Hansard — Monday, October 27, 2025 Morning, Issue No. 89

She’s the executive director of Abbotsford Hospice and Grief Support Society, a distinguished recipient of King Charles III’s Coronation Medal award, and she has a long, distinguished public service record.

Ladies and gentlemen, Andrea Critchley.

Would you make her feel welcome, please.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Challenges to Forest Industry

Lorne Doerkson: I am grateful to bring greetings from the most beautiful riding in British Columbia, Cariboo-Chilcotin. I’m always proud to stand here and represent the residents of our communities.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I want to speak a little bit this morning about forestry, just in general terms, and a few things that are extremely important to the industry and, certainly, to the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin — frankly, some of the frustration that we can’t seem to solve the things that we think are solvable. I’ll explain that that is, potentially, even an agreement that we have on both sides of this House.

I want to paint a little bit of a picture of Cariboo-Chilcotin, just to explain how important this is to our riding. In Savona, we have a specialty mill. In 100 Mile, we have a West Fraser mill. In Williams Lake, we have eight milling operations in the downtown core of our community — two West Frasers, two Tolkos, Sigurdson’s mill, Parallel lumber, a pellet plant and a power plant.

The commerce that’s created from this industry is staggering in our riding. Indigenous-led operations like Tsi Del Del are working through the entire Cariboo-Chilcotin. With companies like Hytest, AI, PHL, Jatco, I can’t but stress the importance of this industry to Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Tariffs are an absolute disaster. I am certainly not supportive, in any way, of what America is doing to our industry right now, but I want to point out that this has been a plagued industry for a long time, and I am extremely concerned that we can’t seem to solve the things that we can, in my opinion, solve today. Nothing I’m going to say here today hasn’t been said before by other members in this House and certainly by myself.

When it comes to permitting, I asked the past WLRS minister Nathan Cullen what would happen or what would occur to the GDP in this province if we approved half of the permits that are currently out there. While we couldn’t agree on a number, we agreed that that number would be absolutely massive. The reality is that the permitting process in this province is struggling in a huge way.

I’ve talked about Dan Peron many times in this place. Dan just about went broke because he couldn’t get a mining permit renewed. The day that he did, after three years of waiting, get that permit approved, I phoned him to congratulate him. The problem is that he couldn’t talk to me. He was too busy. He was hiring people, he was buying equipment, and he was investing in his business — all taxable events and all income for this province. The result of this permitting crisis is serious.

I have spoken with Bruce Ralston, with Katrine Conroy and with our current Forests Minister with respect to the burning of cull piles, piles the size of your house that we have determined are waste in this province. Those piles can absolutely fuel our power plants, absolutely fuel a pellet plant, but at the very least, they could fuel a wood stove, rather than just simply burning it. It is a tremendous waste, in my mind, and there is some agreement on both sides of this House that that could be a potential solution.

I want to talk about fires. I am so grateful to B.C. wildfire for the work that they have just done, less than, potentially, a month or six weeks ago in the West Chilcotin, where things are changing, where we had a very late fire season. I appreciate the work that B.C. wildfire did collaboratively with ranchers, with the community members, but we have to start putting fires out in this province.

[10:10 a.m.]

We are burning hundreds of thousands of hectares in the good name of management. I appreciate cultural burning. I appreciate some of this as a tool. But we cannot sit and watch hundreds of thousands of hectares, tens of millions of dollars, expire due to fire.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak here this morning.

Importance of Courage and
Support for Diversity and Inclusion

George Anderson: There are moments in a province’s history when it must decide not who it fears but who it is. When I look at British Columbia, I see something rare, a province whose strength has always come from the power of difference, yet every generation faces the same question. Will we let hate divide us, or will we have the courage to see the humanity in one another?

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs shows us what courage looks like in the face of antisemitism. When Jewish families light candles under the quiet threat of violence, that is not fear. That is faith turned into courage. They remind us that “Never again” is not a phrase for the past. It is a moral commandment for today. Because when hate freely walks in one direction, it will find its way in every direction. And courage, not comfort, is what stops it.

I recently toured the Holocaust Education Centre in Vancouver, and I invite others to do the same.

The Hogan’s Alley Society shows us that courage to rebuild what history tried to erase where a thriving Black community once stood, bulldozed in the name of progress. They are rebuilding memory, dignity and place. It takes courage to look at injustice and say: “We will not be invisible again.” It takes courage to transform displacement into belonging, to turn pain into pride. That is the work of Hogan’s Alley, and it’s the work of all of us who believe in that progress, who believe justice should not be stopped and that we should make sure that we’re progressing in that way.

I look at the Island Urban Indigenous Wellness Society in my community, where they embody the courage to heal and to encourage belonging. They bring together Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to create spaces of wellness, learning and connection, not as parallel paths but as one community. It takes courage to build homes and programs that nurture the body both in body and spirit, and it takes courage to say that reconciliation is not symbolic. It is the daily work of rebuilding trust, dignity and understanding.

Their message is clear. Belonging is not an abstract idea. It is lived, shared and built right here in British Columbia.

Three stories, three histories and one truth: that courage is the common heartbeat of every community that refuses to be defined by hate — the courage of a Jewish mother lighting candles, the courage of a Black historian restoring a forgotten street, the courage of an Indigenous leader creating wellness for the next generation. And yes, it must also be the courage of the leaders who stand in this very room.

Whether you sit on the left or right, courage is not partisan. It is a bridge between freedom and fairness. Conservatives will see it in the courage to defend liberty and faith. Progressives will see it in the courage to confront injustice and inequality. Both will find common ground, because courage is the act that precedes compassion.

We cannot legislate love, but we can lead with courage. We cannot erase the past, but we can face it with courage. We cannot stop every act of hate, but we can drown it out with the sheer volume of courage and care.

CIJA reminds us to remember. Hogan’s Alley reminds us to rebuild. The Island Urban Indigenous Wellness Society reminds us to reconcile and to heal. Together they remind us to be brave enough to belong, because hate divides easily, but courage unites us deeply. And if hate spreads like fire, then let courage, our courage, spread like light.

[10:15 a.m.]

We must build a province where it does not take courage to walk down the street wearing your faith, where it takes no courage to tell your child that they belong, where it takes no courage to simply be who you are.

In our time, let it be said that British Columbians stood together, that we had the courage to see one another fully, to love one another fiercely and to build a province where everyone belongs.

Sumas Prairie Flooding Preparedness

Korky Neufeld: In the late 1990s, a group of American officials gathered in Washington state to make a decision about the Nooksack River — a river that, while never crossing into Canada, has shaped the fate of thousands of British Columbians. They decided to do nothing.

They knew then what we know painfully well today — that when the Nooksack River floods its banks near Everson, Washington, its waters don’t stop at the border. They surge north into the Sumas Prairie, into Abbotsford, into our homes, into our barns, into our lives.

That fateful decision to ignore the problem was made more than 20 years ago, but its consequences were felt this November 2021 when those same waters breached our dikes, swallowed our farmland and turned the valley floor into a lake.

Let’s remember what that flood meant — 1,100 homes evacuated; thousands of animals lost, Highway 1 submerged, cutting off goods and services to the rest of the province; hundreds of millions in damage to farms and infrastructure; and the community left fighting, literally, to keep its head above water.

But the 2021 flood wasn’t a surprise. It was a warning fulfilled. Experts, engineers and local leaders had long raised that alarm. They knew that the Nooksack’s overflow north into Canada wasn’t a fluke of nature. It was a predictable outcome of neglect. It was the result of decades of political paralysis, both in Washington state and here at home in B.C. and Canada.

Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley are not just dots on a map. They are the heart of British Columbia’s agriculture economic hub, responsible for $3.8 billion in annual activity and more than 16,000 jobs. Dairy farmers in B.C. contribute $1.2 billion in provincial GDP by themselves, and 65 percent of dairy and eggs for the province comes from here. Berries, vegetables, plants and flowers come from here. They feed our province, sustain our food security and drive our rural economy.

Highway 1 is the main artery that connects and sustains the rest of the province and, I would say, Canada. Yet despite this enormous contribution, Abbotsford farmers and families live under the constant shadow of another flood. The science is clear, the hydrology is clear, and the risk is clear. The time for more studies, more reports and more international working groups has long passed. We need investment, and we need it today. We need it now.

The Barrowtown pump station remediation has been completed, but it only protects one-third of the Sumas Prairie. We need to complete the work. Phase 3 needs investment.

By investing to reinforce our dikes and complete the Sumas Prairie flood mitigation plan, and there is a plan, by investing to rebuild resilience of our farms, roads and critical infrastructure and by investing in cross-border collaboration with the American neighbours…. Rivers don’t stop at political boundaries. Neither should common sense.

Would this not be a project to be deemed emergency infrastructure under Bill 14 and declare this of provincial significance under Bill 15? This government has given itself the power to do this, but will it?

Let’s be clear. The Nooksack floods are not purely an American or a Canadian issue. They are an international problem that requires bilateral solutions. Every dollar we fail to invest in prevention today will cost tenfold in recovery tomorrow. The cost of investment back in 1990 was $1 billion. But in 2021, the damages alone were $2.4 billion.

Let’s complete phase 3 of the flood mitigation plan. Let’s start today. We cannot allow another generation to pay for the inaction of the past generation.

This isn’t just about infrastructure; it’s about people. It’s about families who still remember standing knee-deep in freezing water, watching everything they worked for wash away. It’s about farmers who lost herds they had raised for years. Second and third generation farmers still do not know their future moving forward. It’s about a city that fought to protect itself with sandbags and sheer determination, one inch from losing Barrowtown pump station. If it hadn’t been for that, the water would still be there today.

All that was really needed was sustained investment and political will. Abbotsford has done its part. It has rebuilt, it has studied, and it has planned. But it cannot and should not be left to face the next flood alone.

[10:20 a.m.]

Every year that passes without action increases the risk that history will repeat itself. The next atmospheric river will not wait for a budget or bureaucrats to catch up. Let’s not make the same mistake those officials made in the 1990s, the mistake of doing nothing.

Let us act with urgency, with unity and with foresight. Let us invest in the flood defences that will safeguard the Fraser Valley, protect our food supply, keep our goods and services flowing and honour the resilience of the people of Abbotsford.

Because the next flood is not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when. And when it comes, and it will, we have to be ready.

Importance of Kindness

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I would like to share some words about the art of kindness. It is much needed in this dog-eat-dog world, which implies a survival-of-the-fittest mentality where success is achieved by any means necessary, regardless of the cost to others. The expression is a metaphor for a harsh, competitive world where the strong devour the weak, though the pain is usually not physical.

In a world reshaped by the challenge of the pandemic, social isolation and the loss of meaningful interaction, kindness emerged as a powerful tool for rebuilding connection.

The importance of kindness, and why it matters.

Do you ever stop to consider how you are being to people around you in your daily life — in text, casual interactions in a line for your daily coffee, in the drop-off line at school or even how kind you are to yourself? The importance of kindness in your life, in your workplace and in the greater world around you is vital to your health and well-being.

In today’s fast pace, it’s easy to overlook the simple acts of being kind to one another. Taking that extra moment to show kindness can make a significant difference in someone’s day. Like last week, RP and Kelly Ellen stopped to share with me how my kindness has made a difference to them here in this place.

Kindness has the power to uplift spirits, strengthen relationships and create a chain reaction of positivity in the lives of those who experience it. Kindness can manifest in many ways. Someone reached out to me to share that my uncle Stoni made her smile when she saw him returning abandoned grocery carts. He was pulling them behind his bike to return them to the grocery stores downtown.

It doesn’t have to be a grand gesture. Even small acts of kindness can have a profound impact. A kind word, a compliment, offering a listening ear or even a smile can foster a sense of connection and belonging. Kindness in all forms plays an essential role in building trust, respect and understanding among people from all walks of life.

Approaching life with kindness not only improves the lives of those around you, but it also enhances your own well-being and sense of purpose. Cultivating a lifestyle centred on compassion and empathy for others and yourself is an essential element for personal growth and development.

The point here is that showing kindness can be small, and I’m thinking it’s these small acts that sometimes mean the most, like Hair at 60 Queens, who offer free haircuts usually once a year to the unhoused people in our community. This small nugget of kindness can show someone that they are seen and valued.

Kindness is like a magic potion. In conflict resolution, when you generally express kindness toward each other, it creates an atmosphere of empathy and understanding. The environment paves the way for open dialogue, effective listening and better communication.

As you may have experienced and witnessed, especially in our geopolitical landscapes, conflict often arises from misunderstanding and miscommunications. This is an opportunity for us all. Kindness plays a crucial role in dissolving the barriers and promoting active listening. It enables you to understand different perspectives, find common ground and create win-win situations.

I can only imagine what our world and who our leaders would be if we first approached each other with kindness and understanding. We’d be so lucky if our world valued kindness above power. There would be less trauma, terrorism, war and pain if kindness was everyone’s priority.

You can be the solution to this problem, because kindness is contagious. As you practise it, you’ll inspire others to do the same, creating a ripple effect in various settings. Remember, practising kindness is not limited to the interactions with other people. You must be kind to yourself first. Treat yourself gently, give yourself grace, and you’ll find it easier to extend kindness to others.

[10:25 a.m.]

By showing kindness in everyday life, you can experience the importance of kindness firsthand and make this world a better place.

Rather than doing it exclusively as an action, think of kindness as a quality of well-being you are cultivating. Giving kindness often is simple, free and health-enhancing.

Finally, I will leave you with these borrowed words shared by Grand Chief Stewart Phillip: “People will forget what you said. People will forget what you did. But people will never forget how you made them feel.”

Land Title Court Case and
Property Ownership Concerns
of Richmond Residents

Teresa Wat: In recent days, many Richmond residents have opened letters from the city informing them that Aboriginal title has been declared on their land. Imagine reading those words and wondering whether the home you have worked your whole life to own is still truly yours.

That is what is happening right now in my community. Homeowners are worried. Business owners are uncertain. Families are asking one simple question: what happens to us now? That question deserves a clear answer.

The Premier did respond, but only after Mayor Brodie took the difficult step of informing residents himself. It should not take a letter from a mayor to prompt the Premier to reassure British Columbians about the security of their homes. Leadership means anticipating uncertainty, not reacting to it.

The Cowichan decision has raised serious questions about private property rights in B.C. The court found that Aboriginal title may coexist with private ownership. For generations, people have believed that when you buy property here, you hold full and permanent ownership. That understanding has now been shaken.

In Richmond, a major industrial park that includes Coca-Cola, Canadian Tire and Wayfair now sits on land declared under Aboriginal title. Hundreds of employees work there every day. The property owner has said clearly that this uncertainty cannot last for years, while appeals move through the courts.

Confidence and sensibility are the foundation of our province’s prosperity. When people doubt the security of their homes or the durability of their investment, everything is at risk. That is why the Premier must act now. He should work with the federal government to send this question directly to the Supreme Court of Canada. British Columbians deserve a clear and final answer on whether Aboriginal title and private property can legally coexist and what that means for the land they already own.

What makes this worse is the silence from the NDP Richmond-Steveston MLA, who also serves as a cabinet minister. Her constituents have been left anxious and afraid, yet she has offered them nothing, not a word of reassurance, not a statement of leadership, and not even acknowledgement of the confusion people are living through.

When your own community is in distress, silence is not an option. People expect their representatives to stand up for them.

I represent one of the most diverse ridings in B.C. Many of my constituents are Chinese Canadians who came to this country because it represents fairness and stability. For them, owning a home is not only a financial goal; it is a symbol of belonging and security.

When I bought my first property in Hong Kong, it was under a 99-year lease. That was the system under colonial rule. You could work your whole life and still know that in the end, the land did not truly belong to you. When I bought my home here in Canada, I felt immense relief, knowing that this property was mine forever.

But today, as I listen to the fears in my community, I worry they are moving backward toward that same uncertainty I once left behind. That is why these issues matter so deeply to me and to so many others.

A home should be secure. Ownership should be permanent. People should not live in doubt about something so fundamental.

[10:30 a.m.]

In Chinese, we often say 安居樂業, ān jū lè yè, which means “to live in peace and work happily.” That is what people want: peace in their homes and stability in their lives. That peace is being tested now.

[Mandarin text provided by Teresa Wat.]

The Premier must act immediately to restore confidence. He must say clearly that no homeowner….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, just a minute. There’s free latitude in terms of private members’ statements, but direct attacks against opposition are discouraged. I’d just like to remind you about that. Thank you.

Teresa Wat: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

He must also work with the federal government to seek immediate clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada. He must also halt all negotiations until we have clarity on whether Aboriginal title and private property can coexist on the same piece of land.

Sooke Fire and Rescue

Dana Lajeunesse: This past Saturday night it was a privilege for me to be invited to attend the Sooke fire and rescue department’s annual banquet and awards recognition ceremony. Personally, I hold a special place in my heart for our first responders, as 36 years ago, on July 8, 1989, I was rescued after a rather spectacular fall from a deck that was constructed over a steep ravine. I would not be alive today had it not been for the consummate professionalism of our first responders.

The district of Sooke takes great pride in the professionalism and quality service provided by all fire department career staff and paid on call firefighters. In fact, in a recent survey conducted by Sooke’s communications director, Sooke fire and rescue scored the highest approval rating from residents of any department employed by the district. This is a true testament to their unwavering professionalism and to all their members’ commitment to maintaining the dignity of residents while keeping the community safe.

The Sooke fire and rescue department effectively and efficiently responds to and mitigates emergencies involving the rescue of persons, incidents of fire, unplanned releases of dangerous goods and pre-hospital emergency medical incidents. The department strives to provide community-based, customer-focused service to create a safe, comfortable environment for residents. They protect the district’s tax base and support economic development through extensive inspection, prevention and enforcement programs.

Throughout the province, fire departments have evolved to protect much more than structures. The first-responder program was developed by the Justice Institute of B.C. and B.C. Ambulance Service in order to train firefighters and police officers in emergency medical care. The first-responder program was created to ensure that a person in distress receives proper medical attention in a timely manner.

Many people are unaware that this program is in place in their communities, and therefore, if 911 is called for an ambulance, they may see their fire department responding as first responders to assist ambulance paramedics.

Department members are certified as first-responder level 3 with automated external defibrillator, AED, and spinal immobilization endorsements. These courses must be recertified every three years, except for the AED endorsement, which is recertified every six months. Sooke fire and rescue includes the first-responder program in its weekly training to ensure the skills of the firefighters are current and that they are aware of any changes that occur in medical protocols.

From its humble beginnings in the early 1900s, the old Sooke Harbour fire department has evolved into a modern, full-service emergency services organization. Beginning with a hand-drawn hose reel stored in an old shed, the fire department now operates from two well-equipped fire stations.

The dedicated men and women of the Sooke fire and rescue department are prepared to answer the call 24-7-365. Currently supported by seven career members and between 30 and 40 paid on call firefighters, the organization is comprised of active members in two divisions, utilizing the latest in fire apparatus design and technology, along with a variety of support vehicles and equipment trailers.

There is no call too large or too small for the department to handle. Protecting approximately 18,000 people spread over an area of 65 square kilometres means this department responds to 1,500-plus incidents annually.

[10:35 a.m.]

To handle all these emergency incidents requires members of fire departments from all corners of the province to constantly train and update their skills. While many of our firefighters have been around several years and are very knowledgeable in their skills and ability, there’s always a need and desire to recruit new members to these essential organizations. With continued growth and development in our communities, recruitment and retention of firefighters will continue to be a priority across the province.

I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to all our first responders throughout the province of British Columbia for selflessly putting their own lives at risk to ensure the safety and security of our residents and property alike.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, the House will continue second reading of Bill M213, Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M213 — Drug Use Prevention
Education in Schools Act
(continued)

Dana Lajeunesse: I rise today to speak to private member’s bill M213, the Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act, and to explain why I cannot support moving this bill forward.

Let me begin by affirming something I believe we all share in this chamber, a deep and unwavering commitment to the health, safety and well-being of our students. We want our children to thrive. We want them to be informed, resilient and supported. We want our schools to be places of learning, compassion and inclusion. But this bill, as proposed, does not advance those goals. In fact, it risks undermining them.

First, let’s address the legislative framework. Under the current School Act, the minister already has the authority to issue ministerial orders related to educational programs, graduation requirements and health and social supports. The minister can also require boards to prepare and submit reports. In other words, the objectives of this bill can already be achieved without introducing new legislation. Creating stand-alone legislation for something we already have the tools to address is not only unnecessary; it’s inefficient. It diverts time, energy and resources away from implementation into bureaucracy.

Second, our government is committed to meaningful consultation when considering any legislative change. That means engaging with teachers, parents, trustees, First Nations and the independent school sector, each of which brings unique perspectives and needs. There is no evidence that such consultation took place in the drafting of this bill. That absence is not just a procedural oversight. It’s a fundamental flaw. We cannot legislate in isolation. We must legislate in partnership with the communities we serve.

Third and perhaps most critically, this bill promotes a stigmatizing approach to substance use education. Research is unequivocal. Stigma does harm. Stigma deters people from seeking help. It worsens health outcomes. It reinforces negative social perceptions of people who use substances. It limits the quality of care when accessing services.

If students who are using substances, or who have family members who do, feel judged or shamed in their classrooms, they are less likely to reach out to trusted adults. That means fewer opportunities for intervention, fewer pathways to support and more young people suffering in silence. Promoting stigma runs counter to everything we know about effective education and compassionate care.

[10:40 a.m.]

Now let’s talk about cost. The approach outlined in this bill could cost $2 million for curriculum design and development and nearly $3 million annually for education sessions. That’s a significant investment, especially when we already have a world-renowned curriculum.

The B.C. curriculum is competency-based, co-constructed and infused with First Nations Peoples’ principles of learning. It puts students and their well-being at the centre. Other jurisdictions, like the Yukon and Northwest Territories, look to our curriculum as a model. Why would we spend millions to replace something that is already working?

Let me be clear. We’re not ignoring the issue of substance use. Far from it. We support 39 integrated child and youth teams across 20 school district communities, providing wraparound mental health and substance use care when and where it’s needed.

Through the mental health in schools strategy, we’ve invested over $30 million in grants to all 60 school districts and the Federation of Independent Schools Association.

We offer virtual training sessions for parents and guardians, reaching nearly 2,600 participants in the last two years.

The ministry’s ERASE program provides information, resources and supports related to substance use.

The B.C. curriculum already includes education on the negative health consequences of drug use.

Finally, I want to address the philosophical underpinning of this bill. Mandating that students learn to stigmatize drug use and people who use drugs undermines the very essence of education. Education is about teaching students how to think, not what to think. It is about fostering critical judgment, empathy and understanding. This bill does the opposite. It prescribes shame, it promotes judgment, and it risks alienating students who may already be struggling.

Let’s not forget that in any given classroom, there may be students who have lost loved ones to overdose, students who are living with addiction in their families, students who are themselves navigating substance use. Asking teachers to stigmatize drug use puts them in an impossible position and puts vulnerable students at greater risk.

Schools must be safe, caring and inclusive communities. They must be places where every student feels welcome and supported. Let’s continue to build on that foundation, not tear it down with legislation that does more harm than good.

We care deeply about students, we care about their well-being, and we are already taking meaningful steps to address substance use in our schools.

For all these reasons — the legislative redundancy, the lack of consultation, the harm of stigma, the financial cost and the misalignment with our educational values — I cannot support Bill M213.

Hon Chan: I rise today in strong support of Bill M213, the Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act.

While preparing this speech, I learned of another heartbreaking tragedy, a life lost to overdose in Richmond not far from my constituency office. It is a painful reminder that this crisis is here in our neighbourhoods, in our schools and among our families. Every life lost is one too many.

Earlier this year a 12-year-old girl in Surrey died from a drug overdose, one of the youngest victims in our province’s history. Her mother told me I was the first and only MLA who called to offer support. That conversation will stay with me forever. No parent should ever feel alone in grief, and no child should lose their life before it even begins.

This is why this bill matters. M213 ensures drug use prevention education is consistent and mandatory across all B.C. schools. It gives young people the knowledge, the courage and the tools to make the right choice before tragedy even strikes. Prevention must start early, in classrooms, in communities, long before addiction takes hold.

[10:45 a.m.]

This should never be a partisan issue. Education and prevention should unite us. Yet it is deeply disappointing to hear that this NDP government is not willing to support drug use prevention education in schools.

The member said, “Prioritize outcomes over optics,” yet 16,000 British Columbians have died under their watch. They said, “Follow science,” yet more youth have died from overdose in this year than in 2024. They said, “Choose education over ideology,” yet they intend to vote against drug education in schools. They said, “Choose hope over fear,” but there’s no hope when the addiction crisis keeps getting worse, not better, under their watch. They said: “Why spend millions when it’s already working?” A 12-year-old girl passed earlier this year due to the toxic drug crisis.

I find it truly ironic, even oxymoronic that the NDP government is willing to say smoking and vaping are bad but not willing to say that drugs are bad.

Bill M213 is not about politics. It’s about people. It is about every parent who has lost a child, every student at risk and every teacher who needs the tools to help.

Let us stand together, support prevention through education and save lives.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just say no. It’s a strange coincidence that Ronald Reagan is having a revival in the tariff context. I remember “Just say no to drugs” from Ronald and Nancy Reagan in the 1980s, images of an egg sizzling in a pan with “This is your brain on drugs.” It didn’t work. Even DARE, the drug abuse resistance education program, has since modernized its approach.

I fully respect the member, who no doubt has good intentions, and we all would like to see the end of drug use with our students. I do, however, disagree with the approach.

The Third Party caucus is committed to listening to experts and evidence. Those on the front lines of the toxic drug crisis are not asking for abstinence. In study after study after study, it’s shown not to work.

This private member’s bill is so prescriptive, I can’t help but feel that it’s issues like this where we sit in this chamber and can be out of touch with reality. We’re constantly presented with problems and challenges. That’s part of our work. Sometimes the solutions seem so simple. We could just wave our magic wand and ask everyone, especially our kids, to stop using drugs. But I worry that we only hear one side.

We hear of schools teaching kids about safe supply and harm reduction, and that’s alarming. But if a student is already using drugs, what’s our obligation? I would suggest it’s to help make sure they don’t die, not to push an idealistic abstinence narrative. We in the Third Party are often accused of being too idealistic, and I take that to heart. But in the case of some of these social issues, sometimes I wonder who is idealistic.

The fact is we live in a hard world, and trauma and personal challenges often lead to drug use. The fact is not that we aren’t saying drugs are dangerous loudly enough; it’s just that some students can’t hear us.

It’s frustrating. We all want the same thing here. We want people to stop dying from a poisoned drug supply and for everyone in this province, especially our youth, to live long and healthy lives. So it’s not a question of differing values; it’s a question of approach.

I hear the term “common sense” in this chamber, and I worry sometimes that it’s a knee-jerk response to anecdotes rather than evidence. Post-analysis showed that years after its inception, DARE’s, the drug abuse resistance education program, effectiveness was shown to be minimal. But the program remained popular among politicians and many members of the public because of a common intuition that the program ought to work. That’s true. It ought to work. There’s an idealism and common sense again.

This bill is so prescriptive that it doesn’t contemplate consultation with mental health and substance use experts, teachers, school boards or First Nations. Frankly, they’re the people who should be deciding what the messages are, where the posters go and what individual students need to hear about drugs. I can’t think of a more illustrative example of where we’re running around trying to treat the symptoms instead of spending time and effort on the root causes.

Yes, shame has a place in enforcing the social contract. Yes, compassion is not the only strategy here, although we do all need to remember that there but for the grace of God go we.

[10:50 a.m.]

Let’s have a quick think about the root of the word “stigma.” It describes the wounds from crucifixion. As a society and as members of this House, haven’t we progressed, haven’t we evolved our health care, our regulation and our justice system beyond pure stigma?

We need to talk more about the root causes of drug use, addiction and overdose deaths: childhood trauma, isolation, misinformation, unregulated and poisoned supply, and inadequate health care.

The opposition seems to think it’s the government sending the message that drugs are normal. Well, I have bad and sad news. Drugs are normal. They’re everywhere. It’s not just legal drugs like Tylenol, Prozac, Viagra, hormone replacement therapy or alcohol. It’s also, as we know, much more harmful drugs. This is the reality of the province that we live in. The question, then, is how we respond to this reality.

In this caucus, we believe we respond by talking to experts and educators, people who have used drugs, people in treatment, people who work in health care, first responders, social workers and the teachers who bring their school classes into this gallery every day.

Instead of trying to convince kids to do what we say, we should educate them about how to understand drugs and drug abuse. The psychological, biochemical and emotional background behind drug use needs to be taught in our education system. Doubling down on shame, stigma and fear is the wrong message and the wrong approach for our education system.

Our children deserve excellent, evidence-based education to help them navigate this challenging world, and we owe them nothing less.

This caucus will be voting against second reading of this bill.

Darlene Rotchford: I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here today on the traditional and unceded territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, known as Songhees and xʷsepsəm First Nations.

I am going to add a little different perspective to this bill. I do rise today to express my deep concerns about Bill M213 and to share why I cannot support it. My position comes not only from my professional working background in mental health and addiction for 18 years under four Premiers but also as lived experience as someone who has seen the impacts of issues up close and as a mother who wants to see also a better future for her children. As you’ve heard me say in this chamber, I have a father with 35 years of sobriety, and I’m very proud of him for that. Fun fact: he disagrees with this bill.

Before entering public life, I spent 18 years working in this field. Over those years, I worked in a detox program, a stabilization unit, recovery houses and outpatient services. I also spent some time working specifically with youth, including at our youth detox. Through that work, I had countless conversations with young people who began their struggles with substance use at an early age and their families.

When I started my career, we treated mental health and substance use as entirely separate issues, but that approach failed. We learned through hard experience that these challenges are often deeply connected and that only by treating them together as concurrent disorders can we actually truly help people in recovery.

Many of those people I worked with had gone through programs like DARE or “Just say no.” They were created with the best of intentions, but they didn’t stop youth from using substances. In fact, for many, it created quite a bit of shame. For those youth began to struggle. They were afraid to seek help. They felt like they’d already failed.

That experience taught me something that research has since confirmed. Education about substance use must be non-stigmatizing, supportive and evidence-based. Fear and shame are not preventive strategies. In fact, they are actually a barrier to care.

Our government has made clear that we care deeply about the health and well-being of students and their families. We also know that education is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce harm and prevent substance use before it starts. British Columbia already has a world-renowned curriculum that includes age-appropriate learning about substance use, designed by experts informed by evidence. Other provinces across Canada look to our model when shaping their program.

In the greater Victoria region, we have a program called the Umbrella Society, which is partially funded by this government. They actually go into schools, and people tell their stories. Not only do they tell their stories about where life has taken them within their addiction; they leave room for anonymous questions. Investing in programs like that gives youth the space they need to learn about the road it may take them down and, if they’re already there, where to go for help.

[10:55 a.m.]

In addition, the Ministry of Education offers free vital training sessions for parents and guardians to help them talk to their children about substance use in an open, supportive and informed way. Across 20 school districts and communities, 30 integrated children-youth teams provide wraparound mental health and substance use services, bringing care to young people when and where they need it most.

The best conversations I ever had with my dad during his recovery journey were at our kitchen table, talking about if I needed help and, if something happened, where it would be. When I was in my school system…. I didn’t go to school, for a fun fact, in British Columbia. On the record, I went to school in eastern Canada. But we still had similar programs back then. If something had happened, I knew where to go.

Bill M213, however, moves us in the wrong direction. The level of prescription in the bill and its focus on shame-based education do not align with our provincial evidence-based, compassionate approach. A stigmatizing curriculum is not supported by research and has the potential to do real harm. Schools should be a place of belonging and safety, not places that promote judgment and fear.

The bill would also place teachers in a difficult position. Imagine being asked to deliver lessons that stigmatize substance use in a classroom where students may have lost a parent, a sibling or a friend to an overdose, or some students are living with addiction within their own families. This is not compassion. This is not learning.

Mandating stigma undermines the very purpose of education. Our classrooms should help students think critically, develop empathy and understand complex social issues, not teach them to make moral judgments about those who are struggling.

Throughout my career, I have held the hands of people at their very lowest point, people who came through detox again and again, trying to rebuild their lives. No amount of fear-based education would stop them from using. In fact, they would say things to me like, “I’m sorry I’m back here,” which is quite shameful because we need to ensure that when everyone is at their lowest point, they can access wraparound care without guilt.

What did make a difference, again, was understanding, supporting and the care and treatment they deserved with dignity. As a mother, as someone who comes from a family touched by both mental health and addiction, I can say with certainty that this bill would not make it easier for me to talk to my children about substance use. It would actually, in fact, make it harder, because fear is not education. Stigma, quite frankly, is not prevention.

When the time comes for me, or for any parent, to support a child who may be struggling, we need tools that help them understand the why behind substance use. We need a system that is compassionate and evidence-based. No young person has ever started using opiates, crack, pot, benzos or alcohol thinking they would become addicted.

Addiction doesn’t begin with intent. It begins with pain, with circumstance, with vulnerability. The last thing someone needs is pain and more shame. What they need is support. What they need is understanding. What they deserve is an education system that reflects the best of what we know — that people heal when they are seen, supported and valued.

For all these reasons, I cannot with, good conscience, support Bill M213. It does not reflect evidence. It does not reflect compassion. It does not reflect the values of our province. It does not personally reflect my values and the things I agreed to in my prior life working in mental health and addiction.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Richmond-Bridgeport, you’ve got about nine minutes.

Teresa Wat: I rise today in strong support of Bill M213, the Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act.

This is a bill that I believe is not only important but absolutely necessary for the protection of our children and the health of our community. It represents a commitment to prevention, to education and to the principle that we must equip the next generation with the tools to make safe and informed choices.

When we talk about the drug crisis in B.C., we often talk about the numbers, about the heartbreaking overdose statistics, about the billions of dollars in health spending, about the growing weight on families and communities. But behind those numbers are children, young people growing up in an environment where drugs are increasingly visible, increasingly accessible and increasingly normalized.

I speak today not just as the MLA for Richmond-Bridgeport but as a representative of families in my riding who are worried about the safety of their children. I also speak as a mother and grandmother of three lovely grandchildren, aging from three to eight, together with the parents and grandparents of Richmond. We are so, so worried about the safety of our children.

[11:00 a.m.]

In my community, we have seen the very real consequences of this government’s approach to drug policy. Time and again the NDP has attempted to push drug consumption sites and low-barrier supportive housing into neighbourhoods without proper public consultation, without sufficient safeguards and without preparing the community, especially our children, for the risks and challenges that come with them.

A clear example is the Alderbridge modular housing project. When it was first introduced, we were told that it would provide stability, safety and support. Instead, what we have seen is mismanagement. Residents in the area have witnessed a spike in crime, more visible drug use and even open drug dealing on the streets. Parents and strata council president Clifton Jang have written to me to say that their children and residents feel unsafe walking to school and work, that they see people using drugs in public places and that the sense of security they once had in the community has eroded.

This is not what responsible governance looks like. A government that truly cares about public safety, about the well-being of children, would not impose such projects without listening to local voices. It would not ignore the concern of parents. It would not create situations where kids are forced to walk past people openly using or doing drugs on their way to school.

In Richmond-Bridgeport, what we have seen is not compassion. This is chaos. This is an approach that prioritizes ideology over safety and announcements over results. Prevention starts with education, with community standards and, yes, with a healthy degree of social disapproval for behaviours that destroy lives.

Let us be clear. All we want is to help people who struggle with addiction, but help must come with responsibility. Supportive housing must be truly supportive, not a warehouse that concentrates problems and leaves surrounding communities to deal with the fallout. Drug consumption sites must be considered carefully, with real consultation, real safeguards and real respect for the people who live nearby.

All of this, in addition, must be paired with education and prevention. We cannot continue down a path where the government creates problems that it solves, where communities are left to fend for themselves and where children are treated as afterthoughts. The people of Richmond-Bridgeport and, indeed, all British Columbians deserve a government that will put safety and prevention first.

Bill M213 gives us a chance to take a step in the right direction. It signals that we are serious about prevention. It says to parents: “We hear you. We will give your children the knowledge they need, and we will not leave them unprotected in the face of this crisis.” It says to communities: “We will not normalize drug use in front of your kids. We will not stay silent, and we will not hide from the reality that children need guidance and protection.”

I urge every member of this House to support Bill M213. This is not — again, I repeat — a partisan issue. This is about the well-being of our children and the strength of our communities. The drug crisis does not stop at party lines. It touches every corner of this province. But if we are serious about addressing it, we must start with prevention. We must start with education.

Let us pass this bill. Let us protect our children. Let us show British Columbians that their Legislature here understands the urgency of this crisis and is willing to act with compassion and responsibility.

[11:05 a.m.]

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise today in full support of Bill M213.

When I hear the debate around this…. Again, we talk about definitions of words like “stigma” or “shame” or “fear.” I’d like to remind everybody in this House that those are actually emotions that the family members feel and have to live with and that are permanent for them when they lose their child to an overdose.

When we talk about defining a word like stigma and what it may or may not mean and we’re looking to something like the dictionary to tell us, again, I go back to that these are feelings that we have and these are words. What we need to do is wrap around our children and our youth and actually give them the information that they get to decide. Tell them the truth, and then they get to decide how they feel about that information.

Hearing some of the debate around this again and talking about evidence, I think the evidence is clear. As we see more and more young people thrust into a life of addiction…. Yes, it absolutely is unintended consequences. But we know, because of the types of drugs that are out there circulating and that they sometimes don’t even know they’re taking, things can happen, and they can happen in an instant.

Some of the literature that I get is terrifying to me, because some of these drugs are packaged to look like candy, are packaged to look like the regular vapes that we all know. Yes, absolutely, the leader of the Green Party is talking about the fact that these things are illegal for young people, but look, they are doing them. We are seeing them. But how did we get here? Why is it normal? We should be asking ourselves those questions as well.

It’s terrifying for me as a mother that my kids aren’t being shown the truth about exactly what they could be taking. We know, in so many overdose instances, young people have taken something that they don’t know what it is, and that is the fatal end to their life. I believe education, telling them the truth and letting them decide how they feel about it is going to be the change that we need.

You have to tell young people the truth. You don’t get to wrap it in a bunch of niceties and tell them to drink water and do these things that are going to help them adjust to these drugs. That is not the approach we need to take.

We need to do something that’s drastic, and I believe this bill does that.

Deputy Speaker: I call the member for Richmond-Queensborough to close debate.

Steve Kooner: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to close the debate on Bill 213 by returning to the simple, urgent truth that brought this bill forward. Our children are at risk. Our schools must do everything in their power to protect them.

Now, we have heard a lot from the NDP MLAs talking about one word that shows up once in this bill: stigma. If the NDP MLAs really care about drug use prevention education in schools, what they can do today is pass this bill at second reading and send it to committee and make amendment. If that is not done, the public will see where the NDP MLAs stand. If they stand for drug use prevention education in this province or they don’t, that will be a clear message today.

Also, this bill comes two weeks after the Premier made a statement out in public saying that the drug decriminalization policy is a wrong policy and that he was wrong in that aspect. So why not pass this bill, Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act, today?

We are living through a drug crisis unlike anything British Columbia has seen ever before. More than 2,500 lives lost last year alone, seven deaths a day on average, families torn apart in every region of this province, children increasingly exposed to drug culture and mixed messages in the very schools that should keep them safe.

For too long, the response from this government has been to normalize drug use. Harm reduction is emphasized while prevention and abstinence are sidelined. Flashcards, classroom materials and so-called safe supply messages soften the reality of drugs instead of confronting it.

[11:10 a.m.]

The line between compassion and permissiveness has been blurred, and our youth are paying the price.

One of the central principles of this bill is the need to tell kids, educate kids, about the negative consequences of trying drugs. What are the social consequences? What are the health consequences? What are the consequences in terms of their relations with their families? And what are the legal consequences? Kids need to understand this stuff. We must once again send a clear social and cultural signal that drug use is harmful, dangerous and unacceptable.

Schools also have a duty. Schools have an ethical duty. Schools are more than just places of academic instruction. They are institutions of character, health and responsibility. They have a public health duty and a moral duty to protect the children in their care and promote good public health. That duty requires schools to send one consistent, unambiguous message: drugs are dangerous; abstinence is the safest and responsible choice. Parents expect it, teachers deserve the clarity to deliver it, and children’s lives depend on it.

Prevention is not just one option amongst many. It is the only safe choice. It is both an effective strategy, because it prevents harm before it happens, and an ethical one, because it is the only position that does not expose children to avoidable risk. By teaching drug prevention clearly, directly and consistently, we give young children the knowledge and confidence to say no. We also give parents reassurance that schools are supporting, not undermining, the values taught at home.

In conclusion, Bill M213 is not complicated. It is rooted in common sense. It is about protecting children, restoring moral clarity and reinforcing the duty of schools to safeguard our youth. It is about telling the truth in plain language. Drugs kill, drugs devastate, and abstinence is the only safe choice.

Prevention saves lives. This House has a duty to stand on the side of prevention, on the side of abstinence, on the side of families who are demanding action.

I urge all members across party lines to support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill M213, intituled Drug Use Prevention Education in Schools Act.

Division has been called. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the division is deferred until 6:00 p.m. today.

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member for Nanaimo-Lantzville to move second reading of Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act.

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act

George Anderson: I move that Bill M216, intituled Professional Reliance Act, be read now a second time.

Across this province, from Nanaimo to Prince George, from Vancouver to Vernon, one thing is clear. People want homes built faster, communities planned better and governments that can deliver results. We don’t lack the ambition to build. What we lack is a system that keeps up with that ambition.

That’s what the Professional Reliance Act is about — modernizing how we approve housing and infrastructure so we can build faster, smarter, fairer, while keeping the same high standards that British Columbians expect. The truth is simple. If we want to solve the housing crisis, we have to make it possible to build homes, not just talk about them.

Today good projects can get trapped in a cycle of duplication and delay. When a developer or a homeowner submits plans prepared by qualified architects or engineers, professionals who are licensed, insured and accountable under the Professional Governance Act, those same documents can sit for months, waiting to be rechecked by staff.

[11:15 a.m.]

It’s not because anyone is doing anything wrong. It’s because the system hasn’t caught up. Local governments are under strain, and many can’t keep up with the volume or retain specialized staff. Every month of delay adds costs, costs that get passed on to families and renters.

In a time when young people are losing hope of ever owning a home and municipalities are stretched, we simply can’t afford inefficiency for inefficiency’s sake. The Professional Reliance Act introduces a new approval framework, one that removes redundant review without removing oversight.

Here’s how it works. When a qualified professional — an engineer, an architect — certifies their work, that certification stands. Local governments can accept that submission with confidence, knowing that accountability remains with the professional and their regulatory body under the Professional Governance Act.

Councils still will control zoning, land use and design. Public engagement continues as before. What changes is the technical review process, shifting from repetition to reliance, from bureaucracy to trust. This is not deregulation; it’s coordination. It’s trust through accountability.

For some of those in the chamber who are not aware, here are some real-world examples.

In Vancouver, certified professionals play a key role in expediting complex building permits without sacrificing safety or design excellence.

In Surrey, professional reliance allows one of B.C.’s fastest-growing cities to process thousands of housing applications efficiently, freeing up planners to focus on livability.

In Prince George, a smaller city with limited staff capacity, a professional reliance stream lets certified experts take full responsibility for their submissions, saving months of review time, reducing costs for both municipalities and the applicant.

These examples prove that when we trust professionals to do their jobs, communities thrive.

The Professional Reliance Act takes these local successes and scales them across the province. So what are the benefits?

For young people, this bill means homes coming to market sooner and a future that feels within reach again.

For families, this bill means a better chance to buy or rent in the communities they love.

For local governments, this bill means more capacity to plan, to serve and build with less burnout and redundancy.

And for workers, this bill means respect, recognition that their credentials, their experience and their integrity matter.

Now I want to speak directly to the spirit of this place. Housing is not a partisan issue. It is a generational one. British Columbians, no matter their political stripes, want the same things: homes that people can afford, communities that work and governments that keep their promises. The Professional Reliance Act is a bill that everyone in this chamber can support. It doesn’t raise taxes. It doesn’t create new bureaucracy. It simply makes the systems that we have work better.

It helps local governments, urban and rural alike. It helps young people. It helps working families. It helps us, as legislators, show that we can actually work together to solve practical problems that matter to people’s daily lives. This is what good governance looks like when we put outcomes ahead of ideology, when the spirit of collaboration outweighs the instinct to divide. The public doesn’t expect us to agree on everything, but they do expect us to get things done.

Now, some may ask whether or not this bill will cost money, whether the office of the superintendent of professional governance will need new funding. The answer is no. The OSPG already has the mandate, staff and systems to oversee these professions. The act doesn’t expand its jurisdiction; it clarifies it. Any additional work will be minimal, absorbed with existing operations and offset many times over by the efficiency gains at the local level.

[11:20 a.m.]

This is a rare moment in government, a reform that makes approvals faster and saves money. It’s a government working the way people hope it will — smarter, leaner, faster and focused on results.

The Professional Reliance Act is about more than process. It’s about what is possible in British Columbia. The Professional Reliance Act is about restoring momentum, the feeling that British Columbia can keep moving forward.

The Professional Reliance Act is about giving a student graduating today the hope that they can one day own a home here. The Professional Reliance Act is about giving a young couple the confidence to start a family without leaving their home. The Professional Reliance Act is about giving every British Columbian faith that government can still work at the pace of people’s lives.

When we trust professionals, when we empower local government, when we believe in our shared ability to deliver, that’s when we build the future of this province.

Let’s make it easier to build, let’s make it easier to belong, and let’s show that when British Columbians work together, there is nothing that we can’t build.

Tony Luck: It’s a privilege to stand in the House today and address Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act, this morning.

Before I begin, I’d like to tell just a little story here of what happened in an Interior municipality. Not long ago a small Interior municipality received a subdivision application for a steep hillside. On paper, the engineer’s report was flawless. Every calculation met the provincial standard. But the locals knew that hillside. They’d seen it move during heavy spring rains in the past. The municipal engineer, familiar with the soil conditions, caught the problem, ordered additional testing, and the slope was eventually stabilized before homes were built there.

Now, imagine. Under this new bill, Bill M216, the so-called Professional Reliance Act, that same municipality might not have had the authority to question that certified report. Instead, any dispute would be punted up to a small provincial office in Victoria, far removed from the people and the land in question, far removed from the people that know their area the best.

That is at the heart of what’s wrong with this bill. The bill is another in a long trail of neutering local governments, a bill that centralizes power and weakens local accountability and proper oversight.

The stated intent of Bill M216 is to streamline development and approvals and reduce administrative costs. Don’t we all want that? Really good intentions here, but I believe and we believe misguided process.

For example, under section 2, this bill requires municipalities to accept any submission certified by a professional governed under the Professional Governance Act, unless that submission is incomplete or a complaint is filed with the superintendent of professional governance. In other words, local governments lose the ability to question or verify the work of those professionals unless they elevate a formal dispute to the provincial authority.

That is not efficiency; that’s centralization. It shifts the locus of decision-making away from the people who live and understand their communities, and it hands it to a small, centralized provincial office in Victoria.

Municipal councils are the most accountable level of government. They sit face to face with the residents affected by these projects. They understand the geography, the infrastructure, the heritage concerns and the local risk. They answer for those decisions in public meetings and at the ballot box. This bill cuts them out of the accountability chain. It takes local oversight, the essence of democracy in this case, and replaces it with bureaucratic attribution.

We often hear that red tape is strangling development, but Bill M216 doesn’t eliminate red tape. It simply moves it from the city, from the local governments and from city hall to a provincial cubicle somewhere in Victoria.

If a city disputes a professional submission, it cannot resolve the matter locally. It must refer it to the office of the superintendent of professional governance. That office currently has only eight staff and no new additional funding outlined in this bill.

[11:25 a.m.]

There is no defined timeline for dispute resolution. There is no cap on how many referrals it can handle. So rather than streamlining, we risk creating a bottleneck somewhere else up the food chain, most likely at the provincial level. That will delay applications far more than the existing local process, because now we’re holding it up for the whole province instead of just one city or one municipality. All the cities, all the municipalities in the province will be in line, waiting to take a number.

The bill confuses technical competence with democratic accountability. Professionals — engineers, geoscientists, architects and others — play a vital role in our communities, but they are not elected officials. They are often hired and paid by developers, not by the public. Their role is technical. The municipality’s role is fiduciary and democratic: to protect the public interest.

When professional sign-off becomes the final word, the public loses its safeguards. That’s why this bill represents an anti-democratic curtailment of the powers granted to the local government under the Local Government Act and the Community Charter, powers designed to ensure that public decisions remain in public hands.

Another concern is inconsistency. This bill applies only to schedule 1 professions under the Professional Governance Act — engineers, biologists, architects, etc. Yet planners, surveyors, environmental consultants and heritage experts, all vital to the development approvals, are excluded.

That creates a patchwork system where some professionals’ work cannot be questioned locally while others’ still can. It’s neither logical or even fair at this point. If professional reliance is to be the new standard, the government owes British Columbians an explanation for why it applies to some disciplines and not others.

The core issue is philosophical. Do we trust local governments, the elected representatives closest to the people, to make decisions for their own communities, or do we believe that those decisions should be dictated or second-guessed by a provincial office in Victoria? This bill reflects a growing pattern in the government’s approach, an impulse to centralize authority at the expense of local democracy.

We’ve seen it in the House, in energy permitting and in professional governance. Streamlining should not mean silencing local voices. True efficiency comes from empowering the people who know their communities best, not continually undermining them. Public confidence in development processes depends on transparency and accountability. If residents see that their city council has no real power to question a developer’s professional report, that trust erodes.

People will feel decisions are being made behind closed doors by professionals they have never voted for, overseen by a provincial office they cannot access. The results will not be faster housing or better outcomes. It will be greater public cynicism and less confidence in both the professionals and the permitting process.

It is one thing to sit here and critique bills like this, but it is another to offer solutions. Let me put forward three or four constructive recommendations to make this bill more effective without eroding democracy.

First, restore local review authority. Allow municipalities to continue performing peer reviews or technical verification of certified submissions. Professional sign-off should create a presumption of accuracy, not an unchallenged fact. Local government must retain the ability to request clarification or verification without triggering a formal provincial complaint.

Two, define some clear timelines and capacity for the superintendent. If the province office is to play a role in dispute resolution, it must have defined timelines for response — 30 days, not as resources allow; and it must be funded adequately, not left to an understaffed branch already stretched thin.

Three, the bill should either apply professional reliance consistent to all relevant disciplines or provide clear reasoning for exclusions. Otherwise, municipalities will face confusion in consistently applying a law. Where one law comes in to speed things up, other ones are left in place to slow things down, so it just doesn’t make sense.

Four, require transparency in developer-professional relationships. Mandate public disclosure of who hired and paid the professionals. Certify the submissions to protect against perceived conflicts of interest.

[11:30 a.m.]

These amendments would maintain professional accountability without undermining the democratic oversight of local authorities and crushing trust from those communities as well.

In closing, efficiency does matter. From this side of the House, we absolutely want to see things more efficient. We want things sped up. We want lower cost for everything. We want more homes built. We all want housing approvals to move faster. We all want red tape to be reduced. But speed cannot come at the cost of accountability.

Local governments are not the problem; they are partners in good governance. They are the eyes and boots on the ground of the public. Strip them of authority and you don’t speed up democracy; you hollow it out.

Bill M216, as it stands, moves us in the wrong direction. It takes decision-making out of the hands of locally elected councils and places it in the hands of distant administrators. It risks slowing down approvals rather than accelerating them. In so doing, it weakens the public trust.

I urge this House to amend this legislation to preserve local oversight, protect municipal autonomy and restore accountability to the people we serve, because in British Columbia, good governance is not just about being efficient. It’s about being accountable.

Jeremy Valeriote: As I understand it, the member brought forward this bill with the intention of streamlining home-building in British Columbia. I do admire the intent of the member.

In this second reading debate, I feel we must consider what damage has occurred under professional reliance.

Destruction of riparian areas.

Forest cutblocks far beyond what was supposed to be allowed under regulations.

Construction of forestry roads that have undermined water flows and slope stability.

A four-year battle in Shawnigan Lake that uncovered a profit-sharing scheme between the proponents and the qualified professionals and, I will note, brought the former Leader of the Third Party into this House. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sewell said that this example undermined the integrity of the Environmental Management Act.

Last but not least, professional reliance contributed to the Mount Polley mining disaster.

A review of the professional reliance scheme under the 2017 confidence and supply agreement found that professional reliance risks oversight and has particular implications for the environment and for Indigenous governments. The review made 121 recommendations, none of which are covered by this new piece of legislation.

The question that needs to be answered by this member and this government is: who is protecting the interests of the public when they hand more and more authority over to companies that are expected to serve the financial interests of their shareholders and can, in fact, be sued if they put too much emphasis on environmental or social responsibility?

Who is protecting the interests of the public? Under professional reliance, with the government’s role cast aside, that protection falls to individuals and communities that feel they have no choice but to step up and do the work of oversight and monitoring that the government no longer does.

Issues with the bill — and I will say that I will be listening to this second reading debate and deciding on how to vote, along with my colleague — are issues that would need to be raised either in committee or in discussion with the member.

First of all, lack of consultation. As far as we understand, this bill hasn’t gone through consultation with local governments or First Nations. This could happen during the committee stage, but that gives it only 30 days to occur, which would be a breach of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

There has also not been consultation with the industries affected. While the member is a lawyer and has incorporated the legal perspective, other industries, including engineers and planners, haven’t had the chance to have their views heard.

It’s unclear whether and how this bill will achieve the stated intent of lowering housing costs and getting more housing built. The impact of the local government checking process as a fraction of overall building costs is unclear.

I respect the member’s view that this will not lead to new bureaucracy. However, the way the legislation is written, asking the superintendent to referee disputes between PGA professionals, to me, sounds like it could be extremely onerous and expensive and require a lot of resources, with over 150 municipalities potentially sending these disputes to be refereed by the superintendent.

[11:35 a.m.]

Another piece, in section 7, is that professional liability for damages…. As a non-practising professional engineer, I don’t see this possibility of being held professionally liable as a huge disincentive for technical errors. The fact is this liability is rarely brought to accountability for professionals. As we’ve seen with Mount Polley, nobody’s gone to jail, and fines are minimal.

When it comes to disallowing peer reviews, I’ll just relate an example from my time on council in the town of Gibsons. We had a proposal for a large building that would have potentially done damage to the drinking water aquifer that supplies the entire town. We relied on peer review by professionals to protect against that eventuality, and it was absolutely essential to protecting one of the key natural assets of that community.

I’m having a bit of difficulty distinguishing between a peer review and a PGA professional employed by the local government. To me those are very similar things, so I’m not sure why we would disallow peer review when these local governments need to…. Smaller local governments just don’t have the resources, clearly, in-house to assess some of these projects, so they need to employ a professional to do that. How that’s different from peer review I need to understand.

Most professionals are technically competent and have all the right intentions. I would love to build in that trust. However, there are a few bad actors there, which is the reason for the need for regulation.

Because I support the intent, I would like to see if there’s a way to amend this bill to allow local governments to maintain some of that autonomy without slowing things down. It’s not clear to me that it is local governments that are necessarily the ones standing in the way of quicker construction of homes. But it is very difficult to support the removal of the ability of local governments to decide and referring it to a superintendent, as we said, sitting in Victoria, who doesn’t know local conditions.

In the case of Gibsons, technical understanding of the aquifer was absolutely key, and having it decided by a superintendent outside of the community was not feasible and may have produced an entirely different outcome.

As mentioned, I will continue to listen to perspectives. I have an open mind, but there are some serious concerns that both my colleague and I have with this bill. Thank you for the ability to comment.

Darlene Rotchford: I am pleased to rise in support of Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act. This legislation represents a thoughtful and necessary step toward strengthening local government capacity, accelerating housing approvals and restoring trust in the quality professionals who help the communities we all come from.

During my time in local government, one of the biggest issues facing people in my community was affordable housing. I worked with amazing local government colleagues trying to bring more affordable housing to the community, but as you can imagine, with some of the red tape there were some struggles.

Across British Columbia, the need for housing is urgent. Families are struggling to find a place that fits their budget. Young families are questioning whether they can stay in the communities where they grew up. Local governments are doing everything they can to respond, but too often they are constrained by outdated processes that slow projects down and drive up costs.

Currently municipalities are required to review the technical work of provincial licensed professionals, such as engineers, architects and others, before approving a housing project. This duplication adds weeks or months to the process without improving safety or outcomes.

Bill M216 provides a practical solution. It allows local governments to accept certified work from professionals who are already licensed, insured and accountable under the Professional Governance Act. These professionals remain fully responsible to their regulatory bodies — the Architectural Institute of British Columbia, Engineers and Geoscientists B.C. and others. Oversight remains strong, standards remain high, and accountabilities remain public.

This is not about deregulation or privatization. It’s about reducing a duplication, cutting unnecessary red tape and freeing local staff to work on what truly matters: planning complete, connected and affordable communities.

[11:40 a.m.]

For smaller municipalities, this change is particularly important. Many struggle to hire engineers or architects to review technical submissions, which delays projects and increases costs. Under this new framework, they can rely confidently on provincially certified professionals, saving both time and resources. The benefit will be felt by families and young peoples across the province.

Every month of delay adds to the financial cost of a home. By removing redundant steps, this legislation helps bring more homes to market sooner, making renting or owning more attainable for people who simply want to live in the place they love.

In Esquimalt-Colwood, growth is happening quickly. Our communities are vibrant and evolving, with projects that will help more families live closer to work, schools and amenities and make life here very special. But our local governments face the same challenges as many others — limited staff capacity, lengthy reviews and the pressure to deliver housing faster. The bill gives them a practical tool to do that while maintaining the high professional standards British Columbians expect.

I know that when people hear “streamlining,” they sometimes worry it means cutting corners. This bill does the opposite. It strengthens accountability. The issue we saw at RidgeView Place in Langford occurred under the existing system, where accountability was not clearly defined. Bill M216 makes it clear that when a professional seals their work, they and their regulatory bodies are responsible for its quality and its safety.

This legislation is ultimately about trust — trust in our professional systems, trust in local governments and trust in one another to build communities that work for everybody. It is also about belonging. When we make it easier to build, we make it easier for people to stay close to family, to plant roots and to build a future here in British Columbia.

Bill M216 reflects the values that guide this government’s approach to housing, collaboration, accountability and hope. It recognizes that by trusting skilled professionals and reducing duplication, we can deliver homes faster and more affordably for the people who need them most.

For these reasons, I am proud to support Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act.

Sheldon Clare: I rise today to voice strong opposition to Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act, introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Lantzville.

While this legislation is cloaked in the language of efficiency and cost reduction, it represents a dangerous erosion of local oversight, public accountability and the safeguards that protect our communities from unchecked development.

I urge this House to reject this bill outright or, at a minimum, subject it to rigorous amendments that prioritize the public interest over expediency.

As an academic, one of the critical elements in my profession is peer review. Peer review is an essential aspect of ensuring that when you produce something, it is subjected to a look by people who understand the subject matter, understand the discipline and are able to give a sober analysis of your work. It’s an essential part of becoming published and being subjected to a journaling process. To remove a peer review process, as this act does, is a mistake.

Now, let us first recognize the government’s purported aim: to streamline development approvals by mandating that local governments accept certifications from professionals under the Professional Governance Act. In theory, this reduces administrative burdens and speeds up projects. But in practice, this bill shifts critical decision-making away from elected local bodies and into the hands of private professionals, often retained by the developers themselves.

Section 2 compels attendance of these certifications unless they are incomplete or subject to a complaint, a threshold so low that it invites abuse and diminishes the role of community input and environmental assessments.

Consider the risks. We have seen the pitfalls of overreliance on professionals in sectors like mining and forestry, where lapses in judgment have led to disasters such as the Mount Polley tailings dam breach.

By prohibiting peer review without superintendent approval, under section 5, and shielding local governments from liability, in section 8, while placing it solely on the certifying professional, in section 7, this bill creates a system where accountability is diluted and recourse for affected citizens is limited.

Who will bear the cost when a flawed certification leads to flooding, habitat destruction or unsafe buildings? Not the developers, not the local governments but our communities, our environment and the taxpayers.

[11:45 a.m.]

Furthermore, this bill exposes homeowners to unacceptable long-term risks when defects emerge years after construction. If the certifying professional who signed off on the plans has retired, declared bankruptcy, relocated out of jurisdiction or is, for other reasons, somewhat unavailable for accountability and the city is no longer held responsible under the bill’s liability shields, who’s left holding the bag? Well, the answer is clear. It will be the homeowners.

In my own riding, there are many buildings built on unsuitable ground which has shifted because the slopes were said to be okay by professionals. The people living in those buildings have had to eat the losses they are going to suffer because, all of a sudden, they can’t sell their homes, some of them which cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I’ve knocked on the doors of these homes. I’ve seen these people, and they have looked at me with hope in their eyes that I could make sure that this never happens to anyone else. They relied on the word of professionals. They relied on government. They relied on all of this to protect them, and it has not happened.

People would be facing exorbitant repair costs, legal battles, limited recourse and the devaluation of their properties, all without the safety net of municipal oversight that has historically protected them from bad plans and shoddy work. This isn’t just a shift in responsibility. It’s an abandonment of ordinary British Columbians who have invested their life savings in homes that they expect to be safe and sound.

Moreover, this legislation undermines the autonomy of local governments, as affirmed in section 4’s hollow assurance that it does not limit zoning or planning powers. In reality, by forcing acceptance of private certifications, it handcuffs municipalities from exercising due diligence in development permit areas and official community plans.

This is not streamlining. It is sidelining the very entities closest to the people they serve. Efficiency must not come at the expense of safety, sustainability and democratic oversight. It must not come at the expense of people who have purchased and bought homes and found themselves holding a problem.

We can achieve faster approvals through targeted reforms, increased funding for planning staff, digital tools for review. Peer review is essential in all of this, and we don’t have to compromise projections.

Bill M216, as drafted, favours developers over British Columbians’ right to safe, livable communities. I find it incredibly ironic that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be pushing for big developers to be doing this and not looking after the interests of the ordinary people. I’m shocked.

Let us defeat this bill and commit to balanced legislation that truly serves the public good. The future of our province depends on it.

Amna Shah: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill M216. This is legislation that strengthens local government capacity. It accelerates housing approvals, and it reduces costs by trusting the qualified professionals who already build our communities under existing provincial regulations.

Across our province, we know that the need for housing is absolutely urgent. Whether you’re a young person trying to buy your first apartment, a family hoping to buy a home near their work or their school or even a senior that’s looking to downsize, the challenges are real, and the delays are very costly.

[11:50 a.m.]

Now, our government has been working hard to build homes for people in every corner of British Columbia, and this bill is one more tool to help those homes get built faster, more efficiently and at lower cost.

Under the current system, when a housing development is submitted to a municipality, the technical work — which is the engineering, the architectural design and environmental reports — is completed and sealed by professionals who are already licensed under the Professional Governance Act. These are engineers, architects, other experts who meet strict provincial standards, are insured and are accountable to their professional bodies.

Yet despite that professional certification, many municipalities are required to re-review that same technical work before granting that approval. That duplication doesn’t add safety; it adds delay. It does not add value; it adds cost. It slows down the delivery of homes that people desperately need in this province. I think that every member in this House has heard of development approval backlogs that can last months or even years.

These delays can have real financial consequences. We’re seeing the impacts of those financial consequences not just to the applicant but to our community. To our applicants, it has increased project costs. To our communities, it adds uncertainty — uncertainty that can really affect investment in our communities in the long run.

This bill addresses that duplication directly. If a professional that is certified under the Professional Governance Act seals their work, local governments will be able to accept it without performing a second technical peer review.

Now, let me be very clear. This does not remove accountability. The professional who seals that work is fully liable through their regulatory body, whether that’s the Architectural Institute of British Columbia, the Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. or another oversight authority. Local government still has the power to question and to challenge their professional work, now with greater assurance that every expert that is involved meets uniform and enforceable standards. I understand the concern, and I’m happy to discuss this a little bit further.

Now, if there’s ever a dispute between professionals, it can be referred to the office of the superintendent of professional governance. This ensures that accountability and oversight remain strong, remain transparent. At the same time, the municipalities can retain full control over what matters most, and that’s local planning, local zoning, design guidelines, policy decisions.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This legislation simply streamlines the technical approval process so that qualified professionals can do their work efficiently and municipal staff can focus on higher-value tasks that include long-term planning, community-building, policy development, building complete, sustainable communities that all of us here want to see.

The benefits of the approach in this bill are quite clear. What that means in the grand scheme of things is that for young people, there will be more homes coming to market sooner, homes that are more affordable to rent or to buy. For families, it means that there’s a better chance to find or to own a home in the community that they love. For local governments, it means there’s less red tape, more staff capacity, reduced administrative costs. For taxpayers, it means savings, savings on staff duplication and lower development costs that ultimately make housing more affordable.

[11:55 a.m.]

I know that there are questions about oversight and safety, and those are fair questions. But let me be absolutely clear. This bill does not weaken or lower standards, and professionals remain regulated, insured and accountable. Therefore, when a professional seals their work, they are fully liable and accountable through their professional body.

If a professional were to sign off on substandard work, they would face disciplinary action from their regulatory body, including the loss of their professional designation. I heard a concern that this may disincentivize those from performing this type of technical work. I think there is a very strong responsibility on these professionals. I know that the majority of them do their work very diligently.

Really, given that there are standards that would be adhered to, I would love to discuss this further with the member, and I know the member who introduced the bill would as well. But I cannot overstress the importance of that responsibility and that I remain confident that professionals take that responsibility quite seriously.

Noting the hour, I reserve my time to the next sitting and move adjournment.

Amna Shah moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Terry Yung moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Contents