It was the perfect distraction. For weeks, Premier David Eby was buried under the fallout from the DRIPA crisis โ€” a near-caucus revolt, First Nations anger, opposition attacks, and a string of damaging Vaughn Palmer columns. Every eye in Victoria was trained on that dumpster fire.

And in that chaos, the NDP quietly pressed ahead with Bill-9 โ€” an amendment to BC's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that critics say will move the province from freedom of information to freedom from information.

That phrase belongs to Green MLA Rob Botterell โ€” and he should know. He is one of the architects of BC's original FOI legislation, having led the public service team that built the Act under the 1990s NDP government. BC's information law was once regarded as the best in the country. Botterell has now accused his own party's successors of deliberately dismantling it.

What Bill-9 Actually Does

The government sold Bill-9 as a modernization effort โ€” improving efficiency, clarity, and accountability. The reality, on closer reading, is the opposite. The legislation substantially expands the discretion of government officials to reject, delay, and narrow information requests, based on subjective criteria largely of their own invention.

The most inflammatory provision allows officials to kill a request simply because "responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government of BC." Who decides what is "unreasonable"? The head of the public body receiving the request โ€” the very people being scrutinized.

As Conservative MLA Heather Maahs (Chilliwack North) put it bluntly in the legislature:

"Read the words 'in the opinion of the head of the public body,' or 'without unreasonable delay,' read the words 'abusive or malicious,' read the words 'repetitious or systematic,' 'excessive or broad,' 'unreasonably interfere with operations.' Those are not words of a government opening windows. Those are words of a government installing thicker curtains."

โ€” MLA Heather Maahs, BC Legislature, April 2026

Other provisions increase the power of senior bureaucrats to narrow requests, extend timelines, and reject applications on vague grounds โ€” all shifting the burden from the government to prove why information should be withheld, to the citizen proving why they deserve it.

What They Don't Want You to See

Why does this matter? Because the information the NDP is moving to shield isn't abstract. Conservative MLA Bryan Tepper (Surrey-Panorama) laid it out plainly in debate:

"They don't want you to see the internal memos on why decriminalization of hard drugs failed so spectacularly. They don't want you to see the correspondence regarding the cost overruns on the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain or the North Shore wastewater treatment plant. They don't want you to see the deals regarding Indigenous land claims that are being cut without public consultation."

โ€” MLA Bryan Tepper, BC Legislature, April 2026

Those aren't hypothetical concerns. Skeena MLA Claire Rattee has been waiting nearly a year for reports submitted by Dr. Daniel Vigo โ€” the government's own advisor on the toxic drug crisis and mental health โ€” with zero disclosure. She made the same effort for documents related to Downtown Eastside czar Larry Campbell's work, described by the government itself as critical to understanding one of BC's most vulnerable communities. Nothing. Not a partial disclosure. Not a heavily redacted document. Nothing.

What Bill-9 Gives Government the Power to Do

  • Reject requests that "unreasonably interfere with operations" โ€” determined by the agency itself
  • Label requests as "abusive," "malicious," "repetitious," or "excessive" to dismiss them
  • Extend timelines and narrow the scope of disclosure with less oversight
  • Shift the burden of proof from government (justify withholding) to citizen (justify access)
  • Insulate bureaucrats' decisions from clear accountability standards

The Sleeping Watchdog

Perhaps the most troubling element of the Bill-9 saga is the role of BC's independent Information and Privacy Commissioner, Michael Harvey. Rather than defending the public's right to know, Harvey praised the legislation โ€” earning a glowing endorsement from NDP MLA Stephanie Higginson, who reminded the house that "the actual Information and Privacy Commissioner himself" had blessed the bill.

Harvey had been consulted in advance and expressed support for most of the changes, criticizing none. The NDP was only too happy to use his endorsement as a shield against every opposition attack. Whether Harvey understands the chilling effect his approval has on the institution he is supposed to defend is an open question โ€” one critics are not waiting for him to answer.

A Government That Doesn't Answer

The most telling detail of the Bill-9 debate? The NDP largely hasn't bothered to respond to the attacks. They have the votes. They don't need to justify themselves. The bill is being steered through the legislature by Citizens' Services Minister Diana Gibson โ€” a minister Eby demoted from the jobs portfolio last year after what was widely regarded as a weak performance. One more stumble, observers say, and she faces the backbench.

That a government already under fire for DRIPA secrecy, drug policy failure, and infrastructure cost blowouts would simultaneously move to weaken the public's ability to investigate those failures tells you everything about its priorities. BC's information law was built on the principle that government works for citizens, not the other way around. Bill-9 reverses that principle โ€” quietly, while everyone was looking elsewhere.

The NDP will pass it. They always had the numbers. The question is whether British Columbians, once they understand what was done in the noise, will remember who installed the thicker curtains.