Critics say BC freedom of information bill could weaken public access to records

The BC government has introduced legislation to amend the province’s freedom of information law, drawing criticism from opposition politicians and transparency advocates who say the changes could weaken access rights.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 — known as Bill 9 — is presented by the government as a modernization effort intended to make the system more efficient as the volume of digital records continues to grow.

Citizens’ Services Minister Diana Gibson has said the changes are meant to help public bodies respond more effectively to requests and ensure people receive the information they need.

“What we’re doing in this bill is making it a little bit easier for us to be able to get the right information to people in their hands when they need it,” Gibson said.

Critics say the amendments instead shift power away from applicants and toward government officials by expanding discretion over whether requests are sufficiently specific and when they may be disregarded.

Among the proposed changes is a modification to the law’s requirement that public bodies respond to requests “without delay.” The bill would replace that wording with a requirement to respond “without unreasonable delay.”

The legislation would also expand the grounds on which requests could be disregarded, including when applicant behaviour is considered “abusive” or “malicious,” or when responding would unreasonably interfere with the operations of government.

The changes also give the head of a public body greater discretion to decide whether a request contains enough detail to identify the records sought within what the law calls a “reasonable amount of time.”

(Courtesy OIPC)

Opposition MLAs have argued that the revised language could allow the government to delay or avoid responding to requests it finds problematic or embarrassing.

BC Green MLA Rob Botterell, who helped draft the province’s original freedom of information legislation in the early 1990s, said the amendments continue a long trend of weakening access rights.

“Piece by piece, the system has been dismantled — and Bill 9 continues that trend,” he said.

Botterell warned the proposed changes could significantly alter how the law functions by giving government officials greater discretion over whether requests proceed and how long responses may take.

The BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has also raised concerns about the bill, saying it narrows access to records and fails to address longstanding issues with how government information is managed.

The organization said the real source of delays in responding to requests lies in inconsistent practices across ministries for creating, classifying, retaining and digitizing records. It argues weakening access rights will not address those systemic issues.

The association said the legislation also fails to implement recommendations made by a legislative committee that reviewed the law in 2022. That committee issued 34 recommendations aimed at modernizing access and privacy rules in the province’s public sector.

Among the measures not included in the bill were proposals to require public bodies to create and manage detailed records of decisions and actions and to extend freedom of information provisions to the administrative functions of the legislative assembly.

The government says the amendments are necessary because the amount of information captured by modern requests has expanded significantly since the legislation was introduced more than three decades ago.

Officials say requests now frequently involve large volumes of digital communication, including emails and messages from platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal, making the process of identifying and reviewing records more time consuming.

Critics remain skeptical, saying the bill risks weakening transparency at a time when access to information is used by journalists, researchers and members of the public to scrutinize government decision-making.

They argue that even small changes in wording — such as adding discretion around what constitutes a reasonable request or response time — can have significant practical effects on how the law is applied.

Bill 9 has been introduced in the legislature but has not yet completed the remaining stages required to become law.