching the foundations of democratic accountability demands. That is not a partisan argument. It is a principled argument about what responsible legislation requires.

There’s one final dimension of this argument that I want to address, and that concerns the precedent this House sets through its decisions. How this government treats legislation affecting the transparency of government sends a signal. It tells the public how seriously their elected representatives take the mechanisms of democratic accountability. It tells the public bodies and institutions how the legislation weighs administrative convenience against public access rights. It tells future governments of any party what standard of scrutiny they can expect when they bring forward legislation in this area.

If this House votes down a six-month pause on Bill 9 without a compelling evidentiary response to the concerns that have been raised, it sets a precedent that amendments to freedom-of-information law can proceed to second reading without independent analysis, without comprehensive public consultation and without clear demonstration that they strengthen rather than weaken access. That is the precedent this House should not set.

Conversely, if this chamber supports the amendment to delay this legislation, it sends a different signal. It says that legislation touching democratic accountability will be held to the highest standard of scrutiny. It says that the government is expected to demonstrate, not merely assert, that its reforms serve the public interest. It says that six months of careful, evidence-based review is a reasonable expectation for any legislation that affects the terms on which citizens can oversee their government. That is a precedent worth setting.

[8:30 p.m.]

In conclusion, the motion before this House is simple in its terms but significant in its implications. It asks that Bill 9 be deferred for six months — not rejected, not defeated, but paused. Paused to allow for genuine public consultation. Paused to allow for comprehensive independent analysis of the bill’s cumulative impact. Paused to allow for the government to bring forward an evidentiary record, demonstrating that its amendments strengthen access rather than restrict it. Paused to allow for engagement with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, with access-to-information advocates, with legal experts, with journalists and with the public.

The concerns identified in my previous second reading speech are serious. They go to the foundations of the access-to-information regime. They raise questions about discretion, timeliness, etc. Those concerns deserve more than reassurance. They deserve evidence. They deserve clarity. They deserve the time necessary to produce both.

Freedom-of-information legislation exists to ensure that government cannot recede from public view. It exists to protect the mechanisms through which accountability is made real rather than symbolic. It exists to ensure that the public, the press, the research community and the elected opposition members have the tools that they need to scrutinize power.

Legislation that touches these foundations should itself be subject to the highest standard of scrutiny. Six months would create those conditions under which that demonstration can be made. Six months would allow this House to reconvene, examine the evidence and proceed, if the evidence warrants, with confidence rather than uncertainty. That is not a high bar; that is an appropriate bar.

I urge everybody here today, when this amendment comes forward, to support the amendment — not in opposition to modernization, not in defence of the status quo for its own sake, but in recognition of the integrity of access to information and with it the integrity of democratic accountability. It’s worth six months of careful, rigorous and evidence-based review.

Let’s support this amendment. Let’s give this bill the scrutiny it requires. Let’s give the public the confidence that their transparency rights are protected.

Jeremy Valeriote: I am deeply gratified and very excited to be here to speak to the motion to delay Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

I’d like to start by saying that I, of course, fully support all the comments made by my colleague, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who is an expert in this area of legislation. You may find at some point that these words sound familiar, because I defer to him on all matters FOI, given his stature as the grandfather of freedom of information in this province.

I’d also like to thank my colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock for bringing this motion forward. It’s very clear to me, crystal clear to me, that this piece of legislation is simply not ready — not ready for prime time, not ready to be passed into legislation.

The government needs to take the summer to do the work to get this bill right. Instead, what we have is the government rushing this piece of legislation through. After all, that’s why I’m standing here at 8:34 p.m. rather than enjoying the B.C. Ale Trail, which is, I think, where we’d all rather be.

This motion is necessary because of exactly the kinds of moves that the government has pulled tonight. When this government has an opportunity for collaboration, for reconsideration, for hearing and responding to the valid concerns that members of this House have raised, they insist that they know better, that critique is a challenge, that dissent is unacceptable.

This is not a government that can be trusted with weaker freedom-of-information laws. This is a government that is widely said to be the least transparent in Canada, and they are currently showing that with their actions again and again.

So I want to speak to why it’s necessary that this bill be stood down for six months and amended.

[8:35 p.m.]

Freedom of information is the cornerstone of our democracy. People must have access to information. They must understand why decisions are being made on what information and at whose request.

As my colleague said yesterday, 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 and citizens to have direct oversight of government. This keeps decision-making connected to the people it affects, and that is why we must delay this bill for six months.

People cannot meaningfully participate in public debate if 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’re made without transparency.

Strong access-to-information laws set expectations inside government as well, encouraging better recordkeeping, clearer reasoning and more careful decision-making.

These are the questions that the government can use six months to answer: how this bill is not an attempt to evade necessary scrutiny, how this bill isn’t simply making it harder for citizens to access more information and giving more discretion to centralized decision-makers to determine who gets what and when.

The concerns that my colleagues from across this side of the House have raised are real. The questions we are asking are legitimate. If we can’t get answers from where we stand here, how on earth are we supposed to believe that they will tell the public anything that they don’t want to hear?

I would like the government to spend six months thinking about what “reasonable” means, how they define it now and how they intend to define it when they’re back on this side of the House. We haven’t had any certainty or scrutiny. That is what this is about. We trade sides, except for the Third Party. We always stay on this side. How would we want to be treated when we’re on this side of the House? I think we should all apply that test.

We haven’t had any certainty or security about how the government intends to define “reasonable.” I stand here unclear on what a reasonable amount of time is, other than whenever the scrutiny they’re trying to avoid has passed. Perhaps when the media has moved on to the next scandal.

I stand here unclear on how a public body can determine when to refuse to disclose information about a proposed program — again, a level of certainty that I should be able to have.

The government has not done the work on this, and they need six months more to do it. There should not be members of this House who are legitimately concerned about their access to detail on programs and government spending.

Freedom of information is not just the access to the information itself. It’s the wider regime in which it sits. It’s about the level of trust that members of the public, business, civil society, academics can have in the institutions governing them.

It’s very clear that this regime is under threat because of this bill and because of the way in which it has been introduced and debated without the work being done, without sufficient consultation, without rigorous analysis, without the ability for the concerns of people from across this province to be assuaged — work that requires six more months.

Government information does not belong to the government. It belongs to all of us, and the government owes the people of British Columbia the responsibility to do this work carefully, with precision, with care for not only the change that they’re making but the precedent that they’re creating.

A six-month delay gives the government that opportunity. If this legislative change is necessary, the government must prove it. Bring us along with you. Bring us along so we don’t have to sit through the night objecting to this bill, proposing amendments.

If the government can be trusted to make decisions in the best interests of British Columbians, then you’ll hear the people of British Columbia when they say “stop,” when they ask you to pause, when they tell you that what you’re doing is dangerous and that you haven’t brought them along with you.

Access-to-information systems exist precisely because governments are not infallible. History has repeatedly shown that secrecy can conceal waste, corruption, abuse of power and poor decision-making. As the saying goes, act in haste, repent at leisure. This is not something that should be rushed through.

I hear that government officials have been surprised by the backlash to this bill, that they thought it would pass with minimal fuss, that it was an administrative change. The fact that they’re surprised shows the danger of this bill and details exactly why this pause is so desperately needed. The government has once again proven that they’re out of touch with the reality on the ground in British Columbia, that they’re not listening to anyone outside of their bubble.

[8:40 p.m.]

This motion gives them the opportunity to fix that, to speak to people who haven’t been consulted on this information, to look at other jurisdictions and how they manage freedom-of-information requests in the age of mass information. I suspect they’ll be surprised by what they find, because I suspect the answer is proactive release, not limiting the grounds, the time frames or the discretion.

Once again, I repeat that the work here has simply not been done. Once again, I echo my colleague, who was critical in the development of this piece of legislation when it was first developed, when it was considered world-leading legislation. In his speech to this bill at second reading, he spoke to the work that was done in the development of the bill — the consultation, the amendments, the gaining consensus from across the province.

In his speech on this motion yesterday, he said by way of comparison that in 1992 when the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was introduced in this Legislature, a discussion paper was released publicly. There was feedback sought from all interested parties — including journalists, including future users of the act, including organizations, including businesses — essentially, any British Columbian and any British Columbia organization or business that had any interest in legislation, either because it intended to use the legislation or because it wanted to ensure the legislation was robust.

By way of comparison, that hasn’t been done in six months. Hoist is needed to do it. I note that after that feedback was provided on the discussion paper, there was actually a televised debate regarding the legislation. Imagine a televised debate on a piece of legislation like this, involving the minister and others.

The submissions made during that period of time were made public. This all resulted in amendments to the legislation, which is a far different process than the process that has been undertaken for this bill. It gives a clear indication of the type of work that could be conducted over the next six months if this motion is adopted. None of this work has been done.

These legislative changes are difficult. They speak to some of the biggest powers that government has and can most easily misuse. Restricting this access in haste is a mistake, one that we don’t have to make. We’re fortunate there are experts and stakeholders who stand by to advise the government on what the path forward is here.

We should be looking to the 2022 report, as a whole, from the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for changes. We should remember that six months is not a long amount of time. If the government can come back with proof that these changes are necessary, then we look forward to receiving that information. We look forward to the discussions that could be had, the discussion papers that could be disseminated, the experts in democracy and informed electorates that could provide us with information, televised debates on this piece of legislation that could occur.

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 have 19 minutes to…. I have a lot of minutes left.

There are parts of this bill, to be frank, to be fair, that solve some real issues that this caucus doesn’t have a problem with. I’m supporting the hoist motion because there are other parts of the legislation that are very problematic. 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 and another reason why I support this hoist motion, 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 the balance, I am supporting and speaking in favour of 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 limit access to information are not changes that improve freedom of information. For that reason, this act needs to be hoisted for six months. My colleague covered some of this in his second reading speech. That was in a different context. That was in opening debate of this legislation. This is about the six-month hoist.

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, especially when it comes to the middle of the night when we’re standing here talking about a hoist motion. It’s a big decision. It’s important to provide an overview of the specific clauses that we see as problematic in the legislation, as the government is now proposing to amend some of these clauses.

[8:45 p.m.]

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….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I do want to draw you back to the motion, of course.

Jeremy Valeriote: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Just please relate your comments to the motion.

Jeremy Valeriote: The motion before the House is the motion to hoist the bill. I would have to have very strong reasons for supporting hoisting of the bill.

I support the motion because it will allow six months for further consultation with all those impacted by the provisions of Bill 9. It allows additional time to consider the recommendations from the 2022 special committee report on FOI and privacy. It allows, during that six months, to consider in much more detail the sweeping new powers contained in Bill 9 and to ensure, in that six-month period, that there is actual evidence, not anecdotal evidence but actual evidence, to support the changes.

By way of explanation, in that six-month period, we can overcome a major flaw in the legislative process with respect to Bill 9, which is that it is not enough to consult within government. There needs to be robust consultation outside of government. That certainly cannot be accomplished in the time available till the end of May, but the six-month period will give the government ample time to properly pursue consultation.

I would also note that that six-month period…. We’d certainly suggest how the government uses that six-month period as part of the release of a discussion paper and the gathering of feedback, to be able to include in that discussion paper an explanation of why not or why they would proceed with the recommendations of the all-party committee. And with all that information, that six-month period will enable it to be properly gathered, considered, made public, analyzed and used to inform changes to the legislation or, perhaps, new legislation.

I want to talk…. Thirty minutes is a long time, and I have a hard time speaking slowly, but perhaps I will try and take that up. I just want to talk a little bit more about some of the specific ways in which that work can be undertaken over the six-month period and illustrate some of the benefits. I don’t plan to revisit earlier speeches in relation to this legislation, but I do want to illustrate, in respect to some of the sections, the work that would be undertaken over the six months that has not been undertaken so far to date.

In section 1 of the act, there’s an amendment that relates to the production of documents and proceedings. As I mentioned, that six-month period allows for further consultation. To date, there has been no consultation with the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., with the Canadian Bar Association or the broader public around the implications of this broadened exemption.

In the next six months, through a discussion paper process and other mechanisms…. Maybe we could even have a debate like we did in 1992. It would probably be on…. It wouldn’t be on cable TV. It would be on YouTube or Zoom. We could have a full public engagement on these amendments, because that will build trust in the ultimate result.

The type of evidence that should be available, that can be gathered over the next six months, is information related to the specific forecast impact of each amendment and the current number of requests that are being dealt with under each amendment, the impact on budgets of public bodies and service plans and other items.

As I mentioned, over the next six months…. It’s confounding to me, for example, that the consultative committee provided for in section 67 of the act is not active. It would be helpful in the discussion paper to understand why. Perhaps many of the reasons we need to spend six months doing this work could have been avoided if there had been a consultative committee in place to offer advice on the changes proposed and also provide a way to seek public input in addition to the discussion paper approach.

The other item…. I’m not going to go through all the amendments, but some of these provisions would be made retroactive if the amendments were adopted. That, over the next six months, needs some close scrutiny in terms of both the number of requests that it is expected would have these provisions apply retroactively to either enable them to be stopped in their tracks or to be put on a slower frame or to be held back pending operational resource availability.

[8:50 p.m.]

The six-month process is the opportunity to dig into these issues in a lot of detail through a discussion paper process, through activating the consultative committee, through gathering robust public input that isn’t simply focused on what those inside public bodies and inside government see as the best approach forward but actually results from extensive consultation with users of the legislation.

The solution that we’d like to see canvassed over the next six months is alternatives to making access to information subject to not interfering with operational convenience. I submit that “convenience” is a highly subjective term. We’ve not had an opportunity to really canvass in any way, shape or form alternatives to the approach proposed in this legislation. We definitely would like to see that six-month period as an opportunity to understand what other options are available, rather than enabling the reduction of access to information.

Six months gives the government the chance to rewrite provisions that weaken freedom of information or freedom to information. Six months for the government to build broad-based public trust in the changes, rather than having it seen as an effort to reduce access in the goal of administrative convenience. Six months to show that the government is prepared to approach amendments with transparency and with openness, to ultimately ensure that the legislation, when recrafted and introduced as a new bill, has a much broader base of support and has a full understanding of the implications.

I can only go back to when the legislation was originally introduced, when I was in high school. I would point out that a number of organizations accepted the legislation as being the gold standard at the time, not because they were thrilled with every provision but because they had been involved directly and listened to in terms of how to strike the balance between competing interests.

That work has not been done. Over the next six months, that is the work that can be done that will rebuild trust in this legislation and that will offer an opportunity for members of the public and others to recommend additional changes that they see as needed.

As I wind down here, I want to make a special note that the Minister of Citizens’ Services has proposed amendments to her own legislation. We don’t fully understand, at this point, how she intends to get those amendments passed. The government does not have the numbers to pass amendments in committee. So if the government itself is clear that the bill is not ready and not fit for purpose, why should any of the rest of us?

You’d think that, given this opportunity — this amazing opportunity that we will spend the night on — to hoist this for six months, the government would be excited about the opportunity to go away, to consult, to talk to people, talk to the people on the ground and to bring it back later. We are only too happy…. In fact, we are privileged. We feel privileged to be able to give them that opportunity to stop this bill for six months.

With that, I will conclude by saying that the Green caucus, the Third Party caucus, supports the work and supports this motion, that the motion for second reading of Bill 9, entitled the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting the words “six months hence.”

Thank you for your indulgence, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this so early in the evening.

Larry Neufeld: I don’t have a joke for you this evening. It is nine o’clock p.m. I’ll work on it. I had an early morning. I’m working on it.

I am here to speak to the amendment on Bill 9. The amendment is “six months hence,” and of course, that is commonly referred to as a hoist motion. But it is, in fact, a motion to suspend the bill for a period of six months in order for additional work to be done on that bill in order for it to be palatable to the people of this province. Quite honestly, they deserve it. Everything we do here is for the people of this province, and they deserve every minute of our time without question.

The amendment that is proposed, the hoist amendment, is that we take the time, as I’ve already stated, the six months that will give us the opportunity, as previous members have spoken to, whereby…. The minister has already admitted through amendments of her own that there are issues with the bill, and this will give everyone in this House six months to have the opportunity to rectify those faults.

[8:55 p.m.]

I do want to make a statement that the intent of supporting this hoist motion is not to be obstructionist. It’s not simply for the sake of delay. In my opinion, it is responsible law-making. We know that there are issues with this bill. Give us six months and the opportunity to make it as successful as we can long term.

When legislation affects something as fundamental as access to information…. I can’t think of something that, in the service of the public, is more important for us to do than to be clear, transparent and to allow the public to see.

In fact, I don’t know how many folks are watching right now at nine o’clock at night on television, but they have that right, and as well, they should. Everything that we do here should be under scrutiny, and everything that we do, they should have access to. We are here at the behest and at the pleasure of the population, of the citizens of this province, and they deserve to know what we are doing with their time.

And this hoist motion that gives us six more months on what we’ve already established was a flawed Bill 9, I think is quite important, because again, those that are watching at nine o’clock at night obviously have a very special level of interest, and they deserve, absolutely deserve, to know what we are doing here.

I would suggest that we do have that…. It’s an obligation. I do believe that, and I would say that that obligation is not just to pass laws but to get them right.

And I’ve already stated it, but I think it’s worth stating once more — the simple fact that the minister who introduced this bill has introduced amendments to it. That already is suggesting, in my mind, very clearly, that there are flaws in the bill. This six months, through the hoist motion, will, absolutely, give all of us the opportunity for input and the opportunity to get the bill right.

Some might ask why six months matters. I think I’ve already stated…. I think that a lot of folks that watch us may not recognize what a week is in this place.

For those who don’t recognize me, I am the MLA for Tumbler Ridge. I did miss a few days when I stayed in the community after that horrific event. While one day is incredible, it was…. After five days, I was running very heavy catch-up to get back into the groove of this place and get back into the pace of this place.

Even though some days it may or may not feel like it, it’s incredible how much we actually do accomplish in one day.

What we can accomplish with this hoist motion and six more months on Bill 9…. I’m very hopeful that that’s an incredible amount of time to get things right. During that six months that the hoist motion would provide, it will allow us to properly examine, to properly consult and to properly reconcile the issues with this bill. This bill will work…. Nope, I’m not going to say that. It doesn’t make any sense. I wrote it, but it’s late at night.

This province is not starting from scratch with respect to the hoist motion. Bill 9, certainly, is an amendment of something that was already in place. In 2022, a special committee conducted a comprehensive review of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. My understanding — and I’m certainly not pretending to be an expert, as my colleague down the way is — is that that work was done very thoroughly. It was consultative, and it was, in fact, grounded in expertise.

And herein lies the concern in my mind. We are now being asked to move forward with legislation that does not respect the level of work and the level of expertise that went into that special committee. My question is — I would suggest that it’s likely the same question that many would have, and I think it’s an incredibly simple question — why the rush? If it was that important to get it through this quickly, why? I think that’s a very valid question to ask.

[9:00 p.m.]

A hoist motion, allowing a six-month delay, again, is going to give us a very strong opportunity to address all aspects of Bill 9. If the goal is truly modernization, I would suggest, surely, that the best foundation for modernization is the most recent, most comprehensive review available. I’ve already referenced it twice now, and I’ll do it a third time — the 2022 special committee.

The hoist motion giving us six months would allow alignment, it would allow implementation of the recommendations, and it would allow us to ensure that we are building on the incredible work that was done by the committee and not just bypassing it. Why are we completing something twice? By all suggestions, it’s not going to be as thorough or as valuable as the original work.

I’ve already spoken to this, but I think it’s so important that it certainly does warrant repeating when it comes to the need for this hoist motion. We have heard from the minister. We’ve heard assurances. We’ve, in fact, heard that this bill is strong, that it protects access and that it maintains oversight. I would question that.

The government has already induced amendments to its own bill that I’ve already spoken to, and therein lies the challenge. If the government and the ministry that produced the bill recognize issues, there are issues. If it’s already been admitted, and certainly at such a late stage in the bill process, we need to look at this very, very closely. We need to consult with the people that we report to — to the public, to the citizens — and ensure that we get this right.

I would suggest that it does matter that the government did introduce amendments to their own bill. I’ve already talked about the stage that it’s been introduced at, and I would again repeat, because it’s worth repeating, that introducing amendments at a late stage acknowledges something very important. There is refinement, there is correction and there is a significant amount of work that needs to go back to the bill to ensure that we get it right. The hoist motion giving us six months to do that is an important aspect without doubt.

Given what I’ve just said, we are still being asked to act at speed. We’re being asked to pass this quickly. Why? That’s very concerning as to why. What is the rush? If there was thorough work done in 2022 by the special committee, why are we not respecting that work? Why are we not adopting it? Why are we not relying on it?

Again, the level of understanding that I have is that it was very thorough and very professionally done. Why the speed? Why the need to push this so quickly? The hoist motion, in my mind, is incredibly valuable at this point. We need to take a much, much closer look at this.

I would suggest that the amendments that have been introduced by the minister do not necessarily fix the problems that exist in Bill 9, and the hoist motion giving us six months to rectify those is important. Perhaps we can examine what the amendments do. The government suggests that they provide clarity. They suggest that they address concerns.

When many look closer, they see something very different. As per clause 2, the amendment continues to leave decisions in the hands of the head of a public body based on their opinion. Terms such as “reasonable effort” and “reasonable time” are used. Those terms, I would very clearly suggest, are undefined. They’re subjective, and they’re open to interpretation.

That begs the question: whose interpretation? Is that you, Mr. Chair? Is it one of the other wonderful folks in this place of honour? Is it someone who is not directly accountable to the people that are responsible for us being here?

[9:05 p.m.]

I would further suggest that if that is the case, are we doing a service to the people that we are responsible to by allowing that to happen?

I would go on to say that this clause is not clarity, yet it provides discretion. Discretion without clarity, again, is incredibly dependent upon the skill set, the frame of mind. Perhaps the person making the decision didn’t drink enough coffee that morning. Maybe they had a very late night, with the kids up. Who knows? Is it going to be the same decision every time? What is the definition of “reasonableness” when there’s a wide swath of discretion?

On clause 3, we are told that this clause may not even stand. I would suggest that, clearly, it is procedurally flawed. Yet we are debating a bill where clauses may need to be voted down during committee stage. Hence, the hoist motion giving us six months to significantly look at this piece of legislation and ensure that it is done right the first time. We owe that duty to the citizens of this province. I would suggest, on the basis of what I just said, that that alone justifies the delay. The hoist motion is incredibly justified in my mind.

Clause 13 is another one that has been highlighted, and I would suggest that this may even be the most concerning of all of the clauses. This amendment shifts authority, but it does not limit it. It allows requests to be disregarded. It’s a wide range of items that allows them to be disregarded if the requests are deemed “abusive,” “malicious,” “excessively broad” or “interfering with operations.”

“Abusive” and “malicious,” certainly…. I could probably get there in my own mind. I think there would be…. Again, that would be a definition that would be handled differently by different people. “Excessively broad” is one that I’m deeply concerned with, and “interfering with operations,” I’m even more concerned with. How do you define it? Certainly, if someone asks for five million…. It’s malicious. They’re asking for a five-million-page whatever. I think there’s reason to push back on that. But who defines it? It’s not defined in this legislation.

The hoist motion would allow us to revisit this bill and to very successfully — hopefully, quite successfully — fix that error and at least provide some guidance. Again, we’re all human beings. We all know what our schedule is, working in this place of honour. I find myself somewhat fatigued at nine o’clock this evening. Would I make the same discretionary decision on what “excessively broad” or “interfering with operations” is right now, today, as I would at eight o’clock tomorrow morning after I’ve had my fill of coffee and had a good night’s sleep?

I think the hoist motion…. That, in itself, is more than enough. Again, I’m fatigued. The words are not coming this evening. I won’t point out that others may be fatigued as well. But I think, in my mind, that the hoist motion is very well supported by the argument that I just made.

Discretion. I think I’ve covered that well enough. I would like to see, with the hoist motion giving us six months more to delve into Bill 9, that we do define the terms “abusive,” “malicious,” “excessively broad” or “interfering with operations.” I suggest that the hoist motion would give us time to clearly define those terms.

The discretion component is very difficult. I would suggest that the amendments, as presented, do not resolve the core issue and only go to reinforce it. That is why we need six months, why we need the hoist motion — in order to spend time. We need to have an all-party committee. We need to have committee time. We need to ensure that we get this right.

[9:10 p.m.]

I would go on to suggest that the core issue is subjectivity and power and who has that subjectivity and who that power is being transferred to.

At its heart, this debate, I would suggest, is not about technical language. I would suggest that it is about power — the power on who decides, the power on what information is released, the power to decide what requests are valid. And that begs a very firm question in my mind: who decides? Who makes the decision of what is too much?

And if you ask…. I’m sure we all recall the elementary school game where you whisper a word in the first child’s ear, and it goes through the classroom and gets to the last one, and it’s not even remotely close to the original word that was said. That concerns me extensively in that…. And I’m not disparaging the ability of our public service. What I am suggesting is that we are human beings, and all human beings react differently to information. How is it fair for party A to be treated differently than party B?

I would go on to state that under this Bill 9…. I would suggest that, increasingly, the answer is that government is deciding. Once again, the hoist motion is incredibly important to give us time to rectify that situation.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

With respect to some of the claims that were made when Bill 9 was introduced, the minister had stated that this bill does not change timelines, that it does not introduce new fees and that it does not allow refusal of legitimate requests.

The hoist motion is very important because there is an issue. Legislation is not defined by intention. It is defined by interpretation. Hopefully I’ve done a somewhat reasonable job of explaining where that interpretation could be a challenge, particularly….

When you introduce undefined thresholds, expanded discretion and broader grounds for refusal, as I’ve already illustrated, you create a dangerous space in my mind. That dangerous space, as I’ve already illustrated, is that the outcomes may be different from the intent. The intent of the bill was X. Whoever is interpreting it is perhaps not a legal scholar, perhaps not someone that’s deeply connected to the Legislature, maybe not understanding the legal meaning of certain words. Again, that is yet another argument as to why the hoist motion is so important. It gives us time to repair and fix.

Again, I’ve already stated that I’m not in any way trying to disparage the public service. It’s in no way an accusation. It’s just simply a legislative reality. I worked professionally for a very long time as a professional engineer, and I was….

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: My very generous colleague asked me if I was too tired to continue, but I can assure you I will make the next nine minutes and 46 seconds, so thank you, sir.

I’m not as engaging this evening as normal, so I apologize. I need some coffee, but that’s my problem.

Again, I’m not suggesting in any way that that’s an accusation as to the professionalism or ability of the…. Oh, I was explaining the legislative reality. Working for decades, reading legislation daily and interpreting it and applying it in real life…. I didn’t go to law school. I went to engineering school. Yes, I learned the lingo, and yes, I learned to understand, but it’s certainly not something that I learned in a very short order. It was something that took a great deal of time to interpret that language at a very high level.

[9:15 p.m.]

Again, that, to me, is another very good example of why the hoist motion to Bill 9 is incredibly important. We need opportunity to remove that language and improve the opportunity for putting parameters around definitions, around timelines, around what a layman would have guidance on as to how to interpret some of the information that has been provided in this bill. The hoist motion is very important in doing that.

I would go further to state that the risk of getting things wrong is significant. I would suggest that freedom-of-information laws are, certainly, not ordinary laws.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, you missed my hopefully eloquent dissertation on who we work for and why we work for them, but in a very succinct form, I would repeat it once more.

Without question, we work for the people of this province, and we owe them a duty. The hoist motion is very important, in my mind, to ensure that we are fulfilling that duty and fulfilling that obligation to the people that we are responsible to, the people that put us in this place of honour.

I would go further to state that the freedom-of-information laws…. While they’re not ordinary laws, I would suggest that, again, they’re accountability laws, and I can’t think of anything that is more important in what we do here than accountability to the people that are responsible for putting us here. The accountability laws are, I would suggest, a mechanism through which citizens, journalists, researchers hold government to account.

That’s very important to me because…. I’ll admit it. I wasn’t as engaged in the political world as I wish I had been. I worked very, very long hours professionally, and I just didn’t take the time. I followed it in the news, as I would suspect many people do. Regrettably, I didn’t spend as much time on it.

I think that that’s an important thing for us to consider, and that’s why the hoist motion would be important — to give opportunity for that consideration that those using this incredibly important legislation would, again, be able to have the opportunity in layman’s terms to understand and be able to apply the legislation.

And I’m not disparaging the legal profession in any way either. I would suggest that that is…. Well, I won’t go as far as saying it’s a duty of ours to…. Maybe I’ll just move on from that. I feel like I might be getting myself in trouble there.

If we don’t give citizens an opportunity to hold the government to account, if we weaken the system, the freedom-of-information system that Bill 9 does address — even if the weakening of that system is unintentional — I would suggest the consequences are not immediate, that they’re not gradual. I would suggest that they are cumulative, that they build over time.

I would go further to suggest that cumulative is something that is very difficult to reverse because it’s not just one single point form that you can erase, amend, fix and put back to when it did work. That is, again, why the six months provided by the hoist motion are very important.

I would go further to say that six months is not a long time, even though I did explain how much does happen in this place in a day, if not a week. But this would not be dealt with…. The hoist motion would allow us to deal with this outside of this place of honour. It would allow us to deal with it outside of the chamber.

Six months is a necessary time. The hoist motion provides a necessary time. And let’s put this into perspective. Six months provided by the hoist motion is not indefinite, and it certainly is not a delay without purpose. It’s very purposeful. It allows us, as the people that are elected to be here to represent the wonderful people of this province, to revisit a piece of flawed legislation and repair it, provide something that the people of this province deserve.

[9:20 p.m.]

I would say that the six months provided by the hoist motion gives us time to consult experts, gives us ample — I don’t know about ample — time to engage stakeholders. It certainly gives us time to review case law, and without question, as I mentioned slightly earlier, it gives us opportunity to clarify definitions.

The last important one for me would be that it gives us an opportunity to test the implementation of Bill 9. And ultimately, the hoist motion for six months gives us time to ensure that the bill does not create more problems than it solves.

There may be a better path forward. If the government truly believes in this legislation…. Some would suggest that the bill should have confidence, and if so, allowing it to withstand further scrutiny. I would suggest that strong legislation improves with time. Weak legislation avoids time. The hoist motion provides the time. If the bill is strong enough to stand on its own feet, six months is not a long time. The hoist motion is very valid.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the hoist motion, in broad terms, asks a simple question. And that question, to everyone in this place of honour, is: are we willing to take the time to get this right? The hoist motion provides that opportunity.

Once the law is passed, the power it creates, as I’ve already illustrated, will not easily be undone. Future governments of any political stripe will inherit those powers. As I said at the beginning, the intent of this hoist motion is not delay. It’s not about long-term integrity or access to information.

I will correct myself. It is about long-term integrity and access to information in this province. I think I already mentioned I’m fatigued, so please excuse my blunder of words.

I would go further to say that the hoist motion is not saying no. It’s simply saying “not yet.” Let’s fix it. It’s saying: “Let’s do the work, let’s do it properly, and let’s do it thoroughly.”

The hoist motion will give us six months. It will ensure that when we pass this law, we strengthen transparency and we do not weaken it.

I can tell you a story to use up my last 41 seconds, but I suggest I might be asked not to do that. So with that, I am going to allow my colleague to stand.

Gavin Dew: I rise to speak to the motion, the hoist motion that would delay this bill by six months. And I certainly hope that this speech will not elicit quite as much of a stir from the members opposite as the last speech I gave on this subject on the primary bill.

I do believe that this moment is just as important as the initial conversation around this bill, if not more important, because a lot has changed in just a few weeks since we first began debating this bill, just as a lot will change, or could change, in the six months that this hoist motion will allow us to fully contemplate this bill or allow the government to go back to the drawing board and rethink its approach.

Tonight we’re going to the mattresses, like they say in The Godfather. We’re going to be up late because this is important, but we’re also going to be up late because government has chosen to try to kill freedom of information at night. Government has chosen to try to drive this through. Government has chosen that it does not want to support a hoist motion to go away and get this right.

[9:25 p.m.]

Government has decided that they are going to sit, and they are not going to stand. They are going to sit, and they are not going to stand. Here’s the thing. In my last speech that was not about this hoist motion, this hoist motion we’re speaking about tonight, I questioned why nobody from the other side of this House was willing to stand up to a Premier who is out of control. Why were they not willing to stand up for freedom of information? Why were they not willing to stand up for the very heritage and history of their party of which they are so proud?

None of them is standing up. None of them is standing up to the Premier. None of them is standing up to an out-of-control government. Tonight none of them will even stand up to speak against this hoist motion. None of them will stand up to defend against the idea that this bill should be delayed for six months. None of them is willing to stand up.

One of them was even sleeping a while ago. I wish I got to have a nap, but I have to give a speech, because we are going to the mattresses tonight. We are going to be up late burning the midnight oil. It looked like a good nap. We’re going to be up late burning the midnight oil. Great band, by the way. We’re going to be up late burning the midnight oil, because “how can we sleep when our beds are burning?” as Midnight Oil said. It’s a great song. It’s a fantastic song, and, in fact, it’s a song that’s emblematic of a moment.

For me, here is why it matters. Here is why it matters. How can we sleep when freedom of information is burning? We need a hoist motion. How can we sleep? How can we sleep tonight, colleagues, when freedom of information is under assault, freedom of information is being destroyed, the legacy of Mike Harcourt is being destroyed? We need a hoist motion.

We’re going to be up late tonight. We’re going to be up late until somebody blinks. That’s what’s happening here, folks — for anybody who’s actually watching this, for the media, for the nerds.

We’re going to be up really late because this government is so determined to use every moment, every scintilla, every hint, every little tiny bit of procedural advantage that they can use in order to avoid this hoist motion; in order to avoid, god forbid, what might happen in this House if the government were to go away for six months and actually review their own legislation instead of putting forward half-baked amendments that look a lot like the dog ate my homework.

They remind me of being in elementary school when you’re given the trust by your teacher to mark your own test, and you know those people are marking their own test, and they’re putting the check and the X, but they’re also changing the answers to give themselves extra marks. That is what these amendments are, these half-baked amendments that seek to partially dilute the bill, that seek to try to pretend as if any concessions are being made when no, we need a hoist motion.

We need six months to get it right. We need to give the government…. That’s what we’re doing. We’re offering the government six months to go away and to think very seriously about what they’re doing and to make sure they get this right. A lot has changed in the last six weeks, and a lot will change in the next six months.

It’s a little bit like that teacher. It’s a little bit like that teacher who catches the student changing their answers while marking the test. What do they do? They say: “You’re going to retake the test. You’re going to go away, and you’re going to learn this material.”

I see my colleague sitting behind me from Columbia River–Revelstoke, a teacher. He knows what I’m talking about. He knows what I’m talking about as a teacher. Here’s the thing. When people mess up, when students mess up, when students are trying to correct their errors by changing a nine into an eight, by changing a letter into a number, trying to change their answer like these amendments, you give them a hoist motion. You give them a hoist motion.

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: I don’t know where this is all going. She’s got some weird stuff going on there. I’m not sure what the metaphor is.

I have other metaphors, though, because this government has turned FOI from a public right into a bureaucratic obstacle course.

[9:30 p.m.]

That’s why we need to send it back with a hoist motion for them to go away and rethink and redo the test, not scribble in the margins and pretend with these half-baked amendments that don’t make a lot of sense.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Just a minute, Member.

The member for Penticton-Summerland.

Amelia Boultbee: I stand on a point of order. This is not the first time I’ve noticed this in this House. It is a tone and a way of speaking, particularly about female cabinet members, that the member is engaging in right now — half-baked, dog’s breakfast, scribble in the margins — referring to the work of the amendments in a very disrespectful way.

This was also engaged in by the Leader of the Opposition, referring to the same female cabinet minister yesterday, saying that she had not read her own bill.

These men would never speak about other men in this way. It is very disrespectful.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. I’ll ask all members to be mindful of their tone in debate and to keep debate respectful.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Of course, I will keep the tone respectful. I think it would be, frankly, disrespectful to engage with these half-baked amendments in any way other than with total seriousness and in any way other than with full rigour.

What I’m talking about are amendments. I don’t care who wrote them. It’s irrelevant to me who drafted the amendments. It’s irrelevant to me the gender of the individual who drafted the amendments. To pretend that this assault on freedom of information and that these half-baked amendments have anything to do with the cabinet minister who is designated to bring them forward is completely unserious, and it is beneath the dignity of this House.

I really do think it is important to recognize that, ultimately, it would be entirely disrespectful to the importance of this debate to pretend that any of this was anything other than performative. The reality is this. These are serious times. These are serious amendments. Performative outrage on the other side of the House, or among individuals who might like to join the other side of the House, is not the way for us to engage with seriousness with these amendments or with this hoist motion.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hold on.

Members. Members.

Gavin Dew: I believe I have the floor.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, the member has the floor.

Member, through the Speaker. Thank you.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I certainly intend to speak to, again, the substance of what’s happening here. What’s happening here is a hoist motion, and it is a hoist motion that affords the opportunity for the members opposite to think again about what they’re doing.

As I reminded them in my previous speech about the primary bill, they are desecrating the legacy of their party. They are ripping up the legacy of Mike Harcourt. They’re laughing about it as they do it, and they won’t stand up.

They are desecrating the legacy of Mike Harcourt, who, in 1992, brought forward with great pride and with a great amount of public debate and consultation, for that matter, the kind of consultation that would be enabled by a hoist motion…. Mike Harcourt, Premier, New Democrat, brought forward the entire regime of freedom of information that one would think the members of this government would be proud of.

[9:35 p.m.]

A hoist motion would afford them six months to reflect on that and to think very seriously about what they’re doing tonight, because tonight the NDP is trying to gut freedom of information in darkness. We need a hoist motion because we need to go back to the drawing board, because sunlight is the best disinfectant. This government keeps closing the blinds.

They hope that they can jam this through in the dead of night, but we will wait for the morning if we have to. The people of British Columbia will wait for the morning of a bright new dawn when this government is gone, freedom of information returns to the land, we return to prosperity and we move forward with a new government — which might just happen in less than six months.

That is why we need a hoist motion. In fact, that might be a good reason for the members opposite to vote for a hoist motion. In fact, the thing about freedom of information is this: governments don’t like it, and that’s why it matters. Governments want less freedom of information because it’s annoying. It’s annoying when you’re in government.

You certainly, certainly hear that in the tone that is being put forward in this fundamental bill, where what you have are categorizations, clauses that can be applied to include the terms “malicious,” “abusive,” “unreasonably interfere with operations” of government, “repetitious” or “excessively broad.” Those are the kinds of terms that you use to label freedom of information and to try to deny freedom of information when you have become arrogant and out of touch and too comfortable being in government.

That’s why we need a hoist motion, because this government needs to go back to the drawing board and think very actively about what happens when they’re no longer in government, which could be less than six months. This hoist motion affords the opportunity for this government to think very seriously about the fundamental democratic dynamic of government and His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

As I pointed out in a prior speech, if this side of the House were in government and bringing forward this motion, the members opposite would be screaming from the rooftops. They would be upset. They would be angry. They would be making accusations. They would be saying that it was wild and arrogant and out of touch to talk about freedom of information in this way.

But here’s the thing about government. What goes around comes around. One day you’re not in government. You’re in opposition. This government is very, very fond in virtually every question period of pointing back to past governments.

That is reflection that we should all engage with, reflection that would be enabled by a six-month hoist motion. That is the reflection we should do in a democracy, thinking very actively about what we would do if we were in opposition.

What I believe the members opposite would want if they were in opposition is a freedom-of-information system that had not been decimated, that the last shreds of which had not been torn up, that had not been destroyed.

Interjections.

Gavin Dew: The member opposite has strong opinions on freedom of information. She should stand up, and she should speak to this hoist motion. Perhaps she would like to speak to either why a hoist motion is necessary or why one is not, but perhaps she would like to speak.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Just a minute.

Members, the member has the floor.

Continue. Continue, Member.

Gavin Dew: It’s clear that this subject elicits strong reactions from the government, strong reactions perhaps driven by the knowledge of their hypocrisy, by the knowledge that they would be against this if they were in opposition, by the knowledge that this is a desecration of the legacy of their party — a party that they seem to have forgotten the days of, when it was a party that held the feet of power to the fire, a party of underdogs, a party that stood for the outsiders, a party that stood for something.

[9:40 p.m.]

Now it’s just a party of clinging to power. That’s the nature of the cycle. It’s that you get into power, you become comfortable, you become arrogant, and you become out of touch. That’s why we need a hoist motion, to afford this government six months to reflect on exactly what they are doing to freedom of information and, perhaps, to reflect on what the changes that they are proposing would do to them in opposition.

When I last spoke about this main motion, the primary bill, I encouraged…. I appealed to the past, and I asked the members opposite on the government side to think actively about the legacy that they are desecrating — the legacy of Mike Harcourt, the legacy of 35 years of freedom of information that they are throwing away. I asked them to reflect on the past, to be proud of that history and not to throw it away.

Tonight as I speak to this hoist motion, I ask them to look to the future. I ask them to think about the reality that every government will be opposition one day, and every opposition will one day be government. It is so fundamentally important that we have a robust system of freedom of information with which any opposition can hold any government to account.

And this government will soon be opposition. This government will soon be granted the opportunity to hold a government to account. When that happens, I sure hope that they voted for this hoist motion so that they are able to reflect on a system of freedom of information that they would want if they were in opposition.

If not, and if I appeal only to their craven, naked, partisan self-interest…. If they vote for this hoist motion and we defeat them in the next six months and form government, they’ll have an FOI system they didn’t gut and that they can use to hold us to account.

I would encourage the members opposite to stop sitting quietly, to stop refusing to speak to power in their own caucus and to their own Premier and to stand up and speak to this bill. I hope to vote for this bill, because I believe that it is in the benign self-interest of the members of this government to vote for this hoist motion. At least then they will have a stronger system of freedom of information when they are soon in opposition.

To the people of British Columbia: every delay; every fee; every excuse; every characterization of freedom of information as “malicious,” “abusive,” “repetitious,” “excessively broad” or “unreasonably interfering with the operations of government” — every one of those things sends the same message. It sends the message that this government thinks accountability is optional.

Accountability is not optional. That’s why we need this hoist motion, so that this government can go away and reflect and think seriously about what it is doing to freedom of information, reflect seriously on what it is doing and the signal it is sending to the people.

Reflect on what it is doing, at almost 10 p.m., trying to gut freedom of information in darkness, because it is ashamed — or should be, because if it knows no shame in what it is doing to decimate its own legacy of 35 years, almost, to desecrate the legacy of Mike Harcourt, to desecrate the history of its own party, then at least the members opposite in government should again look to the future, vote for this hoist motion and keep a stronger system of freedom of information.

We on this side of the House would be proud to serve as a government that is accountable to freedom of information. We know that freedom of information matters, because governments are not infallible. No government is infallible. No government.…

Deputy Speaker: Member, hold on. Just a moment.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise on a point of order. I believe it’s Standing Order 17. The Minister of Children and Family Development, oftentimes during the members’ speaking and taking the debate very seriously…. The member for Burnaby East is being very disruptive and disorderly and is not listening to debate.

I’d like a ruling on that, please.

Deputy Speaker: Members, it’s getting a little bit late in the House. I’ll just remind members that the member has the floor and for all members to remain respectful to the debate. Thank you.

Continue, member for Kelowna-Mission.

[9:45 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: The Speaker rightly points out that it’s getting late, but it’s never too late to recant and to vote for this hoist motion. It’s never too late to rediscover principle. It’s never too late to rediscover what used to be the fiery passion of the New Democratic Party for freedom of information. It’s never too late to vote for this hoist motion. It’s never too late. It’s never the wrong time to do the right thing, and the right thing to do is to vote for this hoist motion.

It is never too late for the members opposite to decide they’re ready to stand up and either speak against this hoist motion; speak for it; speak to someone; do something other than hope that they can run the clock and that, in darkness, they can shut down freedom of information, they can shut down democracy, they can shut down access to information by the opposition, by the media, by the people who deserve to know what their government is doing for them.

But this government doesn’t think that you, the people, deserve to know. They don’t think there should even be an opposition.

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: Hey, that’s an interesting idea. Maybe we should FOI some more hospital closures. Maybe we should FOI some more gift card scandals. Maybe we should FOI some more limousine scandals. Maybe we should just keep filing FOIs, because that will be the undoing of this government.

No wonder they want to shut down freedom of information. No wonder they want to vote against this important hoist motion. No wonder. Because they are ashamed, because after nine long years, they are arrogant and out of touch. They are ready to be in opposition where, again, I return to the importance of this hoist motion. This government should vote for this hoist motion so that they have a functioning system of freedom of information with which to hold the next government to account, which can’t come soon enough.

A hoist motion would afford us the opportunity for government to spend the next six months reflecting on ways in which they could actually improve freedom of information. So much has happened, even in a matter of six days, in the world of technology and analysis, in the world of data. Data is a tremendous resource. Information is a tremendous resource.

There is an opportunity for this government, instead of killing FOI, to improve FOI, to use the tools of artificial intelligence, the analytic capabilities of machine learning, the ability to put massive amounts of information and get to be able to enable people to analyze what’s happening in government, to get the kind of transparency that you can get, which….

In fact, literally just this morning, we were debating a private member’s bill in committee about greater transparency in our health care system — the kind of transparency that can happen through proactive disclosure, proactive disclosure that could be embedded in a new version of this bill made possible by a hoist motion.

If government goes away and thinks about what they could do with freedom of information, what they could do to unleash the ability of the people — not just the government that they think knows best, but the people — to have access to information, to do analysis and to offer solutions that can make government and policy better….

That’s why we need this hoist motion to pass. It would enable such a tremendous opportunity for us to fundamentally reverse the direction of where things are going — the shameful desecration of the FOI system, the shameful abandonment of everything this government once claimed to stand for, the shameful abandonment of more than three decades of history, the shameful abandonment of something they should be proud of. That is why they should vote for this hoist motion.

“Data is the new oil,” somebody once said. That’s important. Information matters. Information is currency. Information allows us to make better decisions. A hoist motion would allow us to make better decisions about how we make that information available to the people. And in that time, perhaps the long-overdue AI strategy will be forthcoming, and perhaps FOI will be embedded in it.

We’ve had a Minister of State for AI for almost seven months. There’s no plan. There’s no plan for that. That hoist motion would provide the opportunity for there to be integration of the conversation around freedom of information….

[9:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, hold on a minute. Member, just a minute.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I just want to remind the member that he should be bringing it back to the amendment and not talking about people.

Peter Milobar: The government side seems to be seeking lots of clarification tonight, so I thought I would take the opportunity to do the same from the Chair and get some guidance.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems we are here for extended hours — which the government seems extremely offended by, and we’re not even at ten o’clock yet — by virtue of direction of their House Leader extending the hours and picking some unknown hour of adjournment.

I’m just making sure I understand the process this evening correctly so you don’t have a mix-up of communication like we had at seven o’clock. I’m just seeking clarification that indeed it was the Government House Leader that chose to have an open-ended adjournment time of the night, which the government members seemed to be getting very agitated by less than three hours after that motion was made in this House.

In fact, we could conceivably…. And we are prepared to be here. I’m just making sure procedurally this is accurate. The opposition is prepared to be here until start of business tomorrow morning, continuing to debate, and that is indeed what will and can happen as long as the opposition chooses, unless the Government House Leader chooses to pull the pin tonight. Is that correct?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for that reminder in terms of the debate with respect to the amendment.

Member for Kamloops Centre, yes, you are correct.

Gavin Dew: As I was talking about before I was interrupted by a strange statement that I should not talk about people while I was talking about AI strategy….

I’ll return to my point. This hoist motion affords the opportunity for freedom of information to actually be improved. This hoist motion affords the opportunity for reflection, affords the opportunity for the minister to think seriously about what is possible with freedom of information, not what they might be afraid of with freedom of information.

Because there is an accumulation of reasons to distrust this government. We see them every single day. We see them in the fact that we are learning through freedom of information. We are learning through a steady flow of leaks out of this government as it begins to lose water, lose air — whatever the metaphor is. We are seeing that this government will not willingly disclose.

This government needs a hoist motion to go back to the drawing board at FOI because this government literally, in the last number of days…. We’ve had to reveal that they’ve fully cancelled numerous projects. We’ve had to reveal that because they won’t disclose basic information that the people of British Columbia, that communities in British Columbia, deserve to have.

That is why we need this hoist motion. We need this hoist motion so that they can go back to the drawing board; they can rethink; they can revisit the 2022 report; they can revisit their morality; they can revisit their one-time values as a party, reflecting again on the 1992 legacy of Mike Harcourt, which I believe everyone in British Columbia should be proud of, the leadership that we as a province….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, hold on one minute.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I just want to call point of order. He’s talking about intent, and we’re supposed to be talking about the hoist amendment. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I continue to listen carefully to the debate.

Member for Kelowna-Mission, five minutes, speaking to the hoist amendment. Thank you.

[9:55 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to resume my speech.

I am somewhat baffled by the contention that this isn’t about values and we shouldn’t talk about values. The reason we need this hoist motion is for the government to go away and reflect on the reality that freedom of information is entirely linked to values.

This is about transparency. Values matter. We do things in government because we have values. Freedom of information…. When Mike Harcourt and his government of the day, a New Democrat government, moved forward with freedom of information, I assume they didn’t do it out of craven cynicism. I assume that they did it because they believed it was important. I assume, quite frankly, that they did it….

I would remind you of the historical moment within which freedom of information was brought forward. I would remind you to reflect back on the history of the NDP. I would encourage you to think actively as you think about this hoist motion. I would encourage you to think actively about the time in which Mike Harcourt bravely brought forward this freedom-of-information legislation that is the root….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Trevor Halford: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Trevor Halford: We have two of our great staffers up there, led by Matt Sweeney. I can’t see who the other one is because I don’t have my glasses on. It’s Devin.

I want to welcome them into the chamber at almost ten at night here, so I appreciate these guys. They’re all settled in for a long night and a long tomorrow and maybe beyond that. Appreciate all the good work that they’re doing, and yeah, it’s great to have them on our team.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: As I resume talking about the hoist motion, what I was beginning to say was this. Values matter. We all go into politics because we have values. We make decisions because we have values. We root those decisions in values, and we root them in an understanding of the historical context that we are in. We root them in an understanding of the democratic system that we are in.

I would encourage the members opposite to reflect very seriously as they contemplate this hoist motion. I would encourage them to reflect on what I believe was an interesting moment in history in 1992, when Mike Harcourt originally brought forward freedom of information. Mike Harcourt didn’t know how long that NDP government would last.

History at that time was one in which there weren’t a lot of NDP governments. Since the Regina Manifesto of 1932, there had been no NDP governments until the government of 1972 to 1975 that was there for a short time and that made significant moves.

In the early ’90s, I believe that Mike Harcourt in government knew something fundamental that should govern us as we think about this hoist motion. Mike Harcourt, as Premier, came from a party that had seldom glimpsed the inside of the cabinet room. He came from a party that had, at that time, no rational reason to believe that it would form government for a long time.

In those early days…. And the members can be proud of the fact that they are now part of a party that has formed several successive governments and has governed. Mike Harcourt knew something fundamental that these members opposite should think about as they contemplate this hoist motion. Mike Harcourt knew the fragility of power. He knew that power was fleeting. He knew that authority, that government, would not last. He knew that in a democracy, there is government and there is His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and that each has a crucial role to play.

As we contemplate this hoist motion, I would again encourage the members opposite from government to contemplate voting for it, going back to the drawing board, thinking actively about freedom of information and situating their thinking in the noble actions of Mike Harcourt who at that time chose to limit his own power; chose to give himself greater accountability to the people, to the media and to the opposition.

[10:00 p.m.]

He chose as Premier to be more accountable. He did so, I’m sure, out of some noble principle and out of values, but he also did so in the knowledge that in the fullness of time, as the cycle turned, he would no longer be in government. His party would no longer be in government. They would be in opposition, and when they were, they wanted robust tools to hold the government of the day to account.

So as this government that is sliding in the polls and preparing for defeat ponders its fate, I would encourage them to vote for this hoist motion, vote for accountability.

Pete Davis: Honoured to be here. I’m rising to speak in support of the amendment that the motion for the second reading of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended, deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

I want to be very clear right now, at the beginning, about this amendment, because sometimes in this chamber, governments try to frame any delay as obstruction, any concern as fearmongering and any request for caution as opposition to progress itself. That’s not what this is. This amendment is not about killing a bill or about preventing modernization. It’s not about refusing improvements to privacy protections and refusing to update legislation for the modern era.

This amendment is about something much simpler and more important. It’s about getting it right. We’ve got to do that. It’s about recognizing that when we are dealing with freedom-of-information legislation — legislation that governs the public’s ability to access government records, government decisions, government communications, government records, government accountability — we are dealing with one of the fundamental pillars of democracy here in British Columbia.

The freedom of information is not some side issue. It’s not some technical matter buried in legal language that only lawyers and bureaucrats should care about. Freedom of information is how ordinary people hold power accountable. It’s about journalists exposing waste. It’s how citizens uncover mistakes. It’s how opposition parties, regardless of political tape, can examine what government is doing behind closed doors. This is how democracy breathes.

When legislation affects that right, we have an obligation, every single one of us in this House, to slow down and examine it carefully, listen carefully and ensure that British Columbians can trust both the process and the outcome. That’s why these six months matter.

A six-month extension would allow for more comprehensive review of concerns raised by stakeholders, privacy experts, journalists, opposition members and citizens across this province. A six-month extension would allow proper implementation and consideration of the recommendations contained in the 2022 special committee report on the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. Six months’ extension would allow governments to work collaboratively with all members of this House to ensure that legislation achieves its intended goal without unconditionally weakening transparency.

[10:05 p.m.]

A six-month extension would allow this government to reconcile the fact that even they themselves have already admitted that this bill requires changes. That point matters. The government cannot stand in this chamber and argue simultaneously that this bill is perfect and flawless, while also introducing amendments to fix concerns that have already been identified. They cannot say concerns are imaginary while changing the legislation in response to those concerns. Those two things cannot both be true.

Now, I listened. I heard carefully the minister’s statement regarding the amendments the government has introduced. The minister stated that through thoughtful discussion with other members of the Legislature about government’s intent on the updates to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a small number of areas in Bill 9 were identified where minor adjustments would provide additional clarity.

If additional clarity is required, then the bill was not sufficiently clear when introduced. If amendments are necessary after debate begins, then clarity concerns raised by members of this House have merit. And if the government is willing to acknowledge that improvements are needed now, why is it unreasonable to ask for six months to ensure that all these concerns are properly addressed?

This is a reasonable request. It’s democratic. It’s responsible.

The minister also said that amendments reaffirm British Columbians’ right to access government information. Well, if government truly wants to reaffirm that right, then government should welcome additional scrutiny, additional consultation and additional time. Public confidence in freedom-of-information laws does not come from speed. It comes from trust, and trust is earned through openness, transparency.

One of the things that concerns many British Columbians, throughout debate on this bill, is the growing feeling that government increasingly views access to information as an inconvenience rather than a democratic obligation. That perception matters, especially at a time when public trust is already fragile; especially at a time when people already feel disconnected from their decision-makers; especially at a time when citizens want more transparency, not less.

This is where the 2022 special committee report becomes critically important. The 2022 special committee review represents extensive work. It involves testimony, expert opinion, analyzing, recommendations and meaningful discussion about how British Columbians could strengthen freedom-of-information laws while protecting privacy in an increasingly digital world. “The committee’s work emphasizes transparency and accountability.” Those are not my words. Those are the principles that formed the heart of the committee’s recommendations.

What many people are asking today is simple. Why are we rushing legislation before ensuring the committee’s recommendations are fully and properly implemented? We’re not talking about…. It’s time necessary to align legislation carefully with the broader recommendations already developed through this process. Why are we not ensuring consistency, clarity and public confidence?

[10:10 p.m.]

Six months would allow that work to happen properly. When government says this bill contains only minor clarifications, that itself strengthens this argument. If the changes are truly minor, then six months should not be a crisis. If legislation is fundamentally sound, then six months to ensure accuracy and public trust should not threaten its success. But if government believes six months would create major problems, then perhaps the legislation is more fragile than they’re admitting.

Now, I also want to address something else that the minister said. The minister accused opposition MLAs of making false claims. Disagreement in a chamber is not misinformation. Concern is not misinformation. Questioning legislation is not misinformation.

Opposition exists for a reason. We are elected to examine bills critically. We are elected to identify risks. We are elected to represent the concerns of our constituents. That’s why we’re here.

In my riding at Kootenay-Rockies, people care deeply about government transparency. They care deeply about accountability. People in rural B.C. already feel, too often, that decisions are made far away from them, behind closed doors, by people who never have to live with the consequences.

Freedom-of-information laws are one of the few tools ordinary citizens have to level the playing field. And when citizens hear language about limiting requests deemed too broad or when they hear concerns about journalists and watchdog organizations, they naturally become worried — not because they’re extremists, not because they’re spreading falsehoods, but because they understand something very important. Power without scrutiny becomes dangerous. History has shown this over and over again.

Transparency is not designed for times when governments behave perfectly. Transparency exists precisely because governments are imperfect — every government, every party, every ideology. This is why strong freedom-of-information laws matter, regardless who sits on which side of the chamber.

I say this sincerely. Governments should be very cautious about weakening public confidence and access-to-information laws because once trust erodes, it is very difficult to rebuild — very difficult.

I also want to talk about implementation, because legislation is not just about words on a paper. It’s about how those words function in the real world.

A six-month extension would allow ministries, public bodies, municipalities, stakeholders and oversight officers additional time to prepare for implementation. It would allow for better training, better interpretation, better operational clarity, better consistency, better public education. Because confusion in freedom-of-information process doesn’t help anyone — not citizens; not journalists; not municipalities; not public servants; and, certainly, not government.

[10:15 p.m.]

There is another reason six months matters. This legislation affects not only today’s government but future governments as well. Laws outlive political cycles. We know that. The procedure we create today will be inherited by future legislatures of every political stripe. That means we have a responsibility to think beyond immediate partisan considerations.

We have a responsibility to ask the questions. How could these powers be used in the future? How could these provisions evolve over time? What unintended consequences would emerge from this? And that requires thoughtful review, not rushing timelines, not defensive messaging, not dismissing concerns as political theatre.

One thing I’ve learnt representing rural British Columbia is that people appreciate common sense. Common sense. Common sense tells people this: if government is already changing the bill, if concerns continue to emerge, if stakeholders are still raising questions, if amendments are already being introduced, then six months is not unreasonable. It’s prudent. It’s responsible. It’s mature governance. And let us remember something very important. Democracy is not measured by how quickly legislation passes. Democracy is measured by how carefully legislation is examined.

This House exists for debate. This House exists for scrutiny. This House exists so legislation can be improved before it becomes law. Otherwise, what’s the point of this process? What is the point of a second reading debate? What is the point of committee work? What is the point of elected representatives raising concerns on behalf of citizens?

I believe British Columbians deserve freedom-of-information laws that are trusted, respected and clearly understood. I believe they deserve legislation that reflects careful consideration and thoughtful implementation. I believe they deserve transparency that is strengthened, not promised. And I believe six additional months would help achieve that.

Now, government members may say this amendment delays progress, but I would argue rushing legislation affecting democratic accountability creates far greater risk than taking additional time. Mistakes made in transparency legislation are not minor errors. They have real consequences. They affect everybody, especially today.

I also think that it’s important to acknowledge that technology, privacy and information management are evolving rapidly every day. These are complicated issues. Balancing privacy protections with public access right is not easy work. And because it’s not easy work, it deserves careful work. Nobody in this chamber should pretend that these are simple questions, because they’re not.

[10:20 p.m.]

This is precisely why additional time is valuable. Additional time allows better consultation with experts. Additional time allows more review of unintended impacts. Additional time allows legislatures to examine language carefully. It allows British Columbians themselves to engage more meaningfully in the discussion. And perhaps most importantly, additional time allows governments to demonstrate confidence rather than defensiveness. Confident governments welcome scrutiny. Confident governments welcome transparency. Confident governments welcome review.

When I speak with people in my riding, one thing I hear over and over again: frustration with feeling unheard. People want openness. They want honesty. They want accountability, whether they live in Cranbrook, Fernie, Sparwood, Creston, Kimberley, Elkford, Golden — anywhere else in the Kootenays.

People understand. Access to information is part of protecting democracy itself. They may not follow every clause of legislation. They may not read every legal amendment that we put out, but they understand fairness. The fairness means government should not fear additional review, especially when dealing with laws governing public access to government records.

There is no emergency requiring this bill to pass immediately — no emergency. There is no crisis that makes six months impossible. There is no compelling argument that careful review somehow threatens democracy. In fact, the opposite is true. Careful review strengthens democracy.

Today I urge members of this House to support this amendment. Support six additional months. Support stronger consultation. Support thoughtful implementation. Please support public confidence, support transparency and support accountability.

Friends, freedom-of-information legislation should never be treated as a routine housekeeping exercise. It should be treated with seriousness, with caution and with respect for the democratic principles it protects.

British Columbians are watching this debate carefully. They’re watching us. They want to know. What they want to know is simple. Will government take the time necessary to get this right? Or will government rush forward, despite concerns?

I believe that six months is responsible. I believe that six months is reasonable. And I believe that six months would ultimately produce stronger legislation and greater public trust. For those reasons, I support this amendment and encourage all members of this House to do the same.

Kiel Giddens: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Kiel Giddens: In the gallery right now are two of our very hard-working staff. Dion Weisner is our director of research and does an amazing job for us, and Tony Miyoshi is a research officer. He was an intern in the legislative internship program and chose to stay on and work with the opposition caucus.

We value their hard work for our team, and we value that they’re here to listen to tonight’s debate, and we appreciate them very much.

[10:25 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much for the time to speak this evening. Of course, I’m rising to speak, as well, to the amendment to delay Bill 9 for six months. I want to thank the member for Surrey–White Rock for bringing this forward — the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I’ve been sitting here for a couple of hours now already, I think, actually, and had a chance to listen to members from Peace River South, from Kelowna-Mission. If I was allowed to eat in the House, I would have brought my popcorn for that one. Of course, I couldn’t do that. It’s against the rules. But I really appreciate the member for Kootenay-Rockies. It’s just been such a privilege to hear him speak in the House again, his second time today. I really appreciated him joining the debate.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

For those watching the Legislature channel at home, we’re debating a motion to hoist Bill 9. This is a procedural motion that’s available for legislation. It’s an option to be used here by members of the Legislature. This is a bit of a different way of doing things. The government has chosen to have us debate late into the night. It’s 10:30 at night right now, so for those watching the Legislature channel, you’re watching it live.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that folks will be listening, along with yourself, to debate on this motion.

Just for a reminder for members of the House, the motion reads as follows: that the motion for second reading of Bill 9, intituled Freedom of Information Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

So this is about hoisting this bill for six months to give government time to go back to the drawing board, to give government time to get this right. This is an important law, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act overall, and it’s about government stewardship of information, the information that rightly belongs to the people of British Columbia. So, at its most basic principle, at its most basic core, this motion is about taking the time to get this legislation right, to get the amendments to this legislation right.

I think we should address the problems that exist with our FOI law. I’ll acknowledge that some of the original legislation is actually doing that, but it….

Deputy Speaker: I beg your pardon, Member. I just want to recognize our member from Surrey-Panorama. Sorry for the interruption.

Bryan Tepper: Yes, I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Member.

Introductions by Members

Bryan Tepper: I got a text from my octogenarian mother. My parents are actually watching right now on TV. They’re a little concerned about the hour.

I’d like to say we’re doing the province’s business, so thank you for watching, tuning in. There was some concern about the MLAs on both sides of the House. I would just say, yes, we’re all moving forward here tonight. I appreciate that.

Dorothy and Robert Haley, thank you for tuning in, and I hope to see you next week on our break week.

Deputy Speaker: Pardon me for the interruption. Prince George–Mackenzie, take it away.

Debate Continued

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate hearing that there are folks watching at home.

As I was saying, this legislation needs modernization, because there are serious concerns that have been raised in the course of second reading debate. These amendments — there are serious concerns with them. There have been serious concerns raised by the media, and there have been serious concerns raised by stakeholders who understand the details of this law and its consequences for accountability and transparency.

[10:30 p.m.]

The amendment is not opposing the modernization that this legislation needs. We actually have to have that go ahead. Some form of amendments need to happen. It’s about recognizing that when we make changes to the Freedom of Information Protection of Privacy Act, we’re shaping how British Columbians actually interact with their government. I think that’s an important consideration. It’s absolutely something that we have to approach very carefully. That’s why this hoist motion matters.

The opposition only has so many tools, as private members, to affect government legislation. We’re saying that the government has the opportunity here, with this motion, to correct the mistakes that have been pointed out. We try to make amendments where needed in committee, of course, but let’s not rush in with a Frankenstein approach to amendments in committee. There’s an opportunity to get this right. Let’s do it better before it even goes to committee stage.

Six months is a reasonable amount of time in the entire life of important legislation. There need to be durable solutions that have been properly canvassed with key stakeholders. The government often talks about durable solutions in this House. For a law that governs access to information, something that affects accountability across government, I think that six months is a very responsible amount of time.

A six-month extension would allow the government to step back and ensure that this bill actually does what it’s intended to do, because at this stage, many of the concerns raised at second reading have not been resolved. In fact, they’ve actually been confirmed by the government. When that happens, the responsible step is not to speed up, to move faster. It’s to take the time to address those concerns properly.

It would be very good to hear directly from members on the government side what they think about this motion to hoist this bill for six months. For some unknown reason, they have not had speakers to get up to speak to this. So I guess the opposition will have to keep doing the work to discuss this topic with members of the House and with the people watching at home.

Since second reading began, we’ve learned that the government may bring forward amendments that will be potentially considered at committee stage. We’re not sure. This tells us something quite important. It tells us that the bill as it was originally drafted needed clarification. It needs improvements to what was brought forward.

That’s certainly part of the legislative process, but it also raises a fair question. If changes are still being made at this stage now, are we confident that all of the issues that we know we’ve canvassed in this House…? Are we confident that government can actually address those at later stages? From what we’ve seen, I don’t know if that’s going to happen.

Why is the government taking a piecemeal approach that hasn’t been properly discussed with stakeholders? I’d like to hear from them on that.

That is why more time is needed. We don’t need ready-fire-aim legislation in the province of B.C. That’s a very good reason to hoist the bill, to make sure we don’t have that approach when we’re making laws in this province.

I want to walk through this in practical terms as well. We don’t know if amendments will come forward, as I said, but if they do, it’s not clear that they would be well-thought-through. While any potential amendments that the government may introduce could adjust wording, I don’t believe they will do enough to resolve the core concerns that we’ve raised, that the media has raised, that the Third Party has raised and that stakeholders have raised.

For example, if clause 2 happened to remove some wording but the key points remain unchanged, it still presents a problem. The head of a public body still determines whether a request contains enough detail. The standard still relies on what an “experienced employee” can locate, but that term is still not actually defined in what was presented. In practice, the same issue would remain. The decision still rests with the body that holds the information. So from the perspective of someone making a request, the process is no clearer than it was before.

[10:35 p.m.]

In my earlier remarks, when I spoke during second reading, I raised concerns about this very point — that undefined thresholds shift discretion towards the institution rather than providing clarity to the applicant. I think that’s what…. As public, as applicants, they deserve to have a clear process that they can actually navigate.

Those concerns would still stand unless we do something that’s vastly needed here. A six-month extension would allow the government to clearly define these terms so that both sides, both the institution and the applicant, understand how the law will be applied. I think that’s important for us to understand, for all British Columbians to understand.

Say, for example, the government proposed to remove clause 3. That clause would have changed the requirement to respond without unreasonable delay. Its removal suggests that the concerns raised in this House by the opposition were, in fact, valid. But it also highlights something important. The issue is not just the wording. The issue is the delay itself.

Again, that is something…. In second reading, I did speak about the applicants waiting months beyond expected timelines, and in some cases well over half a year. That’s a very, very long time to be waiting on a request, especially when some of this is very important information that they may require. I think that is the issue that people are raising in my constituency — that the timelines for the FOI process are far too long.

I don’t think removing a clause like clause 3 necessarily fixes that underlying problem. That’s actually something that was brought up by the legislative committee, which I’ll get into a little bit later in my remarks. But removing a clause doesn’t fix the problems in the delay.

A six-month delay now, I think, gives the government time to refocus on what matters most to the public, and that is the timely access to information. Government could have the opportunity to fix that, rather than last-minute adjustments here that may not necessarily improve response times. I think there’s a chance to really reflect on recommendations that the government received on the actual capacity that government needs to be able to process. I think some of those problems can be fixed internally.

Now let’s go look at…. If government was to, potentially, for example, amend clause 13 to shift language, that’s another area that wouldn’t necessarily change the substance. The bill still expands the grounds under which requests can be disregarded. It still relies on terms like “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious” and “excessively broad.” Those terms, again, are not actually defined. Several members have spoken about this already. Again, in my second reading remarks, I raised concerns about exactly this, that undefined language can lead to inconsistent application and uncertainty for applicants. I still have these same concerns now.

A six-month delay would allow the government to clearly define those thresholds and ensure that transparency is not limited by these unclear standards. I don’t think that transparency should be framed as interference in any way, shape or form. It’s just part of accountability, and the legislation should reflect that very, very clearly.

As I just referenced, in 2022, there was a report and work that was already done by Members of the Legislative Assembly. There was significant work done on this issue. In 2022, the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act laid out a clear path forward.

I want to thank the many stakeholders who took part in that process. I also will thank the MLAs who deliberated with important recommendations. Of course, the fantastic work of the Clerk’s office, which took part in that process, as well as the good folks at Hansard, who made sure that all of that was recorded and available.

[10:40 p.m.]

But much of that work that happened was focused on improving response times. It was focused on reducing backlog while also strengthening transparency.

I think the committee’s report showed a high regard for the integrity of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That’s something we should be proud of. We heard the member for Kelowna-Mission talk about the legacy of that legislation from the 1990s, when former Premier Mike Harcourt worked very hard to bring that in. It has been updated over the years. It needs to be modernized over the years, but it needs to be modernized properly with the full respect of how it was initially brought into force.

There were many stakeholders, as I said, who participated in the committee consultations. If government has questions or concerns about the recommendations received, I think this hoist motion would give them the time to actually sit down and meet with them. They can pull the list. They can start meeting with those stakeholders to make sure that they’re actually understanding everything that was received in that process.

We also have to recognize that this issue has been studied not only by the Legislature but by organizations that work with the system every single day. That’s part of their role. Groups like the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association have provided detailed submissions on how to improve access to information. They pointed out that delays are tied to how the system is resourced and managed, as I’ve already mentioned, not just how it is written. They have warned that even modest barriers can discourage access, and I think we should take them very seriously.

I’m going to read a quote from Mike Larsen, president of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. He was quoted in the media back in March.

Deputy Speaker: Begging your pardon, Member.

Just going to recognize our member for Abbotsford South.

Bruce Banman: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave not granted.

Deputy Speaker: I’m sorry. Leave has not been granted.

Kiel Giddens: I was just about to quote Mike Larsen, president of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. “Governments tend to frame these types of amendments as being in the name of efficiency or modernization, but their effect is to diminish the public’s right to know, tilting the balance of power away from everyday citizens.” That’s what the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association said about Bill 9.

I think this hoist motion gives the government an opportunity to sit down and address some of these concerns. The association also said: “Bill 9 weakens access rights at a time when government has failed to meaningfully implement its own recordkeeping law.” So I think this motion before the House gives the government a real opportunity to get this right, to do the right thing.

I think some of the work has already been done in Bill 9. I appreciate the effort that is made in the modernization as the bill is presented, but it, obviously, has some serious flaws. The Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has called that out, and they’re encouraging this. I think they would appreciate sitting down with the government now to provide their feedback. What is really missing is the time to fully incorporate their feedback, and a six-month delay would give the government that opportunity.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

I am going to recognize the member for Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member. Division is not allowed on that request. Thank you very much.

Kiel Giddens: I think an important thing to remember is how much this….

Deputy Speaker: Members, Prince George–Mackenzie has the floor. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned my riding. It’s truly an honour to represent the people of Prince George–Mackenzie here in this Legislature.

[10:45 p.m.]

I think it’s important to remember that this information does not belong to us as members of this House. It doesn’t belong to the government. It belongs to the people in our constituencies, and it’s the government’s job to steward that information.

The people back home are left asking simple questions. They ask questions like: “Can I get information from the government when I need it? Is the process clear and simple so that I can actually navigate it?” They ask: “Is it fair?”

I know this is a very complex file. I certainly realize that. This legislation is complex. I have taken the time to do my due diligence to read into it as much as possible.

People in my riding are not asking for, necessarily, a perfect system, but I think they’re asking for one that is clear. They want to know how to make a request, how long it will take and what to expect.

If the rules are unclear, that’s when it creates conflict. It creates frustration. You have what we’re seeing now from members of the media, for example, who are speaking out. This is in the context of a government that has already struggled in this area when it comes to transparency.

Back in 2022, this government was given an award by the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. They were presented with the 2021 Code of Silence Award. So the government has gone down this road before.

The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression board member Patti Sonntag said: “The B.C. government’s bold efforts to significantly walk back transparency legislation has undermined freedom of the press and the public’s ability to monitor the provincial government’s actions.” At the time, this government was called the most secretive government in Canada. We’re now going back to try to do that process again.

We’ve also, within the course of this legislative session, had the government dismantle the Office of the Merit Commissioner.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’d like to guide you back to the motion that we’re talking about this evening.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what I’m trying to get at is that we don’t want to have the most secretive government in Canada, and a six-month delay would make sure we can get these amendments to this legislation right so that we don’t have that, going forward. I think we want to see a good Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that works for British Columbians, and that’s what this hoist motion will give government time to do.

When I did speak at second reading, I also raised concerns about access becoming more difficult but also more costly. We’ve heard some assurances, when members of the government did get up at second reading, that no new fees would be introduced. But if that’s the case, then taking the time to ensure that access remains open and affordable in practice should not be a concern. A six-month delay allows us time to confirm that this is, in fact, being preserved, not gradually narrowed.

There’s a lot of “trust us” kind of commentary from the government, and I think it’s the opposition’s duty to actually question that. We have heard assurances again about intent, but legislation shouldn’t just rely on assurances. It should be clear on its face, and it should have been clear right from day one. If the intent is to protect access, then the law should reflect that clearly and without ambiguity.

That’s why the hoist motion just makes perfect sense, to actually make sure that the intent is known with the public. There are serious concerns that have been raised. I think the government is going to want that time. Because when there are problems that occur down the road, they’re going to wish that this happened. This hoist motion is their opportunity to fix the flaws, to explain this better to the public and to take that time to do that.

[10:50 p.m.]

I have to add that this bill is, again, being considered alongside these other changes that have happened to transparency. I mentioned the Merit Commissioner’s office. In combination, when you put these together, it just makes it even more important that we don’t look back on….

Deputy Speaker: Members, I can appreciate that it’s getting late tonight, but Prince George–Mackenzie has the floor, please. If you’re going to have loud conversations, I’d ask you to take them into the hall.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate you’re listening intently to my remarks, and I hope that all members of the House will take note as well.

I think what we’re talking about is making sure that access-to-information laws are clear and strong, that transparency and accountability are strong, and I don’t think what we’ve had with Bill 9 and with the Merit Commissioner changes have done that. So taking the time is something that can safeguard our transparency in this province.

I just want to maybe point out, as well, that as the opposition critic for Labour, I hear from workers who rely on access to information. They use it to understand decisions in the workplace. They use it to ensure safety standards are being followed, just as an example. They use it in the case of, for example, a wrongful dismissal claim. This is important information for them to be able to defend their own rights in a claim like that.

If the rules are unclear, that uncertainty has real-life consequences for workers in this province. It’s something that I think for…. Taking the time with this hoist motion to delay this by six months gives time to explain that to workers, to make sure that their ability to access their own information to defend their rights is actually going to be protected.

I certainly appreciate the member for Surrey–White Rock, who is also the Leader of the Official Opposition and the interim leader of the Conservative Party. I appreciate his willingness to bring this forward. Someone had to do it. Someone had to bring this forward, I fully believe.

I also appreciate, at the early outset, the comments from the member for Langley-Willowbrook, who is the critic for Citizens’ Services.

I appreciate a very long, lengthy speech given by the member for Abbotsford South, as well, at one point, and his uncanny ability to get on No Context BC in as many points as possible.

I also listened intently to the member down the way for Saanich North and the Islands. I know he has a lot of experience in this particular piece of legislation. I appreciate that he’s been willing to share his knowledge with the House. I think that has been helpful. He’s spoken, as well, to the hoist motion, as did the Leader of the Third Party. I appreciate that they have done so. I listened, and we’ve heard pretty clearly that this simple motion is about a practical approach.

It’s allowing us time as a legislature, as all of us are legislators in this House, to ensure that the amendments actually resolve the concerns that have been raised in the course of this debate and the debate that’s happening outside of these chambers. It’s allowing the time to clarify definitions and reduce uncertainty. It allows the time to align the bill with the 2022 report and that important stakeholder input that was received at that time.

I think the most important thing is that it allows the necessary time to make sure that the system is, in fact, going to work for the people who are going to be using this legislation. It’s important legislation, and I would say that six months is not an excessive amount of time.

This is a legislation that will last the test of time. It needs to be, of course, modernized, as it needs to happen, but this is something that will be in place for a strong amount of time. It’s critical that we have that amount of time to do this work properly so that the legislation is, in fact, durable. Again, those are words that the government likes to use, actually, in this House.

Access to information is how people hold their own government accountable. It’s how they understand decisions and, ultimately, that is how trust is built.

[10:55 p.m.]

I think trust in government these days — and this is in British Columbia, but certainly across North America — is actually at an all-time low. I think we have an opportunity with this hoist motion to actually show the public that we can restore trust by making sure that we’re being open and accountable. This motion gives us that opportunity to do this work properly.

So for all these reasons, I support the amendment to delay Bill 9 for six months, and I encourage all members in this House to support this. We need, as MLAs, as legislators in this House, to support transparency and accountability. Let’s get this legislation right.

What I think I would appreciate is to hear from members opposite on this motion. They’re not speaking to it. I know that they have appreciated listening to all of the speeches from folks on this side of the House. That’s, I believe, why they extended the sitting. They wanted to continue listening to our remarks about the hoist motion. But maybe…. At this point, they’ve heard quite a few statements about what we believe. What does the government think about this hoist motion? Do they support transparency and accountability, and are they concerned about the public reaction that has happened to Bill 9?

I’m not sure, and I think it would be helpful for them to join this debate. Maybe some of them support the motion. I’m not sure at this point yet, because they haven’t spoken.

I certainly appreciated my time to debate on this motion, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your attention and the House’s attention for the time to speak today.

David Williams: I rise late this evening to speak in support of the hoist motion before this House. The motion would amend the motion for second reading of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

In plain language, this hoist amendment asks that Bill 9 not proceed to second reading today but, instead, be delayed six months. I think that’s fairly reasonable. That is a reasonable request. It’s a responsible request. It’s also a democratic request.

This motion is not a rejection of the principle that our freedom-of-information and privacy laws should be reviewed, it’s not a rejection of modernization, and it’s not a rejection of the need for public bodies to operate efficiently. It is not a rejection of privacy protection, digital service delivery or better administration.

What this hoist amendment says is simple. When government brings forward legislation that touches the public’s right to know, the privacy of the citizens and the obligations of public bodies, the power of government to share personal information and the ability of public institutions to refuse or disregard access requests, this House should not rush. It should pause. It should review. It should consult. It should get the legislation right.

There are many examples in public life where a delay and a sober second thought or further consultation will have prevented unintended consequences. I think we deal with a lot of that lately in the news. When legislation affects democratic rights, the duty of this House is even higher. British Columbians would understand that. In fact, I believe most British Columbians would expect that.

That is why this hoist amendment is appropriate. A six-month delay is not extreme. It’s not obstruction for the sake of obstruction, and it’s not a delay for the sake of a delay. It’s a practical period of time that would allow government to do what should have been done before this bill was introduced. It would allow meaningful consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, journalists, local governments, Indigenous governments, public bodies, researchers, civil society organizations, privacy experts, legal experts and ordinary British Columbians who depend on access to information.

It would allow this House to review government’s proposed amendments carefully and determine whether they actually solve the concerns that have been raised. It would allow members to compare the bill against recommendations of the 2022 special committee. It would allow us to ask whether this legislation strengthens transparency or weakens it.

[11:00 p.m.]

Freedom of information is not a technical side issue. It is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. It is not a favour the government grants to those requesting it when it feels like doing so.

Freedom of information is one of the practical ways citizens hold government accountable between elections. It allows people to understand why decisions were made, who was consulted, what alternatives were considered, how public money was spent, what risks were identified and whether promises made publicly match decisions made behind closed doors — much, much too much of that. When the right is narrowed, delayed, complicated or made more difficult to exercise, the public loses more than access to documents. The public loses confidence. Public records do not belong to the government; they belong to the people of British Columbia.

It gives this House the opportunity to pause and ask whether Bill 9 as drafted, and even as amended, meets the standard that British Columbians should expect. Does it make access clearer? Does it make government more accountable? Does it protect privacy while preserving the public’s right to know? Does it give applicants confidence that public bodies will respond fairly? Does it provide precise definitions and objective standards? Does it implement the work of the 2022 special committee in a serious and balanced way, or does it tilt the system further toward government inconvenience?

These are exactly the kinds of questions that justify a six-month delay. The hoist amendment gives this House time to answer them properly before changing the rules that govern public access to public information.

The government has already tabled amendments to Bill 9. That fact alone should give every member in this House pause and reflection. If the government had to clarify its intent only after a short period of public debate, then six months of proper consultation is not unreasonable. It is the responsible thing to do.

The problem is that the proposed government amendments do not resolve the fundamental concerns. They may adjust wording. They may narrow certain phrases. They may attempt to reassure the public. But they do not remove the broad discretion that Bill 9 creates.

They do not fully define vague terms. They do not restore public confidence that access will be timely. They do not ensure that ordinary citizens will be protected, being told that the requests are inadequate because they do not know the internal filing system of a ministry, a health authority, a school district, a Crown corporation or a municipality. They do not provide the clear safeguards that should exist before government expands the circumstances in which requests can be disregarded.

That is why the hoist amendment remains necessary, even after the government amendments. The fact that the government has tried to patch the bill does not mean that the bill is ready. It means that the bill needs more work, and six months would allow that work to be done properly.

Clause 2 is a clear example. The clause deals with the adequacy of a request. On its face, that may sound administrative. It may sound like a minor technical matter. But for an ordinary citizen trying to obtain information from government, it matters a great deal.

The concern is that the adequacy of a request is still left, in important aspects, to the broad opinion of the head of the public body. It also relies on a standard involving what an experienced employee could identify with reasonable effort and in a reasonable amount of time. Those phrases sound practical, but they are not clearly defined. They create uncertainty for applicants. They create discretion for the institution holding the records. They create the possibility that a citizen may be told their request is not good enough, not because the records do not exist but because the public body decides that the request is not framed….

[11:05 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, could I ask for a little order in the House here, please? I can appreciate it’s getting late. People are getting giddy, but we are ceding the floor to Salmon Arm–Shuswap.

David Williams: The public body decides that a request is not framed in the right way it prefers. That matters because most applicants are not lawyers. Most people do not know the internal structure of the government. They do not know the file names, the database categories, the branch names, program codes, retention schedules, internal abbreviations or email practices of a ministry.

They know the issue that affects them. They know the decision that was made. They know the permit was delayed. They know the road project that was postponed. They know the health service that was reduced. They know the contract that was awarded. They know the environmental concern that was raised. They know the local problem that never seemed to receive an answer.

Freedom of information should help them access records needed to understand those decisions. It should not punish them for not speaking the internal language of government.

This is precisely why the hoist amendment is needed. A six-month delay would allow government to define these terms properly. It would allow stakeholders to determine whether the standard is fair to applicants. It would allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to comment on whether the balance is right. It would also allow public bodies to explain the administrative challenges they face without turning those challenges into a broad, new refusal power.

Most importantly, it would allow this House to ensure that applicants are assisted in making effective requests, rather than discouraged from making them at all, unless that’s the intent.

Clause 3 is another reason the bill should be delayed. The bill proposes a change to the duty to respond “without delay” into a duty to respond “without unreasonable delay.” That may sound like a small change, but words in legislation matter. “Without delay” creates urgency. It sets a clear expectation that public bodies must respond promptly. “Without unreasonable delay” creates a different standard. It invites the argument about what is reasonable. It creates more room for delay to be justified. It risks normalizing slower responses in a system that already leaves too many applicants waiting too long.

The government now has indicated that it is bringing forward targeted amendments to provide greater clarity. But the fact that this clause was introduced in the first place shows why the House should not rush.

A law dealing with fundamental access rights should not be passed while members, stakeholders and the public are still trying to determine the final effects of the government changes. That is why this hoist motion is not a procedural tactic. It is a safeguard. It gives the House six months to examine whether the government’s proposed changes truly reflect timely access or whether they leave too much room for delay.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I’m going to ask again. I can appreciate that there are conversations happening, but I’m actually having a challenge up here hearing the member. So can we please take the conversations into the hallway?

David Williams: Thank you, Speaker. Maybe it’s much more interesting on that side. Maybe it’s a big conversation. Maybe they’re discussing how we can….

Deputy Speaker: Salmon Arm–Shuswap, carry on, please.

David Williams: A well-known principle in access-to-information law is that access delayed is often access denied. A record that arrives two years late may no longer serve its democratic purpose. It may come after a contract is signed, after a project is approved, after a service is closed, after a budget is spent, after a community meeting has passed or after the people affected have lost the chance to have meaningful responses. Timeliness is not a technical detail in freedom of information. It is central to the value of the right.

[11:10 p.m.]

If the public cannot obtain information in time to understand, question or respond to government decisions, then the right exists on paper but fails in practice. That is why any change that could make delay easier must be treated with great caution, and it is why a six-month delay is justified.

Clause 13 raises some of the most serious concerns in Bill 9 and gives further credibility to this hoist motion. The clause expands the grounds on which the Information and Privacy Commissioner may authorize a public body to disregard requests.

I recognize that there can be truly abusive situations. No one is saying public servants should be subjected to harassment, threats or clearly bad-faith conduct. No one is saying that public bodies should have no remedy when a request system is deliberately weaponized. But the existence of rare abusive conduct does not justify vague language that could discourage legitimate scrutiny.

Bill 9 introduces or relies on terms such as “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,” “systematic,” “excessively broad” and “unjustifiably interfere.” These are serious words, and they can carry significant consequences for applicants, yet they are not defined with the precision that a right of access deserves.

Without clear guardrails, a journalist pursuing a long investigation could be labelled systematic. A community advocate repeatedly seeking records about a local environmental issue could be labelled repetitious. A citizen asking broad questions because they do not know what branch holds the records could be…

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’d like to guide you back to the motion that we’re debating here tonight.

David Williams: …labelled excessively broad.

Therefore, this hoist motion addresses all that. The fact that opposition researchers asking for records on a controversial government program could be accused of interfering with operations — this hoist motion addresses many of those concerns.

The question is not whether abusive requests should be addressed. They should be. The question is whether this bill draws the line carefully enough to provide legitimate public oversight.

In my view, it does not. The government’s amendments offer an altered wording, but they do not resolve the core problem. Government is still asking this House to expand the power to avoid responding to requests that may be burdensome, inconvenient or politically uncomfortable.

That is why this hoist amendment is the proper response. Six months would allow the government to define these terms, establish objective thresholds and ensure that legitimate public interest requests are not unfairly captured by “broad language.” The right to ask questions should not depend on whether government finds those questions uncomfortable.

If a government believes these powers are necessary, it should take six months to prove it. It should show evidence. It should allow consultation. It should define the terms. It should explain how ordinary citizens will be protected. It should demonstrate that the changes will not be used to discourage accountability. And that’s exactly what this hoist motion would allow.

Six months would not prevent the government from bringing back a stronger bill. It would not prevent modernization. It would not prevent administrative improvement. It would simply require the government to do the work properly before changing a law that belongs to the people.

This debate is especially important for rural British Columbia. Rural residents, such as where I reside and my constituents reside, already face barriers. They often live further from decision-makers. They may not have the same access to ministry offices, legal support, media attention or administrative capacity. Some small local governments and volunteer organizations operate with very limited staff. Farmers, contractors, forestry workers and small business owners do not have the time to navigate a complicated government process.

When information is delayed, denied or made harder to request, rural British Columbians pay the price first. They have fewer alternatives and more challenges.

[11:15 p.m.]

This is another reason the six-month hoist amendment matters. It would allow time to assess the unintended consequences of Bill 9 for rural communities. It would allow local governments, regional districts, school boards, health authorities, Indigenous governments and community organizations to explain how these changes might affect them. It would allow this House to understand whether the bill will make it easier or harder for citizens outside major urban areas to obtain answers from government.

The government says that Bill 9 protects privacy and upholds the public’s right to access information held by public bodies. But precisely because those principles matter, the bill should not be rushed.

A bill that changes how requests are judged, how quickly government must respond, when requests can be disregarded, what records can be excluded and how personal information may be shared through Connected Services should receive full and careful review. That is the purpose of this hoist motion. It is not to abandon privacy reform. It is to ensure that privacy reform and access rights are balanced properly before this House proceeds.

Privacy and access are not enemies. A strong freedom-of-information system protects both. It allows government to withhold genuinely private information where the law requires it while still ensuring that public decisions can be scrutinized. It prevents the misuse of personal information while preserving the public’s right to understand how government operates. But when that balance has shifted too far towards administrative discretion, both privacy and access can and will suffer.

Citizens may know less about how their information is used, and they may have fewer tools to challenge government decisions. That concern becomes even more serious when we consider provisions dealing with the Connected Services and information sharing. The public deserves to know how personal information will move between public bodies. They deserve to know who will control it, what standards will apply, how consent will be handled, what safeguards will protect sensitive information and what independent oversight will exist.

Modern digital government can improve service delivery. It can make government easier to navigate. It can reduce duplication. It can help citizens access services more efficiently. But it can also increase the risks of centralizing data sharing, mission creep and reduced public visibility. A six-month pause would allow these issues to be studied carefully before the government gives itself new powers.

British Columbians are not opposed to efficient government. On this side of the House, we’re all for efficient government. What they are opposed to is government using efficiency as a reason to reduce accountability. Administrative convenience cannot become the test of democratic rights.

The freedom-of-information system can be improved. It can be made more clear. It can be made faster. It can be better resourced, and it can be modernized. That is why this hoist amendment is reasonable. It gives government six months to prove that modernization will mean those things — better access, stronger privacy and greater trust — not broader discretion and weaker accountability.

That is also why the 2022 special committee work matters. The House should not treat that work as a box to be checked. It represented an opportunity to improve the system in a very balanced way.

A six-month delay would allow government to return to that work, identify what has been implemented, what has been ignored and what requires further consultation. It would allow the House to compare Bill 9 against the committee’s recommendations rather than simply accepting government’s assertion that the bill is adequate.

The public discussion around Bill 9 should also concern this House. Critics have warned that the bill could undermine the public’s right to know. Media commentary has raised concerns that access to fair information will become harder to exercise. Members from different political perspectives have also warned that freedom of information should not be degraded under the disguise of administrative convenience.

[11:20 p.m.]

When journalists, advocates, experts and members from different political perspectives all raise similar concerns, the responsible response is not to dismiss them. The responsible response is to listen.

This hoist motion gives that government time to listen. It gives the public time to be heard. It gives this House time to separate genuine administrative improvement from provisions that may weaken accountability.

The minister’s own comments provide the reason to support the hoist motion. The minister said that the bill is about privacy, access, trust, transparency and accountability. If that is true, then six months of consultation should strengthen the bill, not weaken it.

The danger with Bill 9 is not only in one clause or one phrase. The danger is all of them together. Clause by clause, the bill shifts more judgment to public bodies. It gives government more discretion. It creates more room for delay. It introduces vague standards. It expands circumstances where requests can be disregarded. It raises questions about information-sharing.

Each change may be presented as modest, but taken together they risk changing the character of the system. They risk turning freedom of information from a right into a process citizens must navigate at the discretion of institutions they are trying to scrutinize. That’s not the direction that British Columbia should be taking.

That is why this hoist amendment is before this House. It asks us not to proceed now but six months hence so that we can decide whether the cumulative effect of Bill 9 strengthens or weakens the public’s right to know.

We should be making it easier for citizens to understand government decisions. We should be making response times faster, not more flexible. We should be helping applicants’ time frame requests, not empowering public bodies to judge them as inadequate. We should be protecting public servants from genuine abuse while also protecting applicants from being unfairly labelled as abusive or malicious. We should be strengthening the role of independent oversight, not asking citizens to place greater trust in government discretion.

There is a simple democratic principle at stake. The more power government exercises, the more transparency citizens require. When government spends public money, regulates private property, approves projects, denies permits, manages health care, oversees education, negotiates contracts, collects personal information and makes decisions affecting every region of this province, the public must have meaningful tools to ask questions.

Freedom of information is one of those tools. Weaking that tool weakens accountability. This is particularly important at a time when public trust is already fragile. The answer to declining trust is not to make information hard to obtain. Believe it or not, the answer is more openness, clearer explanations and a stronger commitment to accountability.

That is why this six-month delay proposed by the hoist amendment is so important. It gives this House time to ask whether Bill 9 builds trust or damages it. The government’s amendments do not eliminate the need for this pause. In fact, they strengthen the case for it.

Amendments introduced after criticism are an admission that the original bill had problems. It does not mean that the government acted in bad faith. It means that the legislation needs more work. When a bill touches fundamental democratic rights, the answer should not be to patch it quickly and push it through. The answer should be to pause, consult and return a bill that will command greater public confidence.

The hoist motion gives the government a practical path forward. Take it. It does not say that the issue should never be addressed. It says that second reading should not happen now. It says that the government should take six months to consult, define, clarify and correct. It says that the House should not pass a bill while key concerns remain unresolved. It says that British Columbians deserve better than a rushed debate on a law that governs their access to public information.

[11:25 p.m.]

I support the hoist motion because Bill 9 is not ready. The government’s amendments do not cure the fundamental problems. Clause 2 still raises concerns about the request adequacy and institutional discretion. Clause 3 shows that the government was prepared to weaken the urgency of response, and the need for amendments demonstrates why the House needs more time. Clause 13 still raises serious concerns about vague grounds for disregarding requests.

The Connected Services and information-sharing provisions still require careful privacy review. The broader structure for the bill still tilts towards administrative convenience rather than public access. Six months would allow proper consultation. Six months would allow the 2022 special committee recommendations to be properly assessed and implemented. Six months would allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to be heard in a meaningful way.

Six months would allow public bodies to explain their operational concerns and applicants to explain their access concerns. Six months would allow this House to replace vague language with precise safeguards. Six months would allow this government to demonstrate that it’s strengthening freedom of information rather than restricting it.

This is not a delay for delay’s sake. It is a safeguard. It is a pause for accountability. It is an opportunity to fix a bill that government has already acknowledged needs clarification. That’s why I support the hoist amendment.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Brent Chapman: As if it wasn’t bad enough already, the people in British Columbia have had nine years of demoralization, what with the complete alteration in the relationship between the government and the legal profession, the medical professions, parents, school children, realtors, retailers, construction workers, miners, foresters, fishers, short-term renters, farmers, ranchers, landlords, drivers and home and property owners.

On top of that, the Canucks finished last but still didn’t get the first draft pick, and it looks like the Whitecaps might be on their way to Vegas.

The government, never being one not to pile on, decided now is the time to offer a lousy dessert after a force-feeding of a nine-year bile buffet to the good people of British Columbia. And what’s on the menu for dessert? Changing the requirements for a freedom-of-information request.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — what on earth did British Columbia do to deserve this bill from this government? You would think, with the nightmare that has befallen this province in the form of DRIPA and all the existential uncertainty it brings, that this government might just put its feet up for a while and stop twisting the thumbscrews even tighter.

If I didn’t know better, I would think that they have a fascination with finding out just how much the people can take. The most recent polls might be an indication that British Columbians may have finally had their fill.

I stand here today, this evening, to fight for a reprieve, albeit very modest. I am fully supporting the hoist motion that is before the House. When a government seems to derive so much delight from running roughshod over its own people, something must be done to compel them to hit “pause.” Even if for a few months, for the love of god, can’t we give people a breather?

It really is shocking to be a witness to such a flagrant use of legislative authority. Of all things you would think a Western government could do with a majority, stifling access to information that is generated in this House by the people that the hard-earned tax dollars paid for is so cynical that only this callous NDP government would take the time to foist it on British Columbians.

In any event, watching them around here, they seem not ashamed or even embarrassed. If they are, I’m not seeing it. I guess with all they’ve done over the past nine years, in their eyes, this slap in the face must seem like small potatoes.

Let’s take a look at freedom of information in the world and how this hoist motion might give everyone a chance to rethink this bill and the government.

The British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act, while they call it streamlining, is nothing less than a rollback of the very transparency that British Columbians have fought for decades to protect.

[11:30 p.m.]

Let us speak plainly about where this leaves us on the world stage and why we need the hoist motion.

The authoritative global right to information rating, the international gold standard measuring legal strength of access-to-information laws, ranks countries out of 150 points. Top of the world: Afghanistan at 139, Mexico at 136 and Serbia at 135. These jurisdictions have built regimes with minimal exceptions, swift timelines, ironclad appeals and genuine proactive disclosure. Canada’s federal law sits at a mediocre 93 points, 53rd place.

British Columbia’s FOIPPA has long been among the strongest in Canada, a provincial leader that kept us competitive internationally. Bill 9 changes all that. It replaces the duty to respond without delay with the vague “without unreasonable delay.” It hands public bodies new powers to dismiss requests they deem abusive or burdensome. It weakens specificity rules and opens the door to longer extensions without real oversight.

These are not minor tweaks. They are deliberate restrictions that critics rightly call a weakening of access. When Mexico and Serbia, nations once dismissed as less open than ours, now outrank us on paper, and when even our own federal law lags behind global best practices, this government is choosing secrecy over sunlight. They deserve a province that leads the world in openness, not one that slides backwards into the middle of the pack.

I am pleased to speak about this hoist motion tonight, not simply to oppose Bill 9 but to defend one of the most important democratic principles we have in British Columbia: the principle that government must remain accountable to the people it serves. I rise to defend the principle that information does not belong to politicians, ministers, bureaucrats or governments; it belongs to the public.

I rise today in support of the hoist motion before this House because the concerns surrounding Bill 9 are too serious, too numerous and too unresolved for this legislation to proceed without a pause.

Why the hoist motion? Because this is not a routine amendment. It is not a harmless administrative update. It is not simply modernization, no matter how many times the government repeats that word. Bill 9 fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and their government. It changes the balance between transparency and control, which is why the hoist motion is absolutely necessary. It fundamentally alters the balance between openness and secrecy.

When legislation carries consequences of that magnitude, this Legislature has responsibility to stop, reflect, scrutinize and reconsider. That is precisely why a hoist motion exists, and that is precisely why this House should support a six-month pause on Bill 9.

A hoist motion is not obstruction. A hoist motion is responsibility. It is a parliamentary mechanism designed specifically for situations where legislation raises profound concerns that require deeper public examination before moving forward.

Bill 9 unquestionably meets that threshold, because opposition to this bill is not isolated. The concerns surrounding Bill 9 are broad, serious and completely credible. Former architects of British Columbia’s freedom-of-information legislation have raised alarms. Journalists have raised alarms. Transparency advocates have raised alarms. Accountability watchdogs have raised alarms.

David Williams: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave not granted.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member for Surrey South.

Brent Chapman: When legislation designed to govern access to information generates this level of concern about transparency itself, this House has an obligation to proceed with caution, not speed. Undoubtedly, this hoist motion matters because legislation affecting democratic accountability deserves more scrutiny, not less.

[11:35 p.m.]

Let us remember why freedom-of-information legislation exists in the first place. The original FOI legislation, introduced in British Columbia in the 1990s, was built on a very simple but very powerful principle: government information belongs to the public. That principle shaped the legislation as it was originally written.

The law was designed not to protect government from scrutiny but to protect the public’s right to scrutinize the government. It was designed to ensure that citizens could understand decisions made in their name and with their tax dollars. It was designed to ensure accountability. It was designed to ensure transparency. It was designed with the understanding that democracy cannot function properly when information is hidden from the people.

That original vision matters, because Bill 9 moves us far away from that. One of the strongest reasons to support the hoist motion is to allow this House the opportunity to reconsider whether this legislation remains faithful to the original principles of freedom of information as it was conceived in the 1990s.

A former architect of British Columbia’s freedom-of-information system warned that this bill risks turning FOI into freedom from information. That is not political theatre. That is a serious warning from someone who helped build the very framework this government is now altering. If the bill can’t be scrapped, this hoist motion allows time to at least get it right.

In the Times Colonist, it was argued that this government appears no longer to care about access to information. Again, those are not casual criticisms. Those are fundamental warnings about the direction this legislation takes us. When warnings of that magnitude are raised, the responsible response is not to rush legislation forward. The responsible response is to pause, to listen, to reconsider, to hoist the bill for six months so that the public can fully examine what is being proposed.

The irony here is impossible to ignore. A bill dealing with access to information is itself being pushed forward without sufficient openness and scrutiny. That should concern every member of this House, on both sides.

One of the most troubling changes in Bill 9 is the weakening of response timelines. Under the current legislation, government is required to respond to requests without delay. Bill 9 changes that standard to “without unreasonable delay.” At first glance, they may seem insignificant, but it is not insignificant at all.

Words matter in legislation. Standards matter. This change fundamentally weakens the obligation placed on government. “Without delay” creates urgency. It creates accountability, and it creates a clear expectation. But “without unreasonable delay” introduces flexibility. It introduces interpretation. It introduces subjectivity. Most importantly, it gives government greater room to justify delays.

That is not strengthening transparency; that is weakening accountability. Changes of that magnitude deserve far more scrutiny than this government appears willing to allow. That is exactly why this bill should be hoisted. When government weakens the standard for responding to information requests, this House should not simply wave it through. It should pause, it should examine the consequences carefully, and it should ensure that any reforms remain faithful to the original spirit of the legislation. A hoist motion will give time to adjust.

Another deeply concerning aspect of Bill 9 is the expanded authority for government to reject requests. Under this bill, requests may be dismissed if they are considered abusive, malicious, repetitious, systematic, excessively broad or interfering with operations. Let’s think carefully about those terms.

[11:40 p.m.]

Who decides what is repetitious? Who decides what is systematic? Who decides what is excessively broad? The government does, the very institution being scrutinized. Now, that is a profound problem. How does the government now get to bogart the information, information that they used to have to make available? Freedom-of-information legislation was never intended to allow government to define the limits of acceptable scrutiny, yet that is precisely what Bill 9 risks doing.

A journalist investigating a pattern of conduct could now be described as systematic. An opposition member pursuing repeated follow-up questions could now be described as repetitious. A citizen attempting to obtain comprehensive information could now be described as excessively broad. Once those labels are applied, requests can be rejected. That is not transparency. That is control. And when legislation increases government control over public access to information, that legislation deserves more scrutiny, not less. That is why the hoist motion is necessary.

Kirk LaPointe warned that Bill 9 will make access to information slower, less predictable and more discretionary. Those three words should carry concern for every member of this House — slower, less predictable, more discretionary — because transparency only functions when access is timely, reliable and governed by clear standards. When delays increase, accountability weakens. When predictability disappears, confidence in the system erodes. It seems obvious on this side, but when discretion expands, government gains greater power to decide what the public gets to know. That is not modernization. That is regression.

LaPointe also warned that this legislation enables government to defer, delay and deny the public’s right to know. Those are warnings about democratic accountability itself. And when legislation raises concerns about democratic accountability, this House should not rush forward; it should pause. It would serve the province to support the hoist motion.

Transparency advocates have described Bill 9 as an assault on government transparency. Whether members agree with that exact wording or not, the fact remains that there is widespread concern that this legislation weakens public access rather than strengthens it. And that concern is not isolated. It is repeated again and again across multiple sectors. That alone should justify a six-month pause, because legislation affecting transparency should itself be subjected to the highest possible level of scrutiny. That is what the hoist motion would accomplish. With more time comes more scrutiny, more public input, more consultation, more accountability — not less.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of the hoist motion is that it would allow government the opportunity to return to the original principles of the freedom-of-information legislation. The original FOI laws introduced in the 1990s were designed to expand transparency. Bill 9 risks narrowing it. The original legislation placed the burden on government to justify secrecy. Bill 9 risks shifting the burden onto citizens to justify access. The original legislation recognized that scrutiny strengthens democracy. Bill 9 risks treating scrutiny as interference.

That is a profound philosophical shift, and philosophical shifts of this magnitude deserve deep public examination before legislation proceeds. Six months is required. This is why the bill should be hoisted.

The government may argue that these changes are necessary for efficiency, but the public is not the problem. Citizens asking questions are not the problem. Journalists seeking accountability are not the problem. Opposition members demanding answers are not the problem.

[11:45 p.m.]

The problems are internal. Record management systems need improvement. Resources need investments. Process needs modernization. Instead of addressing those issues directly, Bill 9 shifts the burden onto the public. That is the wrong approach, and wrong approaches should not be rushed through this Legislature. They should be paused and reconsidered. That is precisely what the hoist motion would allow.

Let us also consider the cumulative effect of these changes. One change weakens timelines. Another expands refusal powers. Another increases discretion. Another narrows access. Individually, government may attempt to portray each change as modest, but collectively, the direction becomes unmistakable. The cumulative effect is reduced transparency, reduced accountability, reduced public access.

When legislation moves us steadily away from openness and toward control, this House has a duty to intervene. That is why the hoist motion is so important, because it allows us to stop before changes become law. It allows us to reassess. It allows us to ensure that democratic accountability remains the guiding principle.

This bill does not simply affect journalists or opposition members. It truly affects ordinary citizens — citizens simply trying to understand decisions that impact their lives; citizens trying to obtain records about services, policies or actions affecting them personally; citizens who rely on freedom-of-information laws because they have nowhere else to turn.

What will happen under Bill 9? Requests will take longer. Requests will face more barriers. Requests will be subject to more discretion. Eventually, some people will simply give up. That is how transparency erodes, not suddenly but gradually — through delay, through frustration, through exhaustion. That is why this House must proceed carefully, and that is why this bill must be hoisted. A six-month hoist is not unreasonable. In fact, given the scale of concerns surrounding this legislation, it is the minimum responsible course of action.

Six months would allow more public hearings; more expert testimony; more consultation with journalists, watchdogs and transparency advocates; more examination of how these changes compare to the original principles of the FOI legislation; more consideration of whether this bill truly strengthens access or weakens it. Most importantly, six months would allow for more public scrutiny, not less. Transparency legislation should never move forward without maximum transparency in its own review process.

If this government truly believes Bill 9 strengthens access to information, then it should welcome a six-month pause. It should welcome scrutiny. It should welcome debate. It should welcome public input, because good legislation improves under scrutiny. Only weak legislation fears it. If this bill cannot withstand six more months of public examination, then perhaps that tells us everything we need to know about the legislation itself.

This debate is ultimately about trust — trust between government and citizens; trust that government remains accountable; trust that transparency is being strengthened, not weakened. Trust cannot be built through secrecy. It cannot be built through delay. It cannot be built through expanded discretion and increased barriers. Trust is built through openness, through accountability and through transparency. Those principles shaped the original freedom-of-information legislation in British Columbia, and those principles should continue to guide us today.

That is why this House must support the hoist motion, because the concerns surrounding Bill 9 remain unresolved. The public deserves more scrutiny, not less. Democratic accountability deserves stronger protection, not weaker standards. Legislation that reshapes public access to information should never be rushed through this Legislature without full and proper examination.

[11:50 p.m.]

Transparency is not a nuisance. Scrutiny is not interference. Accountability is not optional. Those principles mattered in the 1990s, when British Columbia first established its FOI legislation. They matter just as much today and perhaps even more, because once transparency is weakened, it becomes very difficult to restore. Once accountability erodes, public trust declines. And once public trust is lost, democracy itself suffers.

That is why this House must pause. That is why this House must reconsider. That is why this House must support the hoist motion before us today. Not to kill the bill — though that could work — but to improve it. Not to obstruct accountability but to strengthen it. Certainly, not to reduce scrutiny but to ensure more scrutiny, more consultation and more public examination before this legislation proceeds any further.

For those reasons, I will support that Bill 9 be read a second time on this day, six months hence.

Lawrence Mok: I rise in support of the hoist motion on Bill 9. At the outset, I want to be very clear about what this motion is and what this motion is not. This motion is not about defeating Bill 9. I want to repeat, again, that this motion is not about defeating Bill 9. It is not about preventing government from pursuing reform. It is not about denying that improvements to the freedom-of-information system may be needed.

The hoist motion before this House is about something much more specific and much more responsible. It is about pausing consideration of Bill 9 for six months, which is not a long period of time, so that the legislation can be improved, can be clarified, can be properly scrutinized before it proceeds further.

That is why I strongly support this hoist motion. I have no intention to stop the bill at all but to ensure that when this House ultimately votes on it, it is doing so on legislation that is precise, that is fair and that is consistent with the democratic right of British Columbians to access government information.

A hoist motion exists for exactly this kind of situation. It is a procedural tool used when members believe a bill requires further work, further consultation and further examination before it can responsibly become law. It is not an obstruction tool. Instead, it is a refinement tool. It exists precisely because this House should not confuse speed with good law-making.

Good legislation is not measured by how quickly it is being implemented. It is measured by whether it withstands scrutiny, whether it protects rights and whether it earns public confidence over time. Freedom of information is one of those rights.

As former federal Information Commissioner John Reid once emphasized, secrecy in government is not a neutral condition. It directly affects public trust and democratic accountability.

[11:55 p.m.]

Former Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault has similarly emphasized that transparency only has meaning when access is timely and effective, because delayed access is often denied access in practice.

These are not abstract principles. They are the very foundation of how British Columbians hold their government accountable. British Columbians have a right to know what their government is doing in their name and with their money. Journalists rely on that right to investigate decisions. Researchers rely on it to evaluate public policies. Ordinary citizens rely on it to understand decisions that affect their communities.

Let’s talk about definitions, because definitions matter. How do you present a bill without definitions? What does “reasonable time frame” mean? What does “without reasonable delay” mean? Is it 30 days? Is it 60 days? Is it 90 days, or is it six months?

I was an engineer. Presenting a bill without definitions is like telling a crane operator to lift something without telling them how heavy the load is. How heavy is that weight? “Oh, no one defined it. We have no idea how heavy that weight is.” If you don’t know how heavy that weight is, we will not know what tools we need to lift the load. We don’t know how to prepare for it. If we don’t have clear definitions, a crane could kill someone. The crane operator wouldn’t know how to handle the machinery properly.

Presenting a bill without definitions is irresponsible. It’s more than irresponsible. It is a risk to the public. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, my colleague, spent hours in this House asking about definitions. His questions have gone unanswered. That’s why I strongly support this hoist motion, because six additional months will allow this legislation to be properly reviewed, to be properly improved and to be aligned with the core democratic principle that access to information should be the rule and not the exception.

Former Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia David Loukidelis has repeatedly emphasized — he has said time and time again — that access-to-information laws must be interpreted and designed in a manner that favours disclosure, because the public interest is served when government is open and transparent, not when it is closed and hides in secrecy. Transparent government means a government that is accountable, accountable to British Columbians, because they deserve it.

[12:00 a.m.]

That principle is at the heart of the concerns raised about Bill 9. This bill introduces language changes and new discretionary powers that deserve very careful examination. It replaces the obligation to respond without delay with a requirement to respond without unreasonable delay. That may appear subtle, but in law, subtle changes in wording, as we all know, can produce significant changes in outcomes.

Madam Speaker, I notice some distractions from the House.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member. You have the floor.

Lawrence Mok: It introduces broader discretion to reject requests deemed abusive or malicious. It expands discretion over whether a request contains sufficient detail. It introduces additional ambiguity into the rules governing when and how access to information must be provided. These are not minor administrative updates. These are changes that affect the legal rights of British Columbians.

It is already incredibly difficult to navigate the freedom-of-information system, even without the changes in the bill that this hoist motion addresses. It takes months upon months for information to be received by the people requesting it. Now this government wants to add even more uncertainty through their undefined terms that will cause delay after delay.

This bill contains things that will fundamentally change the way freedom-of-information requests are processed. Freedom of information is a cornerstone of people’s right to know what their government is doing, and anything that changes the process and makes receiving that information more difficult needs to be scrutinized very carefully.

This is exactly why I support this hoist motion. It gives this House time to ensure those provisions are carefully defined, properly constrained and fully consistent with the principle that access to information is a democratic right, not a discretionary privilege. Because access to information is just that — access.

What does access mean? It means everyone can get it. And how can everyone get access to information if they don’t know the rules; if they don’t know what the government can do to avoid their request, to delay it?

Definitions may seem trivial to some people, something for the great legal minds of our province to quibble about. But tonight we speak for all British Columbians who deserve to know just what this government is trying to change about the way they access information to which they are entitled.

I also want to be very clear about what kind of democratic standard we should be striving for in this province. Former United States President Ronald Reagan often spoke of a shining city on a hill, a place where government is visible to the people it serves, where accountability is not hidden behind process and where public trust is strengthened through openness rather than secrecy.

[12:05 a.m.]

Whatever one’s political perspective, the underlying idea is widely understood. Democracy functions best when it is seen clearly by those it governs.

British Columbia should aspire to no less. If we believe in strong democratic institutions, then we should be building a system where government decisions are visible to the people who fund them, where accountability is immediate rather than delayed and where access to information is treated as a right rather than as a burden.

This is exactly why this hoist motion truly matters, because a system that aspires to that standard does not rush legislation that affects transparency rights without full scrutiny. It takes the time to get it right. This hoist motion gives this House that time of six months. I do not support legislation that creates uncertainty around the public’s right to know or that risks turning delay into routine practice or discretion into obstruction.

Former Federal Information Commissioner Robert Marleau once stated that access-to-information legislation exists to ensure government remains accountable to the people it serves. That accountability is weakened whenever access is narrowed or made more uncertain. This House has an opportunity today to avoid that outcome. By supporting this hoist motion, members of this House are not rejecting reform. They are insisting on better reform. They are insisting that before Bill 9 proceeds, it must be approved so that it strengthens transparency rather than weakening it.

There is a simple legislative truth that applies here. I want to say that when legislation affects democratic rights, precision matters. When legislation expands discretion, safeguards matter. When legislation changes response obligations, clarity matters. This bill touches all three. That is why a six-month pause is not only reasonable and necessary, but it is responsible. It allows this House to correct ambiguity, strengthen safeguards and ensure that the final version of this bill reflects the highest standard of transparency law.

If this legislation is sound, it will withstand six more months of scrutiny. If it is well-designed, it will benefit from improvement rather than be weakened by it. If it is intended to strengthen transparency, then additional review will only reinforce the outcome.

[12:10 a.m.]

That is the core reasoning for supporting this hoist motion — not to obstruct government business, not to delay for its own sake but to ensure that when this House ultimately debates Bill 9 again, it does so on legislation that fully protects the public’s right to know.

Transparency delayed is accountability weakened. Legislation that affects democratic rights should never be rushed when there’s still meaningful work to be done to improve it. For those reasons, I heartily support the hoist motion.

Thank you for your patience.

Tony Luck: It’s a real pleasure to be here this evening. It reminds me of the old days when we used to do all-nighters and things like that. So here we are, an all-nighter. It’s been a long time. I’m really looking forward to this and to being able to speak to this motion that we’ve got on the floor here, this hoist motion.

Tonight I want to say strongly that I do support the hoist amendment to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. I think it’s a very important thing we’re looking at today, because it’s one of those little, small things that define democracy in the end.

Let me be absolutely clear at the outset about this hoist amendment — what it really does, why it really matters in the long term and why it is absolutely necessary that we move this as soon as possible.

This hoist amendment proposes that the word “now” be replaced with “six months hence.” I know we’ve heard that a lot today and the last day or two, but once again, I’ll repeat it for the viewers out there that have tuned in late to this show tonight. I just want to make sure that they’re very clear what we’re trying to do here.

We’re not trying to defeat this bill, kill the bill, do anything like that. What we want to do is have a serious, sober second look at this bill because there are some gaps in it. What we want to do is just extend it for six months, bring it back in the fall, allow the government to take some time over the summer vacation here — unfortunately, they’ll have to work a little bit of their vacation — come back, have another look at this and fill in some of the gaps that we’re really concerned about.

It’s not just us that are really concerned about the gaps. It’s industry out there. It’s other businesses. It’s FOI associations and groups that have sown some real concern about it. I think in my original speech on Bill 9, I talked about that and I made it very clear.

We’re not here to talk about the bill tonight. We’re here to talk about the hoist amendment.

So we just want to make sure that it’s very, very clear that we’re talking about the hoist and what it wants to do here. Six months to do what this government has failed to do. What are some of the things that it has failed to do? Well, it has failed to properly examine the bill, put it under a microscope and look at some of the finer details. We know this is the history of this government and what they don’t do. That’s properly consult. We hear that all the time, everywhere we go. They haven’t properly consulted.

So we need to go back and properly consult on this bill and properly understand the consequences of this deeply flawed legislation. That is what a hoist amendment is for — to be able to bring and shine the light on some things where there are some holes in it and have a look at that and try to improve where we can.

A hoist amendment is not about the delay for the sake of delay. We don’t want to do that. We all believe in properly effective, properly working freedom of information. I think that’s a really important piece of legislation that this House can do and what we have in modern society today. I think it’s really important to make sure we get it right, make sure we have the right timelines and the right costs — if there is a cost; there probably shouldn’t be a cost — and that kind of thing, but some of the right things we do here.

It’s about preventing bad laws from being passed in haste. That’s what this actually looks like. It looks like a bill that’s being tried and passed in haste. Rush it through. So you have to ask the question: why are we trying to rush this bill through? I’ll talk a little bit more about that, about rushing things, as I go along here.

But it’s also about forcing government to take a sober second look when it has clearly gotten it wrong the first time. And this government has gotten it wrong. As I mentioned before, it’s not just us saying this — other groups. This bill is not ready, and that is why this hoist amendment is absolutely necessary as we move forward here.

[12:15 a.m.]

It is not refined, and it, certainly, is not a balanced bill — as we’ve seen, as we have talked about, in the bill itself. It’s not rooted in strengthening transparency. It seems more to do with shutting down transparency.

This hoist motion will be there so we can go and look with clarity at how we can strengthen transparency, because that’s what it’s all about — making sure everybody understands exactly what’s happening, how the process is to work.

It is a bill that weakens access rights, expands government discretion and tilts the balance away from the public and towards the state. That is precisely why this hoist motion must be passed — to go in and have a look at how it does that and how we can pull that back and rebalance the bill, moving forward here. If we allow this bill to proceed now, we are knowingly allowing flawed legislation to pass into law — legislation that will impact every journalist, every parent, every taxpayer and every British Columbian seeking answers from their government.

I may say this once or twice through my comments here, but the people’s business is the people’s business. We always need to remember that when we sit in this House and we do things in this House. We are here at the behest of our voters and of the people that we represent out there.

We believe and we feel that six months is not an unreasonable amount of time to ask to have a sober second look at this bill and make sure that we all get it right. If that side of the House gets it right, we will support it, but it has to be right, moving forward. Six months is what good legislators do when a bill is not quite ready here. We take some time to have a look at it.

So what this hoist amendment is really about…. This hoist amendment is about one thing — giving this Legislature the time to do its job, because this bill, this deeply consequential bill, has not been subjected to the level of scrutiny it deserves. Where was the full consultation with transparency experts? Where was the deep engagement with journalists? Where was the serious response to warnings from watchdog organizations?

We mention those because we’re not discussing the bill. We talked about that in the previous bill, but these are some of the things we’re concerned about, and it’s why we’re looking at the hoist motion — to go back and answer the questions we didn’t get answers for in the previous discussion and debate of the bill, in the beginning.

Instead, we are asked to accept the government’s word that this is modernization. Modernization — I’m not exactly sure what that word means in this respect. Is it updating? Is it digitizing? What is it doing with this bill to make it more transparent, easily readable — that kind of thing? If weakening transparency is modernizing, then we have lost the meaning of the word.

This government has a track record, and it is not a good one. Once again, I detailed that when I did my debate on Bill 9, so we won’t reiterate that here. But we know that that is why we want the hoist motion, because some of those answers were not forthcoming and we’re still trying to decide where this bill is going.

They are attempting to make some modest amendments — the government on its own — to change the bill and try to make it a little bit more transparent, but it’s not working. As some of my colleagues have mentioned in the past, they are simply a little bit of housekeeping amendments and everything, not really changing the gist of the bill to begin with. Hence, our requirement, our ask for a hoist motion, to be able to take the time to look at some of the things that aren’t working in this bill.

One of the things, as well…. The record from the government is deeply concerning, and it should be. This is a government that has been called one of the most secretive in Canada. We’ve heard that numerous times here. We’ve heard it a number of times during the debate on Bill 9, and not only Bill 9 but previous bills that we have discussed here — about the way the government is trying to change things, drop it in behind, orders in council, those kinds of things.

This is a government that received, obviously, the code of silence — a number of my colleagues have mentioned that before — from the journalists. Of course, the journalists are one of the largest groups that is showing some real concerns about where this bill is and their ability to be able to get the access they need to find out things like limo rides and things like that. It has been mentioned many times. This is why we need the hoist motion — to be able to go in and review and see if journalists and the general public have ease of access.

[12:20 a.m.]

Remember that the people’s business is the people’s business, and we’ve got to make these bills as transparent and flexible and available as possible for the general public.

At the end of the day, we may sound like here…. I know some of the members on the other side — not particularly tonight, but earlier on — have been kind of critical of our thoughts on this and asking about this hoist motion to be able to go in and review this bill a little bit more thoroughly.

But it’s not rhetoric. There are some concerns here. Like we’re saying, we’re in here doing the people’s business ourselves on this side, and this is what we’re hearing out there in the general public — their concerns. They’re bringing them forward to us, and we just want to make sure we’re doing the right thing here and doing our work.

We’re here to work. That’s why we’re here. What time is it? It’s almost 12:30, and we’re in the House here, doing the work to make sure we get it right for the people, the people that we represent out there in the general public.

Now this same government is asking us to pass legislation that further weakens access to information. We don’t want to weaken. We want to strengthen. We want to give people the ability to come in and access their information. It’s their information.

I think sometimes as legislators we might forget about that, but that’s the most important. This is their information, and it should be accessible. They’re the ones that pay the bills. They should know what they’re buying. That, I think, is really important, hence, the hoist amendment so that we can go in and review that information and make sure that it’s functioning for the people, the voters, the people that put us here in this House. That’s what we’re here for.

I had a little note here, just reiterating again. It says: “The voters are wanting this.” They are holding us accountable to make sure we get this right moving forward.

Let’s talk about the substance of the bill for a few minutes. The government will try to hide behind language like “efficiency” and “streamlining.” Well, it seems a little clear, in our debate on Bill 9, which we’re not debating here tonight…. We’re debating the hoist motion. But back then, we talked about this. We brought a lot of this forward and centre to make sure that we could try to get answers that particular time through the debate.

Now what we need is…. It looks like we’re going to need some more time to analyze and review this and have a much deeper dive into the bill to make sure that we get this right, give the government a chance here. We’re asking for six months on this hoist amendment so that we can go in and make sure it aligns properly.

We want to modernize. We want to make sure of things. We want to make sure that we’re using the most modern and useful technology so people can have easy access into their own information. But I think this is some doublespeak for some language that’s trying to shut it down. As a number of my colleagues have talked about, it’s more about misinformation or disinformation or shutting the information down than it is about making it more accessible for the general public out there.

When you strip everything away, what are we left with? Well, we’re left with a bill that replaces “without delay” with “without reasonable delay.” That’s just one of the changes they fundamentally want to change in here, one of the small amendments.

Now, I think a few of my colleagues have gone on and talked about this. We need a definition of what “reasonable” is. Without delay, without reasonable delay…. We’re not really sure what unreasonable delay is.

I think we’ve had some great examples. Somebody gets up out of the wrong side of the bed, and he decides he wants to reasonably delay somebody just because he’s having a bad day or something. That’s not the way we should be looking at using this information or anything like that.

I’m really concerned. We need to really make sure the definition of “unreasonable” is here. With the hoist motion, we’re going to be able to go in and look at these words, probably change the words up, make sure they’re much tighter and people understand what that work really is.

It’ll expand the ability to disregard requests at the whim of somebody that, once again, has a bad day or something. They can disregard requests. There’s no real strong definition around that. Let’s go in and take the time and define that a little bit more tightly and make sure that we understand what disregarding requests really is.

And it’s here to increase discretion to reject or limit access. Well, that’s not very good. I hear about limiting access and not allowing people access in countries other than Canada. We’re a democratic country. We should be able to have it fairly wide open so that people can come and access their information.

[12:25 a.m.]

This hoist amendment will allow us to go in and fix that, look at how we should be…. How do we limit this without really limiting access? Once again, the people’s business is the people’s business, and they should not be limited in the access that they have on their information.

As well, it fails to address the real problems within the system. There are a number of problems in the system. It has been slowed down in efficiency. The technology has been slow. The staffing has been limited. Those kinds of things. This really hasn’t been a lot of reform, it looks like. It just seems to be that instead of fixing the front end, they’re doing it with the back end and doing some things to shut access down and make it tougher to get in to see the information that they have.

When the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association reviewed this bill, they said it clearly. Bill 9 weakens access rights in British Columbia and expands government discretion to refuse, not just limit, requests. This is the verdict from the experts, once again, not from us. Don’t shoot the messenger.

So here we are. We’re listening to the public out there, and then they’re saying: “No, we’re listening to the public out there.”

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Our concern and why we’re asking for this hoist motion, an amendment, is that: is the government listening to the people out there? We’re listening, because that’s why we’re here today. That’s why we’re sitting here at 12:30 at night discussing an amendment to a bill to slow things down so the government can go and listen to the people.

Again, I ask: why the rush? Why are we rushing this bill through? Why is it so important to get this bill through? I think we have some ideas why they might be doing this. But if this bill is so good, if it truly improves the transparency and access and is doing everything right, why not accept this hoist amendment? Why not take the six months to really tweak it, fine-tune it and clean it up?

Unless, of course, the government knows what this bill actually does.

The purpose of this hoist amendment is simple: stop, pause, fix, reintroduce. Right now, this bill does not fix the real problems.

The real problem is not that citizens are asking too many questions. The real problem is that government is not responding fast enough. The real problem is poor recordkeeping, for one reason or another. The real problem is backlog. They have got a tremendous backlog here that they are struggling with to get to.

I have no idea what’s happening in the back end there, but we need to slow down. We have to look at, find out what the backlog is, find what’s going on.

The real problem is a culture that sees transparency as a burden, not a responsibility. Instead of fixing those problems, this bill seems to be lowering the bar.

Hence, we get a hoist amendment in here so that we can have a look at that, maybe spend some time looking at the processes, the systems and finding out if there are ways we can improve them rather than with legislation that appears to be clamping down on everything — restricting access, charging fees that some people, quite frankly, don’t have the money to be able to go, but they have legitimate reasons for coming and seeking information about their government, their business.

I want to take a moment to reflect on something that was said in this very chamber not that many days ago, because it goes directly to the heart of why this hoist amendment is not only justified but absolutely necessary.

During the debate on another bill in this House, a government member stood in this House and said something that, at the time, I agreed totally with, and I still agree with him.

He said, and I am paraphrasing the sentiment from him, that we should take our time, that we should slow down, that we should make sure we get it right. He was talking about a bill that was already before the House, and this is what the member of the other House said. Listen to what he said. He said: “We need to take our time. We need to slow down and make sure it’s right.”

That is what we’re asking on this side of the House, on this particular bill. Slow down. Let’s make sure we get it right.

Why aren’t we doing that with this bill? Why do they want to rush this bill through? We’ve seen some weaknesses, some holes, some gaps, and all we’re asking to do is to take some time, step back, slow down.

[12:30 a.m.]

If it’s good on that side of the House to come and ask us to slow one of our bills down, don’t you think there needs to be some reciprocity there? And say: “Hey, maybe you have something to say.” A hoist motion would allow us to look at that and come to a conclusion and find out what we may be needing to look at.

I really like what the member said, the government member wanting to slow down the process. Let’s slow it down for a little bit here, and let’s take some time to make sure we get it right. Why do we want to embrace bad legislation? I could not agree more with this member, a member on the other side of the House. Now we’re asking it to be flipped around and asking them to help us on a bill here that we found some gaps in.

That is exactly what this Legislature is supposed to do. We’re not here to rush flawed legislation through the process simply because it is convenient. We’re not here to rubber-stamp bills because they fit a political timeline. We’re here, hired by our constituents, to do the work, to get it right. Once again, we’re here at 12:30 in the morning, doing what is right. We all are, both sides of the House.

We’re here to scrutinize. We’re here to question; to refine; and, ultimately, to ensure that the laws we pass are sound, balanced, in the public’s interest and doing the people’s business. Let’s take the government member’s advice and slow it down and support this hoist motion. Let’s see if we can get some support out of the other side of the House and actually help us on this one and take some time and throw it back at them.

Put the blame on us. We called for it. Put the blame on us. Let’s get ’er done.

I say to the member, and all the members on the opposite side, those words matter. If we truly believe we should take our time to get it right, then we must apply that principle consistently. Consistently — that means we’ll give you one; you give us one. I think that’s important, not just when it’s politically convenient, not just when it applies to someone else’s bill but especially when it applies to a bill as significant as this one, Bill 9, and this hoist motion amendment to be able to have a look at this and slow it down and make sure we can get rid of the flaws.

If there was ever a bill that required us to take our time, if there was ever a bill that demanded a deeper dive, if there was ever a bill where we must be absolutely certain we are getting it right, this is the bill and our time. That is precisely why this hoist amendment to replace “now” with “six months hence” is the responsible course of action.

We have also heard this government speak frequently about re-pacing projects. We have seen major infrastructure projects slowed down, reassessed, pushed back, because as the government has said, it is important to take the time to evaluate, to go get a second opinion, to review and ensure that we are making the right decisions. Again, I agree with their premise there. Why not? Why are we rushing things through? Why are we making mistakes?

That’s why sometimes you have to go back and amend legislation. Why don’t we get it right the first time as best we can? If a project is not ready, you pause. You slow it down. If the details are not right, you reassess and slow it down. If the risks are not fully understood, you take the time to understand them and slow the process down. That is not a weakness. That is prudence in my eyes. That is responsible government.

I ask a very simple question. If this government is willing to re-pace billions of dollars of infrastructure projects to get it right, why is it unwilling to re-pace a bill that directly affects the transparency of government itself? Why the rush here? Why the urgency to pass a bill that even experts have said weakens access rights?

We need to pass this hoist amendment and slow this down and have a serious, sober second look. This hoist amendment is not radical. It doesn’t kill the bill. It does not prevent the debate. It does not shut down anything at all. It says, “Let’s take another six months to do the work properly,” as per our member across the floor who asked us to do the same thing, and we obliged. We obliged.

If we weaken access to information, we weaken accountability. If we weaken accountability, we weaken the trust. Boy, I’ve talked about this a number of times in this House. We need all the trust we can get from the public these days.

[12:35 a.m.]

I say again to members opposite, you have already acknowledged the principle. You have already said we must take our time to get it right. Now is the moment to live up to the principle, support this hoist motion and re-pace this bill, just as you have re-paced other major decisions in the last number of months. Take the six months, do the deeper dive and fix what is broken. Come back with legislation that truly strengthens transparency rather than weakens it further, because getting it right matters.

Let me remind this House of a principle that has guided democracy for generations. Thomas Jefferson once said: “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” This hoist amendment is about restoring that balance, because what we are seeing right now is a government that increasingly fears scrutiny.

When governments fear scrutiny, they do not strengthen transparency. They weaken it. They restrict it. They legislate around it.

Bill 9 does not stand alone. It is a part of a pattern, a pattern of eliminating oversight, a pattern of weakening independent voices.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that we are talking about the motion, not Bill 9 directly. Thank you.

Tony Luck: Yes, you are right. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

That is why we need this hoist motion, to be able to look at the things that we have identified in this particular bill. We’ve seen restrictions and other errors, so what we don’t want to see. We want to make sure we get this bill right. We want to clean up the things that are struggling with it a bit. We need to make sure that the hoist motion allows us time, both the government and the opposition, to be able to take a serious second look at all that’s happening with this bill so we get it right.

I’ve reminded the House again that public business is the public’s business and that people have a right to know. This hoist amendment is about defending that principle because Bill 9 undermines it. It chips away at it. It replaces certainty with ambiguity.

The hoist motion will help us to look at that and clear up the ambiguities that are plaguing this bill. We need that time to be able to go in and review the bill, both on the government side and on the opposition side, so that we’ll be able to help. We’ve been asked by the public to do this, and we’re doing the work. We’re being here to do this.

Let me ask the government a simple question: if this bill is so good as it sits, why not accept the hoist amendment? Why not take six months? Why not prove that this bill stands up to scrutiny? Why not allow a deeper dive? It seems that the answer is fairly obvious. Because scrutiny may expose the weaknesses, scrutiny would reveal the overreach and scrutiny would show that this bill does not do what the government really claims it to do.

There comes a time in every debate when we must simply say what everyone can already see but some are unwilling to state plainly. This is one of those moments. When we strip away the talking points, the polished language and the repeated claims of modernization, the reality is unmistakable. The emperor has no clothes.

This bill is being presented as reform, but it does not strengthen transparency; it weakens it. It is being framed as efficiency, but it creates new barriers. This hoist motion will allow us to be able to go in and fix some of these things, look at some of the weaknesses, update it and make sure it does what the people need and what the people require here.

That is precisely why this hoist amendment is necessary. It allows this Legislature to pause, to acknowledge what is plainly in front of us and to correct course before flawed legislation is passed into law. Just as the member across the House said, let’s get it right the first time. Pretending this bill is sound does not make it so. Taking six months to fix it is not delay. It is the responsible thing for this House to do.

I support this hoist amendment. It is not politics. This is the right thing to do for the people.

Reann Gasper: Wow. It is early in the morning. I never thought I would be doing a speech this early in the morning, but here we are.

[12:40 a.m.]

The motion is 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.”

I want to be very clear from the beginning about what this motion is and what it is not. This is not a motion to shut the door on reform. It is not a motion to avoid scrutiny. It is not a motion to stop government from improving the system. This motion is asking government to slow down this legislation and get this right, because this legislation deals directly with transparency, accountability and the public’s ability to access information from government.

That should matter to every member in this House. When legislation affects the public’s ability to scrutinize government itself, this House has a responsibility to be careful. Not rushed; careful.

I consider it an honour and a responsibility, in my role in this House, to speak on the amendment, this hoist motion. I am reminded as I sit here that a couple of weeks ago, a colleague on this side of the House tabled a petition with over 10,000 signatures on it. I think, as members of this House…. When the public gets together and they sign petitions, they’re sending a message.

I’ve heard my colleagues say tonight that when that happens, it is our responsibility to listen. As opposition, we have done that by presenting this motion, this hoist motion, to say to the government: let’s listen to the people. Not just one-sided, but let’s listen to the people together. Let’s pause and actually show the public that we take power and we use power responsibly.

I want to begin with this word that sits at the centre of how I feel about this legislation — freedom. It is a word used often in this House, and sometimes we stop feeling the weight of it or hearing its weight. But freedom in the context of information is not administrative language. It is democratic language.

Freedom of information is one of the ways the public examines that power. It’s how decisions are tested. It is how conduct is questioned. It is how accountability works outside of election season.

Without it, government holds more information than the public. With it, the public has a way to challenge decisions, ask questions and expect answers. That matters, because democracy is not only about casting a ballot every few years. It is also about whether people can question government between elections, whether records can be accessed, whether decisions can be reviewed.

That is why the official opposition has introduced a hoist motion on this bill, because this House should never be in a rush to reshape legislation. We should never be in a rush when decisions we make on this floor affect people’s lives and their families.

Freedom of information is not a privilege. It is a public right. Question period is a part of that accountability. Independent officers of this Legislature are part of that accountability. Free press is a part of that accountability. The courts are a part of that accountability. Freedom of information belongs in that same category, and when access to information becomes harder, accountability becomes weaker. That is why this debate matters. That is why a pause is absolutely necessary concerning this bill.

[12:45 a.m.]

Freedom of information does not exist because governments always volunteer the information the public needs. If that were the case, the system would not be necessary. Freedom of information exists for difficult situations — the disputed situations, the situations where answers are incomplete, delayed or challenged.

That is the point of the system. That means requests will sometimes be broad, sometimes be repetitive, sometimes be persistent. But we cannot treat the public with disdain when they have questions. That is why this motion to pause and to take the time to look at the bill and make sure that it satisfies that accountability measure….

Having a pause could allow the government to define these terms, terms like broad language around requests being abusive, malicious, repetitive or interfering with operations. A pause would allow the government to bring clarity and transparency and accountability to frame this bill.

I feel like in the year and a half that I’ve been in this House, those words of “clarity” and “transparency” and “accountability” almost seep into every debate speech that I write. So as a responsible member that has been elected to serve the people of my community, British Columbia, this hoist speaks to that responsibility. In pausing, you allow for clarity, you allow for transparency and you allow for accountability.

If the government wants broader authority to delay or reject requests, then definitions matter, and if definitions matter, this House should take the time to get them right. That is a great reason to accept this hoist motion. There is no ulterior motive in this. For the official opposition to put a hoist motion on the table to ask the government to pause is not…. There’s no: “Oh yay, we’re doing something that would benefit us.” This is to benefit the public that we say we’re serving.

Six months is not unreasonable when legislation affects the public’s ability to scrutinize itself, especially when government has already amended its own bill during this debate. The point should not be brushed aside. If, in the middle of debate, the government can amend the bill already in a span of two weeks, I think the credible response from the government is to also go: “Yes, let’s take the time. Let’s look at the bill.”

The government describes those amendments as clarifications, but if clarification is still needed during debate, then that tells this House something important. It tells us the language is still being worked through, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If the language is still being worked through, why force the bill through now? That’s a fair question.

One of the concerns with this bill is not only what is written into it; it is also the pace at which the government is trying to move it forward. That is why the official opposition has tabled a hoist motion to say to the government: “We see you. We agree. It’s moving too fast. You need some time. Take the time.”

[12:50 a.m.]

This House is supposed to test legislation before power is expanded. That is a part of the job, especially when legislation deals with public accountability. Yet government is asking this House to approve broader discretion and broader removal powers while major concerns remain unsolved.

As I understand it, some of these recommendations from 2022…. I’ve heard members from the other side talk about committee and committee. How much time are we…? Committee 2022 — they still remain unfinished, and that should concern all of us. If there was time to expand powers, there should have been time to complete recommendations that were already identified years ago. Hence why the official opposition has tabled a hoist motion to allow for six months for the government to go back and re-evaluate and create a bill that we can all champion in this place.

Government says these changes are necessary to manage the system, but the ministry’s own reporting shows access requests have dropped significantly over the last few years. If there is proof and data that shows us that things are not working, this hoist motion is absolutely necessary and relevant to the conversation.

British Columbians have a right to ask a simple question: if requests are decreasing, why are broader refusal powers suddenly necessary? That question deserves a real answer.

Right now people struggle to get information. They already receive records with major gaps. The expectation would be that if there are gaps, then the government should do their due diligence to improve those response times, improve clarity, improve public confidence.

I feel like, as responsible MLAs, this hoist motion actually speaks to that responsibility that we have to British Columbians. They didn’t send us to this place to rush things through and then have to go and re-change them, because that’s all time. The hoist motion is designed for the government to be responsible. Take some time. There’s nothing wrong in taking time. We’ve already taken so much time.

From 2022, we’ve already taken so much time. It’s 2026. We’re still trying to get it right. Here is the official opposition. We’ve tabled a hoist motion, and we’ve said: “Take six months. Get it right. It’s already taken you four years, but okay. Take some more time, and get it right. The people are depending on you to get it right. It is about being responsible with the power that you have to get it right.” That is what this hoist motion speaks to.

This government understands the value of pausing significant matters when concerns emerge. We recently saw proactive disclosure publications pause for months while government said it needed time to transition systems and modernize processes.

[12:55 a.m.]

We are also now watching the government pause further intakes under the ChildCareBC new spaces fund. Government clearly understands that when systems are under pressure, when implementation is uncertain or when consequences require reassessment, a pause is justified. They have done it before. They have looked at things and gone: “Okay, we need to actually pause this. We need to go back to the drawing table.” It’s the responsible thing to do. It’s happening right now in that sector. A pause is prudent. A pause is responsible.

If government believes months-long pauses are acceptable for proactive disclosures and major government programs like the new spaces fund, then surely this House can justify a six-month pause on legislation that directly affects public accountability and access to information itself. There are few responsibilities more important than protecting the public’s ability to scrutinize power.

This is not an easy job. It’s not. But leadership is not easy, and one of the things to leadership is listening. One of the keys to leadership and being a good leader is listening, actually taking time to listen to the people that you promised to serve. That is what this hoist motion will do. That is what that says to the public. “We are listening. We are listening to the taxpayer. We are listening to the single mother. We are listening.”

One of the clearest examples is the change from responding without delay to responding without unreasonable delay. Words matter in this legislation. “Without delay” sets a clear expectation. “Without unreasonable delay” creates room for interpretation. This is not a small drafting change. It lowers the standard that government is expected to meet. This House should ask why that standard needs to be lowered instead of improved. That is why this hoist motion is being suggested. The bill needs to be improved.

If the system is already too slow, why weaken the wording around delay? If people struggle to get answers, why add the possibility of fees? If concerns already exist around inconsistency, why expand undefined language? Those are practical questions that have not been clearly answered. A hoist motion would allow for those questions to be properly answered.

Nobody in this House is arguing that the system cannot be improved. The concern is whether the government is going to take the opportunity of a hoist motion and improve it right away. There is a difference between reform that strengthens public confidence and reform that makes scrutiny harder.

Many people are looking, and they feel like we’re going in the wrong direction. My job is to listen to the people we serve. I’ve said that. They elected us to amplify their voice. That is where over 10,000 people signed a petition to say that we are not in agreement.

In my role as critic for Children and Family Development, I see what happens when people don’t get clear answers and systems hold significant power over their lives. I hear from parents trying to understand decisions involving their children and youth who grew up in care.

[1:00 a.m.]

As a leader, when you listen, the fruit of that is tabling something that allows the other side to come to the table and actually work out something that is beneficial for these people.

It matters. For some families, this is not just about paperwork. It’s about understanding the decisions that change their lives. Government should be very careful about making the process harder.

I said in this House a few days ago that I feel like I’m living this out in real time. I’ve had many countless hours of conversations with parents and community providers that are struggling with funding cuts. This hoist motion….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I do want you to speak about this motion. Thank you.

Reann Gasper: This hoist motion says to them…. Because they’re asking for a pause. They don’t understand why government would not pause and come to the table and work out a plan that actually benefits every single person. This is what this hoist motion is. It does not put a certain person in a category and go: “You, alone, benefit.”

The hoist motion gives the government the ability to sit back down at the table and go: “Have we thought of everything? Have we looked at every angle? Are our decisions so siloed that we can’t actually come together, cross-ministries, and come up with a bill that actually serves British Columbia?”

I don’t understand why this is so hard. I really don’t. I don’t come from a political background, but I do not understand when we hold some of the most effective power in this place that we won’t slow down and pause to make sure that something that we design is actually benefiting the people we serve.

The hoist motion, at least, gives us a glimmer of hope that the government is willing to listen to people in British Columbia and come up with a plan that doesn’t just serve one set of people but actually benefits every member, every taxpaying member, of this province.

Accountability, transparency, clarity — these are not things that are hard. I believe a hoist motion gives the government an ability to say to British Columbians: “We see you.” We often say that in this place. “We see you. We hear you.” Words matter. They carry weight.

This motion being tabled and us even debating it into the wee hours of the morning…. I mean, maybe it’s a game. Maybe it’s a game. But for me, it’s not a game. I didn’t come here to play a game. I came here to serve the people of British Columbia, and I believe that the hoist motion sends that message so clear, that we’re listening. We hear you. We see you.

Over 10,000 signature petition…. We’re standing up to speak because not everybody gets the privilege of sitting in this House and speaking and using their voice in this way.

I also want this House to think carefully about who carries the burden when access becomes more difficult. It’s not often an institution. It is often the family. A pause brings a measure of trust that government is actually listening.

[1:05 a.m.]

A hoist motion exists because not every bill should proceed immediately, simply because government has the vote or votes. Majority power does not eliminate democratic responsibility.

The purpose of this motion today is simple. Pause the bill. Slow the process down. Allow greater scrutiny. Allow greater public discussion. Allow members of this House to fully consider whether legislation expanding government discretion over access to information is truly in the public interest. Because once a bill passes, those powers will not belong only to this government; they will also belong to every future government. This House should think very carefully before creating precedents that make scrutiny harder.

Freedom of information is not an inconvenience to democracy, and it is why we feel that six months is reasonable. We could have put it longer. Six months to define the language clearly. Six months to consult more broadly. Six months to complete recommendations already identified years ago. Six months to produce legislation British Columbians can trust.

This shouldn’t be controversial. It is democracy. It is one of the ways the public tests power between elections. It is one of the ways truth surfaces, and it is one of the ways accountability survives.

When legislation risks weakening that safeguard even a little bit, this House should not rush forward. It should pause. That is why I support the six-month hoist motion on Bill 9. I will debate this any day, any time of day, because I understand why I’m here and what I stand for.

I would hope that members on the other side also would consider why they’re here, who they’re here for and how their decisions affect British Columbians. Because what we’re hearing is that we have a government that is not listening.

I implore them to accept this hoist motion, to approve this hoist motion, to vote yes on this hoist motion and to do due diligence on why they are in this place and who they’re serving. The hoist motion doesn’t benefit us. It’s not for us. The bill is for us, but it’s not for us. It’s for them. It’s for the people at home. It’s for the people watching. It’s for them. So I implore the government to make decisions that have British Columbians at the centre.

Amelia Boultbee: I stand today to oppose the hoist motion, and I’d like to speak to why. The previous speaker used the word “games” a couple of times. To be quite frank, it does look a little bit like that.

I will acknowledge there have been some really valid concerns raised in the speeches about the value of transparency, accessing information, and those are values that I hold extremely dear. I’ve been an elected official that has been the subject of FOIs, and as the former critic for MCFD, I have filed hundreds of FOIs.

[1:10 a.m.]

Accessing information from the government is incredibly important not only to hold the government accountable but also for individuals to get access to their own information. Making this a speedy and affordable process is something that I believe is extremely important. I heard a lot of that tonight, so I want to acknowledge that that is completely genuine.

On the other hand, it has been stated by either the Speaker or the Chair more than once in the last two days — there have been points of order and clarifications — that, unless I’m misunderstanding, a hoist motion, if successfully passed, kills the bill. It removes it from the order paper. And while it is possible for the government to reintroduce new legislation in another session, it has to be really, substantially different.

I’m going to read from the parliamentary handbook: “It is currently held that the adoption of a six months’ hoist of a bill is fatal. Introduction of a new bill in substantially the same terms is out of order.”

The reason I think it’s important to think about this “substantially same terms” is because one of the things that is in Bill 9 is the proactive disclosure component, which does not have any fees attached to it and would solve a lot of the backlog that’s occurring. That’s going to enable people to automatically get access to the personal information that we heard so much about tonight and how people need that. That’s a really important component of this bill.

The other thing that I’ve been hearing over all the time we’ve been looking at this bill…. And I have spent time with the minister. I’ve had technical briefings. I’ve also engaged with the opposition, the Greens. And I have engaged with these stakeholders who are concerned, and there are some valid concerns. One thing that is very clear is that no one in British Columbia is happy with how FOI is going right now. We can all agree it is too slow, and in some cases, expensive.

Now, there are components of the bill that could be debated that would actually be quite helpful.

Deputy Speaker: But, Member, we’re not debating the bill tonight. We’re debating the actual hoist motion itself, so could I direct you to that.

Amelia Boultbee: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I’m referencing that is because I’m making the point that if the hoist is successful, the bill is killed and the components that are in it that are good may not be able to come back in a whole.

So this six-month holiday that’s being proposed so further consultation can happen — that’s what the hoist is said to achieve. I don’t think it’s going to actually do that. In order to achieve these policy aims…. It’s highly technical, which lends itself to committee.

Now, the hoist motion. It’s been referenced many times tonight that there must be a problem with this legislation because the government has tabled amendments before committee. I thought that’s what we came here to do, to talk about legislation, debate it on the record and make amendments, which is why I’m going to be opposing the hoist motion and I’m going to be, hopefully, voting to get this into committee.

I don’t think the bill is in a perfect state, but I applaud the government and the minister for these three very good amendments. They’ve, obviously, listened to the feedback.

And I think it’s really important that, as is discussed tonight, there are people in this House that hold these values very dearly and those who have a lot of technical background. I think it is more appropriately discussed in committee, and I don’t think British Columbians can wait. They can’t wait until the next session, and they can’t have the good components of this bill get killed because of the hoist. And that is why I will be opposing the hoist motion.

Ian Paton: I’ve been here in this wonderful place for nine years now. I’ve had a few late nights over the years. I can’t recall doing a speech at 1:15 in the morning. But I think the B.C. Conservative caucus, if people are watching…. We didn’t actually bring this on.

At 6:55 tonight, the House Leader of the Government refused to adjourn the House and suggested that we continue debate on the hoist motion of Bill 9. On behalf of my B.C. Conservative caucus and on behalf of the people of British Columbia that I represent, we’re here to debate well into the early, wee hours of the morning for fairness, for transparency and for freedom of information for people in this province.

[1:15 a.m.]

I rise in favour of a reasoned amendment, one that goes to the heart of responsible law-making, that the motion for second reading of Bill 9 be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting….

Deputy Speaker: One moment, please, Member.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Point of order. We’re actually debating a hoist motion, not a reasoned amendment. That is a completely different thing. We have a motion on the floor. That is the hoist motion, not a reasoned amendment motion.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that advice, Government House Leader.

Ian Paton: In my prelude, I thought I’d mentioned that we were coming back here after 7 p.m. to debate the hoist motion of Bill 9. Thank you for pointing that out.

By deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.” This is not a symbolic gesture. This is not procedural theatre. This is a serious, necessary and justified step to ensure that we do not pass flawed legislation that will weaken public access to information in this province.

Let me be very clear at the outset. This hoist motion is the most responsible path forward available to this House today, because the issue before us is no longer whether Bill 9 contains problems. The evidence is overwhelming that it does contain problems. The issue is whether we are prepared to proceed anyway or whether we have the discipline to pause, reassess and fix it by creating this hoist motion.

Six months — that is what we are asking for. Not six years, not indefinite delay. Six months to get it right. If that seems unreasonable to anyone in this chamber, then I would suggest the real question is: why the rush? What is so urgent? What is so time-sensitive that we cannot take six months to ensure that legislation governing access to government information is done properly?

Freedom-of-information laws are not routine statutes. They are not minor regulatory frameworks that can be adjusted later with little consequence. They are foundational. They define the relationship between citizens and the state. They determine whether government operates in the open or behind a veil. And once changes are made, especially changes that expand discretion and limit access, they are extraordinarily difficult to unwind. That is precisely why caution is not just advisable here; caution is essential to this hoist motion.

Now, the government has argued that Bill 9 is about modernization, efficiency and clarity. To be fair, modernization is necessary. We are dealing with digital systems. We’re dealing with evolving data practices and increasing volumes of information in our society. No one is disputing that, but modernization should not be a Trojan Horse for reduced accountability. It should not be an excuse to introduce vague language, expanded discretion and procedural barriers that make it harder, not easier, for the public to access information.

That is where this bill fails, and that is why we were here tonight, in the early morning, debating the hoist motion on Bill 9.

A six-month extension would allow this House to properly align Bill 9 with the 2022 special committee review of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That report was not an afterthought. It was a result of careful study, consultation and deliberation. It was intended to strengthen transparency and accountability, yet as many have pointed out during this debate, Bill 9 does not clearly reflect those recommendations. In some cases, it appears to move in the opposite direction.

[1:20 a.m.]

So the question becomes: why would we rush forward with legislation that may be inconsistent with the very review process that was meant to guide it? Six months would give us the time to reconcile that, to ensure alignment, to ensure that we are not undermining our own work as a legislature. A six-month extension would also allow for proper scrutiny of the government’s own amendments.

Let’s talk about those amendments for a moment. The minister has stated that they are targeted, that they provide clarity, that they reaffirm British Columbians’ right to access government information. But when you actually examine those amendments, what becomes clear is that they do not address the fundamental concerns that have been raised. They do not meaningfully narrow the scope of discretion. They do not define key terms that remain open to interpretation, and they do not restore the balance that this bill disrupts.

In some cases, they simply shift authority from one actor to another. In others, they remove language without changing the underlying effect of the clause. That is not reform. That is why we’re here debating a hoist motion to Bill 9. That is refinement around the edges of a flawed framework, and that is exactly why more time is needed. We should not be passing legislation based on assurances. We should be passing legislation based on clarity, on precision and on confidence that we are enacting full function as intended and not producing unintended consequences that erode public trust.

Let’s turn to one of the most concerning aspects of this bill, the expansion of discretionary refusals. Under Bill 9, public bodies are granted broader authority to disregard requests they deem abusive, malicious, repetitious or excessively broad. Now, on its face, that may sound reasonable. No one supports frivolous or bad-faith requests. But here’s the problem. These terms are not clearly defined. They are subjective. That is why I’m here tonight speaking to the hoist motion to this bill.

When you introduce subjectivity into legislation governing access to information, you create uncertainty, you create inconsistency and you create a potential for abuse. What is repetitious to a public body may be persistence to a journalist. What is excessively broad to a ministry may be a legitimate attempt to understand systemic issues. What is interference to government operations may simply be scrutiny.

Once those determinations are left to the discretion of the very bodies being scrutinized, we have a problem. We are effectively allowing government to decide how much accountability it is willing to accept. That is not how transparency works. The government has said that these provisions will not be used to deny legitimate requests. But again, legislation is not judged by intent. It is judged by what it permits, and what this legislation permits is broader discretion with fewer clear guardrails.

That should concern every member of this House, regardless of political affiliation, because today you may be in government; tomorrow you may not be in government. That is why I am here tonight speaking to this very important hoist motion to Bill 9.

The powers you create today will be inherited by those who come after you.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

A six-month delay would allow us to properly define these terms. The six-month delay is a big part of this hoist motion — to establish clear thresholds, to ensure that safeguards are in place so that legitimate requests are not caught in the crossfire. Once this bill is passed, those ambiguities will not be theoretical. They will be operational. They will shape how requests are handled. They will determine what information is released and what is withheld. If we get that wrong, the consequences will be felt immediately.

Another area of concern is the shift in language around response timelines. The move from a duty to respond without delay to one without unreasonable delay may appear subtle, but in legislation, subtle changes can have significant effects. “Without delay” sets a clear expectation. “Without unreasonable delay” introduces flexibility, and flexibility, in this context, often translates to delays.

[1:25 a.m.]

Now, the government has stated that timelines are not being changed, but the language is, and language matters. That’s why I’m here tonight speaking to a hoist motion to this Bill 9, because it shapes interpretation, it shapes behaviour and it shapes outcomes.

A six-month extension would allow us to examine the practical implications of this change, to consult with those who administer the system, to understand how this language will be applied in real-world scenarios and to ensure that we are not inadvertently weakening timelines under the guise of maintaining them.

We must also address the broader context in which this bill is being introduced. This is not the first change to the FOI system. We have seen previous amendments, including the introduction of application fees. We have seen ongoing concerns about delays, backlogs and inconsistent practices across ministries. We have heard repeatedly that the real challenges in the system are internal.

Recordkeeping practices, data management, resource allocation — these are the issues that need to be fixed. Yet Bill 9 focuses primarily on the demand side, on the requests themselves. That is why it’s so important that we’re here to continue this on with the hoist motion, to pause this bill and move it into the future by six months.

It introduces mechanisms to manage, limit or filter those requests, but it does not sufficiently address the underlying causes of delay. That is backwards, and it is another reason why we need time — time to refocus on this bill, time to ensure that reform is directed where it is actually needed.

A six-month extension would also allow for meaningful consultation with stakeholders — not superficial engagement but real consultation with journalists, with the advocacy organizations, with legal experts, with the Information and Privacy Commissioner — because these are the people who understand how the system works and where it breaks down.

Right now many of those voices are expressing concern. That should give us pause. That’s why we are asking for a pause for six months hence, and that’s why we’re discussing the hoist motion to Bill 9 tonight. When the people who rely on access to information are telling us that changes will make access more difficult, we should listen to them.

The government has suggested that opposition to this bill is based on a misunderstanding, that concerns have been overstated, that amendments provide sufficient clarity. But if that were the case, why would we be seeing this level of concern? We would not be having this debate, and the government would not feel the need to amend its own legislation before it has even passed second reading.

The reality is this. The bill has issues. The amendments do not resolve them, and proceeding now would be premature. That is why we’re speaking tonight to move this forward six months with the hoist motion. That is the bottom line.

Let me return to the core question. Why six months? Six months provides a reasonable, measured period to do the work that has not yet been done; to align the bill with the 2022 committee report; to refine definitions and limit discretion; to assess the impact of proposed amendments, to consult meaningfully with stakeholders; to ensure that timelines are protected; and to restore confidence that this legislation will strengthen, not weaken, access to information. That is what six months buys us with this hoist motion.

[1:30 a.m.]

It buys us confidence and clarity, and it buys us a much greater degree of credibility with the public. The public are ones that are looking for fairness, for transparency. Rushing flawed legislation through this House does not demonstrate leadership. It demonstrates impatience. And when it comes to laws that govern transparency, impatience is a liability.

This bill is not beyond saving. It is not beyond repair. But it is not ready. Pretending otherwise does not serve this House or the people of this province we represent.

We have an opportunity here — an opportunity to pause, reflect and improve this bill to get it right. Or we can choose to proceed now to pass legislation that we know has unresolved issues, to rely on assurances rather than certainty and to hope that the consequences are manageable. That is not a risk I am prepared to take. And it should not be a risk this House is prepared to take either.

That is why we’re here tonight, in the early hours of the morning, debating the hoist motion of Bill 9. It is about the standard we set as legislatures when we are confronted with imperfect legislation. Do we press ahead because the calendar demands it, because momentum has built, because it is politically convenient, or do we pause because the substance demands it, because the risks are real, and because the public interest requires it? This is the choice before us. That is why the six-month hoist is not only justified; it is necessary.

Let me take a moment to address something that has been suggested during this debate. There has been an implication that supporting this amendment is somehow equivalent to opposing modernization; that by asking for more time, we are resisting progress. That is simply not true. Modernization is necessary. In fact, it’s overdue. Our access-to-information framework must reflect the realities of a digital world where records are created and stored differently, where the volume of information has increased and where expectations around transparency are higher than ever.

But modernization without safeguards is not progress. Modernization without clarity is not reform. And modernization that reduces access, even incrementally, is not modernization at all. It is regression. It is not available access to information. That is a concern here, and that is why time matters.

A six-month extension would allow us to ask and answer the right questions. Are we improving access, or are we managing demand? Are we strengthening accountability, or are we introducing new mechanisms to avoid it? Are we addressing the root causes of delay, or are we shifting the burden onto applicants?

When you look closely at Bill 9, there is a pattern of shifting responsibility away from government and onto those seeking information. That is why we’re here tonight, in the wee hours of the morning, debating the hoist motion of Bill 9.

Requests must now meet higher thresholds of specificity, determined by the opinion of the public body. Requests may be disregarded if they are deemed abusive, if they’re deemed repetitious or too broad — again, based on subjective criteria. Who makes those decisions, when people look for information, when they’re based on subjective criteria?

Responses may be delayed under more flexible standards. Taken together, these changes do not point toward greater openness. They point towards greater control. That is precisely why we need time to reassess.

Let us talk about discretion, because discretion, in and of itself, is not inherently problematic. In any system, some level of discretion is necessary, but discretion must be bounded. It must be guided by clear definitions, clear standards and clear oversight. Otherwise, it becomes arbitrary.

When discretion is exercised by those who are themselves subject to scrutiny, the risks are amplified. That is the situation we’re facing with Bill 9 — undefined terms, broad authority, limited constraints and an exception that it will all be used responsibly.

Hope is not a legislative safeguard; clarity is. And right now this bill lacks clarity. That’s why I’m here speaking to have this bill hoisted six months hence. A six-month extension would allow us to introduce it, to define key terms, to establish objective criteria, to ensure that discretion is exercised consistently and fairly, because without those safeguards, the system becomes unpredictable. And unpredictability undermines confidence.

[1:35 a.m.]

Let us also consider the practical implications. What happens when a journalist files a request seeking information on a matter of public interest? Will that request be deemed too broad? Will it be deemed too repetitive? Will it be deemed too burdensome? What happens when a citizen attempts to understand how a decision affecting their community was made? Will they be told that their request does not meet the threshold of specificity, that it requires too much effort, that it interferes with operations?

These are not hypothetical concerns. These are real-world scenarios that will play out under this legislation. If we get it wrong, the consequences will be immediate — less information, less scrutiny and less accountability for the people of British Columbia.

Another critical issue that deserves more attention and more time is the relationship between the legislation and the public trust, because ultimately, access-to-information laws are not just about process. They are about trust — trust that government is acting in the public interest, trust that decisions are being made transparently, trust that when questions are asked, answers will be provided.

Trust is built on openness, it’s built on consistency, and it’s built on fairness. When people believe that information is being withheld, delayed or filtered, that trust begins to erode. And once it’s gone, it’s very difficult to restore. That is why I am here at 1:40 in the morning speaking to the hoist motion of Bill 9, to take it forward six months and pause it.

Passing legislation that expands discretion, introduces ambiguity and raises barriers, even unintentionally, risks accelerating that erosion. That is not a risk we should take lightly, and it is certainly not a risk we should take without taking the time to ensure that it is fully understood and properly mitigated.

I also want to return briefly to the government’s amendments, because they are being presented as evidence that concerns have been heard and addressed by their own government. But the reality is more complicated. As outlined in the briefing materials, the amendments do not fundamentally alter the structure of the bill. They do not resolve the key issues. They do not provide the clarity that is needed. In some cases, they simply shift language without changing outcomes. In others, they leave critical terms undefined. In one instance….

Deputy Speaker: Member, hold on.

Point of Order

Amelia Boultbee: I stand on a point of order. I fear that there’s a lot of Bill 9 being debated. The amendments are openly being debated, and just using the word “hoist” in passing isn’t actually telling us why we need to do the hoist motion. I just wanted to make that point.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. The point is well taken.

Debate Continued

Ian Paton: I think I’ve probably mentioned 15 or 20 times now the reason I’m giving this speech. I allude to the fact that I’m doing this because I’m bringing forward the motion of hoist to this Bill 9. I’ve talked about how we’d like to pause it for six months, moving forward into the fall.

As outlined in the briefing materials, the amendments do not fundamentally alter the structure of the bill. They do not resolve the key issues. They do not provide the clarity that is needed. In some cases, they simply shift language without changing outcomes. In others, they leave critical terms undefined. And in at least one instance, they introduce procedural complications that may not even withstand scrutiny at later stages of debate.

That is not the hallmark of a bill that is ready to pass. That is the hallmark of a bill that requires more work. And that work takes time, which brings us back to the hoist motion.

Boy, I’m glad I brought up the hoist motion, because I guess I haven’t been bringing that up enough in my speech. This is the mechanism that allows us to take that time. This is the tool that allows us to pause without abandoning the legislation entirely. This is the opportunity to improve the bill, to strengthen it, to clarify it, to ensure that it achieves its stated objectives without unintended consequences.

[1:40 a.m.]

Six months is a reasonable time frame. It is sufficient to conduct meaningful consultation, to refine legislative language, to align with the 2022 committee report, to assess the operational impacts of proposed changes and to bring forward a bill that this House can support with confidence. It is not excessive. It is not obstructive. It is prudent.

I want to address one final point. There is often a temptation in this place to view delay as failure, to equate speed with effectiveness, to assume that getting legislation passed quickly is inherently a sign of progress. But that is not always the case. Sometimes the most responsible thing we can do is slow down to recognize that the stakes are too high for haste, to acknowledge that the consequences of getting it wrong outweigh the benefits of getting it done quickly. That is one of those moments.

This bill governs access to information. It governs transparency. It governs accountability. It governs fairness. These are not areas where we can afford to cut corners. These are areas where precision matters, where clarity matters, where getting it right matters. Right now we are not there, but we could be, given the time, given the effort, given the willingness to listen and to adjust. That is what this amendment offers.

I will conclude by returning to the central question before this House — not whether Bill 9 has merit, not whether modernization is necessary, but whether we are prepared to pass this bill now, knowing what we know, or whether we are prepared to take six months to hoist this motion to ensure that we are not making a mistake.

For me, the answer is clear. Six months is not too much to ask. It is the minimum we should require. For that reason, I urge all members of this House to support the amendment, support the six-month hoist, give this legislation the time it needs, and let us do our job properly for the people we represent here in British Columbia.

Lorne Doerkson: I appreciate the opportunity to go first here this evening. As always, I feel pretty glad to bring greetings from Cariboo-Chilcotin to you, especially at two o’clock in the morning.

I don’t think it’ll be any surprise. I am certainly in support of the hoist motion, and I will try to explain why — I think that’s important — rather than, as some of my colleagues have indicated, just saying: “hoist motion.”

This bill is not done. It’s not complete. I have debated bills, like 31, where we spent a day on definitions alone — a day on definitions alone. The words that are in this bill…. The reason for this hoist is to clear up some of those issues.

I’m, frankly, shocked. I mean, I’ve heard the member from Penticton speak opposed to this motion, but that’s all that I’ve heard for opposition. The leader of the Green Party the other day mentioned in his comments that it’d be great to hear why this shouldn’t go forward, why it shouldn’t be contemplated. I really think we need to contemplate this.

It’s difficult to talk about what we should change without talking about how it impacts people. I can tell you right now. If you talk to the Cunningham family at the Flat Lake fire in 70 Mile, that spent a year trying to figure out why they lost so much because of a controlled burn that happened just outside their fence line, the definitions that are in this bill that are not defined could have dragged that entire FOI off the rails.

It’s not fair to British Columbians, and I get a sense that members in this place know that. Otherwise, they would be standing up and defending this.

We have had so many serious situations develop in this province that we do need a moment to take a look at this. The definitions that need to be defined before this bill goes forward are those definitions that so many members have been speaking about. So many of us are concerned about it.

[1:45 a.m.]

Frankly, I am very concerned that somebody will be able to determine whether or not an FOI goes forward or doesn’t go forward because of language that we’re not willing to even consider over the next six months.

I can appreciate the concern about the fatal action that may happen if this passes. I absolutely understand the points that the member from Penticton made, but this is serious legislation. I haven’t been here for a long time. We’ve debated some pretty serious legislation in the time that I’ve been here, but this one has conjured up feelings right across the province.

I really am speaking in favour of the infamous hoist motion. I think that we do need to just slow down and better understand some of these terms that have not been defined. It’s not right that they weren’t defined, and they needed to be defined in the bill. This gives us an opportunity to better understand how these words are going to impact people.

Frankly, that’s my biggest concern — the words that we have heard and that are undefined that need to be defined, if this motion is to pass — words like “malicious,” “abusive.” We’ve heard them in here repeatedly. We’ve all heard them for two days, it feels like, maybe even longer. But it’s important to talk about these words, because the reality is people’s livelihoods depend on us scrutinizing this bill — their livelihoods, their lives.

I’ve got a woman trying to get freedom of information about her deceased mother. What would be the liability around that? I don’t know. Potentially because we’re worried about how that woman became deceased? But why she wants the information is because she doesn’t know if something is lurking in her own body. She is trying to get that information. But because this is not defined, and because somebody decides that her asking for that information is too broad… I don’t know. I suppose asking for someone’s entire health file is a pretty broad question. Not for me, because I’m not that old.

This is serious. It is really serious. We’ve seen loss. We’ve seen serious health issues across this province. To have this bill go forward without this hoist motion, taking the time to consider these definitions, I think that we set ourselves up to fail. I really honestly believe that.

I have experienced the challenge myself with respect to trying to get FOIs, but in the case of that Cunningham family, it took us months to traverse this system. If we don’t take the time to get this right, that could have been years for them.

Any person at any point in that experience could derail this family from trying to find out why they’ve lost two cabins, why they’ve lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own timber on private property because somebody decides that they’re malicious and because we didn’t take the time, because we didn’t stop for a minute.

I agree. The conversation has been happening for months, years about this bill. I’ve heard all kinds of things about a committee that potentially put all kinds of information forth that wasn’t contemplated. Well, shame on us. This is an opportunity.

I’m not speaking about the politics of this. I don’t really care about that. It’s two o’clock in the morning. I care about my constituents. I care that the Cunningham family can navigate a system that should serve them as British Columbians, that that doesn’t get derailed because their question is excessively broad. Why we lost $100,000 worth of timber, or why this young woman is told that maybe she’s malicious…. Or maybe the health authority is too afraid to provide the information.

[1:50 a.m.]

We have to take the time. We have to use this hoist motion in a way that will allow us just to take a breath here.

It’s not just me saying this. Media outlets are saying it. British Columbians are saying it. I have not had one email — not one — that said we shouldn’t stop this. I haven’t had an email that said: “Wow, get out there and support Bill 9. Don’t worry about the hoist.” I haven’t had anybody email me that. And I’d love to hear from anybody, to please stand up and tell me that they’re receiving a bunch of support and reasons why this shouldn’t be contemplated.

I think we’re making a big mistake to not, at the very least, stop and consider these definitions. And frankly, again, I opened up with the fact that we have debated bills. At times, we have spent days, hours talking about a few words, because those words are important, and we all know it here.

This is exactly why this hoist needs to pass. Somebody has to take the time to sit down and define what “repetitious….”

Madam Speaker, nobody knows the word “repetitious” like you do. What is “excessively broad”? What is “unreasonably interfering with the operations of government”?

Those definitions have to be defined before this bill passes. I mean, I could never support the bill or the motion. Sorry, I have come to support the motion. We need to go back to the drawing board on this.

I don’t think this is a big ask, to consider this motion. I can appreciate the frustration that this bill has created, and I can appreciate the emotion that it’s conjuring up in this House. We’re all tired. It has been a long couple of days, and I get that. But for heaven’s sake, stop and consider this motion. Stop and consider it, I’m begging you. It is going to have a profound effect. We’ll be standing in this same place, two years from now, arguing back and forth about what could have happened right now.

I can’t stress it enough. Our residents are extremely frustrated, I think, with the impact that the bill is going to have. I had a couple of calls today with respect to this hoist motion as well. Granted, people were trying to understand what it meant, but I haven’t heard a real good reason to not support this motion. In fact, I haven’t heard any, other than from the member from Penticton, and I appreciate that because I do think that the reason for us to be here is to debate these things, to consider.

I’ve learned a lot in this chamber. I can assure you of that. And I would love to better understand these terms. I would love to be a part of any kind of a committee that might take a moment to consider this motion, pass this motion, and let’s go get to work. I would be terribly supportive of that.

The effect that this has had on the Cunninghams is staggering, and I can’t say that enough. I’ve sat with that family. I went through the process with them. The redactions in the reports were unbelievable — unbelievable.

And knowing that those redactions, because we didn’t stop tonight…. We didn’t stop tonight, knowing that those redactions could be a straight denial. “We’re not going to give you that information. We’re not going to tell you where that fire was lit. We are not going to tell you why it was lit. And we’re not going to tell you or explain to you why your losses are above a quarter million dollars. Because we didn’t take a simple pause.”

I actually now understand. Because of debate, I understand more broadly the concern around the impact that this may have on that bill. But it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop and contemplate this.

[1:55 a.m.]

My riding is not unique. I’ve talked to people in the Lower Mainland. I’ve talked to constituents all over the province that have suffered horrendous loss. It doesn’t need to be financial. It doesn’t need to be the impacts because of wildfire, although they are many.

This is a true passion of mine, Madam Speaker. The losses on the north shore of the Shuswap Lake were staggering. And you know better than anybody that I am completely supportive of B.C. wildfire and everybody in that system. They do so much for our province.

But the reality is: shame on us if this bill doesn’t improve through this process. I just can’t imagine for a moment that we wouldn’t stop. What happens if this bill does not pass for six months? What happens?

I’d like to hear from members, and I mean that genuinely. I would like to hear from members what the impact on British Columbia is if this bill just sits for six months or if it has to come back because of this, if it has to come back in a different format or if it has to wait a year. I mean, it would be hard to say that it has been rushed if it has taken four or five years to get to this point. We’ve had a committee that offered up 20 or 30 potential solutions that weren’t contemplated.

So the whole notion that the member for Surrey–White Rock has introduced this motion to slow this process down, the notion that the Green Party has been supportive of the motion, the notion that there hasn’t been a lot of information provided as to why we shouldn’t do this, doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m willing to bet that most people in this room have had some experience with this, with our own constituents.

I am completely in favour of this motion. I absolutely am begging the government to reconsider the fact that this bill is not complete. It’s not complete. And this hoist will give an opportunity to figure out these definitions, and this is what I’m most worried about.

I’ve said it now a number of times, but I’m going to say it one more time. You cannot not define words like “malicious” or “unreasonably interfere with operations of government” or “repetitious” or “excessively broad.” I don’t know what the motive is for any of that. We are here to serve British Columbia, and I am frustrated to think that we can’t agree on this point.

I know we’re all tired tonight. I get that. But I am glad that the motion came forward. I’m thankful to the member for Surrey–White Rock for bringing it forward. And I do just want to read it into the record for anybody that….

I’ve got it here. The motion is simply this: that the motion for second reading of Bill 9, entitled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act of 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “for six months hence.”

I am begging the government to consider this for all of the serious reasons that I’ve mentioned here this evening. I definitely look forward to more debate, and I would love to hear some comments from the government side to explain why this hoist motion is not a good idea. Potentially, we’ll hear that from some of the independents, but we haven’t heard it from the government, and that is frustrating, to say the least, because I think they owe British Columbians to explain why there is no value in slowing down, stopping, etc., to at least consider this.

I’m grateful for the time tonight, and I look forward to hearing more debate.

Elenore Sturko: Good morning, Madam Speaker.

Thanks to my colleagues.

I rise this early morning to speak to the hoist motion, which I do not support.

[2:00 a.m.]

I want to be clear. I won’t be getting into the various amendments, or I won’t be getting into the different parts of the bill. But I would like to explain to my constituents, perhaps, that might…. I don’t, probably, think there are too many watching right now, but those who would perhaps watch this through Hansard, maybe tomorrow or in the coming days….

I’ve done my due diligence on this bill. I spoke with members of the government. I listened to briefings, and I even went so far as to reach out to the independent office of the Privacy Commissioner so that I myself could know a little bit more about how this would work if one of my constituents, for example, which I’m sure they do on a regular basis, would submit a freedom-of-information request or access to private information from their own records or even from the record of somebody else.

I think one of the things that’s been missing from this debate and why I don’t support this motion is that in all cases where a request under FOIPPA would be denied, that would go to the Privacy Commissioner, who is the head of an independent office here in British Columbia. The decisions made by that independent officer are made using case law from previous instances where requests have been denied, and it’s also based on just other jurisprudence from instances that this office, which is a very experienced office, has dealt with.

You’ll have to pardon me for being a little bit tired, Madam Speaker.

How it works is…. If someone puts in a request for information from a government body or from the government and that request is denied, any British Columbian can actually complain about that and can complain to the Privacy Commissioner and have that looked at again and have the explanation as to why that request has been denied.

They can also…. They should take heart in knowing that even with these new definitions, that doesn’t change. This legislation doesn’t take away. This is something that I actually really wanted to make sure that I would find out on behalf of my constituents and other British Columbians before I would see this bill go to committee, which….

I do want it to go to committee, and I’m not ashamed of that, because I think that, while not a perfect bill, there’s room for amendment here, and there’s also room to ask important questions during the committee stage and have them answered, which is something that we don’t get to do even in second reading, as you know.

When I wanted to find out more about this process…. What would happen if, for example, someone put in a vexatious request or they were considered to be malicious? Even with the new changes in the legislation, that decision is not made by a person, a head of a government agency alone, because every request that would be not fulfilled by government or by the governing body has to be approved by the independent Privacy Commissioner.

Those protections for British Columbians to make sure that they’re not losing the right to access to information but actually protecting government workers also from the reality that sometimes people do put in vexatious requests or do sometimes not provide enough information on what it is that they’re seeking or sometimes do repetitive requests….

This wouldn’t even be the first time that those types of issues are being dealt with, and that’s why this hoist motion, which…. It does, essentially, kill this bill. It’s not about a delay.

If you go into our standing orders, which every member in this House has, and actually look at what that says…. And I know that my colleague from Penticton had read that into the record and had spoken about that during her speech. You would see that this kills it, and honestly, I don’t think that that is a justifiable delay for British Columbians, because I think that we have something workable here with this bill.

[2:05 a.m.]

Getting more understanding on behalf of my constituents that…. Look, nothing is changing. The Privacy Commissioner still maintains that final say and has so much case law and so much other jurisprudence surrounding these decisions. It’s not an arbitrary decision. They don’t lack definitions. These things are defined because there have been other cases before where requests for information have been not fulfilled.

And those reasons…. If British Columbians want to have a look at what the legislation, as it stands now, says and even have a look at what Bill 9 is proposing, they’re actually not that dissimilar. There’s only a little bit of change in some of the wording.

Some of the wording I actually had some concerns with. During my ability to meet with the minister and to express those concerns…. I think that there’s some really good amendments that have come forward that can address some of those concerns.

I think the ultimate consideration for British Columbians really needs to be that the oversight and the assurance that British Columbians need to be able to rely on is the fact that we have the independent office of the Privacy Commissioner, who oversees access to information, and legislation with respect to privacy is overseen by this independent officer of British Columbia. That’s not going to change.

So I don’t see any reason for us to kill this bill, which is what the hoist motion does. I’m not supportive of killing the bill. I also don’t see anything within the legislation that would require us to have six months.

I heard my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin. He had talked about some very compelling circumstances where people had issues getting access to information — very important and personal information on issues that obviously severely impacted them. I think that we need to look at those types of circumstances and continue to work towards making it so that people can understand what happened in those types of circumstances.

But the changes that I’ve seen brought forward in Bill 9…. I don’t think they’re going to impede people. I don’t think that they will stop people from accessing. This isn’t, in my view, the doomsday bill as has been presented by members of the opposition. This isn’t an affront to democracy. It’s some legislation that, in my opinion, modernizes what we’ve had.

I really respect, too, that the member of the Green Party worked on this legislation decades ago. That is awesome to be able to work with someone with that much knowledge about freedom of information and protection of privacy in this province. Some of the pioneering legislation has been made by lots of different, cool people that I’ve actually had the opportunity to work with.

But sometimes we need to be able to modernize and change. We’re in an extremely digital environment right now. I just don’t think, especially as we see AI make such a huge impact on the province, that we should be delaying legislation that is workable legislation.

So I’m not going to be supporting the hoist motion, because I want to be able to see this go into committee. I think that we’ll have the ability to actually…. Instead of just standing here with dozens of ChatGPT speeches, how about asking some questions and having them answered, maybe even adding some amendments that could satisfy members of the opposition or improve, in ways that they might see, this legislation for their constituents?

But I think for me, the key here to why I’m going to not support the hoist and I want to see this bill continue to progress in the House is that fundamentally, that oversight on who really is overseeing whether or not a request for information is fulfilled is with the Privacy Commissioner. Even with these changes, that oversight still remains, and British Columbians can be assured that this isn’t some trickery to somehow protect people’s reputations.

[2:10 a.m.]

If you’re entitled to information, I think that it’s important that we get it. Especially if it can be used to…. I don’t want to get into the realm of debating the bill, but I’m one of the first ones who has demanded information from this government and not gotten it at times and had to work really hard to be able to prove my points of things that I wanted to have changed in this province.

So it was actually with a great deal of skepticism that I looked at this bill. I have every reason to be skeptical of a government that, in my opinion, hasn’t been as transparent as it should with some really critical files. But when it comes to the oversight of making sure that people are treated fairly in terms of getting access to information in this province, that doesn’t change.

The independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner is overseeing that. There’s other case law to refer to. So I want to see this bill progress.

I’m not going to support the hoist motion. I appreciate this time to speak.

Kristina Loewen: As I begin my speech here on the hoist on Bill 9, I want to just note the time. It is 2:10 a.m., and there’s nothing more important to my party, myself, my team. I know the Third Party and many of the independents feel the same way. We could be doing anything right now, but transparency is key to democracy.

Bill 9 seeks to shrink transparency to make it more difficult for the public to seek information. The fact that this government thinks that we would shirk our duties and not be willing to stay here all night to defend democracy…. Well, then they have another thing coming.

Since I was elected to this place in 2024, this government has repeatedly tried to grab more power, at every turn. It’s despicable, and I never thought I would see this happen in Canada or in the province that I love, but here we are. So here we are to defend democracy and transparency for the public.

The motion for the second reading of Bill 9, entitled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence….” This hoist motion will give the government time to get this bill right. This is not an urgent matter. There is no need for hurry, unless the government is starving for power. So take the time. Vote yes to this amendment. Take the time to get it right and honour the voters by doing that.

Freedom of information is not only about legal frameworks. It’s about people. It’s about citizens who want to understand the decisions that affect their communities. That’s why we’re asking for six more months for consultation, for time to make this right. Across B.C. and in Kelowna and the Okanagan, residents care about what happens and how their government conducts themselves. A six-month extension would show that the government cares to get it right.

The public care about how development decisions are made. They care about environmental protection, public safety, infrastructure and how their tax dollars are spent. When they have questions about those issues, freedom of information provides one of the few tools available to help them find answers.

I’m impressed and honoured that there are so many people on social media saying that they’re staying up to watch us right now and cheering us on and sending me songs referencing being up all night, to egg us on tonight. They’re thankful that we’re debating this bill and debating this motion tonight. This is why I’m supporting this hoist motion.

Local journalism plays an important role in transparency. In communities like Kelowna, many news outlets and other regional publications perform a critical democratic function. They report on decisions made by government. They examine public spending. They investigate issues that affect local residents. Often those investigations rely on records, as you know, obtained through a freedom-of-information request.

Without access, many stories would never be told, many decisions would never be examined and many questions would never be asked. That’s why it’s so important that we in this House get that bill right. That’s why we’re pushing for more time to refocus, for more time to conduct consultation.

[2:15 a.m.]

Local journalists do not file freedom-of-information requests because the process is easy. In fact, we know, as many of the members have talked about, it’s slow and complicated. Requests can take months to complete. Records may arrive more heavily redacted. That’s the concern with these changes. It appears to many of us who have good common sense that this is going to make it harder. Again, that’s why we’re asking for the six-month extension.

Reviewing thousands of pages of documents requires time and resources that smaller, local outlets often struggle to afford. They’ll continue to use the system because it remains one of the few ways to obtain information needed to hold institutions and government accountable, and that accountability benefits everyone.

It benefits the public who want to understand decisions affecting their neighbourhoods. It benefits communities seeking transparency around public projects. And ultimately, it benefits democracy itself, which is really the reason we’re here tonight. Honouring this hoist motion would instil trust in this government. It would restore faith in the public. It would allow time for proper implementation of the 2022 special committee report.

Many residents’ requests come directly from ordinary citizens — residents who contact my office and want to understand how decisions are made in their communities; residents who want access to documents related to planning decisions, studies, public safety policies or government spending. They’re not professional investigators or political actors. They’re simply everyday British Columbians who believe that decisions made by public institutions should be open to scrutiny — public scrutiny. I believe that as well. That’s why I’m speaking, again, in favour of this hoist motion.

Transparency matters deeply to families navigating government programs, particularly when those programs involve vulnerable children. In my first speech, I spoke about parents with children who have autism. Across British Columbia, many parents with children with autism have raised serious concerns about the recent changes coming to the autism funding program and service models. For these families, this issue isn’t abstract. These families are hurting, and they’re searching for answers — research, the science, the rationale behind these decisions. It’s their child’s therapy, their development and their future.

This hoist motion will serve to protect that transparency that we are currently hanging on to by a thread. It will preserve it for these parents. Parents want to understand how decisions were made, what projections were used and whether service capacity will actually meet the needs of children across this province. These questions are difficult to answer without access to internal planning documents and data.

It was March 10 that a parent of a child with autism filed two freedom-of-information requests seeking records related to three-year municipal utilization data and clinical staffing forecasts. That parent was not acting out of political motivation. She was acting out of concern for her child and thousands of other children who rely on these services.

Families facing these challenges deserve clarity and transparency. Often the Freedom of Information Act is the only way they can get it. It’s why this hoist motion is so important. It offers time to get this right for those families who truly depend on it. Their lives truly depend on it. The funding for their children truly depends on it.

When citizens file these requests, they’re not interfering with government operations. They’re exercising their democratic rights. They’re participating in the oversight of public institutions. That participation should be encouraged. We shouldn’t feel threatened by it.

When citizens feel government is open and transparent, public trust grows. When access becomes more difficult, the opposite happens. People begin to feel decisions are being made behind closed doors. They begin to wonder what information they’re not seeing, and that erosion of trust is something every government should work to avoid. That’s why we should take our time with this bill to get it right; to do the proper consultation; to take the time to make sure that this bill isn’t what we fear it is — a further erosion of transparency.

[2:20 a.m.]

Freedom-of-information laws exist because transparency is fundamental to democracy. That’s why any changes to these laws have to be approached with caution and we have to take our time.

Again, I started my speech with: “There’s no rush.” There’s no reason to rush this. No one’s going to be harmed if we give this another six months. The government, I believe, wants to create efficiencies and modernize the act with this bill, but no one is going to be harmed if we wait six more months. When access to information becomes more limited, the people most affected are often the ordinary citizens simply trying to understand how their government works.

We come back to that heart of functioning democracy, transparency. We in the official opposition are not okay with the proposed changes in this amendment. We’re not okay with a weakening of transparency. If the government needs to make changes, we believe they need six more months to get it right. Freedom-of-information laws exist for a simple but powerful reason: because government works for the people, not the other way around.

Woodrow Wilson said: “Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places and avoids public places. We believe it’s a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety.” The opposite of that is transparency and access to information.

Do you remember the golden rule? Do unto others as you would have done unto you. That is the rule that was plastered on a big poster in my first year of school, grade 1, in Mission Central Elementary School. It was a rule we lived by. I wonder sometimes if this government believes in that rule.

Potentially, we will be on that side of the House in a couple of years. You guys maybe will be over here, I believe. Do you want it to be harder to access information on us? Do you want it to be harder to keep us accountable? That’s a question, I think, you should be asking yourselves. Do you want these rules for when you’re on this side?

I listened to my colleagues speak. The MLA for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky said: “Treat us the way you want to be treated when you’re on this side.” I also appreciated a quote, and I’m not sure if the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky was quoting someone else. I think he was. The quote was: “Act in haste, repent in leisure.” This hoist is giving you the opportunity for leisure now, so that you can act in leisure now and not need to repent later.

When citizens elect representatives and fund public programs through their taxes, they have the right to know how their decisions are being made, how their money is being spent and whether those in power are acting responsibly. Freedom of information is one of the primary tools that allows that scrutiny to happen. It allows journalists to investigate stories that matter to the public. It allows citizens to understand decisions affecting their communities and allows members of the Legislature, both government and opposition, to ensure accountability.

In B.C., our Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was designed to ensure that records held by public bodies could be accessed by the public while still providing privacy and security where necessary. It recognizes a simple principle: information created by government ultimately belongs to the public. I don’t know why this government seeks to make that harder.

History has shown that when access to information is strong, democracy itself is stronger. In Canada and in B.C., some of the most important public interest stories have come from the freedom-of-information requests. Journalists use these requests to obtain briefing notes, internal emails and policy documents that reveal how decisions were made behind the scenes. These records shine a light on government activity that might otherwise remain hidden. This is not something governments should fear. It’s something governments should welcome.

Honestly, I welcome it. That’s why I’m here fighting for democracy, and that’s why I’m here fighting for extra time to look deeply at this bill.

Transparency is not just about releasing documents. It’s about allowing the public to understand the government or the data behind government decisions.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Too often, British Columbians hear headline numbers, costs of programs without seeing the records to explain how those numbers were calculated. British Columbians can go deeper by using the Freedom of Information Act. It’s often the only tool available to uncover those details.

[2:25 a.m.]

I fear that this bill will make it more difficult, create more barriers and weaken transparency, ultimately leading to a weaker democracy. That’s why I’m supporting this hoist motion, once again, to spend more time and make sure we can get this right for the people of British Columbia, who’ve entrusted us to be here for them and to stay up all night arguing for this if that’s what it takes.

When access to information becomes restricted, suspicion grows. That’s true. People begin to wonder what information they’re not seeing. That is exactly why freedom-of-information laws have to lean towards openness. Transparency is trust-building.

As I said before, everyday British Columbians use the Freedom of Information Act, and they rely on it to get the information that they need about their very lives. Many requests are not coming from lawyers or large media organizations. They’re coming from ordinary residents.

I know in my own community, we’ve seen freedom-of-information requests about the moth spraying, other spraying in our forests, glyphosate and stuff like that. The public deserves to know what these chemicals are, what they’re being used for, how they’re being used, how extensive it is and how it’s affecting wildlife and human health. Those are very important things to the public, and I know that they value that.

That’s one of the best things, I think, about living in Canada and about living in B.C. We can hold our government to account, and we have these tools. This is citizens participating in their democracy, and I’m loathe to see that get any harder than it already is. I feel like it’s become harder in the last nine years.

When we answer freedom-of-information requests openly, it builds confidence that public institutions are working in the public interest. Again, I ask this House to consider this hoist motion to just consider giving us more time. Again, no one is going to hurt because we took an extra six months to modernize this bill and modernize this act.

Transparency is not a partisan issue. It’s not a Conservative issue or an NDP issue. It’s a democratic principle. No matter who forms government, the public has to have the ability to ask questions and receive answers. That’s why legislation affecting freedom of information deserves such careful scrutiny.

When requests can be dismissed more easily and new barriers are created, it simply does not affect just journalists or political opponents. It affects everyday British Columbians who want to understand how their government operates. That’s why taking this extra time around Bill 9 matters so much to me. It’s because the strength of our democracy depends not only on elections but on the ability of the public to see what their government is doing between those elections.

Transparency is not a threat to good government. Transparency is what makes good government possible. So it’s important that British Columbians understand what this legislation actually does and what this hoist actually does.

We’re only asking for extra time. We believe, on this side of the House, that Bill 9 would make it easier for the government to refuse freedom-of-information requests and make it harder for citizens to obtain records that belong to the public. I don’t think that that’s been fully explored. That’s why we’re asking for this extra time.

It expands the grounds that government can use to ask that requests be dismissed, and that’s not okay. The bill introduces terms such as “malicious,” “abusive,” “repetitious,” “excessively broad” or requests that “unreasonably interfere with operations of government.” Maybe these phrases sound reasonable, and no one would truly argue that abusive requests should overwhelm public institutions. That wouldn’t be okay. But the concern here is not the intention. It’s the broad and subjective terms.

What is excessively broad to a ministry might simply be a citizen trying to understand a complicated issue. What’s considered repetitious could be somebody following up on incomplete or heavily redacted records. What’s deemed to interfere with operations could simply mean a request that asks difficult questions.

[2:30 a.m.]

If we get this extra time, if we take this extra time, we can determine those things and we can make sure that this act continues to serve British Columbians in a transparent way.

Public bodies already have the ability to apply to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to disregard abusive requests. That authority already exists, but Bill 9 expands those powers further, and that raises a reasonable question. If government has tools to deal with abusive requests already, why widen those powers?

This concern isn’t theoretical. We’ve already seen situations in B.C. where public bodies have argued that requests interfered with their operations. For example, in the Okanagan, the district of Summerland applied to the Privacy Commissioner to limit a resident’s freedom-of-information request after dozens of submissions related to municipal decisions and bylaw matters. The commissioner ultimately allowed the municipality to disregard the multiple requests because responding would generate tens of thousands of pages of records and require significant staff time.

That case demonstrates something important. The system already has mechanisms to deal with extreme circumstances. What Bill 9 risks doing is widening the definition of what counts as a problem. Once that door opens, legitimate requests, including those from journalists and citizens asking difficult questions, could be dismissed more easily.

Again, using this time would allow us to ascertain why the government is asking for extra powers. If government gains the ability to dismiss requests simply because they’re considered too broad, the risk is that important records will never see the light of day. That’s really important.

It matters because the most important public interest stories in Canada have come from freedom-of-information requests. Internal emails revealing policy decisions, reports identifying problems in public programs, records explaining how key decisions were made — those revelations are not always comfortable for governments, but they’re essential for democracy.

Bringing in new fees creates barriers. Just right like that. You have to pay for something. That’s a deterrent, especially when we’ve been built on these democratic principles of democracy and freedom of information. Why create a barrier?

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I guide you back to the motion itself, please?

Kristina Loewen: Absolutely. Again, if we look at the hoist, it’s going to give us six months to look at why the government’s wanting that fee.

The entire purpose of proactive disclosure is to make information available to the public without requiring so many hoops to jump through. It’s meant to increase transparency. Charging fees for records undermines that principle, creates a financial barrier to accessing information that should already be public.

Students, researchers, journalists and community organizations often operate with limited resources, and this barrier could simply have people stop asking for records. We already know that less people are asking for records as it is. When fewer people ask questions, fewer answers come to light, and this just further erodes democracy and trust in this government.

When residents question a development decision, when they want to know how tax dollars are being spent, when they want to see the background behind a policy decision, freedom of information provides a path to answers. That’s how the system should work. We want to keep it working for British Columbians the way that it has been. We don’t want to see any further challenges, and it really concerns me that we would be rushing this bill through.

The challenge with this is that it doesn’t introduce dramatic changes. It’s a lot of small barriers, and I think that we need to take some time to maybe bring this before some people who are experts in this and have more consultation and choose a direction together, a way forward that’s non-partisan, because this is really a democratic issue. Together we want to move this system forward and keep things very transparent for British Columbians.

[2:35 a.m.]

At the heart of this debate, we’re asking a simple question: if the information created by government belongs to the public, why are we making it harder for the public to access it? If records exist because taxpayers funded the work that produced them, why are taxpayers being asked to pay again to see them? These are not partisan questions. Again, they’re democratic ones.

Let’s take time and do our due diligence and have consultation and bring this before committees and engage with the public and engage with stakeholders. Let’s come together and find a way forward, because I think that the public is very concerned about the changes that Bill 9 will bring as well, and I think they deserve more time. I think they deserve the honouring of this hoist motion.

Bill 9 raises serious concerns because it doesn’t exist in isolation. If this legislation were the only proposal affecting transparency and oversight in B.C., perhaps it could be viewed as a narrow administrative change. But when we step back and look at the broader landscape, it becomes clearer that Bill 9 is part of a larger pattern, a pattern in this government where transparency is being weakened and independent oversight is being reduced.

That should concern every member of the Legislature….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I need you to come back to the motion, please.

Kristina Loewen: Absolutely, hon. Speaker.

Regardless of party, because this is about transparency…. It’s not about a partisan principle. It’s about a democratic one.

In my last speech, I talked about the Greens’ support. I quoted the member for Saanich North and the Islands, because he did a lot of work on this bill and I really appreciate his insight. I appreciate that now they’re also supporting us on this hoist motion. I think that we’re aligned that way at the moment in terms of wanting to protect our democracy and speak for our constituents and protect their rights to transparency and their access to information in this current political landscape.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen developments that raise questions about the strength of oversight in our province. One example was our discussions about the Office of the Merit Commissioner. Again, it just seems like things are being pushed through in too quick of a way, and there seems to be a pattern. It’s very concerning to this side of the House. We just want to see checks and balances. We want to see things slowed down. We want to see consultation.

We’re really getting…. I know the public is getting very concerned about the way that government is taking things. It just seems like there’s a further divide between the public and the government.

I’m going to just move along here. This is a very long speech that I wrote.

Again, just thinking about what we can accomplish in six months, I think that we can come together and find a path forward that maintains transparency and maintains democracy and leads to more trust with the public. I think that’s what members on the other side want as well, so I don’t understand the opposition to us asking for six more months.

At the end of the day, it comes down to a simple question. Do we believe that government should be open to scrutiny? Absolutely, I do. Or do we believe that access to information should be more restricted? I would say absolutely not.

Our citizens, the public, need to see how decisions are made. They need to have access to records and questions. We need to keep this trust in the public so that we can keep our democracy strong. Freedom-of-information laws were created for that purpose, to ensure that information held by government ultimately belongs to the public.

They are the boss. It’s the public who funds government operations. They pay for the programs. They pay for the services. They pay for the infrastructure. They have every right to understand how those decisions are made. So I think that by taking this extra time, we would really be honouring the public, and that is really important to me.

[2:40 a.m.]

I’m really concerned about the fact that this government is looking for grounds to dismiss requests and introducing new barriers. I really think that this hoist motion is a compromise to give us more time so that we can come together.

On that note, I want you to know that I want the House to really, seriously consider supporting this hoist, taking the time and engaging in conversations with our side of the House, engaging with stakeholders, the community, the public and just really considering the effect that this amendment could have on transparency and public trust.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Standing Order 81.1(2)

Adoption of
Government Business Schedule

Hon. Mike Farnworth: What has become clear in this debate is that there is no real agreement in terms of how to move forward between the opposition and the government. Therefore, I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), the question on the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 9) intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, and the question on any motion in amendment thereto, be put by 3 a.m. on Thursday, May 7, 2026, without further amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).]

Deputy Speaker: The motion that’s been presented to this House by the Government House Leader is so moving that pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2), the question of the motion for second reading of Bill 9, intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, and the question of any motion in amendment thereto be put by 3 a.m. on Thursday, May 7, 2026, without further amendment or debate, and that if division is called, it shall proceed forthwith in accordance to Standing Order 16(2).

Members, you’ve heard the question. The question is this motion.

Division has been called.

[2:45 a.m. - 2:50 a.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is that pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2), the question on the motion for second reading of Bill 9, intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, and the question on any motion in amendment thereto be put by 3 a.m. on Thursday, May 7, 2026, without further amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed forthwith, in accordance with Standing Order 16(2).

[2:55 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Boultbee	Sturko
NAYS — 41
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Wilson	Valeriote	Botterell
McInnis	Paton	Day
Bhangu	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Dhaliwal	McCall
Maahs	Block	Stamer
Gasper	Mok	Davis
Chan	Kealy	Williams
Chapman	Bird	Doerkson
Luck		Tepper

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call 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).

Macklin McCall: I want to start by saying that freedom of information is not an administrative process. It is a limit on government power. Government does not own information in the ordinary sense. It holds it on behalf of the public.

[3:00 a.m.]

The law is there to make sure that access to that information is not dependent on convenience or discretion. That’s the starting point, because once access starts to depend on how something is interpreted or how it is applied in the moment, the system begins to shift. Not all at once, but it does shift. It does shift. That is why changes to this act carry weight. That’s where the concern comes in.

Now, during second reading, we laid out clearly that this bill is….

The Speaker: Member. Member, we have now hit the time limit at 3 o’clock in the morning, as per the motion that we passed earlier.

The question is….

Take your seat, Member.

Macklin McCall: Can I adjourn?

Interjections.

Macklin McCall: Oh. Got a lot left. A lot left. Just started.

The Speaker: Just take your seat.

Now, the motion is: that the motion for second reading of Bill 9, entitled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”

Division has been called.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 42
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Wilson	Valeriote	Botterell
McInnis	Paton	Day
Bhangu	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Dhaliwal	McCall
Maahs	Block	Stamer
Gasper	Mok	Davis
Chan	Armstrong	Kealy
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper
NAYS — 48
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Boultbee	Sturko

[3:15 a.m.]

The Speaker: Members, the next question in front of the House is now second reading of Bill 9.

Division has been called.

[3:20 a.m. - 3:25 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Boultbee	Sturko
NAYS — 42
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Wilson	Valeriote	Botterell
McInnis	Paton	Day
Bhangu	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Dhaliwal	McCall
Maahs	Block	Stamer
Gasper	Mok	Davis
Chan	Armstrong	Kealy
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I move that the bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House.

The Speaker: Members, you heard the motion.

Division has been called.

[3:30 a.m. - 3:40 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Boultbee	Sturko
NAYS — 42
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Wilson	Valeriote	Botterell
McInnis	Paton	Day
Bhangu	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Dhaliwal	McCall
Maahs	Block	Stamer
Gasper	Mok	Davis
Chan	Armstrong	Kealy
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: Division has been called.

[3:45 a.m. - 3:50 a.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 50
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Valeriote	Botterell
Boultbee		Sturko
NAYS — 40
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Wilson	McInnis	Paton
Day	Bhangu	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Dhaliwal
McCall	Maahs	Block
Stamer	Gasper	Mok
Davis	Chan	Armstrong
Kealy	Williams	Chapman
Bird	Doerkson	Luck
	Tepper

The Speaker: The House is now adjourned until 10 a.m. today, so good morning, everyone.

The House adjourned at 3:54 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Transportation and Transit

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

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

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: None other than that I look forward to the questions from my hon. critic across the way.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Langley-Abbotsford. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, hon. Chair. I want to thank the minister for taking these questions.

Transportation and transit touch every part of British Columbia, every part of life. Whether its families trying to get home in time, truckers moving goods from our ports or highways, workers commuting long distances because they can’t afford to live near their jobs or businesses waiting on delayed infrastructure projects, the decisions made in this room have real-world consequences.

British Columbians are watching closely, because they are seeing rising costs, delayed projects, ferry breakdowns, congestion getting worse, safety concerns on highways and major questions around planning and delivery.

[3:00 p.m.]

As official opposition critic, my goal today is to be straightforward — accountability. Accountability for timelines, accountability for cost overruns, accountability for project delivery, accountability for safety and accountability for whether taxpayers are actually getting the value for the billions of dollars being spent.

I also want to acknowledge the thousands of front-line workers who keep this province moving every single day — truck drivers, equipment operators, mechanics, ferry workers, tradespeople, transit operators, engineers and road maintenance crews. A lot of these people work long hours in tough conditions, and they deserve a system and infrastructure that actually function properly.

With that, let’s get into some of the questions. I want to start with the Belleville terminal redevelopment project. A little background on this. This project is to replace the old Belleville terminal, where the Clipper runs between Port Angeles and Victoria.

Phase 1 of the project is complete and involved constructing a temporary terminal where CBSA and USCBP can operate. Phase 2 is in procurement and consists of demolishing the existing terminal and constructing a new preclearance terminal with modern boarding and security standards replacing the aging wharf.

My question. Can the minister confirm that this project’s completion date is still on target for 2028?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister provide an update on the procurement for this project?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We have a signed contract in place, and they’re busy doing the work.

Harman Bhangu: I want to move on to a little bit on the aviation fuel tax. A little background here. The federal government levies excess taxes on aviation fuel for domestic flights. The tax rate is four cents per litre on aviation fuel and ten cents per litre on aviation gasoline. The province of British Columbia charges its own aviation fuel tax of 21.59 cents per litre.

The Oxera study, paid for by the airlines, claims that the reduction of additional fees, in line with what Sweden has done, would increase GDP and tourism and reduce domestic flight costs. On April 29, Global News reported the federal government is in the early stages of talks on whether to privatize airports. That was Global News on April 29, 2026.

My question to the minister. Can the minister explain how much money the government earns per year from the 21.59 cents-per-litre aviation fuel tax? How often does this tax increase? Is it reviewed annually, and does it escalate?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the questions, and I would advise the member that those questions are actually best directed to the Minister of Finance, who deals with those things — in particular, the taxes on the fuel that the member is talking about. Those estimates are still to happen, so the member will have the opportunity to ask that question to the minister at that time.

Harman Bhangu: I want to move on to a little bit of the transit here. The federal government has committed $1.5 billion for transit in Metro Vancouver. Has the province matched that funding, yes or no?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell him that we are currently in discussions with the federal government around the $1½ billion that the member references. That is over a ten-year period.

One of the things that we’re particularly concerned about around that is the fact that British Columbia has already been putting in significant capital funding for capital projects when it comes to transit. One of the challenges that we have been seeing over the last number of years has been that the province’s share of capital funding has increased, while the federal government share has not kept pace with that.

It was initially supposed to be 40-40, but what we have seen is that it is, in fact, significantly less than the 40 percent from the federal government. So we are currently in discussions with the federal government around that funding, to make sure that (1) British Columbia gets its fair share and (2) there’s an understanding that we have been doing an awful lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to transit capital funding in this province.

Harman Bhangu: Which TransLink projects are currently waiting for funding? You committed to three BRT projects in your platform. Are those waiting for funding confirmation from the province?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In last year’s budget, hon. Member, we gave $312 million in terms of operating funding to TransLink. One of the things that that is allowing to take place is to do the advance work, advance planning and design, on those three BRT lines that the member referenced in his question.

Harman Bhangu: What does that mean for riders today in terms of overcrowding, service expansion or new routes not being delivered?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The 2025 investment plan, which is currently ongoing right now, is seeing the largest increase in bus service since 2018, with 40 new transit routes planned in Metro, along with the investments that are being made in terms of the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, which is going to see a significant increase in the capacity to move people through the region, connecting Langley city to Surrey centre through to Vancouver — all of which are going to dramatically increase the ability of people to be able to move around the region.

Harman Bhangu: My question. Is there a risk that any portion of the federal $1.5 billion could be delayed or lost if the province continues to wait?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The answer is no.

Harman Bhangu: This government has said transit is key to housing and affordability. Why is the funding not moving forward to support transit-oriented growth?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I’ll make two observations.

In terms of the investments that TransLink is making, many of them are already in high-growth areas where there is significant densification taking place.

[3:15 p.m.]

Also, when you couple that with the investments that are being made in terms of the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project, for example, that is going to open up new transit-oriented development areas for the higher-density development that is going to make it more accessible for people to take transit and is going to ensure that we are building the homes, the affordability that people are looking for with those investments.

Harman Bhangu: Has this funding request gone to the Treasury Board or cabinet, and has the decision been made, yes or no?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. As much as I might like to provide some commentary on this, I am bound by an oath of cabinet confidentiality, so I cannot tell you what has happened at cabinet.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Minister, but I would not expect anything less than the most secretive government in British Columbian history here.

Will you commit today to matching the federal $1.5 billion for transit in Metro Vancouver? If not, what is the exact timeline for when British Columbians will see that commitment finalized?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. We are going to continue working with the federal government to ensure that British Columbia gets its fair share when it comes to transit funding, capital funding.

Since 2017, the province has invested, in capital alone, more than $8 billion. We have not received the same amount from the federal government, and the way the funding formula is supposed to work when it comes to capital is 40 percent from the province, 40 percent from the federal government and 20 percent from the region, from TransLink.

That, just so you know, has, in fact, increased. It used to be 30, 30 and 30, and we increased our share to 40.

We’re confident in our discussions and work with the federal government that they will be at the table to ensure that B.C. receives its fair share. We’re watching very closely what they’re doing in other provinces, but we’ve got a good working relationship with the federal minister and the provincial minister here that represents us in Ottawa.

Harman Bhangu: My question now is…. I want to move on to the local aspects. You know, Langley is one of the fastest-growing areas, and congestion has been just stockpiling one after another with the Highway 1 and everything else going on there.

What I want to know is…. The next phase of Langley’s BRT — when is that going to start? Phase 1 is almost done, and this will create a lag in projects and more funding, maybe balloon the cost more. If it’s not funded properly….

I just want to know. When is the next part going to start?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The 2025 investment plan and the Mayors Council, as the member will know, identify the priorities in terms of investment and projects that they want to see take place.

The funding that we’ve provided to TransLink to be able to do the additional work is going to allow for that planning and design work to advance the project that the member has been referring to. That is the funding around the planning and advanced design work. That’s how that will take place.

Harman Bhangu: Thanks for that little update. I think that will set a little bit of ease, and we’ll be looking into it. Especially, also, my colleagues in Langley, Langley–Walnut Grove and Langley-Willowbrook, will be looking forward to seeing how that’s going to continue.

Now I want to move on to the HandyDART delivery model and services. I’ve had a lot of people reach out to me about the model change, either by email, when I’m at events or if I’m just walking along, people pulling me over.

A little bit of background on this. In July of 2024, TransLink initiated a HandyDART delivery model review in anticipation of the current expiring contract in 2026. Under the current model, delivery functions are handled by TransLink, Coast Mountain Bus Co. and Transdev.

In recent years, stakeholders — including HandyDART Riders Alliance and the ATU Local 1724, the union representing HandyDART employees — have been vocal about moving HandyDART in-house, based on concerns about operating costs, contractor profit and customer interactions with taxi drivers, because right now it has moved to a taxi driver.

A lot of the people accessing this use had a familiarity with the people from the HandyDART directly. They knew how they liked to be loaded, unloaded and so forth.

My question. Can the minister provide any information on if the ministry has decided to bring more of what the private contractors’ responsibilities are in-house?

A shift like this would impact staffing numbers for HandyDART. Can the minister provide some insight into how a shift from private sector contractors providing current services to the HandyDART will be a net benefit, since HandyDART has already been struggling to deliver services to the people?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll start with a couple of points and some observations.

First, HandyDART is not…. It is run through…. In terms of the question, in terms of bringing it in-house, that is a decision that TransLink makes. It’s not a decision that the province makes.

As the member is no doubt aware, you have the Mayors Council, and then you have the TransLink board. On that board, there are two provincial appointees. It is not a Crown corporation. It is an independent entity in which the province does have two voting members. The other voting members, the other directors, are confirmed by the Mayors Council.

That is where the decision is made whether to bring services in-house or keep them contracted out. It’s not a decision that the province is in a position to make. That is a decision that is made by the TransLink board.

[3:25 p.m.]

They went through a process. They had input. I heard many of the same issues that you have raised, and that board made the decision to continue to keep the services contracted out.

Harman Bhangu: I just have a little concern about some of the ways it would work out. Has the ministry created any contingency plans for a scenario in which more services are brought in-house and HandyDART goes to strike? It is a bit of a concern. With the transportation, I would think that there would be some sort of remedy if the case occurred.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: If you could repeat the question. I didn’t quite understand the point that you were getting at there.

Harman Bhangu: I’m just wondering if there is a contingency plan for a scenario in which more services are brought, say, in-house and then HandyDART was to go on strike. I understand that it’s under TransLink, but does the province have any type of framework or any kind of contingency plan if something was to occur?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I would make this observation for the member. If what the member is talking about is a labour dispute, whether or not it was outside or inside, the reality is we have a very robust and well-established labour negotiation process in this province. So the initial, obviously, is the negotiations.

If there is a strike, then the member will no doubt be aware that we do have a labour relations act in terms of, at some point, if something was needed around a mediator, for example, or a special mediator. Strikes have occurred throughout our province. They happen. We do have processes in place to be able to deal with it and legislation in terms of that both sides are in a position to be able to access it in trying to find a resolution to a dispute.

Harman Bhangu: I just want to shift to HandyDART services in general. Can the minister provide some figures as to how many additional staff will be hired to staff the additional 7,500 hours for handyDART services in Victoria? Also, can the minister provide other examples of increased service hours in other areas in the province, such as the Interior?

Are the increases in service hours directly tied to urban areas with high populations, or will they be added to other areas that are struggling with the services, like the rural parts?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll make a couple of points.

TransLink determines where they want to see a HandyDART service expanded. That’s outside of what the province does.

In terms of B.C. Transit, they work with local communities and local governments to determine where service expansion could take place. I can tell the member that this year alone, there are 18,000 hours of HandyDART service expansion in different parts of the province. It’s not just in Victoria. It is in other areas of the province, right across the province — for example, in the Comox Valley, Kamloops, Central Fraser Valley as well as Victoria, just to name a few.

Harman Bhangu: I want to move on a little bit to the Millennium Line SkyTrain extension to UBC. With a lot of traffic, a lot of commuters, a lot of youth can’t afford to live near the university, especially from the Fraser Valley. You hear it from students all the time that are commuting. It’s gotten really hard to get down there and access.

I want to give you a little background on this. In July of 2021, both federal and provincial governments announced they would each contribute a 40 percent cost share towards the UBCx planning, based on the cost estimate of $35 million. In 2022, Mayors Council on Regional Transportation advanced planning efforts to extend the SkyTrain to UBC and included SkyTrain expansion to UBC as a part of the Transport 2050 program, including UBCx in their ten-year priorities and access for everyone plan for implementation in the later half of the plan of 2030 to 2035.

My question. Back in July of 2021, the federal government, under then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, announced they would contribute a 40 percent cost share towards UBCx planning.

[3:35 p.m.]

Can the minister confirm that the total amount of $35 million is still available? And can the minister confirm if they have received more than the $14 million from Infrastructure Canada for the UBCx since last year? If the funding was not used, has the federal government retracted that promise to the province?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I appreciate the fact that he mentioned 2050 in his things, because that made me think that I will be 91 years old in 2050, if I’m still here.

Anyway, I just want to confirm that, yes, the federal government did commit the $14 million, and that $14 million is there. The province also committed the $14 million. The $14 million from the federal government is actually committed on the basis of cost recovery, and we are still in that cost recovery, accessing that funding.

Harman Bhangu: Okay, so you’re trying to secure the funding for the planning of the UBCx. If there have been discussions surrounding funding, can the minister provide the dollar amount on offer now in comparison to the announcement made in July of 2021?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. As I said, we are accessing the $14 million. We have put in the $14 million. That’s allowing work to take place right now. The next stage would be in terms of the project itself, and that would be working to get a solid federal commitment in terms of how much they’re prepared to contribute to the building of the UBCx line.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister provide an update on whether discussions on the final scope, the alignments, stations and funding have been made for the UBCx?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. As I’ve already mentioned, we have been drawing down that $14 million on a cost recovery basis, that the province has put in the $14 million.

In terms of what the actual alignment and routes and stations actually look like, that is, in large measure, going to in part be determined by the amount of money that the federal government is prepared to put on the table in terms of capital funding.

At the same time, I think it’s also important to remember that in terms of the priorities being established by the Mayors Council and TransLink, their priorities are the BRT lines. They have seen the UBCx extension as coming in the second half, later down their ten-year investment plan.

We will continue to work with the federal government, as I like to constantly remind them, to ensure that British Columbia gets its fair share of infrastructure funding, not only in roads and highways but in terms of transit.

We will continue to do just that, and that’s how these projects are going to move forward.

Harman Bhangu: Minister, I understand it’s going to come down to the federal aspect on some of the ends, but does the ministry have a ballpark capital cost for this project and a timeline at all?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I’ll just put it this way, Member. I’m not really in a position to give you a ballpark figure. If I give you a ballpark figure and it’s not accurate, you’ll hit it out of the ballpark.

Harman Bhangu: I know we’ve had a little bit of back and forth, but this is why we’re here at estimates.

We’ll move on towards automated vehicles now. I’m examining the ministry’s broader approach to transportation planning. It is also important to consider how the province is preparing for emerging technologies that are already being deployed in other jurisdictions.

Automated and connected vehicle technology is advancing rapidly around the world, with jurisdictions moving towards pilot programs, regulatory frameworks and real-world testing environments. In British Columbia, however, the current framework does not permit fully automated vehicles on public roads, and there are no active pilot programs underway.

[3:45 p.m.]

At the same time, the province has put in place legislative tools to regulate higher levels of automation, including level 3, level 4 and level 5 vehicles, should they become more widely available. So what we have is a situation where a legal authority exists, the technology is evolving and other jurisdictions are moving forward, but British Columbia appears to remain in a monitoring position rather than implementation phase.

The ministry has indicated that safety is a top priority, and that is understandable, but safety and readiness are not mutually exclusive. If the province is not actively testing, piloting and preparing for deployment, there is a risk that British Columbians will fall behind not only in adapting new technologies but in shaping the regulatory and economic opportunities that come with them. As these technologies evolve, the question becomes whether the province is in a position to lead or simply to react.

My question. Can the minister confirm whether British Columbia is currently participating in any pilot projects or real-world testing initiatives for automated vehicles?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It really is an interesting one because we are seeing significant developments or interest in the area of automotive vehicles.

There is, I think, considerable public concern over safety. We, on a regular basis, see stories in the media around automated vehicles. There was someone I noticed just recently where it veered into a crowd of people — one of those vehicles did.

While I understand the technology is improving, there is…. I don’t want to say skepticism, but there is a real concern amongst people about how they will work, how they will impact not just driving in cities but also in terms of residential neighbourhoods and speed, and safety is the key component of that.

It’s not something that British Columbia is sitting idly by with. We are monitoring what is happening in other jurisdictions. And it’s important to note that it’s Transport Canada that sets the safety standards for the design, construction and importation of motor vehicles into Canada. The province does not currently permit autonomous vehicles, driverless vehicles, on our roads.

The Ministry of Transportation and Transit, besides just actively monitoring, is working with other provinces and the federal ministry of transportation at the national level in understanding what is taking place in other jurisdictions, what is happening within our own nation in terms of the development of autonomous vehicles, so that we are in a position to be able to make the decisions that are in the best interests of not just Canadians but also British Columbians and ensuring, in terms of autonomous vehicles, that they are safe and that the public would have confidence when regulations around them are put in place.

But at the present time, as I said, they’re not allowed in B.C. on our roads, on our public roads, and Transport Canada is the one who actually sets the regulations around their use, their safety and what they can and cannot do.

Harman Bhangu: I do share some of the concerns, as well, that you have mentioned.

Well, the reason why I bring that up is because I was wondering if there are test pilots. I know that over at a lot of the ports, the RTG stackers and a lot of other equipment have been automated, and there is a lot of testing.

[3:50 p.m.]

So I was wondering. Is the province not participating in pilot programs or looking to get into some of these programs where they can test it and work with the federal government and implement it on an off-site — not on public roads, but start working towards getting some data, getting some analysis of how it would operate in other places and seeing if that scope can be applied to others?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The member references ports, and I acknowledge that there has been, I think, some important work underway in terms of autonomous vehicles in ports.

Ports, as the member knows, are not provincially regulated. They are regulated by the federal government. So what I can tell you is that…. When I mentioned a moment ago that we work with the provincial jurisdictions and the federal government, in particular the federal transport ministry, on what is taking place, these are the kinds of things that we are able to understand and find out what is happening — I use the ports as an example — in the work that’s taking place between the provinces, which includes British Columbia, and the federal ministry of transportation.

In terms of pilot projects, there are potentially some, but at the current time, nothing that I would say is at a stage where one is able to make a commitment. We’re still trying to get an understanding of what they might possibly involve and getting more details around that.

Suffice it to say that we understand the technology is evolving, that it is being introduced in locations. We want to work with other provincial jurisdictions, with the federal government, to ensure that we all understand what’s happening and the kind of regulations that are required not just in commercial and industry but in terms of the broader public, so that they have confidence in this technology as it evolves.

Harman Bhangu: I just want to expand on that a little bit. What coordination has taken place with the federal government to ensure that provincial regulations and infrastructure planning are aligned with evolving national standards for automated vehicles?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question from the member. I think this is one of those areas where it’s important to point out that as we see emerging technology, one of the things we want to try and avoid is a patchwork approach to regulation — every province having a different approach. That’s why it’s important that the provinces work together. It’s why it’s important that we work closely with the federal government. And I can tell you that British Columbia is actively involved in that.

The member may be interested to know that this ministry has a leadership role on the Connected and Automated Vehicles Integrated Committee at Transportation Association of Canada. This committee allows our representatives to collaborate on the development and application of connected and automated vehicles to ensure that we’ve got the correct outcomes for public health, safety, mobility, economic opportunity and sustainability.

This is the kind of work that can best take place with collaboration of the provinces and the federal government to ensure, as I said, that as the technology expands, we’ve got a national standard that applies right across the country.

I think that’s one of the things that we’re noticing in the last few years. It’s the importance of trying to ensure that we are not as provinces putting up barriers between ourselves but that we are able to move across this country as freely as possible, with regulations that are easily understandable and apply in provinces and territories from one end of the country to the other.

Harman Bhangu: Thanks for the response there, Minister.

How does the minister assess British Columbia’s position relative to other jurisdictions that are already piloting or integrating automated vehicle technologies? I understand that there would be a blanket aspect of it from the federal aspect, but we also know provinces are a bit different — landscapes, port access and a lot of other things. So that’s where I just wanted to know a little bit more about…. How is it relative to other jurisdictions that are already piloting — and there are a few — integrated automated vehicle technologies?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make this observation. And the member is correct when he says that different provinces and different jurisdictions have different needs. That’s just a fact of life in the country, which is why….

We do policy work in B.C. We work at the national level with other provinces and the federal government as regulations are developed and as emerging technology comes to the fore — looking at how autonomous vehicles, for example, could be implemented or the demand for them, for example.

A key part of that is ensuring that in the development of those regulations, the unique circumstances that apply to every province…. You know, the prairies are really flat but minus 40 in the winter and six feet of snow. In British Columbia, we have really rugged topography and terrain that can have pouring rain down here on the coast and — not this year, it seems — in many parts of the province, significant amounts of snowfall and a mountainous terrain, very winding and quite often treacherous roads.

We want to ensure that there’s a standard that takes all of those into account when regulations are being developed. It’s very similar, in many ways, to what we have been trying to advance with the trucking industry at the national level and with other provinces, to ensure that we’re not putting up barriers that make it difficult for trucking and the carrying of goods to take place but at the same time also ensuring that we have the safety standards that take into account the different geography, the different topography, the different climatic conditions that occur in different provinces and territories within the country.

It takes a lot of work, but we have seen improvements taking place, especially in the last few years. Work is underway in the trucking industry, for example, to ensure better harmonization. That’s the kind of work that you would undertake in terms of this topic that we’re talking about, about autonomous vehicles. In essence, policy work done at our level helps to inform our position vis-à-vis other provinces and the federal government as this emerging technology moves forward.

Harman Bhangu: A little bit of the next question you kind of answered there, but I’ll ask it anyway. Maybe you want to expand on it. What criteria would the ministry use to determine when British Columbia is ready to proceed with real-world testing?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Member, for the question. I’ll pick up where I left off on my previous answer, because I think part of the previous answer does relate to this answer that we’re talking about.

In this discussion, as we said, the federal government sets the safety standards in terms of wanting to ensure that there is a standardization across the country that takes into account, as I’ve mentioned, the topography, geography, the safety standards set by the federal government and policy work being done by each of the provinces, including our own, on autonomous vehicles.

[4:05 p.m.]

It’s not just about safety that we need to be looking at, which is, obviously, a key public concern. It’s also about the actual impact that autonomous vehicles have not just on the transportation industry, not just in terms of vehicles but on the impact on the economy.

What’s the impact on jobs? What are the social changes that may come as a result of autonomous vehicles? Are you going to be putting significant sectors out of work? Are you going to be putting taxi drivers in Surrey, Langley, Delta, the Lower Mainland and other parts of the province out of work?

A lot of people have investments, in terms of their small businesses. The move to advanced technology can…. Technology, as we know, can do amazing things, but it can also have significant disruptive impacts. It can have them economically. It can have them socially. We have seen, for example, the wholesale decline in print media and in the broadcast industry, to be replaced by alternative technologies that, quite frankly….

I’m going down a bit of a path here, but I think it’s an indication of the effect that sometimes technology and the unintended consequences can have, where we have seen a social media that, I think, those of us engaged in the business of politics would say is absolutely, probably, one of the most toxic, vile forms of communication that is out there.

I think, when those things came in, they were promoted as: “Hey, this is going to really democratize information.” The reality has been, in many cases, that it has been anything but that. You have rises in bots and all of those things.

I just use that as an example that whenever there’s a significant technology change coming in and the way the technology is impacting us, it is critically important that we also understand and look for unintended consequences. Are we prepared for that? That means making sure that the policy work gets done. It means making sure that you’re able to answer the questions that the public have.

I know that sometimes there’s this desire that we should rush headlong into adopting or saying: “Let’s get moving on this.” That’s fine, but let’s also make sure that it’s being done right. Let’s make sure that we are able to answer the public’s questions. Let’s make sure that we understand the consequences, not just social consequences but economic consequences, as well as economic opportunity. I think the public expects nothing less from us than ensuring that we are doing the due diligence necessary.

I’ll come back to it being critically important that work we do within government in British Columbia is informed by what we are seeing in other jurisdictions, by work that’s being done in other provinces and by work that’s done at the national level with the federal government, in particular the federal Ministry of Transport, which has access to be able to get data and information from jurisdictions such as ports, for example, which we do not have the ability to get information from.

All of those things come in together so that proper public policy can be made in a way that the public has confidence in, that as change is taking place, it impacts in a positive way and not in a negative way and, certainly, not in a way where policy-makers, governments and industry have not thought through what the implications of the adoption of these new technologies will bring.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I kind of wish that was taken on some of the procurement ways the ministry does. Sometimes the cost is cheap up front, but the maintenance on some of it is a lot more in the long run. Maybe you can adapt that over to some of the procurement aspects of it. That would be really thanked by a lot of British Columbians in the spending, the cost overruns.

I want to move on to commercial trucking safety. In reviewing the ministry’s approach to commercial vehicle safety, the stated objective is clear. The ministry has repeatedly emphasized that safety for both commercial drivers and the travelling public is its top priority.

[4:10 p.m.]

Over the past several years, a number of measures have been introduced, including mandatory entry-level training, electronic logging devices to address driver fatigue, speed limiters and new safety requirements for specific types of equipment. Additional steps have included investments in enforcement tools such as weigh-in-motion stations as well as consultation with the industry and ongoing data collection efforts.

These are significant policy and regulatory changes, but they were also introduced in response to very serious incidents, including fatal crashes involving commercial vehicles and repeated collisions with public infrastructure, which raised concerns from the public, local governments and industry stakeholders.

The question is not whether measures have been announced. The question is whether those measures are delivering measurable improvements in safety outcomes. When government introduces new rules, new requirements and new systems, the expectation is that those actions will lead to fewer incidents, fewer collisions and safer roads. Without clear data demonstrating those outcomes, it becomes difficult to assess whether the current approach is working or whether further changes are required.

Can the minister provide data on trends in commercial-vehicle-related collisions and fatalities over the past five years?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank him for the question. When it comes to serious collisions involving commercial vehicles, what I can tell you is there is a downward trend. Some of the measures put in have come in, certainly, in the last couple of years, so we’re not seeing yet the full changes, particularly around the changes that have been made when it comes to striking of overpasses, for example.

In terms of fatalities, it’s been a slight downward trend. Where we see a bigger downward trend is in injuries. They have definitely declined over the last five years, as has the number of serious collisions declined. In 2020, there were 425 serious collisions. In 2024, there were 338, for example.

More broadly, in terms of our highways, what we have seen is a continuing decline in serious collisions in different parts of the province. For example, serious collisions are down 9 percent on provincial highways, they’re down 10 percent during winter months, and they’re down 20 percent involving commercial vehicles. But as we know, serious collisions on our highways do often occur due to driver inattentiveness, people driving too fast.

As I’ve said in previous estimates, there are sometimes too many morons on the road who seem to think that a stop sign means “maybe” or that a red light means “go.” I can tell you, funnily enough, walking to the buildings here this morning, the light was red. It had not just turned red, but red, and this idiot just goes straight through. Those are the kind of drivers that cause serious collisions, fatalities and injuries and that we need to continue to crack down upon.

Harman Bhangu: I recall that last year we talked about this, and we had brought up the concern of temporary foreign workers and if there was any data of how many collisions or incidents are regarding them.

Has the province committed to bringing that implementation in, keeping a record of that? I know the government and the Premier himself have been very vocal about getting rid of a lot of temporary foreign workers and have talked about the effects that it’s had in certain ways, in safety and other issues, on worksites and especially our major highways.

I’d like to know a little bit about that. Has there been any kind of recordkeeping, or do you have any records? Or is that going to be something that we can move forward with in tracking so we can keep our communities safe?

[4:20 p.m.]

A lot of the workers that come here, they don’t know — like you talked about yourself, Minister — the terrain, the icy weather, the six feet of snow and all of that. I would just want to get a little clarification from you there.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I know the member is aware that when it comes to temporary foreign workers, that’s the immigration system and the purview of the federal government.

The province does not have a way to check or to determine whether somebody driving is, in fact, a temporary foreign worker or not. What we are able to do is to check whether or not they are properly licensed and have been trained. They must have been trained in terms of having their class 1 licence to be able to drive here in B.C.

Harman Bhangu: Now I want to move to: what measurable impacts have measures such as mandatory entry-level training and electric logging devices had on reducing fatigue-related incidents involving commercial vehicles?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question. Two things.

In terms of what we’re seeing in the reduction in the number of injuries, for example, I think it shows that there is a downward trend underway.

In terms of the MELTs and the electronic logging devices that the member has just raised, while this ministry developed the MELT program, it is actually ICBC, in the PSSG, Solicitor General’s ministry, that’s actually doing a review, understanding how that has worked. If you have questions for that, you can ask, at that point, to that ministry.

At the same time, work is currently underway in my ministry around the electronic logging devices. That work is currently underway. We haven’t got it finished with results yet, but that’s work we are currently engaged on this year.

Harman Bhangu: Thank you for the answer there, Minister. I will check in with you at a later date on that then.

How is the ministry evaluating the effectiveness of the speed limiter requirements in reducing high-speed collisions involving heavy commercial vehicles? Some of the trucks…. I hear it kind of goes both ways sometimes when they’re going up hills and they’re having to go at a slow rate. Myself being a trucker, it does kind of raise some questions whether your truck will even make it up the hill in some cases, and a lot of truckers have been complaining about it.

I just wanted to know from you: how has that been in reducing high-speed collisions involving heavy commercial vehicles?

Also, the inspection of them. I’ve also travelled around the province, and I can tell you not a lot of them that come out of town, or even some in town, have the limiter.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. What I can tell you is that the speed limiters came into effect in 2024, so it’s still a little bit of a short time in terms of getting a full statistical understanding of the impact.

What I can tell you is that there is work on the data that we have got since then. We are working on reviewing that this particular year, along with the B.C. Trucking Association, the industry, to get a good understanding of how it is working to date. At next year’s estimates, I expect I’ll probably be able to give you a much more exacting answer in terms of what we’re seeing.

[4:30 p.m.]

What I can also tell you, given what we are hearing from our colleagues in Ontario, where this measure was brought in before British Columbia, is that they have seen a significant reduction in truck crashes and commercial vehicle crashes and accidents. So that’s, certainly, something that we’re going to be looking forward to seeing as being replicated here in B.C.

As I said, that work will be underway in collaboration with the industry. I look forward to seeing the results and, this time next year, sharing those results with you when you ask me the same question again, which I am sure that you will.

Harman Bhangu: Has the ministry identified any gaps in the current safety framework for commercial vehicles, particularly in light of recent incidents involving infrastructure strikes or serious crashes?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To the member, I thank him for the question, because this is a topic that I’d like to expand on. There is nothing more annoying than coming in to the office here in Victoria and finding out that some moron has hit an overpass. I know one thing: the overpasses have not been shrinking. They are the same height as when they were built.

What we have seen over the last few years is…. What we were seeing was an increase in the number of collisions caused by a number of factors.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

One, not measuring the load.

Two, not doing an inspection of the load.

Three, relying too much on route guidance and not planning your route out ahead of time.

Four, improper training.

Five, the shipper also not doing due diligence in terms of checking that the load is the right load and the route is the right route.

It is very simple. There’s an app that tells you how to do it. It will tell you what the heights of the overpasses are. And people were not…. One or many of those things were not being followed.

[4:35 p.m.]

We brought in significant measures working with the B.C. Trucking Association. We have increased the fines. We have suspended licences. We have done it in a way that causes financial pain, not just in the terms of a ticket but suspending the entire fleet. That has had a significant impact.

We’ve also worked with other provinces to ensure that you could not be able to do what was happening, which was the carrier got shut down, and then they’d change the business location and register it in another province and continue to operate. We’ve worked with Alberta and Ontario, in particular, who are experiencing similar issues, and have brought in some significant changes that are leading to a real reduction.

For example, we’ve gone down from 2024. This year we have had five; in 2025, we had 17; and in 2024, we had 29 strikes on overpasses. So we are seeing a real improvement. That being said, we will continue to look at measures and ways, working with the Trucking Association, to ensure that we bring it down even further.

The cost in terms of damage to infrastructure is one thing. The potential for injury and fatalities is significant, as well as just the sheer delay that happens to people who are driving responsibly and normally and who are now stuck in what potentially — if a truck gets wedged under an underpass because of the negligence that took place — can be hours, and that’s not acceptable.

The public was wanting changes. Significant changes have been made. They’re having results, and we’re going to continue to do that not just here in B.C. but working with other provinces and the federal government.

Harman Bhangu: As I recall, last year we actually talked about the heights of the overpasses, and we both agreed and we came to a conclusion that the ones in B.C. are actually lower than our neighbouring provinces and to the south in Washington.

I just want to ask, on the new overpasses being constructed on Highway 1: are they being constructed to match our neighbours’, or are they going on as is?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The member, for example, references infrastructure, and he’s talking about some of the projects that are underway — the No. 1, for example.

The Transportation Association of Canada — their standard is five metres. In B.C., we have a standard, and you’ll see it on the highways, of 5.2 metres for the height of the overpasses. I think that we’re wanting to ensure that not only do we meet but we are exceeding the national standard when it comes to that height.

That is, of course, a minimum. I mean, there may well be variation in terms of going upward, particularly depending…. Unlike, again, as I sometimes reference, Saskatchewan…. You can see your dog running for three days after it runs away. It’s that flat. In a mountainous province such as ours, in the approaches and lead-ups to crossing over a highway or a road, then it could be a bit higher, but the national standard is five, and ours are 5.2.

Harman Bhangu: What has the maximum fine been to companies at fault for the overpass strikes? Have they paid for the repairs, or is it placed upon the taxpayer?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. In terms of the fines themselves, no, they don’t cover the cost of damage to the infrastructure. There are two things that occur.

[4:45 p.m.]

One, we’ve had about $66,000 in fines take place. But in terms of damage to the infrastructure that takes place, we go after them through their insurance and their bonding, and that’s how we recover costs in terms of having to fix or repair infrastructure.

At the same time, it’s not just the fines that the company suffers but rather, also, the suspension of the fleet for the time that it takes to do an investigation to ensure that we’ve done our due diligence and that police have done their due diligence. That can have a significant financial penalty on the company.

For example, it is one thing if you are a one-, two-, three-, four-, five-truck outfit. That suspension is going to impact you. If you’ve got 50, that’s an even bigger impact.

There are pretty significant penalties in place. Fines are there. In terms of the repairs, we go after them through their insurance and bonding.

Harman Bhangu: I want to go over some of the numbers, actually, correct some of the numbers for the strikes.

The Ministry of Transportation and Transit has a CVSE branch that promotes compliance and safety regulations within the commercial transport sector, with a goal of increasing road safety, public health and environment and transportation infrastructure.

In 2025, there were a total of 18 overpass strikes, with 16 of those crashes caused by driver/carrier error and two crashes under investigation. That is a report by B.C. government on December 19, 2025. In 2024, there were a total of 29 overpass collisions.

On the Lower Mainland, in 2025, there was a total of 2,901 vehicles pulled over, and 1,610 of them were placed out of service. That report was by CTV News on January 19, 2026. And 3,661 violation tickets were issued to drivers. In Burnaby, there was a total of 1,399 inspections conducted, resulting in 800 vehicles being removed from the road. A Burnaby RCMP spokesperson said that load securement was one of the common issues identified during the operations.

My question. In the past two years there have been a total of 45 overpass strikes, mostly caused by driver/carrier error. Can the minister disclose how much money has gone into infrastructure repairs and how much money was lost due to road closures?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I don’t think there’s any discrepancy in our numbers, hon. Member. In fact, I think when you’re referring to the 18, that was actually an error on the website. The actual number is 17. The previous year that you talked about was 29. That’s also what I have, as well, 29.

[4:50 p.m.]

In terms of the estimated damage from what we’ve seen, it is $7.8 million. As I said, we go after the company through their insurance and their bonding to recover the costs associated with that.

I know the member also referenced CVSE, the pull-overs and the inspections and the ticketing being done. One of the things I also want to make sure that we have on the record is that those are not just random. Our inspectors are very much trained to look and know what they are looking for, and when they see those kinds of infractions, safety things that they should be dealing with, those are the ones that they’re going after.

There’s a very thoughtful, thought-out process in terms of how they decide to pull something over or an inspection or to give a ticket. I hope that answer assists the member.

Harman Bhangu: The question now is: how many of those were actually on a blitz, on a motor vehicle blitz? I believe a good chunk of those were actually done during motor vehicle blitzes.

Also, can the minister disclose how many drivers that have hit the overpasses were licensed out of province?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. In terms of out-of-province strikes, about 25 percent of the overpass strikes are out-of-province drivers.

In terms of the member’s comments and question around the ticketing and CVSE, there are hundreds of thousands of truck journeys every year in the province. CVSE does about 29,000 inspections over the course of the year.

As I said a moment ago, they know what they’re looking for in terms of the kinds of safety infractions that they’re concerned about. That’s how they spot them. They’re not looking at random, as I said, but rather very specific issues that they are trained to do. That takes place all year round.

Harman Bhangu: I’ve got one more question here before my colleagues from the Greens come in and ask a few questions.

There are numerous accounts of unsafe driving habits, illegal passing and U-turns. CVSE managed to take 1,610 vehicles off the road in the Lower Mainland last year. That means 56 percent of the vehicles pulled over for inspection failed. There was a similar situation in Burnaby, where 57 percent of the vehicles were removed from the road.

My question is: what is the ministry doing to address this issue? What is the ministry doing to curb these potential lethal manoeuvres from happening on our roadways, and why is the funding being cut to CVSE?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The first thing is that there has been no cut to CVSE funding. We continue to prioritize enforcement. The inspections, as I said a moment ago, are not random. The CVSE officers know exactly what they’re looking for, and that’s what they do.

We have seen a decline in crashes over time.

The member asks what we are doing to get them off the road. Well, one of those things is the inspection process that is taking place and, in fact, gets the vehicle off the road. They do incredible work, and I’m really appreciative.

In fact, one of the things that I have enjoyed during my time in this ministry has been to travel to different parts of the province and see them at work in different areas, whether it’s in the Interior or whether it’s in the Lower Mainland. They do incredible work to help keep our roads safe.

I was just going to say, given that I know we’re now going to move on, if the member is finished with his questions now, if I could request a — I think ten minutes is okay — break.

The Chair: Members, you’ve heard the minister, and we’re going to take a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:00 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and his staff.

I’ll get started with an easy one. We misdirected this question to the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals, who referred us to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, so now I’ll ask.

I apologize. I think we sent it in advance. It’s a bit obscure, so we sent it in advance to the Minister of Mining, but I don’t know if we sent it in advance to you. So we may need to…. Anyway, I’ll ask the question and see where we’re at.

Within my constituency, West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, the village of Lions Bay faces significant constraints to accommodating housing growth due to topography, environmental limitations and small boundaries. Council members in the village of Lions Bay identified that the strategic acquisition and redevelopment of a gravel pit site could support provincial housing objectives while providing a realistic and appropriate opportunity for additional housing.

In a recent council meeting I attended, the Lions Bay council said the gravel pit they were wanting to acquire was classified as a mine despite it not being used for that purpose in many years. The Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals let us know this land is tenured by the Ministry of Transportation. The village is having trouble making advances on acquiring the parcel of land, creating a stalemate.

Could the minister clarify whether this gravel pit is potentially available for the village to construct additional housing and parking for community members? Would the ministry be willing to assist the village with any assistance or clarification?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. At this time, I can’t tell you about the specific gravel pit. But I’m more than happy to…. Give me the information of exactly where it is. I’ll have my staff go back, and we’ll find out not only the location; what its status is, whether it’s being currently used as a gravel operation or whether it’s more of a reserve pit. We will be able to then go from there.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate that, and apologies for not sending it in advance. I’m sure the minister or staff can’t know about every single gravel pit that’s out there. This one just happens to be right next to the community and an obvious candidate.

I didn’t know my colleague would be here from Saanich North and the Islands. But this is from him and the same…. He and the previous MLA for this riding have been strong advocates for limited weather protection at the bus stop at Swartz Bay ferry terminal. I think we might have even addressed this last year. Sorry. No, we addressed it with the CEO of B.C. Ferries.

For those who don’t drive on and off the ferry from Tsawwassen, they have to line up across the fence, away from the small amount of cover that’s there. B.C. ferry users have been concerned about this for years and reached out to dozens of departments in B.C. Transit and Ferries. We know the Ministry of Transportation and Transit is tasked to oversee both these.

Does the minister have or know of any current plans to remedy this concern? Would the minister be able to provide some clarity on who we could work with to get this heavily populated bus stop covered?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. There is a program called the minor betterments program which can be accessed, and we are in contact with them. We can assist in terms of helping in applying for that. It was done recently in Tsawwassen to deal with a very similar situation there. We can help get the details for you.

Jeremy Valeriote: I will spend a chunk of time on highway safety, no surprise, specific to Highway 99, the Sea to Sky Highway, which runs the length of the riding that I represent. I’m going to start small and then ask about larger-scale highway safety improvements.

Constituents of mine in the Sea to Sky Corridor have raised an area-specific issue that I don’t believe I’ve raised with the minister before. This is regarding pedestrian safety at the Emerald Estates neighbourhood access to the bus stop and other amenities. This is north of Whistler Village.

We also get frequent requests from Panorama Ridge. But that is south of the village, and I can imagine it would be much more challenging to put a crosswalk or any kind of traffic stoppage on the south.

But to the north, children living in the area have written handwritten letters to the ministry telling them how scared they are to cross the road. They’re calling it a “real-life Frogger.” It’s a wide stretch of open road that goes all the way to Pemberton. There are no other traffic lights probably five kilometres to the south. Most cars, obviously, don’t follow the speed limit of 60 kilometres an hour.

Two children in the neighbourhood wrote to us in the ministry saying: “The cars go so fast, and it scares me. Please help me get a safe way to cross.” Their mother emailed me two days ago. I’ll read that into the record.

“Good afternoon, Jeremy. I’m just following up on our discussion about a safe crossing here at Emerald over Highway 99.”

The writer says “over.” I’m sure that’s a very expensive proposition, but a crosswalk may be less so.

“As this beautiful weather is here, people are on their bikes, and children are running across the highway to get to school. It’s nuts. I witnessed a very near miss this morning of a girl, very responsible, trying to bike to school who almost got hit. This is so scary. We need a solution. I’m writing to reinvigorate this conversation in hopes of getting a safe solution very soon.”

As the minister can tell from that, it’s a challenging place that kids have to cross the road to get the school bus or to the park. The ministry has been in contact with my constituency office and let constituents know that last year they were conducting a warrant system to determine if improvements are warranted.

We haven’t seen any updates. I believe this has been discussed and asked for, for several years. I’m wondering if the minister can provide a status update and if we can get more information on the warrant system and whether there’s a prospect of this becoming reality in the near future.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate you raising the issue, and I, obviously, appreciate the concern of the parents and the kids. It is, obviously, important that they have a safe crossing place to be able to cross over.

I can tell you that our engineers are, in fact, going to be going out there next week to do an assessment of the exact location. One of the things that they will, I know, be looking at will be the sightlines. One thing that they will want to make sure is that if there’s a crossing going in a particular location, it is actually the right location to have one so that it is a safe location.

I guess a question you might be able to answer is: looking in terms of a crosswalk, just a straight crosswalk or one of the ones with the flashing lights?

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m not a traffic engineer. I think given the speeds and the…. The sightlines, I’m guessing, are there, but it is winding road. And all the other crosswalks I can think of in Whistler have flashing lights, partly for weather, I would think, but other reasons.

I appreciate the minister’s attention to that, and it would be…. We hopefully don’t have to wait for something very bad to happen before we can take action. So thanks for that.

I’ve got a couple different pieces on the highway. One is actual maintenance and upkeep north of Whistler, and the other is safety south of Whistler.

I would say that to my limited experience, the highway to the south of Whistler is quite well kept. I mean, the government did spend $700 million on it in 2007. And it is generally being well paved and well cleared north of Whistler, where there is less traffic and fewer people to complain to the local operator. We’ve heard consistent calls, requests for minor infrastructure upgrades…. Sorry. I’ll move on.

Communities like D’Arcy, Mount Currie and N’Quatqua all experience concern regarding upkeep in road conditions. I drove up to D’arcy and N’Quatqua a couple weeks ago, and it is quite bumpy now that…. I think we talked about this last year. There is some traffic-calming or speed control effect to that. However, the road is clearly deteriorating, and I think there are only 300 or 400 people living at the south end of Anderson Lake.

The other piece of this is that there is a significant difference at the top of the Duffey Lake Road, which is the boundary of my constituency but also the boundary between the Cariboo region and the Lower Mainland region. The state of the highway improves significantly when you get into the Cariboo region, so there is an inconsistency there.

I’m wondering if the minister can speak to how that inconsistency could be resolved. Really, I mean broadly, how the $1.26 billion allocated to highway corridor rehabilitation will be spent on Highway 99 in the Sea to Sky area to address these concerns.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I know the particular area that you’re referring to. Yeah, it does have some problems in terms of the surface of the road. It is actually a challenging stretch of road.

One of the things that needs to happen is to have an understanding of what’s happening with the topography there. It’s not just a question of going in and resurfacing or repaving, but it’s getting some work done to understand: what is the nature of the ground that we’re dealing with? Are there additional repairs that have to be in place?

That work will then help shape the plan to actually then do the paving that the member is referencing in terms of making that road a better standard than it is right now.

Jeremy Valeriote: If I could just ask for clarification. Does that apply to the Mount Currie to D’Arcy section, or does it also apply from Mount Currie up to the top of the Duffey Lake pass?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To both.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll try and briefly address the issue of highway safety from Highway 99 — well, from Vancouver, from Horseshoe Bay to Whistler specifically.

The minister knows there are regular…. We spoke about this last year, and there was some good discussion. There are regular accidents. It’s two out of the last four Sunday afternoons I’ve not been able to get down the highway. Once the highway was closed for seven to eight hours. The last time was only a couple of hours, but most people…. You never know how long it’s going to be, so I decided not to leave home and come on Monday morning.

Everybody’s got an opinion about what the best solution is here. Safety upgrades. A lot of people would like to see no-post barriers separating the two lanes. Head-on collisions are the worst and usually result in the fatalities. I understand there are likely some constraints to those, but more lighting, line painting, cats’ eyes or reflective lights on the highway. It is difficult to drive, especially at night.

As I mentioned, the province spent 700-odd-million dollars on the highway before the Olympics, but I think most people would agree that we’ve seen very few safety improvements since then. There’s no new lighting.

So there’s the infrastructure piece, and then last year the minister and I discussed ICARS. When there is a serious accident, the highway is closed for a significant amount of time. I won’t try and estimate the costs of that kind of closure to both monetary and people’s lives.

I know that the budget is a challenge right now, but has there been any further discussion of having an ICARS based in Squamish that could get to these accident sites more quickly and help to clear the road?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The issue of the ICARS the member raised — I agree; it is an important one — is actually under PSSG, whose estimates have not happened yet, so there’s the ability to raise that question with them. Whenever there are delays on traffic, we’re just as concerned about that as you are.

I’m happy to also raise the issue with my colleague the minister, but just so you know, you can ask that question directly to her at the PSSG estimates.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate that. I’m not sure if we have any time with PSSG, so I may take you up on that offer.

I just wanted to ask about whether there are any large or small safety improvements planned for Highway 99 from Vancouver to Whistler, any consideration of barriers or more lighting — line-painting is obviously seasonal, weather-dependent — or whether there have been any thoughts given to further safety improvements to help to avoid some of these accidents.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. As the member has already stated, this is a very complex highway with some very challenging curves and structures to it. There’s nothing planned for this year, but one of the things that we do each year is review the major corridors, and this would be one of them, working with ICBC to get an understanding of what we’re seeing in terms of traffic and accidents. Then that helps shape: okay, what are we going to be doing in the coming year?

I know that ideas have been proposed. In some cases, they make sense, but in others, there are issues that you need to address, particularly when it comes to emergency response vehicles, in being able to access or turn around. There are also particular locations where you’ve got thoughts and ideas of where something might work, and we’re always open to hear what they are.

Jeremy Valeriote: Before I forget, my colleague wanted to pass on his appreciation for the cancellation or hold of the Malahat upgrade. I think that we would probably both agree there are other places to spend that 100-odd-million dollars, so I appreciate that.

Also, just looking at the service plan, $95 million to a bus-on-shoulder project on Highway 1 around Colwood — this is kind of the silver-bullet solution for transit in Whistler Village, maybe two or three kilometres on either side of the town. There are significant episodic traffic backups, sometimes up to ten kilometres south of Whistler on a busy day, for people entering.

We have an excellent public transit system within the community, and we’ve talked about regional transit, but it’s hard to incentivize people to take that when the bus sits in the same traffic jam as everybody else. Bus-on-shoulder would be the ideal solution. There is room in the right-of-way, as there is, I think, with most highways.

I’m just wanting to inquire whether there has been discussions or consideration of this in a larger kind of Whistler traffic alleviation and transit discussion.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. We’ve done some preliminary work, but only at a very high level. What I do know is that the municipality of Whistler is actually doing some work at the current time in terms of what the potential is, and they’re going to be sharing that with us. When we do that, we’ll have a better understanding and position on potential opportunities or other things that we could be doing, going forward.

Jeremy Valeriote: This wouldn’t be a Transportation estimates without ferries, so I’ll jump into this one.

Bowen Island and B.C. Ferries. The Bowen Island mayor has been in my ear regularly, stating they spend an estimated $200,000 in the peak season on ferry traffic operations, when B.C. Ferries doesn’t really touch the ground on Bowen Island and Snug Cove. Last year the island hosted 1.3 million passengers and over half a million vehicles. There are 4,200 municipal taxpayers taking on this burden, and no other community with a ferry terminal in B.C. is expected to do that. That’s a quote from the mayor.

The CEO of B.C. Ferries did make an interim solution last year. They provided them some funding for marshalling and some help with dealing with the traffic that goes right into the village, into Snug Cove. Bowen is considering charging B.C. Ferries $150,000 a year. I don’t know how that would work.

Can the minister provide any information on actions currently being taken? Is there a way to work with B.C. Ferries and Bowen to rectify this problem?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. Like you, I’m familiar with this issue. It’s one of those ones that seems to be bubbling up and doesn’t seem to have an obvious solution. I’m interested to see how the interchange between B.C. Ferries and Bowen Island is on the business licence fee. I think it’d be quite interesting, and I think there’d be a number of questions raised by that.

Having said that — I recognize you take the issue seriously; I take the issue seriously — although B.C. Ferries is an independent company, even though the province is a shareholder, what I can do and what I can commit to doing is contacting the chair of the authority to see if they can do something with the board and Ferries to try and see if there are solutions that can be put in place.

If they were able to do something last year, is there any reason why they can’t do it again this year and try and work on a more sustainable, long-term solution that works for both of them?

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate that. I’ll keep an eye on the business licence fee and follow up with a specific request.

I want to ask about overall public transit ridership. I think that our math is correct that last year the 2025-26 service plan forecasted and targeted public transit ridership was higher than the forecasted and targeted ridership in this year’s service plan. The total infrastructure investment over a three-year period also decreased from $1.115 billion to $1.044 billion. It does signal a downward trend of transit infrastructure spending that I’m hoping the minister can elaborate on.

Is there a specific project-related reason for the downward trend in infrastructure spending? Can the minister help clarify why the forecasted ridership has decreased significantly? Sorry, this is a triple question. What are the ministry’s priority transit infrastructure investments for the $1.044 billion over the next three years?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: There are a number of factors that have been at play in terms of the ridership. One of the important ones has been the change in federal immigration policy and, in particular, around foreign students who were attending. That has definitely had an impact on transit ridership.

The member asked about capital infrastructure. There are a number of projects in the figure that he’s talking about. They range from things such as the bus exchange in Central Fraser Valley; operation maintenance in Chilliwack; the low-carbon fleet initiatives in Kamloops and in Kelowna; a bus exchange in the Kootenay Boundary area; another one in Nanaimo, for example; low-carbon fleet upgrades in Nelson and Powell River and on the Sunshine Coast and also in your neck of the woods, in Whistler.

Those are some of the examples of the projects that are encompassed by the figure that the member has quoted.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister help us interpret? I think it’s roughly $100 million less in transit investment in the three-year period, compared to last year. Is this the result of peaking of a lot of infrastructure investment — for example, the Surrey SkyTrain that has peaked — and there’s an anticipation that it will decrease? Or is there a general…? Is this a budgetary factor where the infrastructure spending needed to decrease to meet overall budget constraints?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: No to the latter part of your statement. It’s more to do with timing and cash flow.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay. On a similar vein, I’d like to ask about SkyTrain to UBC. Now, I apologize. I haven’t followed all the proceedings here. Has that already…? Maybe the minister can nod.

Interjection.

Jeremy Valeriote: Extensive canvassing of SkyTrain to UBC. Excellent. I will go and review that.

That brings me to the question I’m really excited about asking, which is about the CN Rail lease. As the minister knows…. I don’t need to give the whole background, but July last year CN stated its intention to discontinue the line between Squamish and 100 Mile House.

[5:50 p.m.]

Obviously, there are many people interested in the future of this line. A lot of enthusiasm, a lot of interest, a lot of nostalgia for the old line. I believe the minister has been involved to some degree.

The Sea to Sky MP and I highlighted this as an opportunity, really, for the private sector. Well, that was the thought at the time, because I didn’t think we could count on any public subsidy to this, but also, there’s an industrial freight component that would have to pay for itself.

It would be great to know more about the state of those discussions, as much as the minister can tell us. Can the minister fill us in on the status of the future of this line?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the opportunity to expound on this a little bit, because this is, I think, a very important issue. There are a couple of things.

I know you know this. The railways are federally regulated. CN has to go through a particular process in terms of wanting to abandon the line, and while they made that announcement last July, the actual ability for us as a province to talk with them or to move forward starts this coming July.

There’s a very set process in place that is federally driven. That being said, we’ve been very concerned about this since the moment we heard about it. I have spoken directly with the CEO of CN. They initially did not want to talk to us. They wanted a communications person to talk to us, and we said no, that that is not acceptable.

It reflected, I think, what many in this country share. That is that the view of the railways is that the railways are here, the federal government is an annoyance and the provinces are: who are you?

We made it clear that we own that track. It is still a provincial asset. It is still owned by the province. If they are going to go down this path, then there are a number of things that we want to understand.

[5:55 p.m.]

We had the meeting with the CEO of CN. We have said that we want to…. Their view is that they move freight and that is their primary concern. The issues that I know that you have raised and others have raised around Seton Portage, for example, and the commitment that was made to the Indigenous community at the time that CN acquired the old B.C. Rail, they feel that they no longer have to abide by.

We have made it clear that we want to have an understanding of what the condition of the track is, what the maintenance of the track looks like, in terms of what the costs are, as well as a thorough understanding of the condition of the existing track. We recognize that there are some significant not just social but also economic issues around this particular rail line.

I’m glad you mentioned the issue around nostalgia because I think that’s an important thing that…. It’s very nostalgic, the track, but the future of that track needs to depend on what the economics around it are. What are the opportunities for economic development? What are the opportunities in terms of social development? How can it fit in, in terms of the growth that has taken place not just in the Whistler area but in serving the resource communities that go up the line, up into the Interior? That’s crucial.

We also know that the Rocky Mountaineer uses the track. We have engaged with them to get an understanding of their needs and the ability to say: “Okay, when the province has an opportunity to engage, how do we do so in an engaged way that ensures that this province’s interests, we’re able to maximize them?”

I can tell you at this point, there has been a fair degree of interest from short-line operators, for example. We have met, and we’ll be meeting with a number of them to get an understanding of how they see potential economic opportunity on that line.

At this point, it’s too early to give a concrete of what the future will be, other than to say that we recognize that this is a line of significant importance to your community, to communities in the Interior, to us as a province, and the province is working on how we approach that, given the fact that there is a federal process for the abandonment, if you like, of the line by CN.

Until July, they continue to operate, they continue to be responsible, and we will continue to push them in terms of the information that we have been seeking around the things I outlined — such as condition, maintenance costs and such — so that we are in the best position to move forward in terms of what the options are for that line from both a social and an economic perspective.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that. That’s really helpful.

I would like to dig into this a bit more because I’ve really only heard the discontinuance process from CN’s point of view. I apologize. I don’t have it in front of me, but my memory is that come July, there is an opportunity for people to bid on this.

It’s good that there has been some interest, but in the instance that they find that the information on condition and maintenance is less attractive than we might think or the short-line operators might think, is there a possibility of the worst-case scenario here? That would be that the costs to run it far outweigh the benefits and that somehow this line gets returned to CN or sold to CN at a nominal cost. Is that a possible eventuality here? I’m just trying to find that out before we ask further questions.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Under the federal process, there is the option for CN to advertise, in essence, for another operator, which would mean, then, having continued rail service taking place. That is up for them to decide. That’s, again, part of the federal process.

In terms of the latter part of your question, which was, as you said, return to CN for $1, that is also an option, but I will tell you right now that that is not one that I or this government would support.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m happy to hear that.

Now, I’m really into the weeds on something that I’m not entirely prepared for. Is the minister saying this would be a federal decision and the province may or may not be consulted? Or is this entirely within the…? I believe it’s owned by B.C. Rail Properties, so is it entirely within the province’s control?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Let’s say CN decided to try and sublease and there were no takers. It would come back to us because the railbed is still owned by the province. It was only leased — a very long lease. The railbed is owned by us. It would come back to us.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay, it would come back to the province. The minister stated that they really want to avoid the possibility of it somehow, I don’t know, being given to CN Rail. I guess the main ask has been: please consult with the local communities.

[6:05 p.m.]

I understand this is a provincial decision. Given that it’s owned by B.C. Rail Properties, maybe I’m looking for a stronger commitment, since it is entirely within the province’s purview, that the province, no matter what the economics are, won’t give away the line and will keep it within B.C. Rail Properties.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I guess the best way to answer, in terms of being concrete, is there is that federal process. They can sublease it for another operator. That could be what happens. It might not be what happens. But that particular option you talk about, about it coming back and the province deciding we don’t want it and we’re going to give it to CN for $1, that is not going to happen.

I do not support that, and this government will not support that. I could go back into that whole history. That is a provincial…. We own that railbed, and even though it was leased for 999 years to CN, it is still a provincial railroad bed, and we are not going to give that away to CN at the end of this process.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to go just one step further. The dollar figure is a bit of a red herring. Can we remove that, and can I ask for a commitment that it will not be sold to CN for any amount of money?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We are not selling it.

Jeremy Valeriote: Wonderful. Thank you so much.

One quick question. I’m going to try and squeeze in a last one.

I’ve just confirmed we don’t have any time with PSSG, with Public Safety, so I appreciate the ICARS request being forwarded. We have discussed highway safety with the Solicitor General, but the heft of coming from the Ministry of Transportation would be helpful.

Then just on the canopy and a couple of other follow-ups, I’m hoping the minister can let us know which staff we can follow up with on those. Then I’ll squeeze in one more really quick.

We’ve had an exciting exchange about regional public transit in the Sea to Sky. I’ll keep it very simple. In question period, the minister mentioned a number of meetings with both myself and the Squamish-Lillooet regional district in February, in October and the 15th of May. Those are all 2025. I’m just looking for the minister’s assurance that these meetings are ongoing in 2026, with an eye towards a solution.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes, they are. We had one, I think, just over a week ago.

[6:10 p.m.]

Bruce Banman: Following in the railway lines and B.C. Rail in particular. As the minister knows, that railway line, or the old B.C. Electric line, goes all the way from Chilliwack into Vancouver. I have a couple of questions on that.

First off, is there any plan or have there been any studies done…? We’ve all heard about the Rail for the Valley people that have come to us many, many times and want to reactivate that railway line. I think, for those that are sitting in gridlocked traffic day after day on what some would call the goat trail we call Highway 1…. That is the only way to get through, the highway, as we found out with the floods. When the floods come, we’re in big trouble when you can’t get through there.

There will be some additional questions on that later. But with regards to the old B.C. Rail line, are there any studies that have been done to activate that line for passengers again? If so, now that the SkyTrain is going to go as far as Willowbrook, into Langley, it’s my understanding that there is a bit of an issue with that railway line as it goes through Langley.

Is the minister aware of the issues with regards to, I believe, right-of-way on the Langleys? Is there any viability to be able to activate rail up and down the valley, as far as Chilliwack? That is where that line, I believe, stopped at. I know my grandmother used to take it when she was a kid, to go see her daddy and her grandpa in Vancouver.

What, if any, plans have been done? In particular, what is the issue around the Langleys that is a major impediment? I just want to get that on the record, if I could.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll start off by saying that if I had my inner urban railway bingo card, you hit with the first one as you said: “My grandparents used to ride that.” I’ve heard that many times — how people really did like that service. That being said, there has been a study done a few years ago. I think there were some issues.

[6:15 p.m.]

You’re right. It is kind of a goat rail track. That is, it doesn’t hit the major population centres. And the investments that we have been making do hit the major population centres.

If you were able to clarify…. If not, I can probably find a little bit more information. That is, I think part of the route may in fact involve…. I’m not sure if it’s the Langleys or further back. Either CP or CN has a bit that if you wanted to do something, you’d have to get CP or CN involved on a short length of track to make it viable. That is not an easy thing to deal with.

Bruce Banman: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

You’re exactly right. I am unsure of the exact details. As you rightfully put out, there are railways…. They were given extraordinary rights because they’re the ones that stopped Canada from being the United States — broad, sweeping rights. They quite often will tell….

There are advantages to that. During the atmospheric river, they basically said: “Get out of our way. Hold our beer, and watch this.” They got in there, and they fixed it, and they actually helped us with some of our infrastructure, as you well know.

Going back to this particular site, in those studies…. You’re right. It does meander out into…. It was the milk-bottle run because it literally picked up milk. It went at 30 kilometres an hour in certain spots, if not slower. In these studies, has there been anything…?

Yes, you’re right. It does go out into areas where people are not, necessarily. But it also goes out into places like Gloucester estates, where there are lots of people that work. It does go between Abbotsford and Chilliwack, so there are places of it that may be viable.

Have we looked at what the cost to upgrade those tracks would be so that it can get into levels in excess of 30 kilometres on some of those areas in there? That should be no surprise, because the West Coast Express slows down to areas of 30 kilometres or so on its way in from Mission to Vancouver on a regular basis. I’ve ridden it.

Have we looked at what it would cost to upgrade that rail base and whether we can get to speeds that are in excess of 30 kilometres? Are some of those corners even capable of it as it stands and at the current route that it’s on right now?

Those that want rail in the valley say: “Look, we own it. It exists. It is a fraction of the cost to put in versus the SkyTrain. Even if it doesn’t go, it’s something we don’t have now. We could have this up and running in a few months if we got our act together.” That would be their argument.

Have we looked at those? Is the train capable of doing in excess of 30 kilometres an hour in much of those curly bits that you’re talking about that are slow which actually go between Abbotsford and Langley?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. A couple of things.

First, there has been a high-level study done, and the numbers that they were looking at, at that time, were basically done back in 2022. So there would be some significant change since then. The other issue is that Southern Rail has rights on that line, which is important to note.

That being said, I understand very much the interest in rail. A lot of people see that as a very viable way of moving people.

I think one of the things that we would want to look at, and certainly, in terms of the valley in the area that you represent and all the way up to Chilliwack, is: where are the communities? What do they want to see? What are the viable modes of transit that can go out there? How do the different costs compare to each other? What makes the most sense in terms of being able to move people? Maybe it is rail at some point.

But there’s a lot going out there. The Langley city SkyTrain is going out to Langley city. That’s going to have a big impact.

I think those are all factors, but I certainly understand the passion around it. And it is a railbed. You’re right. It is there. It’s not going anywhere. We have looked at it in the past. It’s one of those things that I, certainly, have an open mind about.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I remind the member to direct their questions through the Chair.

Bruce Banman: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question, Madam Chair, through you to the minister, would be on the last bed. As we all know, we’ve now had two floods that have gone into the Sumas flats or the old Sumas Lake bed. Coincidentally, this railway line runs along the southern portion of a good portion of that lake bed.

There are those that have been out there that have said that if we were to raise that railway bed up and put proper weirs in there or proper portals or pipes with doors in them to control the amount of water that goes in, that could potentially be a way of mitigating some of the damage.

It would still expose some of Canada — Arnold, for instance. Those in Arnold are probably nervous as I ask this question. But there had been people that said we should actually be purchasing properties and getting rid of homes in certain areas anyway. That’s what had happened in other areas.

[6:25 p.m.]

Have there been any discussions, any studies at all? The city of Abbotsford is actively talking with the province about flood mitigation. Have there been any discussions at all about taking that existing railway bed, raising it and helping to turn it into a dike of sorts or a way of controlling the waters so that if they come from the Nooksack again, we can actually control the flow of the waters to get them through the canal and eventually out into the Fraser?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: The flood mitigation, in terms of what the member is talking about in the prairies, is being led by EMCR. There’s a cross-ministry group doing that, so they’re looking at what is required. Obviously, if this was an option that came up through that, then this ministry would clearly be involved in that. But that work is currently ongoing, so that’s all I’m able to tell you at this point.

Rosalyn Bird: The minister will be happy to know I’m not going to ask any towing questions today.

There are a couple of groups…. Actually, because we’re on the CN Rail thing, I thought I’d actually throw some rail questions in there, though I hadn’t really planned that today. But it’s a conversation that we’re having at the moment.

There are a couple of groups — not just in the Lower Mainland, actually, but in other places across the province — that are sort of interested in the same idea as they are in the Fraser Valley. Here on the Island, there have been numerous discussions across the Island in many communities in regards to revitalizing and modernizing rail transport. That transport would include both cargo and passenger rail options.

Is the government currently involved in any discussions or consultation processes exploring these ideas on the Island?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Thank you for the question. We’ve provided $18 million to the regional district plus 14 First Nations, and they have until March of 2027 to come up with a vision of how they can see rail, for example, fitting into the transportation needs of the south Island, for example. They’re currently engaged in that work, and we look forward to what they have to come back to us with.

Rosalyn Bird: Could you explain that a little more? You said that you have a pot of money that you’ve sort of distributed out to a number of different groups, and they are going to come up with a vision.

Is there a board? Is there a specific organization that is overseeing that, that is collaborating with all of these groups? Are they all working together? Are they doing their own independent options, and then they’re all going to come back to you, and then the minister is going to go back out and then hire somebody or have an organization say: “Okay, how can we put all these pieces together?” I’d just like a little bit more detail on how that process is going to work.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It gets a bit complex. The Island Corridor Foundation is acting as a bit of a coordinator. They’ve sort of stepped up and taken a coordinating lead on this. The $18 million has gone to the regional districts and the 14 First Nations. They’re looking at it from what works for their own particular communities because there are a number of different issues here.

There’s the transportation issue in terms of the rail line and its potential. At the same time, though, the current line also runs through some First Nations. Some are fine with it, and others want their land back. So those are the issues that they are looking at.

When this is done, then we will have a better understanding of what the opportunities are and the potential is. You may find yourself in a way where you have the ability to do something over a certain stretch, and that’s what you’re able to do at this particular point in time. Or you may find that views and points of view change and you can do more than was initially anticipated. But right now that’s the work that is underway over this coming year.

The Chair: Before I recognize Prince George–Valemount, Member, I’m just reminding you to direct your questions through the Chair.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question was going to clarify, but you did do that for me, $18 million. Thank you.

Can you tell me if that money…? You stated it was distributed….

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

Rosalyn Bird: Through the Chair, can…? I hadn’t quite got to the question yet, but thank you, Madam Chair.

I’m curious how the money got distributed. I’m not sure how many municipalities and how many First Nations we’re talking about. I’m curious.

Through the Chair, was the money distributed evenly across all of those groups? And are the municipalities that have First Nations within their boundaries working with that First Nation, or are they all doing completely separate work?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: To answer the member’s question, the latter part, the regional districts are working with their local First Nations, and they are coordinating quite well, is my understanding.

In terms of the money being dispersed to the regional districts, it was dispersed equally, and then the different First Nations have different sizes.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Minister, for the answer on that.

In regards to some of the potential that the province has in regards to rail on the Island…. As we’re all aware, living down here in Victoria, there’s a fairly significant bottleneck in regards to transportation and getting through the downtown core and out to Langford, Colwood, that section. Then you have some bottlenecks, also, once you hit the Malahat. It’s sort of that way all the way up and down the Island.

When we look at the numbers of vehicles just from the Cowichan Valley that are commuting on a daily basis here to the greater Victoria area, I understand it is approximately 2,500 vehicles that are moving back and forth on that corridor daily.

[6:40 p.m.]

Is there any priority for the provincial government outside of these studies to look at passenger rail as a priority, either in the next year or two or the next ten years? Have you done any recent studies or do you plan to do any studies regarding the viability of not necessarily the whole Island but just that single corridor from greater Victoria up to, as a minimum, the Cowichan Valley or possibly as far as Nanaimo?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In answer to the member’s question, there is a lot of activity actually going on in terms of the rail issue that you’re raising but also transit and transportation in general.

We’ve got the $18 million in the regional districts and the First Nations on the ICF, the Island Corridor Foundation. At the same time, we also have the capital regional district, which is working collaboratively to determine what their priorities are, what they see as the best way to deal with the very issues that you have been raising around the traffic issues that we are facing here on the south Island. At the same time, we’ve got the south Island transportation strategy, which the province has put in place.

Those three are what is putting together that vision and the priorities that need to be in place to deal with the issues of moving people as growth happens in this area. There’s a lot going on.

I am sure you’re going to have more questions, because I also know….

Noting the hour, I’m going to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:45 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 3:03 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
(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 Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

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

Hon. Randene Neill: I would like to begin with an answer that we weren’t able to give to the member yesterday when the member asked about the number of wild sheep euthanized last year. The number was four in total — one due to injury and three due to M. ovi.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer. Obviously, not happy news, but I appreciate the answer.

So we left yesterday…. We were talking primarily about…. We’re still in water. We talked about Chain Lake, Moyie Lake and a bunch of the dams.

Today I have some questions. I will go more into that again, but I wanted to ask a little bit about the work that the DFO was doing this spring around salmon allocation policy and whether the minister can talk about some of the advocacy that her ministry has done around ensuring that fish remain a common property here in British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thanks, Member, for the question. Our staff meets regularly with the staff of DFO. As well, we had some of our staff at all of those meetings in the capacity of observer status. As a ministry, we have sent a letter to the federal Fisheries Minister and have talked to her about this issue several times.

Donegal Wilson: I know that the minister comes from a coastal community and understands the importance of fish to the rural economy and fabric of these communities.

I’m just wondering whether, having attended some of the town halls…. There was specifically one up in Cowichan that had a significant number of concerned citizens. I’m wondering what we have budgeted this year to help ensure that these communities will continue to have fishing opportunities available to them or some kind of compensation or plan for how they’re going to pivot away from fishing.

Hon. Randene Neill: Any decisions that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans makes are the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Our role here is really to work with the DFO to let them know and convey the interests of British Columbians.

Donegal Wilson: Well, I appreciate that it’s their role to make the policy. Unfortunately, it’s going to be our role to live with the consequences of those decisions.

The question was: what is the minister doing to plan for those communities that may lose access to their commercial fishing, their commercial lodges and their opportunities to fish?

The Chair: Just a reminder, Member, to go through the Chair with responses.

Hon. Randene Neill: I’m going to repeat what I just said. Whatever decisions the Department of Fisheries and Oceans makes are the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

My job, again, is to advocate for the interests of every British Columbian. My job is to ensure that we have a healthy and sustainable fisheries sector in British Columbia. My job is to make sure that every little kid gets to go out and learn how to fish with their parents and learn that culture.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know how important it is, specifically for the Indigenous community, for example, to know their history and be able to have it as a good sustenance and abundance. Our job is to ensure that we have a really healthy wild salmon population and to be able to ensure that every British Columbian has the chance to experience the thrill and joy of being able to go and eat their own catch and eat their own fish.

This is something that we will continue to advocate for every single day. This is something that we have been advocating for every single day. This is the message that we bring to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans every single time we have an opportunity to speak to her.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll take that. I’m not sure that it was an answer. I did hear that the desire is there, but I didn’t hear what the plan was.

I’ll switch the channel a bit. I know that we’re in the process of closing down the open-net farms within our oceans for a varied number of reasons.

My question to the minister is: what investments are we making right now to pivot to on-land or other types of innovation that will continue to allow those jobs and that food economy to continue at a time that food is a major concern for most British Columbians?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thanks to the member for the question.

The province has repeatedly called for appropriate timelines and supports to allow a viable and successful transition for First Nations communities and any operators.

My ministry, WLRS, as well as the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth is engaging directly with the federal lead — Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada — as they develop a final transition plan. We want to play a role in supporting the 2029 transition plan, because we have repeatedly called for concrete measures, and we hold Canada to account for their delivery and their decision.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate that. The question was: what investments is the ministry here in B.C. making in innovation regarding salmon farming and, I would challenge, all aquaculture in B.C.?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I thank, again, the member opposite for the question.

In the past seven years, we and the federal government have dedicated more than $250 million to wild salmon resiliency and innovation. This has single-handedly brought stocks back into streams and rivers that haven’t been seen in more than a century.

We are actively working with our partners like the B.C. salmon foundation, the First Nations Fisheries Council and many, many other non-profit and charitable groups to restore our wild salmon stocks.

We also work really closely with Agriculture and Food to work on our sustainable aquaculture industry. We have dedicated permitting resources to expedite those permits to expand our aquaculture economy. We have a growing and exciting aquaculture economy. We work closely with Agriculture and Food.

As well, the B.C. fisheries fund, as the federal government announced a few weeks ago and the member asked about yesterday…. We’re actively working with them and negotiating with them to look at another further investment in our wild salmon and aquaculture industry here in B.C.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for the answer.

How many aquaculture tenure applications do we currently have waiting to be processed? If we can during that analysis also talk about an average processing time and perhaps the oldest one in the system.

Hon. Randene Neill: We don’t have those stats in this binder, but if you give us a bit of time, we’ll try and get them to you prior to the end of our estimates today.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate that. They could be submitted in writing if they are not here, perhaps afterwards.

I know that I touched on Sage Mesa yesterday. It is a unique…. I know that we’re not digging into that particular issue because it’s in front of the courts. But I wanted to…. Sage Mesa is unique in the sense that the ministry took over the management of that small water system due to mismanagement back in the ’90s.

Do we still have the mechanism to do that today, where the ministry can step in and take over a small water utility that is being mismanaged or inappropriately managed?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for the answer.

The question, then, is: why has the ministry not gone in and repaired the water system at Okanagan Lake resort that was damaged due to fire? Those residents that did not lose their houses due to fire still are unable to live in their homes, and the people have been unable to build.

I’m wondering why the ministry has not used that mechanism tool to take it over, repair it and send the bill to the owner of the small water system.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thanks for the question. Recently we were in a meeting with the member from the riding of Okanagan Lake resort as well as the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. Typically, the water comptroller, as we said, can take over a water system because of financial mismanagement, and that is not the case in this issue. The water comptroller will step in to protect the ratepayer.

[3:25 p.m.]

In this case, there are multiple issues at play, and EMCR is leading this file, with assistance from multiple ministries. There are issues with electrical, with sewage, with infrastructure rebuild. Finances are not the problem, so in this case, the water comptroller would not step in.

Donegal Wilson: I would disagree that finances are not the issue. If there had been contingency to replace the infrastructure, it wouldn’t be a problem. There’s no contingency to replace the infrastructure. The contingency fund is part of the requirement of a small water system, so we do have financial mismanagement in this particular case.

I do believe that the minister has the ability to step in and help these residents. We’re two or three years since the fire, and these people are unable to move home. They’re unable to rebuild. Somebody needs to take responsibility, step up and do the work. I believe this ministry has the ability to do that.

The Chair: Member, question?

Donegal Wilson: I guess the question is: was that financial threshold not met by not having the contingency funds to replace the infrastructure?

Hon. Randene Neill: Again, Emergency Management and Climate Readiness is leading this file in partnership with multiple ministries in this case. Emergency Management and Climate Readiness was created to help communities fund problems in case of catastrophic disaster like wildfire. So this is the appropriate ministry to lead this work, and we will be working extremely closely with them to find the solutions that this community needs.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer. I feel like the community probably won’t be happy with it in the sense that the project is not moving forward. They just want their stuff fixed. Hopefully the other ministry is able to get that solved.

[3:30 p.m.]

I want to talk a little bit about flood mitigation and orphan dikes, which are a consistent problem within my riding. I’m wondering if the minister could share her budget this year for inspection, maintenance and repair of orphaned dikes in British Columbia.

Hon. Randene Neill: The total budget for water, fisheries and coast is $23.731 million. We don’t have a budget breakdown, specifically, yet for this fiscal year. That’s the work that we start after estimates.

[3:35 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Based on the winter we just had, I’m hoping, when that discussion happens, that those orphan dikes are looked at for maintenance and funding, because communities like Tulameen, Hedley and Keremeos itself are protected primarily by a dike that is nobody’s responsibility to maintain, and this winter we saw three separate atmospheric rivers impact our communities.

I have created a working group of the Similkameen Valley, including First Nations and all the communities along the valley, to try to come up with a strategy for how to do the work that is needed. But there needs to be funding invested. I’m hoping that the minister, when she’s looking at how to allocate her money, will look at many communities that are suffering from the same position.

I’m maybe going to get the same answer on this one. We did have Science Meets Parliament come last week and had a great conversation with some water scientists. We talked about aquifers and our monitoring wells. One of the things that was brought up is that only 14 percent of our aquifers are actually monitored with wells, and we have an inadequate number of wells even in the ones we are monitoring.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide a breakdown on how much we intend to spend this year on new monitoring wells.

Hon. Randene Neill: The number I gave the member prior…. Part of that comes out of this budget as well. The $23.731 million includes water, fisheries and coast.

Just to give you an example of a few of the programs that Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is working on to ensure that our watersheds and our drinking water are protected…. We’ve mapped our drinking water systems and their source areas. About a quarter of the 5,000-plus systems have been mapped, and efforts are ongoing.

This is really done in partnership at the local level with local governments. For example, one of the towns in my riding, Gibsons, has a really proactive mayor and council who have taken on that work to do that mapping, because they need to know how much water they have to be able to build their community in a really safe and responsible way.

We’ve developed a source-water evaluation tool, which supports land and watershed management, emergency response, water suppliers and characterizing and assessing hazards to source-water as well.

We’re working closely with Health and Housing and Municipal Affairs to develop a public health operations and compliance system with a drinking water module to support drinking water risk identification, assessment and management.

[3:40 p.m.]

Of course, we have the $100 million watershed security fund in partnership with First Nations. Different communities can apply for projects to protect their watersheds. That includes mapping their watersheds and their aquifers as well.

We’re working with local governments to create governance tools that will give local governments and First Nations and industry and businesses and farmers the ability to sit down together and start working on the tools and values that are important to them in terms of their water security and water needs. That includes aquifers, as well, to be able to start protecting those and understanding and monitoring them. When we know how much water we have, we can better protect it.

Donegal Wilson: In all of that, I didn’t hear an answer of how many new wells or monitoring wells we will be putting in aquifers in this fiscal.

Hon. Randene Neill: That question is better directed to the Minister of Environment. They are responsible for setting up the water monitoring stations. Water, Land and Resource Stewardship staff do the maintenance on those.

Donegal Wilson: It’s no wonder the public can’t figure out where to go. I apparently can’t either.

I’m going to switch to lands. I don’t know if the minister needs to change staff.

The Chair: Why don’t we take a brief recess while we switch over. A few minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call this committee back to order. We are discussing estimates for the Water, Land and Resource Stewardship Ministry.

Donegal Wilson: I know the minister is aware about some tax-forfeited properties in Hedley that were brought to the attention of the ministry. The letter that came back says that tax-forfeited properties revert to the province and into the administration of WLRS upon declaration of absolute forfeiture by the Minister of Finance. It also said at that time that it becomes part of the Crown land inventory.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister can provide some background on how many properties in British Columbia are in this Crown land inventory. It’s referenced as a substantial inventory. I’m trying to better understand how many of these properties we own.

Hon. Randene Neill: We are efforting to get that exact number for you. If you want to just leave it with us, we’ll get it to you as soon as we get it.

Donegal Wilson: I might as well put in the next question as well, because it’s probably relevant. I’m just wondering what the assessed value of those properties is, as well, as a total. It’s okay to provide that later.

I’m wondering how taxation is handled on these properties. If the province owns the property in Hedley, which it does, does the province remit the tax to the municipality for the services, including lights, streets, garbage — all of those things — as a taxpayer, or does the province exempt itself?

Hon. Randene Neill: I’m hoping that the member will allow us to get back to her either before the end of this estimates or in writing about the total assessed value and about forfeited property and provincial taxes.

Donegal Wilson: The minister is not able to share whether they pay the taxes or not? Is it a matter of…? I would assume that the minister would know whether they pay taxes on properties they own or they don’t. But if we need to get that later, we can.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yeah, we’ll get that later.

[3:50 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I’ll try another one. Might be another “later.”

What is the average turnaround time to get property sold that is in the care of the ministry or that is currently under forfeiture with the ministry?

Hon. Randene Neill: When it comes to the sale of forfeited properties, there is a process that we follow. That process is public and is on the government website under “Crown land procedures.” It’s a long website address, but we will send it to you and include it in all the answers that we’re providing you so you will have access to it.

[3:55 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Can the minister confirm where the proceeds from these sales go? Do they come to her ministry? Do they go to general revenue?

Hon. Randene Neill: The proceeds go into a Crown land special account that is under Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. Anything over $50 million does flow into general revenue. WLRS uses that Crown land special account to deal with forfeitures; to pay for the cost of doing forfeitures — like surveys, etc.

Donegal Wilson: What are the tools available to regional districts and municipalities when those properties are not meeting local bylaws and/or have squatters, are unkempt and are safety risks to the community? What tools do they have?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: The tools available for local governments would be bylaw enforcement, natural resource officers to enforce provisions under the Land Act and police in other cases.

The Chair: Just a reminder to all members to speak through the Chair. That would mean referencing one another as the minister or the member.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you, Chair. Appreciate your guidance.

As it relates to…. I just need a little clarity on that last response from the minister. If the regional district or the municipality is to go in and do a cleanup on a lot, normally the process would be that they would charge those costs against their tax roll. It would just be added to their taxes.

In this case, the province is the one who was negligent in their taking care of their properties, so can the municipality or the regional district go in and clean up the lot and send the province the bill?

Hon. Randene Neill: I thank the member for the question.

WLRS has a $500,000 budget for Crown land cleanup. That is it for the entire province. It is nowhere near enough to clean up every single piece of garbage that is on Crown land.

In cases where there are issues of a lot of cleanup necessary, we work with local governments to be able to do that work together. I know in my community there are lots of volunteer organizations that do yearly cleanups for that type of work.

We know that that is not a big budget, but that is what we’re budgeted for.

Donegal Wilson: I think the minister has jumped ahead a question. I’m speaking specifically about properties within municipal boundaries or regional district boundaries that have been seized by the province that require cleanup. They’re hoarded junk, overgrown, fire hazards. Not specifically about Crown land cleanup, but — teaser alert — that’s coming next.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: It comes out of the same account, the Crown land cleanup account.

Donegal Wilson: I’m going to go a little further on this then. If it’s coming out of the Crown land cleanup of $500,000 and the municipality has a bylaw that says their property can’t be like that and their remedy is to go in and clean it up and assess it to the owner, the fact that you only have a certain budget doesn’t limit the fact that the municipality can send you the bill.

I don’t understand how the province can own property that is not meeting local bylaws, that is basically an eyesore in the neighbourhood and is full of squatters and drug dealers, yet the municipalities and the regional districts have no tools available to them to go clean it up because the province owns it. They have tools if it’s not seized by the province, but they don’t have tools now that it has been seized by the province.

Can the minister confirm that the municipality can just follow their bylaws per normal and send the bill, and that $500K gets prioritized until it’s gone? How do we access the $500,000?

Hon. Randene Neill: This ministry develops an annual spending plan for that $500,000. We certainly welcome local governments to make us aware, regardless of whether they’re asking for funds or not, so we can work together to help clean up that property.

I do just want to make a correction to the members that the province doesn’t seize property. The property is forfeited to us. That is because when local governments, previous homeowners, any other companies don’t take responsibility, it reverts to the province.

In every single case, we work with local governments and our natural resource officers, when those situations arise, to get the best possible outcome.

Donegal Wilson: Referencing back to the letter that started the conversation, this was a community that was asking the ministry…. My understanding is there are three properties that have been forfeited to the ministry within the confines of the community of Hedley. All three of these properties are in disrepair, have squatters, are hoarded. Quite frankly, one neighbour is scared to leave her house.

This is the province’s, the government’s, property at this point, and they’re being terrible neighbours. So we’re looking for tools and ability. I know that I’m using this one instance, but this is playing itself out across British Columbia.

[4:10 p.m.]

How do we get these houses back into community, resold, and allow them to become contributing members of the community again instead of the way it is? The letter says that actions such as site cleanup, securing structures or other mitigation measures are prioritized across all provincial forfeiture properties based on imminent risk to public health and safety and available resources.

I think the available resources are what I’m hearing is the issue, with $500,000 for an entire province. When we get the number of properties that we’re expected to maintain….

Now we’re going to go into vacant Crown land. We have dumping all over vacant Crown land. We have encampments. We have all of these things, and it’s like a hot potato. People report it. It goes to the regional district. The regional district says: “Not our problem.” We report it to the natural resource officers. “Not our problem.” We report it to the ministry, Rec Sites and Trails. They go through all of these, and nobody will take responsibility for the cleanup of these dump sites.

With $500,000 and a huge problem, my question to the minister is: how do you reallocate resourcing to ensure that we can keep beautiful British Columbia beautiful?

Hon. Randene Neill: I really, truly appreciate the member’s question. I think it’s a question that we all need to ask ourselves — how we allocate these resources to what’s important to each of our communities.

I think, in my community, for example, there’s a lot of work that we do as volunteers, because we identify what our values are and what we want to do in terms of what we want our community to look like. So that’s something that we all do as a community.

I think that’s the challenge with the times that we’re in. Finances are constrained, not just at the local government level; but, certainly, at the provincial government level; and, absolutely, at the federal government level as well. So we as individual communities need to prioritize what’s important to us and work towards either…. If there is an encampment in our communities, it’s working together to clean up the garbage that is there.

In terms of that $500,000 Crown cleanup fund, we know that that is not enough money. But that is what we have right now, so we all need to take responsibility as individual communities and work towards the solutions, together with the province.

Donegal Wilson: I think the $50 million that the minister referenced as being in the Crown land fund, I think she called it…. She can correct me if I’m wrong. I think it was called the Crown land fund. Could some of that money not be directed towards the maintenance and upkeep of the properties they own that are within communities, specifically if a community has highlighted it as being at risk?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Just to clarify a couple things for the member. The Crown land special account…. Anything over $50 million flows into general revenue. So that Crown land special account is capped at $50 million.

That Crown land special account, as mentioned, is used for things like surveying and also getting properties, as they get along the process, to be ready to get to sale. That Crown land special account money can be used to fix that property up and get it ready for sale.

There is a process. As we said, we will send you the link to the website that lists that process. It’s a very public process.

I did get some additional numbers for the member that she asked for before. Since 2020, there have been 325 forfeited properties. There were 45 in 2025.

Donegal Wilson: On Monday, I am going to tour in Oliver an encampment that’s along the river. We’re seeing this increasingly, that the encampments are moving into Crown land, primarily because there’s no enforcement on Crown land.

Can the minister please provide some…? As with the $500,000 to do cleanups for all Crown land, what tools do municipalities and regional districts have to clean up these encampments and move them along?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: That question is best directed to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs and the Minister of PSSG.

Donegal Wilson: Respectfully, the management of Crown land falls under this ministry, and the cleanup of these encampments falls under this ministry. This is one of the issues with the encampments. Everybody is pointing their fingers around to different ministries and different solutions, but at the end of the day, the community has no tools on the ground.

We see it in Penticton on the Channel Parkway. We’re coming to high water, and the concern is that a lot of these materials are about to go down the river with high water. How does the community do the environmental cleanup of these sites before high water?

Hon. Randene Neill: I want to be really clear. I misunderstood the member’s question. After a piece of Crown land is empty, cleanup can be applied from the Crown land cleanup fund for local governments.

The member suggested, in the previous question, that this ministry was responsible for encampments. That is why I directed the member to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that clarity. I’ll set up a separate meeting with the minister, after my visit next week, to see what solutions are for cleanup prior to high water, because it’s coming sooner than we think.

The minister previously got me the 2020 number, 325 forfeited properties. Just to confirm, is that all of the forfeited properties that we own, or is that just since 2020?

Hon. Randene Neill: That’s just since 2020.

Donegal Wilson: Then just to confirm that I will be getting the total number at a later date. The question was for the total number of forfeited properties.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes.

[4:25 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: In the WLRS service plan, one of the key performance indicators is transfer of land parcels to First Nations, from 149 in ’25-26 to 322 in ’28-29. I’m wondering if the minister could elaborate a little bit on how…. A performance indicator is how many lands have transferred, versus achieving a goal. To me, it’s a strange measurement. You have a goal of how many you’re transferring. There’s no goal attached to that that I can see in the service plan, about why we’re making those transfers or how they’re contributing.

Hon. Randene Neill: Our role in land transfers is to execute the transfer that’s already been negotiated and agreed upon. Our role really is to ensure that those transfers happen on a transparent and timely basis. Those chunks of land already negotiated and agreed upon happen in reconciliation agreements or in treaties.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for the clarification on that. That makes a lot more sense.

My next question. I’m also going to assume that those numbers are cumulative. It’s 149, then 202. It’s not 202 more transfers. We are going to have transferred 202 by the end of that fiscal. I just want to make sure I’m reading it correctly.

Hon. Randene Neill: You’re correct. It’s cumulative.

The Chair: Members, let’s take a break from 4:28, right now, until 4:38 p.m. and return.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:36 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order.

We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Donegal Wilson: We were talking about the land transfers. We’d confirmed that it’s cumulative. Can the minister confirm that we hit the target for ’25-26, which was 149 transfers?

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much, Chair, and welcome to the chair for the final hour and ten minutes of estimates for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

We did not reach the target in 2025-26. The number of properties transferred was 124.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that.

Going back to the $500,000 in land cleanup that we had talked about previously, I’m wondering who has the decision-making authority on spending that money. Is it our natural resource officers? Is there an application process?

[4:40 p.m.]

If I go and tour Oliver on Monday and it’s deemed that there’s a cleanup needed prior to high water, what is the process that we do to access those funds?

Hon. Randene Neill: Within the ministry, we work within all of the regions of this province to understand all of the files and make a spending plan for that $500,000 every year. Ultimately, an assistant deputy minister makes the decision of how to spend the money each year.

I do want to suggest to the member, though, if we can discuss…. After the member tours this specific area, the member can come and share the findings with our office, and we can definitely make sure that it’s added to the list.

Donegal Wilson: I wish it was only one, but there will be a few files coming. I have several towns in the same position, with high water coming and large amounts of garbage.

I mentioned to one of the staff on the break that the one camp has stoves, washers, dryers and generators down there. There’s no clear plan on whether they’re actually taking those when they leave. So they will leave when the high water comes, but what they leave behind is going to be the responsibility of somebody to clean up.

I appreciate the opportunity, and I will escalate those next week after I’ve had an opportunity to go look at them.

I want to talk a little bit more about Crown land cleanup and who is responsible at the end of the day. Where do residents go? My office gets these calls constantly, and I mentioned it before. It’s a hot potato. There’s a large amount of garbage dumped on Crown land. Nobody seems to be responsible.

The regional district has no budget to clean it. The province has no budget to clean it up, and it is increasingly coming on citizens to go clean this up. Is that the strategy long term — that we’re going to depend on volunteers and citizens to fundraise money to go clean up other people’s garbage, or are we going to get some enforcement?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: What we would encourage any community that runs into this issue to do is to call the RAPP line, the report all poachers and polluters line. Natural resource officers monitor that line and will visit those sites and then do an analysis of those sites that includes public safety risk, risk to the environment, etc., and prioritize them for cleanup based out of that fund.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

I think that that is the intention of how it’s supposed to work, but the reality is that the RAPP line is either overwhelmed or no longer responding to what they consider nuisance calls — that is, garbage on Crown land. It is so prevalent that they’re not responding to them at this point.

I don’t think that there is actually any kind of triage happening. I think if it’s about garbage on Crown land, the response my office gets is basically: “Go clean it yourself.” They don’t have the capacity to go clean it, or the funding.

I am going to just move on because I’m running out of time, as the staff are diligently counting down their time until we’re done here.

I have one more question on lands, specifically around biosolid being applied to farmland. We’re seeing a lot in the Princeton and Similkameen Valley that the biosolids are coming from the Lower Mainland. They’re treated biosolids. They’re being applied to farmland.

These farmers are being paid to take these biosolids, but there doesn’t seem to be any guidelines around their application — how much you can take, how close to water they can be. There doesn’t seem to be any monitoring of water sources related to biosolids.

My question to the minister is: is this on your radar, and is this something that your ministry is currently looking to address?

We’ll start there.

Hon. Randene Neill: That question is best directed to the Ministry of Environment.

Donegal Wilson: I’m specifically looking for information around water testing, specifically in our aquifers. We’re applying these biosolids to the land, and I’m not sure that we’re monitoring or checking to see if there are any implications to our drinking water and other water sources.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: As with the previous answer to the member, that question would be best directed to the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment does all the water monitoring for quality, and they work with Health. Water, Land and Resource Stewardship deals with water allocations and volume.

Donegal Wilson: Moving on to permitting. I’m not sure if the minister needs a moment to change staff. No? Perfect. Moving on to permitting then.

The permit transformation project…. My understanding is it was to transform the environmental management system, including water licensing, our arc permitting system and park use permit management. I’m just wondering if the minister could share what our original budget for that project was and where we’re at today.

Hon. Randene Neill: In 2025-26, the total budget for permitting transformation was $44.53 million. For 2026-27, the permitting transformation is $49.96 million. In this latest budget, we also did get a budget lift of $7½ million to really work on the permitting transformation across not just our ministry but multiple ministries.

Donegal Wilson: Those numbers are in the budget document. I was looking for…. Was there an announcement when this project started that we are undergoing a permitting transformation project and we…? You know, a shiny announcement that we’re going to do this for $100 million.

What was the original when this project started? What was our original intent of how much we were going to spend on this project, and what was the timeline?

Hon. Randene Neill: Apologies to the member. May I just get some more clarity on what you mean about this project?

Donegal Wilson: It was my understanding that the permitting transformation, the updating of the IT…. It says the environmental management system, including water licensing, archaeology permitting and park use permitting. My feeling is that that’s probably an IT project, specifically to upgrade. So my feeling would be that we would have a workplan, a budget and an execution plan for how we were going to roll that out. Perhaps it’s become a core program of government that is creeping up every year. But I would assume that it started out as a project.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you to the member for the clarification. When that was announced — the member is correct — 203 full-time employees were hired across the natural resource sector to work on permitting efficiency. That included legislative, regulatory and policy changes and updates.

Since that has happened, the average permitting duration, for example, for land and water electrification applications through B.C. Hydro has decreased by 82 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

We’ve cleared the provincial housing backlog and reduced the average permitting timelines for new housing-related applications received since March 31, 2023, by 34 percent and reduced the time from 257 days to 170 days. We’ve reduced the average processing time for connectivity projects by 36 percent from 2023 to 2026.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the metrics on delivery. The question was on how much we’ve spent on it.

Hon. Randene Neill: Since 2023, we have spent $67 million-ish.

[5:00 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: We’d canvassed earlier — I think at the beginning — specifically about the Adventure Tourism Coalition receiving a single-window opportunity through your ministry. I can’t remember the exact number that was mentioned, the lift that was specifically for this.

I just want to confirm for the record that this is not a moving of existing people or resources away from other permitting areas to this priority area and that it is new resourcing.

Hon. Randene Neill: Those 203 FTEs that we talked about earlier are dedicated employees for permitting and transformation. As the member asked specifically about the adventure hub, that is part of the $7.5 million lift to the base that is added to the permitting transformation.

Donegal Wilson: Did we then increase the number of staff available to process permits, or was it just a lift to cover, basically, the raise or the BCGEU settlement?

Hon. Randene Neill: Permitting resources have, indeed, increased, and they’re considered a priority hire for this government.

Donegal Wilson: Thanks. I don’t think that answered the question. We had 203 full-times. We’ve added an adventure tourism single-window hub. Did we add more staff?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: The short answer is yes.

I just want to add, for clarity for the member, that of those 203 FTEs spread out across all of the natural resources, about 79 of those came to Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship, but we will be hiring more to work on the adventure tourism hub.

Donegal Wilson: Then, for clarity, we are not taking staff off other permitting to work on this hub. There will be a new staff resource added to the ministry to do that work.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, and I’ll explain it this way. The beauty, we hope, behind the adventure tourism hub is that we have dedicated groups of employees who have a deep knowledge of the industry working on those issues. That will help us streamline the entire process and make it more efficient and hasten the process as well.

We will be taking those permitting folks and moving them into the transportation hub, because of their depth of knowledge, relationships and wisdom on that file, and putting them into that hub. Those folks that we’re moving into the hub will be replaced.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll take that as an answer. I think it was a little vague still.

I think my concern is that I’ve been cc’d on letters to stakeholders from the ministry specifically stating that their ten-year decision has been pushed off while the province focuses on its priority areas.

I’m wondering if the minister could share specifically what those priority areas are today and which ones are being pushed down the line.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We prioritize permitting as follows: public safety, housing, connectivity, electrification, major projects. Then we work with local governments to ensure that their priorities are known and actioned as well.

In terms of water permitting, agriculture water infrastructure program permitting is a priority for us. We have reduced the timelines for those permits by 66 percent, from about 400 days to under 150 days.

Donegal Wilson: While we may be making some wins in some areas, I think we’re clearly taking some steps back in other areas by using that prioritization model. There are people that have been in the system for a long period of time and waiting for their permits to be done.

I know last year we had a table of the number of permits and how long they’d been in the system, if that could be provided to me afterwards. I’m trying to better understand the aging on how long those permits are, both for water permits as well as for these. I don’t know that we did the recreational and land permits last year, but I think we would like to include those this year.

If the minister could advise, what is the average processing time right now for a recreational tenure that is not part of adventure tourism?

Hon. Randene Neill: Because there are so many different types of recreational tenures that are not part of the adventure tourism hub, if the member is amenable, we can provide you with a list after this, with the average processing times, depending on the types of recreational tenures we issue.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that. That would be amenable. If we could include how many are in the queue….

If we’re doing it, we might as well not just include recreational tenures. We might as well include licence of occupancy, permits, authorizations to do work in water — essentially, all the permits that you’re doing with your 79 staff. Let’s have a table of how many are in the queue and what our average processing time is. And if the minister has a goal on them, it would be great to know what the goal is.

[5:15 p.m.]

I’ll keep going. My next question was around licence of occupancy. We’ll move that forward.

I know the minister is aware of the dock application in Sicamous, specifically, and how long and expensive that process has been. The last time we talked, it sounded like we were going to be close, but at the same time, I feel like the response from staff is that it has again been pushed out, specifically around the Splatsin doing a study or plan on the archaeology for the entire narrows corridor.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide me with what the resourcing is going to be to help Splatsin get that done so that the community of Sicamous can move forward and what the timeline for that delivery is at this point.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Apologies for the length of time that took. We thought that we could get that for you, but we can’t find it, so we will find it and send it to you.

Donegal Wilson: In this year’s budget, there was a statement that they’re reducing the government staff by…. I think it was 15,000 over the next three years. Can the minister please share what her goal is for her ministry, or has she been provided with how many she needs to reduce in her ministry?

Hon. Randene Neill: That 15,000 reduction is across all of the public sector. That includes Crown corporations, health sector, etc. The reduction in the public service is 2,500 FTEs. Ministries haven’t been assigned individual targets, but we have been given efficiency review directions. In Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, we reduced the number of positions by 40 FTEs.

Donegal Wilson: That’s a three-year goal. Are those 40 planned or already completed?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: They have already been eliminated.

Donegal Wilson: Can the minister provide, in the breakdown that we’re getting later, where those positions lived within the ministry? Just so that I can better understand if it was spread out evenly across it or if we’ve lost staff within the permitting, which we just spent an extensive amount of time canvassing.

In the interest of ensuring that we don’t go over our time, I have a list of things that I would like that I’ll just read in that I didn’t get to today and expect that the ministry will respond to me on later. Last year, basically, there were tables provided in writing at a later date, which is what I’m expecting at this point as well.

We did have the number of extreme, very high and high-consequence dams that were in non-compliant, compliant…. I would like to have that updated for the current fiscal.

The provincial red- and blue-listed species totals.

I would like the staff head count for the ministry, broken down by division. Last year it looks like we did a three-year rolling total on that. I would like the number of vacancies for each division currently.

I can outline these in an email, as well, just to make sure, but I know Hansard is doing a great job capturing this for us. I would like…. Sorry, I’m switching pages fast. I should have had Post-It Notes.

I know that we had the number of permits. We’ve already put that on the record for all the different permits.

We had the number of fish and wildlife inventories and monitoring for each region, and we also had the number of biologists broken down by region and by R24, 27 and 30. It would be good to have that again to better understand and see the trends of where the ministry is going with that.

Then we also had the caribou recovery budget breakdown, which at that time…. It looks like it was a bit of a planned decrease in staffing. I’m interested to know if we’ve moved to more contractors, so an update on that would be amazing.

Then, obviously, the invasive mussel program. I would like to know how our…. We had a lot of corporate partners on that, and I would like to know what our funding levels remain on the invasive mussel program.

I think that is all that I had in specific things that I needed to get read into the record.

But I would like to take a few minutes to just thank the ministry staff for all their hard work. I know that it was a lot of work getting prepared for this, as well as…. You don’t know what questions are going to be asked, and I appreciate the ability of the staff and the minister to answer my questions. I look forward to the follow-up and the briefings, as well, that we had discussed today that will happen as we go forward.

I’m looking at the time. Actually, I’m a little early. I could ask another question if the minister wants to go.

Let me go back to my wildlife questions, because we still have a few minutes, and I do want to leave her time to close as well. I thought we were going to go a little slower on that.

On the wild sheep program…. I know that we canvassed it extensively yesterday. We did get some updated numbers today. I’m wondering if the minister can provide me the total that is being funded to the Penticton pen project for Psoroptes, please.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I thought we gave that answer to you yesterday, but our contribution as part of the Psoroptes trials was $1,000 as well as in kind — staff time, that sort of thing.

Donegal Wilson: I thought that I had written it down wrong, because only $1,000…. I was like: “Okay. That must have been just a piece of the actual funding that we’re providing for that project.” It’s obviously a large project doing a lot of work, so I’m surprised to hear that we’re not contributing more to that.

For the chronic wasting disease, I appreciate the letter from the minister in response to my letter requesting information about the chronic wasting disease, and I do appreciate that the minister is always quick in responding to my requests.

I’m just wondering if the minister can outline how much we have budgeted this year for chronic wasting disease. Going into, hopefully, not finding any more…. But what is our budget? I know that we had to do quite a bit last year.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thanks to the member for the question. I just do want to add a bit of clarity in terms of the work that we do with the sheep and the Wild Sheep Society, who are an incredible society. I went to go visit those pens last year and saw all the work that they’re doing in literally saving lives and bringing back the breed in many cases.

I can’t remember if I mentioned to the member yesterday, but through contributions to the Habitat Conservation Trust fund…. We recently did give them $500,000 into their wild sheep file to really be able to do the kind of work, and leave it up to them on what they think the important work is, that they do.

In terms of chronic wasting disease, last year and this year the number is the same: $1.2 million-ish. What is new this year is that we are also actively looking for a testing facility in Cranbrook, which is something that hunters and B.C. Wildlife Federation have been asking us to do. That will be an addition on top of the $1.2 million.

Donegal Wilson: I’m going to wrap that with one question, and then I’m done. I promise.

Has the facility in Cranbrook been budgeted for then? It’s outside of the $1.2 million, but you do expect that it will be moving forward this fiscal?

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, it has been budgeted for. It’s currently on B.C. Bid right now. We’re actively looking for a space, should anyone know of one. The assistant deputy minister just corrected me. It’s a sampling facility, not a testing facility.

I really want to thank the member, the critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, for all that you do. I know that your riding of Boundary-Similkameen is one of the largest ridings and has a lot of the issues that are really critical to this ministry. I really do appreciate the time that you take to ask the tough questions in the hopes of finding really good solutions. That’s critically important. I appreciate you for that.

I also really want to thank all of my team for all of the hard work that you guys do every single day, and Deputy Minister Lori Halls as well.

The Chair: I see no further questions. I will now call the vote.

Vote 46: ministry operations, $201,199,000 — approved.

Hon. Randene Neill: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:38 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 5:51 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Jobs and Economic Growth

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $72,704,000.

The Chair: Does the minister have any opening remarks?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, if I can just make some opening remarks.

First off, I’d like to thank the amazing folks that work within the ministry. Today I have Fazil Mihlar, my deputy minister; Nathan Nankivell, assistant deputy minister for innovation and industry development division; Tim Lesiuk, assistant deputy minister for the economic and business development division; Paul Pawlowski, assistant deputy minister for investment division; and Steve Ward, who is the executive financial officer and the assistant deputy minister of the management service division.

Also, we have in attendance, supporting today, Elaine Cross, who is the executive director of the economic operations branch; Sean Darling, who is the executive director of major investments office; and Carla Merkel, who is the director of financial planning and reporting, management services division. David Mortimer is here, who is the chief financial officer of InBC.

Then there are, of course, a lot of other folks that do good work within the ministry who are logged in online and are supporting us virtually.

I look forward to the debate with my friend across the way, and I’m happy to hear his questions.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister walk us through the budget, and what changed since last year?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that there’s about $37 million that’s part of a creation of the strategic investment fund for the special account that we’ve already had discussions in the Legislature about. There’s a small portion around the new parliamentary secretary and, of course, some reductions around expenditure management.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister please walk through the mechanics of how the strategic investment fund works and the mechanics of the funding that’s allocated from that overall main fund?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Part of the fund…. We have to go through a Treasury Board process for the criteria. We haven’t got to Treasury Board yet, but I can commit to the member that once we’ve got it through criteria, through Treasury Board, I’m happy to share that. I’ll make sure my team sends it over to the member once we’ve got it.

Gavin Dew: Perfect. Thank you very much.

Can the minister walk through the structure and role of the new parliamentary secretary?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The new parliamentary secretary has, I guess, multiple hats.

It’s a dedicated role to support military families. It was something that we haven’t really done at a province level for a long time. Many other provinces have a dedicated person that works with military families. That is a big part of the role to making sure that we work with the federal government, work with families to align the supports — to make sure that if we can identify gaps, we can help fill those gaps.

On the other side, the parliamentary secretary also supports me around our Look West economic strategy, in particular around the focus we have in that strategy on national defence, so a lot of connecting with folks on the navy side, on the air force side, really building relationships but also helping us build out and move that file forward.

Gavin Dew: I’ll probably ask a couple of questions around this topic while we’re at it, just to keep thematic.

Can the minister explain a little bit about what, if any, funding structure there is around the parliamentary secretary?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There’s an allocation of about $25,000 that moves from the Ministry of Labour with the parliamentary secretary to our ministry.

My team wanted me to just highlight that there’s a lot of work.

Part of the PS’s role is to connect with the federal government on the work that they’re doing. In the federal government structure, they’ve got their ministers. They’ve got their ministers of state. But they’ve got also principal secretaries, I believe they’re called, and a lot of them are doing work that’s connected to national defence, whether that’s supporting families, whether that’s dealing with procurement. Now we’ve got a person that’s got a direct line of contact with them as well.

Gavin Dew: Effectively, the role of the parliamentary secretary is kind of a glue role, trying to attach together different initiatives from across the breadth of government around veterans issues. Is that a fair characterization? It’s not a specifically funded or a fund-allocating role. It really is more about just those thematic connections across the whole of government. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, there’s no direct funding or decision-making around funding. It’s intel gathering. It’s building relationships. It’s identifying gaps where they may exist, whether that’s with family supports, etc.

Quite frankly, the PS has done a very good job so far, given the breadth of knowledge of being a family within the system, understanding where the gaps are. In fact, I can tell you that the PS will be playing a role as the chair of all the similar positions across the country for this going year. So I’m really grateful to have her knowledge and expertise to help us during this time.

Gavin Dew: I would, certainly, have no surprise that the PS would play a leading role in that regard. I’ve had the opportunity to work with her on committee and found her to be very dedicated on those and other issues. So I’m pleased to hear that that is happening.

[6:00 p.m.]

Is it reasonable to say that some of that work across different provinces is looking at what is and is not working in other jurisdictions and looking for examples that can be brought to bear in British Columbia in support of veterans?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The parliamentary secretary…. There’s Seamless Canada. Seamless Canada is, essentially, a conference that is around supporting families in the military. She’ll be chairing that, as of the meeting coming up, going forward. She’s already been helpful in finding gaps.

A few months ago we were able to announce changes to WorkBC so that…. When someone is positioned here, stationed here, their spouses often come with them and then have to find employment, and there was a gap of how to find employment for them.

Now WorkBC changed some of their rules to allow them to be able to support military spouses to be able to find employment. That was a key piece. It’s difficult for people to move into a new city, and that important piece was something that was identified, and we were able to change that.

Also, we’re having discussions on the defence side around what the health care gaps look like for families — mental health supports, child care, all these things. She’s playing an important role finding where those gaps are, finding where the federal government should be coming in — for a lot of them, it is them — but where there’s an opportunity for us to partner as well.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. Certainly, that initiative with WorkBC is laudable.

As the minister may be aware, in my volunteer life, I’m the president of an organization called the Veterans Transition Network that does work with veterans, so I’m quite passionate about the topic.

Could the minister speak a little bit about any efforts that are underway to support the development of the veteran workforce? What I mean by that…. This is a conversation I’ve had the opportunity to have with Minister Fuhr, federally, as well.

In Canada, we don’t do a terrific job of supporting our veterans in transitioning into the private sector or into other areas of work, and there is, I believe, a significant opportunity to strengthen the work that we do and the supports that we provide in order to make sure that we’re able to make the most of our veterans.

There are aspects of the American construct that we look to. Minister Fuhr, federally, has said publicly that he’s proud of supporting the growth of the Canadian military-industrial complex, and I believe he speaks about that in a very positive way.

[6:05 p.m.]

The premise is how we, again, strengthen that workforce. How do we strengthen the supports that exist for individuals who are exiting military service and are either going into working in organizations, going into starting companies, going into all these different areas?

Can the minister speak to any efforts that are being made around that overlap of veterans; employment, economic development, jobs; and, again, strengthening and making the most of that workforce?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to commend the member for doing that work. It’s important work. When I was the Minister of Housing, we saw so many veterans that were struggling for housing, finding employment, finding that transition. To know there are organizations that are doing the work and the member is volunteering with them…. It’s very commendable.

I can share with the member that, yes, the PS has been having conversations with our federal counterparts, as have I. Minister McKnight leads the veterans file. She happens to be the MP in my community and the minister for that. Both the parliament secretary and I have had conversations with her around, specifically, a program that they have called the Helmets to Hardhats and how we can see that type of programming expand here. We are having a lot of conversations.

I would say that on the defence side, they’re going from a position of just keeping balance for decades to now growing, so they’re having growing problems. But also, they are spending time and thinking through where the gaps exist, in particular for what happens to people when they retire. The demand is actually there. The skill sets and the knowledge they have — everything from getting into actual trades and also managing major projects and construction, etc.

Yes, I can share with the member that we are working as best we can with the defence folks and connecting with the federal government to start thinking through both how we can meet their labour needs for the growth they’re expecting and also how we can capture that knowledge and skill set of people when they’re exiting to support our economy. That hasn’t really existed in the past, but between SDPR, us and Post-Secondary, we are having those conversations with the federal government.

Gavin Dew: It’s great to hear that.

In the American context, there is, for example, a significant investment by DARPA in venture capitalizing veteran-led companies. If you go to places like the Capital Factory in Austin, Texas, they have an entire floor that is dedicated to DARPA venture capitalization, typically for veteran-led businesses but also for companies that are developing both military and dual-use application technologies. Just curious whether there are any conversations afoot in partnership with the federal government, again, about strengthening the availability of venture capital.

I’ve had the fortune over the years to actually start a couple of companies with veterans, and often, access to venture capital is a challenge for individuals who have been serving their whole lives. They complete their military service, and they’re trying to decide what to do. In many cases, they do go into those more structured environments, into those jobs, but you’ll find a lot of very entrepreneurial veterans who have incredible skill sets and a lot to offer but who often struggle with venture capitalization.

I’m curious whether that’s something that’s on the radar for the minister.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We do have incentives, but they’re not specifically for veterans.

But I can share with the member that the federal government is looking at BOREALIS as, I guess, the Canadian version of DARPA. I suspect that’s where those conversations will happen more specifically, not necessarily at provincial levels. But we are, obviously, interested in supporting any venture that we can find, especially the ones that are in the national defence space.

It typically is predominantly people who have served, because they know the opportunities. They know where the gaps are. Not only are they the ones that are headhunted for roles, but they also have the innovative mindset to find those solutions. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with a lot of companies that are in this space, and many of them have people who are retired now from their service and they’ve come into this space.

But we don’t have a specific program. It’s possible the federal government might as part of BOREALIS.

Gavin Dew: I fully understand there may not be a specific program for that. Certainly, if there is the opportunity to partner with the federal government in that regard, I would encourage the minister to contemplate doing so. I think there’s a tremendous potential in our veteran workforce and in their entrepreneurship.

In that regard, I did just want to touch on procurement for a minute. I wonder if the minister is aware that in British Columbia, as in other provinces, as federally, there have been a number of conversations around supply chain diversification, in particular around the approach that governments take to social procurement. It’s sometimes the language that is used.

In my work in Ontario some years ago, I was very involved in negotiating agreements around that. In Ontario, what is interesting and is distinct from what happens in B.C. and what happens federally is that at all of those levels and in all of those governments, there are usually groups that are identified for supply chain diversification. So you’ll see women-led businesses. You might see Indigenous-led businesses. You might see businesses led by persons with disabilities. You’ll see all that diversification.

However, you don’t see veteran-led businesses. We are entering a time when there is a significant shift, certainly federally, toward defence spending, toward the probability that there is going to be defence and dual-use procurement happening, that there will be dollars flowing and initiatives undertaken. But unfortunately, there actually is not always a channel for veterans to be engaged in that regard.

So the province of Ontario, actually…. It is quite normal in Ontario, in the negotiation of things like community benefits agreements and other procurement agreements…. It’s quite normal to see veterans listed alongside some of the other groups that I have specified and to see efforts be made to create procurement opportunities for veteran-led companies.

I wonder whether the minister would contemplate, as part of that whole-of-government effort being undertaken by the parliamentary secretary, working to have veteran-led businesses included as one of the procurement groups that is targeted by the provincial government.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s worth exploring. I think there’s a Buy Canada program with the federal government. Perhaps what I’ll do is start with a conversation with our federal counterparts to see what they’re exploring. If my team comes through with some hints from the federal government that they’re interested in this, I’m happy to share that.

[6:15 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that very much. Again, I think there’s a tremendous opportunity there.

I know, in speaking with many veterans, that they’re watching with keen interest as, primarily the federal government but then, as a knock-on effect, other levels of government are really engaging around the development of that military-industrial complex.

In some cases, they’re feeling like they’re on the outside. They’re feeling like there are all kinds of different mechanisms to gain access to funding, gain access to opportunity. I think that they’re definitely very keen to ensure that there is a channel for their engagement, and that’s something that I, certainly, would be very pleased to see happen.

It’s an area that I have had some passing conversations with the parliamentary secretary about, and I have no doubt that there’s a worthwhile and fertile conversation there, which would enable British Columbia to catch up with Ontario — with what Ontario is doing or has done — and to hopefully continue driving that initiative. So I appreciate the openness to that, and I welcome any further conversation on that front.

Let’s just keep going on this military theme, because I think it’s a fruitful one. Could the minister…? Recognizing we’re cutting across some different ministries here, but of course, that’s kind of the nature of the PS. I fully recognize there may be some areas that the minister can’t answer at this time, but I don’t mind canvassing them anyway.

Can the minister speak a little bit more about the efforts being undertaken to support veterans in our post-secondary system — particularly around access to post-secondary admissions, programming, on-campus supports? How are we strengthening the opportunity for our veterans to get access to post-secondary?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was just checking with my team. We don’t have, necessarily, the specifics, because it’s Post-Secondary that would be leading that. I can just share with the member what I’ve already shared, which is that we are having conversations around two streams.

One, how we support the military in their recruitment effort, given that they’re going to expand. They’ve made it clear they want to expand here in British Columbia.

Then second, how we make sure that we don’t lose the talent when people retire and we bridge them into trades, into management of projects. There are conversations happening between Post-Secondary, SDPR and our folks with our federal counterparts to find ways that dollars that they have can be targeted to this type of activity.

But I don’t have all the details, because that’s Post-Secondary. That’s their space.

Gavin Dew: I certainly recognize and respect that.

Is the minister aware of some of the programming that has been undertaken — for example, at UBC — to create veteran streams in terms of admission and on-campus supports?

One of the reasons why I want to flag that, just in terms of, again, that upskilling for veterans, the opportunity to strengthen their position in the labour force and to strengthen their ability to be an important part of our economy, is that in many cases, veterans….

Again, I recognize that some of this is Post-Secondary. Some of this is likely in the ambit of the parliamentary secretary, but you know, she’s not here for estimates. So I’m just trying to get some of this onto the record or to the attention of the folks gathered here today.

My understanding is that in the post-secondary space, particularly UBC, there have been efforts made to try to improve access to education and to recognize the reality that, in many cases, veterans are going to post-secondary as mature learners who are distinct communities, who kind of need that support, that sense of camaraderie, that ability to meet like-minded people in a post-secondary context.

I wonder. Again, I recognize this may not be an area that the minister is deeply versed in. It’s not in the ministry, but it is adjacent to the parliamentary secretary. Is the minister aware of some of those efforts that have been undertaken at post-secondary institutions, like UBC, to create veterans communities and create streams for veterans?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I wasn’t aware of the specific program the member has mentioned. I do appreciate him raising it. I’ll certainly pass it on to the PS as well, in some of her work.

I know UBC is very aggressive in their pursuit of capturing opportunities in the dual-use space, and part of that is a commitment to supporting people who have served. But not only them. UVic is very interested, SFU, all of the partners in the research universities, as is BCIT, and the list goes on.

[6:20 p.m.]

I certainly will share that with my colleague as part of her engagement in the work that’s happening, and I appreciate the member sharing it.

Gavin Dew: I will also just draw the minister’s attention to an unfortunate situation at UBC. A number of years ago some student housing was actually allocated to be targeted for veterans in order to create a veteran-oriented, veteran-friendly housing complex on campus under the ambit of UBC Properties Trust, who develop a lot of the housing there.

For a significant period of time, there was a commitment to construct a housing development that would be targeted, again, at creating on-campus housing, with gathering space for veterans, to set them up for success while studying as mature students.

That project was funded. It was announced, and then it was pulled back, after significant commitments had been made and a lot of individuals and organizations had been involved in that.

If the minister is looking for a way, through his parliamentary secretary and her cross-ministerial activities, to support veterans, I would just flag that, again, that is a promise and a commitment to veterans that, unfortunately, was pulled back on the UBC campus.

Again, lots of great work has been done for veterans at UBC. I’m very proud that the veterans transition program, which is the genesis of the work that I do with veterans, was started there. Lots of great stuff happening. But I will just flag that there’s a very unfortunate situation where, again, housing was to be developed and then was pulled back.

If the minister has the will to go and exert some influence across ministries or have his parliamentary secretary do so, there might be an opportunity to make sure that veterans are well served on campus there.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member bringing that to my attention. Previously, as the Minister of Housing, we did fund a few projects that were focused on veterans. I recall one in Surrey and one here in Central Saanich that went through a very lengthy approval process. I never like to intervene, but I had to, because veterans need housing desperately, and we needed that project.

We were able to fund a lot of housing projects that were targeted for veterans — in one case, partnering with the federal government; and in one case, us going alone.

That being said, I appreciate the awareness of the UBC proposal. I wasn’t aware of it. But our team is listening, and they’ll make sure the PS is aware of it.

Gavin Dew: If you’ve got a platform, you’ve got to use it sometimes.

I think that’s probably a good amount of coverage around veterans specifically.

But I would like to just get a little bit more detail. I’m aware, obviously, that the minister came to Kelowna recently and visited Kelowna International Airport. I don’t know all the details, but I’m aware that there’s some work being undertaken in support of economic development around the aerospace opportunity that exists there, centred around KF Aerospace, who are, obviously, a very, very significant employer in the region.

Lots of great partnerships happening with UBC Okanagan, Okanagan College and a lot of momentum around the ultimate development of the east lands at Kelowna Airport.

I wonder if the minister can share any update as to progress in advancing that file.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, I had the opportunity to visit and was certainly impressed with what’s happening. Again, previously as Minister of Housing, we were able to provide some dollars for a mass timber roof at that beautiful facility. This was my first opportunity to see that, the opportunity to hear from folks from the airport about their ambition. The amount of hiring of new people that’s happening at KF is impressive.

[6:25 p.m.]

The mayor is persistent, if I can say, and that’s good. You need that for your community. Minister Fuhr has been consistent, and now I can hear the member’s passion in his voice about the need for some action there as well.

I can’t provide any details on where it’s at right now, given that we don’t have everything finalized, but we are having a conversation with the federal government to say, as part of their efforts around national defence and our goals around national defence: “How do we ensure that when there are opportunities for clusters, we can find ways to partner?”

We don’t have the pathway at this point, but I can share with the member that that is important.

As part of our Look West strategy, we did actually identify Kelowna as a place where there would be opportunities. I, certainly, have appreciated Minister Fuhr’s efforts. I would say he’s pretty impressive in the work he’s doing right now around procurement. We continue to urge them to have that as a central part of their national defence strategy.

When they have been able to do that, to share with us the pathway that they’re looking at, then we can have a conversation. We’re not there yet, but we are interested in finding a way for that to progress.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. I appreciate the update, and I recognize that there’s only so much that can be shared at this point. I would say that the minister is accurate in his perception of my enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of our community for making sure we’re able to unlock those east lands.

Obviously, I recognize there are aspects of that that will be dependent on Jobs and Economic Growth. There are, obviously, other ministerial components there. But that is, certainly, an extremely high priority for Kelowna as a whole. It’s a major, major jobs driver, a tremendous opportunity.

The minister is correct to point out that that is a beautiful, beautiful mass timber construction project done by Kalesnikoff. Just an absolutely stunning piece of work that we’re very proud of there.

But I would certainly hope that we’ll continue to see progress around any and all supports that can be brought to bear to enable that economic development. We do have a higher unemployment rate than I would like to see in Kelowna at this point. We do have a lot of very talented people, and we do have a very natural cluster there. So I, certainly, do hope to see more progress around that.

Is it reasonable to expect, in the fullness of time, that Kelowna will get its due share of the significant funding that is available to the minister to allocate?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We know how important Kelowna is not only for the region but for the province, for economic development. The member will know that even with the manufacturing jobs fund, we were able to make some significant investments in food processing in the region. I, for one, recognize how important of a location it is from a national defence perspective.

So yes, there is a commitment to work with Kelowna, work with the region, to identify opportunities. What that is, what the pathway is, is still not clear. A lot of it really depends on getting clear direction from the federal government of what they want to prioritize.

We’ve been clear to them from day one. There are some things that we think are really important and we want to prioritize, but we’re in for Team Canada. If they tell us, for national defence, that there’s A, B and C that needs to be done, we’re in. We’ll find a way to do it.

They’ve launched their strategy. Now we’re waiting for them to come to us with the next pieces. Whatever happens, Kelowna will be playing an important role.

Gavin Dew: Fantastic. Thank you very much. Again, I appreciate the update.

The minister can be assured that I will be persistent on behalf of my community there. Obviously, the airport is not in my riding, but it is nearby, and I do my utmost to make sure that I’m advocating for all of Kelowna in that regard. So I appreciate the visit. I appreciate the commitment around further conversation.

From all evidence, there has been a good working relationship with the city in that regard. I do want the minister to know that both I and other locals are appreciative of that. Having a strong working relationship up and down between all three levels of government there will be crucial. Again, I do think there’s a really massive opportunity in that area, so expect further advocacy from me in that regard.

Let’s pivot a little bit, and let’s talk about artificial intelligence. Can the minister provide an update on the state of play with regard to there being an actual plan around artificial intelligence? We have had a minister of state for seven months, and we’ve seen no plan.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to thank the minister of state. He’s played a really helpful role to me, to my team, in not only engaging with the stakeholders to identify where the opportunities are and the gaps are but also identifying where the critiques are, of both us and the federal government.

He’s been taking the lead on a lot of the work to engage with the federal ministers in two streams.

One, we did make a submission to the federal government around their AI strategy — the minister of state did — so that has been sent to them. We’ve met with them multiple times. That’s the one piece.

The second is around protecting people. There have kind of been two streams on it, one to expand the economic opportunities and one protecting people, protecting workers. What is key to us, what’s important to us before we launch our strategy, is that it aligns with the federal government. We’ve been trying to do that with everything we’re doing, which is: how do we align our work so that we’re not going in one direction and they’re going another direction?

Now, I’m sure the minister of state will agree that we have been getting fairly good cooperation from Minister Solomon. I find him to be fairly impressive as a minister, partly because he’s new and keen and pretty open with us about where their interests are.

I would say that the part of the delay for us to have our strategy is that we wanted them to be able to launch theirs first. Other provinces are doing the same thing. Everyone is kind of waiting for the national strategy to come out and ours to be aligned.

I think it’s fair to say they’ve had a couple of false starts. We were promised a strategy a few months ago. We were all waiting for it. It was supposed to be imminent. And then my understanding from media reports is that it needed some changes after cabinet. Our understanding is that the federal government will be putting out an overarching AI strategy in the coming months. Then soon, right after that, the minister of state will be able to announce our framework for the AI strategy.

Our work is progressing, but it’s a little bit of a chicken-and-egg thing. I believe, very importantly, and the minister of state believes, that we want to make sure that it’s aligned with where the federal government is going, because we’ll get the maximum return for the province.

Now, I can also share that there’s an acknowledgement from the federal government, from our submission, that there’s already natural alignment with where we’re wanting to go. And, second, there’s an acknowledgement of the opportunity here in British Columbia that’s pretty unique. So those are positive signs for us.

I know the member cares about the tech sector quite a bit as well. The signals we’re getting are very positive, but we do want to see their framework. Then very soon after that, we’ll be releasing ours as well.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. I’m sure that Minister Solomon will go home to his family and say: “The minister called me fairly impressive.” He will be overjoyed at that high compliment.

Interjection.

Gavin Dew: No, probably not.

More seriously, I do have some concern on this front in that I have spent a fair bit of time working in and around the tech sector. I do talk to a lot of people in the tech sector. I do talk to a lot of people that are very involved in AI in British Columbia.

It is, frankly, the takeaway from a lot of those conversations that they don’t see B.C. being at the table. They see the province being bypassed by the federal government and being largely irrelevant to the conversation, or at least some stakeholders do.

There’s not really a sense that there is clear direction from the province. There’s not really a sense that the province is actually laying out a clear strategy and direction and identity as to what B.C. wants to be in terms of AI, so I am rather concerned with the lack of traction there.

[6:35 p.m.]

I recognize that waiting on the feds to copy their homework is not an irrational strategy, but I am rather concerned that we seem to have a novelty minister of state, but we don’t have a plan. We don’t have a direction.

Most people that I talk to in the industry feel as if the province is somewhat rudderless on AI. So how do we regain that traction? How do we actually rebuild that credibility with industry that, again, don’t really feel as if the signals that they’re seeing suggest to them that the province is robustly committed to supporting a strong AI sector here?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Often we hear what we want to hear. I can share with the member that the companies that the minister of state and I meet with very much understand the opportunity that we’re chasing. I would just say to the member, stay tuned.

The traction we’ve been able to make with the federal government…. We’re not sitting here waiting for them to launch their strategy. We’re actively shaping their strategy. I think that’s the benefit of building relationships and working cooperatively. You don’t see us bashing them. We’re saying to them: “Here are our critiques. Here are the opportunities. Here’s what B.C.’s role can be in a national strategy.”

Every feedback that I’ve gotten from our federal counterparts is that there’s alignment with both — what we want to do. So we’re actively shaping the strategy. I’m pleased with the direction that things are heading.

The member is a critic, so his job is to be critical. I would expect nothing less. Our job is to show, and we certainly are prepared, and we will be able to show very soon.

Gavin Dew: One of the areas that has been a source of considerable frustration for folks in and adjacent to AI and tech has been the approach taken to AI data centres in the province of British Columbia, which I recognize, of course, does cut across ministries.

Under Bill 31, the province has allocated fairly limited capacity for data centres, while a single hyperscale campus can require 500 megawatts or more of capacity. So can the minister confirm how many projects have already been turned away, deferred or simply not bothered with in B.C., because we are rationing electricity like wartime butter?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s a B.C. Hydro question, so I hope the member can take that to the Ministry of Energy for estimates.

I’ll just make a general comment, which is that we have the most ambitious electrification plan in, probably, the history of British Columbia. If you look at the sheer scale of what’s happening right now at B.C. Hydro, it is exciting. It’s helping us unlock a host of economic development opportunities, returns for the province.

We want to be smart with power use.

Some provinces have made very, very big claims about how much power they’re going to make available for AI data centres. Not many have actually come through.

So, yes, we’re being targeted. Yes, we’re being thoughtful. Power is an asset, and we want to be deliberate. We’re really focusing on sovereign compute power, and you’ll see that in the coming months.

Gavin Dew: Again, recognizing that this cuts across a couple of different areas, I understand that there may be aspects the minister can and can’t or will or won’t talk about.

I see, in many other jurisdictions, a very active effort being put in to cultivate AI data centres as a source of investment, as a feather in the cap of growing tech sectors, and I am a little baffled as to the relative lack of enthusiasm in B.C. I’ve met with proponents that have been very frustrated by the experience they’ve had.

Jurisdictions like Alberta, Virginia, Texas are actively marketing faster approvals and flexible energy options for data centres, in some cases including natural gas. There are proponents that have advanced the idea of building more data centres with natural gas in northwestern British Columbia and exporting compute to Asia, much as we’re exporting LNG. I wonder whether those are conversations that the ministry is engaging with or whether we’re sort of just letting this opportunity go elsewhere.

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member is right that there are some jurisdictions that are marketing, but I think that needs to be cross-referenced with delivery.

We’re doing the work. I would just say, Member, stay tuned. There’s a whole host of work happening to capture the opportunity, but we want to prioritize. We’re really putting a national defence and sovereignty lens to this. We’re making some positive progress, and we’ll have more to say in the coming weeks.

Gavin Dew: Just in terms of contextualizing the level of energy allocation to data centres, what specific analysis…? Again, recognizing some of this is going to be in Hydro. Some of this is going to be in JEG. Some of this is going to overlap.

What specific analysis determined that 300 megawatts was the appropriate level? Was that based on projected demand, grid limits or a policy decision to restrict growth?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Happy to answer questions, but that’s very much a Hydro question. I think the Ministry of Energy still has estimates. But it’s, anyways, better suited for them.

Gavin Dew: Yeah, that’s fine. No issue. I just think it’s helpful to ask questions about that, just in the context of economic development.

Let’s do a palate cleanser real quick. Why did the minister allow the coolest ministry name to be taken away from him? I really, genuinely want to understand why anyone who was the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation would allow themselves to be robbed of the coolest title in government. I really would love to understand that.

The Chair: The Chair feels this is a bipartisan question.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, all the nods in the room…. I think there’s unanimous consent happening here. I know the member is a big fan.

Maybe I’ll just tell a short story. When our friend the late Premier Horgan was with us, near his retirement, we threw him a big party. The party was a Star Wars–themed party, so everyone dressed up in Star Wars outfits. He came in, and he was happy.

Now, I dressed up in a Star Trek outfit. So maybe that’s what it is. Maybe it’s just carried over.

But I’ll just say that economic growth obviously is critical at this time. It’s a major priority that the Premier has highlighted. Maybe he thought the cool name of JEDI just needed to stay with the cool ministers. But these are not in our control, as the member knows. We’re directed by the Premier’s office, and we’re happy to respond to whatever those requests are.

That is a good palate cleanser, because he’s got everyone’s support in the room, except for mine. Well played at the end of the day from my friend. Good exchange today. I look forward to continuing this conversation tomorrow.

I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:44 p.m.