Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld: It’s not often that my wife, Cynthia, is able to come to the chamber. She’ll be here all week. She is one of the best gifts ever given to me. She continues to inspire, challenge and support me through life’s journey.

I’d like everyone to make Cynthia feel welcome.

Hon. Randene Neill: It is my absolute pleasure, and I see the gang up there, to welcome some folks from the B.C. Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition. They are true lovers who get outdoors and teach us what it means to take care of nature. When you fall in love with something, you want to take care of it.

A big thank you to Jesse Zeman, Kyle Stelter, Tim Burkhart, Evan Holmgren, Gerry Paille, Kathy MacRae, Kristen Walters, Mollie Cameron, Carilia Horning, Dean Werk and Aaron Hill. Thank you so much.

Please, let’s give them a warm welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I was supposed to have four guests on the precinct today, but two of them were turned around in Calgary in a blizzard, and they’ll be spending the next 12 hours in the airport. Nevertheless, my son, Luke, and my lovely wife, Diana, were able to make the trip.

I’m hoping the House can please make them feel very welcome here today.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Today I want to welcome some members of our ICBC team who are joining us in the gallery today. We have Andrew Brooke, Alyson Rondeau, Rob Termuende, Thuy Pham, Tom Hancock and Jeremy Wood.

Please make them feel welcome.

Lorne Doerkson: I’m proud to make introductions today of two amazing women. They’re well known to this House, of course.

Donna Barnett, who is here on our chamber floor this afternoon, is a three-term MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin. She has been a past mayor and is a current district councillor for the city of 100 Mile, of course.

Up above us here we have Mayor Pinkney. She has been involved in political situations in 100 Mile House since 2002.

Together they are an absolutely unstoppable force. They are here today. We’ve had meetings with the Premier and with six other ministries. It has been a very busy morning. They are fierce advocates for everything 100 Mile and everything South Cariboo.

Please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

Dave Gantzer

Hon. Lana Popham: Today I’d just like to share some news. We will be saying goodbye to someone who has spent 16 years protecting us in the Legislature as members, part of the incredible protective services team.

We’ll be losing Dave Gantzer two Fridays from now. This is the last day that he’ll be here on a sitting day, so if anybody wants to take a moment to say goodbye to him in the halls, please do. He’s got two more Fridays, but I know most of us won’t be here.

Dave has been an incredible person that has been part of our lives. He started probably around the same time that I started, so I feel like he’s a fixture here. I’m going to miss him a lot. He’s always got a great smile. You always feel like he’s wanting to engage in conversation and share things about his life with you, which has been really special.

I know from other members, because they’ve told me, that he is an avid reader, and I’ve heard many of his cycling adventure stories.

We just want to really wish Dave all the best in his retirement.

I hope there are a lot of books and a lot of bikes in your future. Thanks for everything you’ve done for us.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare: On the precinct today visiting me were Mark and Carla Christy. Mark and Carla are old friends of mine who lived in Prince George for many years, then moved down to Duncan and Victoria and now live in Camrose, Alberta. They came out to have lunch with me in the dining room.

Mark is one of my mentors in my piping career. He was my pipe major in the Prince George Pipes and Drums for many years. He’s a grade 1 player, one of the best players I know.

If you happen to run into them, and I’m sure they’ll be around the precinct, please make them most welcome, regardless of how you feel about bagpipes.

Susie Chant: Joining us in the Speaker’s gallery this afternoon is His Excellency Wang Di, the ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to Canada. He is joined by embassy staff Mr. Li Zhongzhou and Mr. Xiong Chaoqiang. His Excellency is here on his first official visit to British Columbia.

Would this House please make them feel most welcome.

Heather Maahs: I would like to take this opportunity to wish my daughter a very happy birthday. November is a busy month in my family, and I’m just happy that I can wish my daughter, Laura, a happy birthday on this day.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’m so pleased to rise to introduce two friends in the gallery today, Silvia Vajushi and Doug Darwish, who are from the constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake.

They now live in the capital, but in Alberta, they were leaders working with the government of Alberta — in the area, for Silvia, of mental health and addiction services and early childhood intervention. Doug advocated and supported people with disabilities in the Premier’s Council in Alberta.

I’m so pleased that they now call Victoria home and that they are valued volunteers and members of the riding association in Victoria–Swan Lake.

Will the House please join me in helping me introduce and make Silvia and Doug feel very welcome.

Bruce Banman: Today it seems to be “bring your spouse to work week,” so I would love to introduce my wife, Sharon. I know I can speak on behalf of the member for Abbotsford West that if his spouse and my spouse get together, probably no good coming for either one of us on this. But they are the driving force behind us.

Would the House please make Sharon feel very, very welcome.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I, too, would like to join the competition for best spouse joining us in the House today.

My favourite constituent and love of my life, Brian, is here. Brian is having his very first week of paid vacation in probably over 25 years, and he has decided to use that time to come and spend it here in question period. If that isn’t love, I really don’t know what is.

Thank you.

Would everybody please make him feel welcome.

Gavin Dew: I had the pleasure of meeting earlier today with Roz Seyednejad and Rahim Karmali from SenseNet, a B.C.-based company that uses smart sensors and AI to detect wildfires early and stop them before they get out of hand.

For folks like me in the Okanagan, that’s a very important area of concern. We actually produce two to three times the emissions from wildfire smoke each year as we do from the entirety of human and industrial civilization, and we spend nine times as much fighting wildfires as we do preventing them.

I know that SenseNet is meeting tomorrow with the Minister of Forests, and I hope they will be well received.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to welcome to this precinct today the Alliance of B.C. Students and the Alma Mater Society of UBC.

The Alliance of B.C. Students is a coalition of three different student associations across British Columbia that advocate at the provincial level for accessible and affordable post-secondary education in B.C. Collectively, they represent over tens of thousands of students, undergrads and graduate students, and they exist to advocate for the rights and interests of students across B.C.

Many of the members of their student societies are here as well. I had the opportunity to meet with them earlier today and really appreciate all the advocacy that they do.

If the House would please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. Anne Kang: I would like to introduce my amazing comms team in the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. As you can see, these amazing, strong and passionate women work very hard to make sure that we have good communication to the people of British Columbia on what we are doing in our ministry.

I would like to introduce Jill Nessel, Hope Latham, Celine Beckner, Cathy Cui and Rachel Nesbitt.

Would the House please make my team feel very welcome.

Gavin Dew: I’d like to join the minister in welcoming the students that are seated up in the gallery today.

I want to let you know that 20 years ago I was seated up in the gallery as you are, and now myself and others who started their political involvement in student leadership are sitting on this floor down here.

So as I welcome you, I also want to let you know that one of you, some of you, maybe many of you will one day end up sitting in this House. I would encourage you to build on the work you’re doing today and to think about your opportunities for future service.

Thank you for being here today.

Darlene Rotchford: I have two fabulous women joining me in the House today. I was lucky enough to not just be elected at the same time as them but to spend time with them on one of my councils.

[1:45 p.m.]

I hope the House will join me in making feel most welcome Carrie Smart, councillor from the district of Oak Bay, and Andrea Boardman from the township of Esquimalt.

As many people on both sides of this House talk about the importance of local government, electing good, strong women is a really key part of that as well.

Please join me in welcoming them.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I’d like to wish my sister, who is one year younger than me…. I will not say how old she is, because everybody will know. She is a housekeeper at the Cowichan District Hospital. So often the unsung heroes of our workplace, cleaning professionals, carry out one of the most vital and demanding responsibilities, keeping our spaces clean and safe.

I just wanted to wish her a happy birthday for yesterday, November 23.

She is loved very widely in our community.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I spy with my little eye the mayor of Clearwater sitting in the gallery today. I want to take this opportunity to welcome Merlin Blackwell to the House, thank him for being here and thank him for being such a fierce champion of his community.

As a former mayor, we worked closely together back in those days, and I still really value his advice. It’s really great to see him in the House today.

Would everybody please make him feel very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Mental Health
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Hon. Josie Osborne presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I move that the Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, be introduced and read a first time.

I am pleased to introduce this bill to amend the Mental Health Act.

This act proposes to repeal section 31(1) of the Mental Health Act, sometimes referred to as the “deemed consent” provision, and replace it with a liability shield that is more explicit, robust and consistent with similar protections within the Mental Health Act and in other similar legislation.

This amendment does not defeat the constitutional claim that is currently before the court. It does provide clarity in the operation of the Mental Health Act and confirms that doctors, nurses and others cannot be liable in damages for providing treatment to patients, including those providing involuntary treatment that has been authorized by the director of a mental health facility in good faith and in reasonable care.

We are also proposing a related minor amendment to section 31(2) of the act. This subsection allows involuntary patients to request second opinions regarding their treatment. The section includes a cross-reference to section 31(1), and since we propose that subsection be repealed, it updates the language in section 31(2). This is necessary so the provision can operate as intended.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I move that Bill 32 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M224 — Insurance (Vehicle)
Amendment Act, 2025

Sheldon Clare presented a bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2025.

Sheldon Clare: I move that a bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2025, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill is very simple. It’s to make the act consistent with the federal definition of a catastrophic injury. What this would do is extend the time period within which an individual can make a claim for benefits in respect of a catastrophic injury, and it would reduce the number of amputations for an insured to sustain a catastrophic injury from two to one or more.

That is basically it, and I look forward to working with all members of the House to ensure that this bill receives swift passage and all due consideration.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[1:50 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Butterfly Support Network

Janet Routledge: I rise to honour the vital work of the Butterfly Support Network, a registered non-profit that provides integrated support, resources and community for families navigating pregnancy loss, infant loss and infertility.

These experiences are far more common than we may realize. One in four pregnancies end in loss, and one in six couples will navigate fertility challenges every year in B.C. There are more than 16,000 pregnancy losses, including miscarriage, termination for medical reasons, stillbirth and infant loss. These losses have a profound impact not only on the birthing person but also on their partners and the wider family unit. Yet far too many face these devastating losses in silence and alone.

The Butterfly Support Network helps to fill this critical gap.

Since its inception in 2019, it has supported nearly 10,000 people who have faced infertility or perinatal loss. In 2025 alone, more than 1,600 have already accessed their programs and services, which are offered at no cost and include professional counselling, support groups, peer support, memory boxes and essential resources for hospitals and emergency departments. These free services are made possible through the generosity of community fundraising, including the annual Butterfly Memorial Run, and peer-driven fundraising across the province.

At the heart of this organization is a network of more than 50 volunteers with lived experience of grief, pregnancy loss or infertility. Their compassion, courage and dedication ensure that families in every corner of our province have access to understanding, community and connection when they need it most.

Please join me in thanking the Butterfly Support Network for the life-changing work they do to support grieving families.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Clubs
in Boundary-Similkameen Area

Donegal Wilson: I rise today to recognize the seven incredible fish and wildlife conservation clubs that serve the Boundary-Similkameen. They represent decades of volunteerism, passion and a deep commitment to the land.

Across my region, these clubs rebuild spawning channels, maintain shooting ranges that support safe firearm training, assist with wildlife surveys, partner with ranchers and landowners to improve habitat and teach new hunters and anglers the value of conservation and respect for the land. Many of the next generation of outdoors people, including future conservation officers and biologists, got their start through programs by these clubs.

A recent example of their leadership comes from this fall in Grand Forks, where nearly 100 white-tailed deer died from epizootic hemorrhagic disease.

In the face of fear, confusion and a growing public concern, the Grand Forks Wildlife Association stepped up. Volunteers contacted regional biologists, escalated the issues to my office and the ministry, handled media inquiries, secured a proper disposal location and communicated accurate information to the public. They helped ensure a coordinated, science-based response at a time when many communities would have been left struggling.

This was not their job, but they did it because they cared deeply about wildlife, their community and the health of our ecosystems in B.C. They did it while balancing work, family and the demands of everyday life.

This is the spirit of volunteerism in these groups. These clubs demonstrate every day that conservation is not about closing the outdoors to people. It is about engaging people in protecting it. Their members invest thousands of volunteer hours to ensure future generations have the same opportunities that shaped so many of us growing up in B.C.

Thank you to every volunteer who gives their time, expertise and passion to this work. You are strengthening rural communities, protecting our natural resources and preserving a uniquely British Columbia way of life.

[1:55 p.m.]

South Vancouver Family Place

George Chow: I would like to speak to the important work of community organizations in our province, like the South Vancouver Family Place in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview.

The South Vancouver Family Place was established in 1975 with the objective to help families with young children to build healthy relationships and community networks by providing services and programs in a welcoming, nurturing, stimulating and respectful environment. Since the 1990s, South Vancouver has undergone rapid growth and continues to develop as a multicultural, multilingual community with a large number of immigrant families.

Some of the programs and services being offered are the family drop-in program, which is a parent-child interactive program for families with kids to age five; the parenting education program, which is designed to help parents strengthen their parenting skills and improve their relationship with their children; and the Kids Care Preschool, which provides licensed preschool programs for children three to five years old and strives to create an environment that supports a child’s development, positive learning and effective social skills to prepare the children for a healthy transition to kindergarten.

In 1999, due to growing demand by Chinese immigrants, a bilingual program with Chinese and English was set up to complement the existing English program for Kids Care Preschool. South Vancouver Family Place also partners with others to administer the early childhood education certificate program to help train child care workers that are so much in demand.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the staff and volunteers of the South Vancouver Family Place for all their good work in the community.

George Winston Peary

Korky Neufeld: Today I want to remember and celebrate the remarkable life of George Winston Peary — born October 30, 1940; passed on September 29, 2025; a man whose wisdom, humility and generosity shaped not only Abbotsford but the hearts of everyone he knew.

George was many things. He was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, educator, mentor, friend and leader. He lived a life of purpose guided by a deep sense of service and unwavering belief in community. Whether in the classroom or at city hall or on the curling rink, George led by example, always with humour, compassion and integrity.

From humble beginnings in Brandon, Manitoba, George rose to become one of Abbotsford’s most respected educators and civic leaders. His vision for education transformed opportunities for countless students, most notably through the creation of the career technical centre, a model that continues to inspire high school students into trade skills training across British Columbia.

As a councillor and later as mayor, George devoted himself to building a stronger, kinder community, one rooted in respect, inclusion and shared purpose. He tirelessly advocated for the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre until it became a reality in 2008. He gave of his life freely, served on countless boards and organizations, never seeking recognition but always making a difference.

George’s legacy is found in the lives he touched, in the students he inspired, the colleagues he mentored, the friends he encouraged and the family he loved beyond measure. His laughter, wisdom and quiet strength will echo through our community for generations to come.

In the words of his namesake, Winston Churchill: “To each there comes in their lifetime a special moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing. What a tragedy if that moment finds them unprepared.” George was ready for every moment life offered. He met each one with courage, grace and heart.

Rest well, George Winston Peary. You gave your finest hour, again and again, for all of us.

Holidays and Importance of
Family and Community Connection

Darlene Rotchford: As we enter the holiday season, I want to take a moment to reflect on what this time of year truly means.

For me, the holidays have always held a special place in my heart. I lost my mom when I was very young, but every December I feel her presence a little closer. The traditions we shared — the lights, the music, the simple joy of being together — are gifts that I now have the privilege of passing on to my little girls.

[2:00 p.m.]

This year is especially meaningful as we grow our families and we celebrate our first holiday with baby Jo.

But the holidays are not just about celebration. They’re about community, about making room at our tables, opening our doors and extending kindness to those who may be struggling or spending the holidays alone.

When I first moved to British Columbia, I had no family close. Some of my most cherished memories came from what we now fondly call our “misfit Christmas,” spent with people who welcomed me, and I welcomed them without hesitation. That sense of belonging is something I think we can all offer to each other.

As the B.C. government’s military liaison, I also want to especially acknowledge our CAF members who will spend the holidays away from their loved ones, whether deployed overseas or supporting critical operations here at home. Their service, their sacrifice and the sacrifices made by their families do not go unnoticed. I encourage British Columbians to keep them in their hearts, to send a holiday card if they can, through their MFRC, and to extend support to military families within your communities.

Also, remember those working through the holidays to keep us safe — our health care workers, our first responders and our essential service providers. A small gesture of appreciation could mean more than we may ever realize to those people.

It would be shameful if I didn’t put in a plug about this upcoming Friday. I will be joining my family and, I hope, some others who have theirs at this Legislative Assembly for our annual Christmas light up, a tradition that reminds us of the warmth and light we can bring to one another.

I hope all British Columbians can find moments of joy, connection and generosity in the weeks ahead.

To everyone across the province, to everyone on the chamber floor and to the people of Esquimalt-Colwood, I wish you all a safe, peaceful and happy holiday season ahead.

Extortion Crime Networks and
Importance of Community Safety

Bruce Banman: I stand here today to mourn the loss of feeling safe in our own homes and our communities. I mourn the loss of our innocence.

British Columbia is facing an unprecedented extortion crisis. Daily violent attacks by extortion terrorists show the fact that our province has lost its way. Communities like Abbotsford and Surrey now find themselves among the most dangerous places in Canada due to regular, unprecedented extortion violence. Residents tell me they no longer recognize their own province or their community, and I share that feeling.

B.C. was once known for having some of the safest neighbourhoods in the world. Today attacks, shootings, gang warfare, drugs and acts of random violence have made our streets virtually unrecognizable. We must ask ourselves: where did we go wrong? What happened to our great province built on trust, safety, community and respect for each other? How do we return to the time when families could leave their doors unlocked, children could walk to school alone, kids could play outside without fear and people felt safe?

This is not nostalgia. It’s remembering the high standard of safety and quality of life once enjoyed by all British Columbians. It’s not only lifelong residents who see this change. Newcomers, some who have been here for as little as eight years, tell me they have watched this decline occur in real time. The erosion of safety and community that once defined our province is, tragically, now an undeniable fact.

I urge this House to acknowledge this sad reality. I mourn what we’ve lost, but I refuse to accept this as inevitable, as the new normal. This means choosing safety over disorder rather than letting British Columbians continue to live in fear and uncertainty.

I urge all members to put aside political ideologies and work together to bring back safe neighbourhoods for the hard-working people of our great province.

They deserve no less from us.

Oral Questions

Government Handling of Land Title
Cases and Property Rights

John Rustad: Well, it was August 11 when this government said they were going to file a stay in the Cowichan case. It was October 29 when they repeated that claim that they were going to file a stay.

Here we are now. Four months have gone by since the Cowichan case, and there has been no action. A stay has not been filed. The Premier has been caught, quite frankly, with his pants down, telling the public one thing but not following through with it.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, after four months, I have a simple question for the Premier. Why did this Premier tell British Columbians that he was going to be filing a stay in this court case when nothing has actually been filed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have been hard at work since the decision came out. Not only did we very quickly announce the stay application that we’d be pursuing along with the appeal; we’ve been meeting on the ground with affected landowners and collecting their stories, which is part of the work that will feed into our stay application.

It’s our number one priority. There is no deadline for a stay application.

In terms of the importance that we place on this, we’re going to be focused on the work we need to do to file that application, work with all parties involved and stand up for the private property owners that we are engaging with right now.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

John Rustad: I find it interesting that the member opposite says they’re working with the private property owners to put in a stay application.

Here’s a novel idea. Six years ago, when this case came forward, why didn’t you engage the private property owners then? Private property owners have been left in the cold until suddenly a decision was made in August, after six years. Now they’ve made a decision that they want to work with private property owners. I think it’s good that they do, but here’s an idea for you. Here’s an idea for this government.

Why doesn’t this government actually ask to reopen this case and allow private property owners to go forward and put their case forward to protect their own rights? Clearly this government is not doing the job of protecting private property rights.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We made strong arguments at the trial level to protect private property rights, to stand up for our Land Title Act, to make sure that those interests were protected.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We were also one of the parties that went before the judge to make an application, to say that we thought that the private property owners should be notified about what was happening at that time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We were the ones that brought that forward, and the court said at that stage that they didn’t foresee any impacts to the private property owners, and that’s why notification wasn’t there. They clearly got that wrong, and that is why we announced an appeal and a stay, that we would be pursuing the evidence…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma: … to put before the court to make sure that they saw that, in our view, that was an error. We’ll continue to stand up for those rights and work forward towards a resolution.

Stakeholder Consultation on
Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Scott McInnis: Opposition to the proposed Heritage Conservation Act amendments is coming from every corner of the province. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Business Council of B.C., the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the B.C. Real Estate Association and the Association for Mineral Exploration are just a few in a long, growing list.

They all say the same thing. No meaningful consultation has taken place. Permitting will be much slower. Investor confidence is collapsing. This is nothing more than an ideological push to align the act with DRIPA instead of instituting meaningful policy.

To the Premier, besides a handful of First Nations who helped co-draft these amendments under NDAs, is there anybody left in the province who actually supports these changes?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the opportunity to be able to speak.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Do you want to get up and ask a question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The loudmouth from Abbotsford always has something to say. But let’s….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. The question was asked, and the….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. The question was asked. The minister is trying to answer now. Please.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Trying indeed, Mr. Speaker.

The Heritage Conservation Act is a very important piece of legislation that, on this side of the House, we’ve been doing an awful lot of engagement on, not just for the past number of months but for the past number of years.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’ve led a comprehensive engagement that has allowed local government leaders and industry leaders to provide their feedback. There has been no draft legislation to date. We are continuing to hear what people….

I had an opportunity to be able to meet with the Minister of Local Governments and the president of UBCM on Friday, where we had an opportunity to talk about their submission. I’m looking forward to the continued engagement.

But I would remind the member opposite that we’re talking about people’s heritage. We’re talking about First Nations artifacts. So I hope that, as part of this discussion, there can be some respect given to this.

I hope, as part of this discussion, we can talk about speeding up permitting, can talk about ensuring that we’re protecting communities, like Lytton, that have gone through so many challenges with their rebuild, and at the same time, we can respect First Nations shared decision-making in aligning this with DRIPA.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: Well, I think respecting the opposition of just about every business association, local government leadership group and everybody else would be kind of a constructive start to this.

These changes aren’t about…. These changes have nothing to do with speeding up permitting. Even the Business Council of B.C., which represents most of the business organizations in this province, has said that the HCA amendments “shift power dramatically from elected governments to a shared model with limited transparency.”

In 2019, this government promised DRIPA would be interpreted consistently with section 35 of the Constitution Act. Clearly, they’ve abandoned that promise entirely.

Will the Premier do the right thing, listen to British Columbians and pull this Land Act on steroids off the table once and for all?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: There is no draft legislation. We’re engaging with British Columbians. We have had thousands of submissions. We’ve had people participating in surveys.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities sent in their submission. I spent this weekend reading their comprehensive document. In fact, they support 26 of our proposals that we’re giving consideration to.

The engagement doesn’t stop here.

I want to ensure that when we bring forward legislation, we bring forward legislation that speeds up permits, that respects First Nations, that ensures that communities that face wildfire challenges and a whole host of other things, like floods, can rebuild faster. I’ve been very clear, as has this side of the House, what we want to accomplish.

It is a shame that the members opposite are standing away from this legislation and, I would say, showing a level of disrespect.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would say, member opposite, what’s shameful is the level of disrespect that the members opposite are showing to First Nations and their artifacts and their heritage. That’s what’s disrespectful.

What I would say is that we are focused on, on this side of the House, building British Columbia.

The members opposite are opposed to every major project in British Columbia. They’ll champion a project from Alberta. They won’t champion projects from B.C. We will modernize the Heritage Conservation Act in a way that meets the needs of British Columbians.

Health and Environmental Impacts
of LNG Projects and Fracking

Jeremy Valeriote: Last week I asked this government to study the health impacts of the fossil gas industry in B.C. The Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions assured this House that the analysis had already been done. He referenced a 2018 report on fracking in B.C., but the minister will know that that report did not include an examination of the public health implications of fracking in the northeast of our province.

Thanks to relentless lobbying by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and others, we still don’t have a comprehensive, cumulative and independent health impact assessment of LNG and fracking.

We can use data from the rest of North America to piece the picture together, and the results are clear. Fracking methane out of the earth harms human health, increasing pressure and costs to our health care system, social programs and infrastructure.

My question is to the Minister of Health. When will her ministry step up and conduct the research that wasn’t done in 2018?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As noted to the member last week, the government instituted a fundamental review of hydraulic fracturing in B.C., which came with recommendations — recommendations that were broadly implemented, that have had a significant effect. As the member will know, there has been significant progress with respect to emissions in the oil and gas industry in a general sense, especially around methane emissions, a 51 percent reduction from 2015. And this work continues.

[2:15 p.m.]

He’ll also know that in environmental assessment processes in B.C., including recent ones with respect to Ksi Lisims and other projects, these issues have been comprehensively raised, and they are in those processes.

I disagree with the characterization of the member. I would say that always, in our regulation, especially of water and of human health, is at the forefront of that regulation, whether it’s done by ministries of the government or by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: As we anticipate the results of the CleanBC update review, I like to anticipate the rehearsed lines we hear from this government defending its gamble on LNG, climate be darned.

They cite the handful of First Nations who’ve partnered on these projects, forgetting to mention the many First Nations who oppose them due to economic, social and environmental harms. Every dollar invested in LNG is a dollar that could propel us into the inevitable clean energy transition, creating more jobs per dollar spent than on polluting fossil fuels.

This government loves to say that B.C.’s LNG is the cleanest in the world. Call it what you want. Clean poison is still poison. B.C. LNG burned elsewhere will blast megatons of climate bomb into our global atmosphere. It doesn’t recognize national boundaries.

My question is for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. Minister, which fossil fuel lobby group hired the marketing genius who dreamed up the “cleanest LNG in the world” fiction?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it’s reasonable for the member to oppose projects in British Columbia, including ones led by First Nations such as Cedar LNG, led by the Haisla; or Ksi Lisims LNG, led by the Nisg̱a’a First Nation. That’s reasonable. He can disagree with the Haisla, and he can disagree with the Nisg̱a’a.

What he can’t disagree with is the Cedar LNG project will have the lowest-emission LNG in the world. That isn’t an issue of opinion. That is an issue of fact.

We’re going to continue to do what we’ve done from the beginning, which is to ensure a fair return on B.C.’s resources, that communities are protected, that we address climate commitments, that we respect First Nations and that we ensure that British Columbians and Canadians work on major projects in our province. In this area, we have continued to meet those commitments, and we’re going to continue to do so.

Government Handling of Land Title
Cases and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie: Eighty-five out of 93 members in this House own residential properties. This is according to public disclosures. I have the list, and I’m going to be publishing it later today.

The government and official opposition both believe that the lands of B.C. were stolen, and that’s why they voted down our bill to get rid of land acknowledgements. If they want to give back stolen lands, today is their chance.

My question is: which member will be the change that they want to see in this world by being the first to transfer the title of their own property over to a local Indigenous tribe?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It seems that the member opposite is in a spirit of generosity. I understand she herself has a large home in the…. No, not the Downtown Eastside. No, it’s a tonier place. It’s West Point Grey….

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: She doesn’t own a home? Okay.

You know, I think in the end…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …the member over there is going to try and sow discord, disunity, put neighbour against neighbour, pit member against member.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the rest of this House just want to be doing things like improving health care, fighting crime, making sure that our neighbourhoods are stronger, that people have jobs. If members opposite don’t agree, I thought that’s what they wanted to do too. Certainly we on this side of the House are focused on those efforts.

Let me just be clear yet again. I know some members have heard us say it, but it never…. It goes in one ear, goes out the other. Private property in this province is protected. If a nation wants to purchase it, the person who owns it needs to sell it, if they want to sell it. If they don’t, then they don’t have to sell it. It’s the way that our system works in B.C.

We’re working in terms of reconciliation with First Nations to acknowledge that there was harm. I do think sexual violence, I do think racism, I do think gunboats blowing up people’s villages, I do think residential schools where you were told you can’t speak your language or you’d be abused, be hit, might not even get to go home to your families…. I do think that is violence. I do think that is harm. And I do think, sadly, that is true.

[2:20 p.m.]

That did happen in this province through laws that were passed in this building. We have a better job that we can do together, but it’s not through spreading hate and division. It’s through uniting and looking each other in the eyes, as neighbours, as friends, as co-workers….

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Members, as the Chair has done in the past, I will remind members that questions must pertain to the ministerial responsibility.

Member, do you have a different question?

Dallas Brodie: First of all, in response to that, it’s actually counsel for the Cowichan Nation who made a comment to the media that said that, actually, homeowners in Richmond now have to seek approval of the Cowichan band to sell their properties: “So don’t tell me that private property has not been impacted by this decision. That’s a complete falsehood.”

Mr. Speaker, let me sweeten the deal. I’ll pay for the conveyancing fees. I’ll retain a lawyer. I’ll even bring them to the House, whatever it takes. We can draw up the papers this afternoon, and they can transfer title to the tribe of their choice. Wouldn’t that be nice? I’m sure all the members of this House will recognize their leadership with a round of applause.

My question is: who will be the first to give their own land back? I’m including the member who just answered this question, who owns a property in a tony neighbourhood of Vancouver called the West End.

The Speaker: Member, again, as I reminded you earlier, the question must be pertaining to the ministerial responsibility.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. No, the Chair has heard you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, that’s fine. The Chair has heard you.

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I’ve already said, we’re in court right now and will be in court again to defend the property rights of British Columbians across this province. What we won’t be doing is standing up in places like this, where we respect and honour the history and traditions of the peoples of this province, and condemning them through racist comments and splitting people apart.

We have really complicated problems to solve in this province, and we’ll do it by sitting at a table together, bringing people together to solve those problems so that we can move forward in a way that honours everybody’s history and all their rights.

That’s the work we’re going to continue to do on this side.

Drug Decriminalization Program
and Substance Use Policies

Claire Rattée: In Cowichan, 80 overdoses in 24 hours have turned into an unprecedented crisis. Shelters ran out of naloxone, paramedics were overwhelmed, and people were collapsing one after another. Outreach workers called it terrifying and hell on wheels, and the community is traumatized.

The Premier admitted that decriminalization was a failed experiment, yet this government still refuses to reverse course, even as drugs flood into communities and as treatment and recovery resources are scarce and underfunded.

When will the NDP learn that the problem isn’t running out of naloxone; it’s normalizing the use of dangerous drugs?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

What has taken place in Cowichan is a terrible set of circumstances, and I know that everybody has been thinking about that.

Naloxone is life-saving equipment and should be part of anybody’s first-aid kit, literally. That’s how important this is, and we will continue our work. I have asked Island Health to look directly into this and understand the situation at hand with respect to naloxone.

With respect to decriminalization, I want to be very, very clear. Using illicit drugs is illegal, and our government has taken a very firm stance on this. At the same time, there are very restricted circumstances under which people are permitted to possess a small amount of illicit drugs, as one of a suite of strategies to reduce the harms and separate people from the illicit drug supply.

We remain focused on building out the entire continuum, the entire spectrum of mental health and substance use supports, to help people suffering from substance use disorder to remove themselves from the dangerous impacts of the illicit drug supply and to be able to pursue treatment and recovery. That is the work of this government.

We have invested millions of dollars into this. We will continue to expand these services to help people.

[2:25 p.m.]

Waste Dumping Site on
Cowichan Tribes Land and
Protection of Water Sources

Sheldon Clare: The government still has not revealed when it became aware of hazardous leachates threatening the Cowichan watershed.

Can the minister state that Cowichan’s drinking water and aquifer are safe and will continue to be so, yes or no?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We’ve heard people’s concerns about this site, and we are taking action.

In 2021, the newly created integrated environmental enforcement unit led an investigation. We have a range of tools to make sure that the environment is protected, like pollution abatement and prevention orders.

I met with the member opposite on Thursday. He did not provide me with the information that he had, and I did verify with him about the reports that we received. He’s still refusing to give me this information.

On this side of the House, we want to collaborate. We want to work with the federal government, the Cowichan Tribes…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: …to try to resolve this issue as best as we can, and I would welcome any information that the member would like to bring forward.

Elkford Power Outages and
Management of Power Supply

Pete Davis: Elkford has had 28 power outages this year — 28 — some lasting six hours or more. Families can’t stay warm, kids are left in the dark, and businesses lose revenue.

With another harsh Kootenay winter coming, my constituents are at serious risk. Residents could freeze in minus-30-degree conditions without power. I’ve reached out to the minister’s office, and I’ve received no response. I am sure the minister would not want to sit through a six-hour outage in the freezing cold, and neither do my constituents.

Will the minister explain why this government has done nothing to fix these outages that are putting my constituents at risk?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member spoke to me about this last week, and I said I was absolutely willing to meet with him, and I will. I’m not sure why…. I know he said this comment in the media, and I guess it sounds good, but it’s not true.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: With respect, a letter was sent to the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro and myself in early November. The member was informed, for example, that B.C. Hydro is conducting a significant review, an urgent review.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, I do, of course.

The Speaker: Member. No cross-talk, please.

Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The president of B.C. Hydro responded to a letter that was jointly sent to the president of B.C. Hydro and myself. The letter detailed the last three…. Since September, there have been three outages. One was caused by trees falling on a transmission line. Since September….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The hon. member wants to have a debate across the floor and is not interested in the information that he has been provided in detail by B.C. Hydro, but maybe the House would be interested if he is not.

The second involved an incident at a mine site that affected the Elkford area. The third involved a substation issue which required people to come from Cranbrook to fix.

B.C. Hydro is working and has reported on each and every incident to local people in Elkford. We are obviously concerned and doing work on the issue. But the three cases I described, three different circumstances that led to outages, demonstrate that we may not be facing entirely a systemic problem here.

The review is taking place. The member will be informed as soon as it is done, and I am prepared to meet with him at any time.

Electric Bus Transition Policy

Harman Bhangu: Looks like the same minister that destroyed our health care system is now looking to destroy our energy and transit systems.

We’ve seen what happens when governments rush EV transitions. New York pulled electric buses after constant failures. Proterra collapsed in the U.S. because their buses weren’t reliable. Bus batteries in Europe died mid-route, and passengers were left stranded. Here in B.C., it takes four electric vehicle buses to do the work of one natural gas or diesel bus.

Before phasing out natural gas and diesel buses, has this government done any real analysis or consequences of charging capacity, maintenance needed for an all-electric fleet, or is this just ideologically driven and motivated?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. is leading Canada in the adoption of EV vehicles. It’s leading Canada because people in British Columbia understand that EV vehicles, including buses, are really the future of transport in our world.

All over the world, we’re seeing dramatic increases in EV purchases and the adoption of EV systems in transit as well. B.C., since the 1990s, has been a leader on this question, a leader in innovation in hydrogen, innovation in electric vehicles and innovation in transit.

Now, the member may not want to be on the side of innovation, may not want to be on the side of the future. He may be seeking to take us to some distant past, but here in British Columbia, we are working to ensure that we are on the cutting edge of innovation and, at the same time, that individuals have all of the advantages possible in adopting EVs.

That’s why we are number one in Canada in EV adoption.

Government Position
on Pipeline Projects

Larry Neufeld: The NDP government strongly opposes a northern pipeline, yet they’ve now flip-flopped and fully support expanding TMX, including dredging in the Burrard Inlet.

It begs the question, in my mind: why is this government perfectly fine with shipping oil through Vancouver but dead set against economic opportunity for the North?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Let’s remember who led the opposition to the North Coast transmission line. He’s apparently dead set in favour of electricity for Vancouver but opposed to ensuring that the North has access to that electricity.

In case I missed something….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Adrian Dix: In case I missed something, the TMX pipeline has been built.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Richmond Centre, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The TMX pipeline has been built. The people of B.C. and the province of B.C. have said that it’s reasonable that it be fully used. Why? Because it cost $34 billion of public funds, $18 billion of which was a public subsidy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Eighteen billion dollars of it was a public subsidy. What we’ve said….

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Because of me? The member has got to be kidding.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member from Kelowna is yelling and screaming, but the fact of the matter is that we have taken a consistent position.

Now, on the northern pipeline, there is no proponent. There is no route. There is no possibility of contracts for something that would cost the moon to use. There’s no market. It would require tens of billions in public subsidy. By the way, it would involve the lifting of a tanker ban on the coast, which enables tens of billions of dollars in investment in B.C.

We’re a government that believes in investment in B.C. We support investment in B.C. We don’t vote against it at every possible opportunity.

We are going to continue to defend British Columbia all around and ensure that British Columbians benefit in the wealth we need in this province.

Mobile Crisis Response Unit
in Langley-Willowbrook Area

Jody Toor: Last time I asked the minister about Car 67, she dodged a broken promise, said they would speak to the community. Well, the community is speaking. Police, nurses, mayors, councils and families have been sounding the alarm for a year while the NDP sits on their hands. It’s not their fault that this government exploded the debt and mismanaged the economy so badly that the crisis team can’t get funded.

Will the minister stop stalling and implement Car 67 for my residents of Langley-Willowbrook today, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and for raising the really important role that this program plays in communities.

It’s making a real difference by pairing police officers with health care workers to ensure that responses are appropriate for people that are experiencing crises. This is helping people to get better access to supports, to get the help that they need.

As has been discussed with the member previously, decisions are still being undertaken, and the program is under review. We are very proud of the work that’s being done by the officers, the nurses and the mental health workers in this.

We’re going to continue to provide these supports for communities, and I look forward to talking with the member further.

[2:35 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Bruce Banman: I stand on a point of order.

I know that debate gets heated in here, Mr. Speaker, but I’d like you to give the Forests Minister an opportunity to apologize and retract his remarks. Or are personal insults and name-calling now part of the regular question period order here?

The Speaker: The Chair will ask the Minister of Forests if he intended to impugn the member opposite. If he did, then he can withdraw and apologize.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I had no intention, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw my comment.

Petitions

Tony Luck: I rise to present a petition signed by over 100 British Columbians, seasonal Crown land leaseholders at Harrison Lake, who are concerned about a broken property assessment and lease rental system. These citizens own modest, off-grid cabins with no services and no year-round access, yet they are being assessed like prime waterfront real estate.

Worse, these seasonal leaseholders are being discriminated against. While permanent Crown tenants are protected by the Residential Tenancy Act rent caps, seasonal tenants are hit with uncapped 60 to 75 percent lease increases with no….

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. We’ll accept the petition.

Tony Luck: You’ll accept the petition? Thank you very much.

George Anderson: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the UBC Alma Mater Society, whose representatives are with us in the gallery today.

I would like to recognize Solomon Yi-Kieran, vice-president, external affairs; Kareem Hassib, associate vice-president, external affairs; Riley Huntley, president.

This petition, dated October 1, 2025, represents 15,000 students of the University of British Columbia and transit advocates across Metro Vancouver. The signatories request that the…

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

George Anderson: …provincial government expedite work on the business case for the future extension of the SkyTrain to UBC and prioritize pursuing joint funding with the federal government.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 72 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 72 — Appointment of
Special Committee
on Police Complaints

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 72 of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which appoints a special committee on police complaints.

[That a Special Committee on Police Complaints be appointed to conduct an audit respecting the outcome or resolution of randomly selected complaints and investigations, pursuant to section 51.2 of the Police Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367).

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House within one year of its appointment, and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Elenore Sturko (Convener), Garry Begg, Steve Kooner, Macklin McCall and Darlene Rotchford.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 73 on the order paper.

Motion 73 — Membership Changes to
Finance Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 73 of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which amends the membership of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

[That Elenore Sturko and Jennifer Blatherwick be removed as members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this House, I call committee stage on Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act.

Then in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 21 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Members, I think we’ll call a quick recess while we get the minister’s team together.

The committee recessed from 2:40 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we have been contemplating committee stage of Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, and we are on clause 10.

On clause 10 (continued).

Steve Kooner: We were on clause 10, and I was asking a series of questions. I’d just like to continue that.

In reference to section 8.1 in clause 10 here, we talked about consultation quite a bit. This is beyond consultation. This is in terms of what sort of research and analysis legally was done in regards to provisions, specifically in regards to section 8.1.

The question is: what legal analysis did the Ministry of the Attorney General complete to ensure that the PGT’s expanded fiduciary authority does not create new liabilities for the Crown or expose the PGT to claims for breach of trust arising from inconsistent statutory mandates?

I want to know the extent of research or legal analysis that was done to make sure there are no new legal liabilities as a result of this expanded framework that we’re seeing here under clause 10, particularly section 8.1.

Hon. Niki Sharma: With this one particular section, if you remember, we talked about it earlier. It’s just putting that section from the Infants Act into this bill and the PGT Act to make it consolidated. In that context, it doesn’t create any new liabilities.

To also extend that question to all of this bill, I think you could say, the changes that are related to Indigenous authorities having the ability to use the PGT for property guardianship for their children…. If you think about it in terms of the legal responsibilities of the PGT, nothing changes.

[2:50 p.m.]

They still have the same standard of property guardianship related to what would be, then, those Indigenous children that were under that Indigenous authority before. From that context, it is the same kind of, I guess you would say, liability risk or legal standards that existed before.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that answer. It’s assuring that, in terms of the entire legislation, the Attorney General is stating that there’s been some legal research, legal analysis done for the whole piece of legislation that we’re dealing with here.

My concern here is there’s money involved, and there’s property involved, and a lot of these different provisions deal with a lot of substantive matter. I appreciate that legal analysis, and it would be a similar answer to all the questions, but because a lot of these clauses involve different subject matter, it’s very important to make sure that we go through each of these clauses to make sure that legal analysis, the protections against liability and how they relate to each clause have been dealt with.

We are dealing with a fiduciary obligation, we are dealing with proprietary interests, and we are dealing with certain cultural customs as well. We have seen case law. We have seen litigation. This area of law is fairly litigious in terms of involving children, custody and guardianship. We see a lot of this litigation happening in the court. That’s one of the reasons family court is really busy.

It’s very important, if we’re seeing this type of trend, this type of litigation that’s happening…. It’s happening a lot, and the courtrooms are seeing it. Sometimes it takes a long time to get a courtroom. We want to make sure that for each of these provisions that are going to touch upon an area that may involve potential litigation, concerns have been addressed to each one of these issues popping up in these clauses.

We’ve dealt with the previous bill that was before here. This area of law in Bill 21 does involve a lot of litigation cases before the courts in terms of children, guardianship, property rights, access to children. For that reason, I need to ask these questions, moving forward, just to make sure that we have….

Sometimes the Attorney General’s department could probably say that they have the same answer; that they did a full analysis, did the consultation on this whole bill and they addressed each thing. But something may pop up from just a curious question on one of these clauses and said that might be a thing that we may have missed, or we kind of turned our eyes and ears to it, but we do need a further, more fulsome explanation.

That’s why I’m probing these sections in detail, because it does involve fiduciary obligations where essentially the government or the PGT is operating in kind of a blind trust type of setting where the child is just wholeheartedly relying on the PGT. We want to just make sure all of these clauses that are within this bill are specifically dealt with.

But with that said, I do appreciate the answer that was provided. I will go on to my next question.

We spent a little bit of time in the last session talking about why there was an age requirement to the age of 27 when a child actually reaches the age of majority in this province at 19. What was explained was essentially that that’s an extra tool for children that may want to get some extra help for a number of years to deal with their property affairs.

I appreciated that answer at the time, but I have a follow-up question in regards to the explanation that was provided last time. I just want to make sure there was actual precedent for this specific age being a discretionary age existing to the age of 27.

[2:55 p.m.]

The question is: can the Attorney General point to any jurisdiction in Canada where age 27 is used as a standard threshold for state-managed youth financial supports related to property?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you. I appreciate the question.

B.C. has always been a very standout and unique leader with respect to what we do to provide supports for children that are 19 and over, when they become that age of majority, and they were on supports of the government while they were children. That shows up in many different ways.

One was more recently, when we changed our CFCSA to allow for better supports for somebody after 19 up to 27. That’s to ensure that they’re supported with the supports they need for longer, because I think any parent would say that after somebody’s 19, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t need more of those supports continuing on. That’s the same, although the 20 years that’s found in this piece of legislation, I think as we talked about earlier, hasn’t changed from before.

These amendments don’t change that year of 27, but it is in line with what B.C. has shown as a major importance of leadership with respect to these children that have grown up vulnerable or hit 19, and they still need more supports up to the age of 27. I’m not aware of another jurisdiction that does it to the extent that we do.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that explanation. The question was answered that there is no known other jurisdiction currently that has the age limit to 27.

[3:00 p.m.]

Okay, so I’ll flow to my next question now.

Now, a theme here is that in addition to the PGT, we are also dealing with subject matter that deals with Indigenous authorities and Indigenous culture. Our legal system, in how it’s designed currently, looks at individual rights, individual property rights. But when you look at, maybe, cultural practices, there may be an emphasis on collective rights.

This turns my mind to kind of look at…. I know explanation was provided out there. Actually, it states in the legislation that this legislation will consider customs, culture and traditions.

When we have a legal framework here that is focused on individual rights, individual children and their proprietary rights, but then we are trying to bring that system to coincide with Indigenous issues, Indigenous children and Indigenous cultural customs, how does this piece of legislation take all of that into consideration and make it all work? That’s the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think it would help us answer if we knew which clause specifically in this — I think we’re on clause 10 — the member is referring to.

Steve Kooner: I believe there was one section in here that talked about Indigenous children.

Well, I don’t see it here, but this does talk about fiduciary obligations and money matters, which involve individual rights. That is spoken about in these first paragraphs here, 8.1, and the money discussion continues in 8.2. All this stuff talks about money, individual property and that kind of stuff.

A theme of this legislation is also dealing with Indigenous children. Now we’re looking at these sections here that talk about the fiduciary obligation and that talk about the property as the trustee will be handling it. How do these sections jibe with that?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I thank the member for trying to pin it down to a clause. It seems like maybe a general answer would be more applicable here, which is that the agreements between the PGT and the Indigenous authority would be a place where you could have a discussion between the two about the cultural sensitivities or decision-making that they would want to have specifically applied for those specific children.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for trying to answer the question, but we’re looking at these sections, like 8.1. When I read them, speaking about “any money or other property of the child held,” this whole system under the PGT is based upon individual rights, individual property and case law on all of that.

My concern here is that all of this talks about the PGT and talks about money and other property, but the case law that backs all that stuff, when you look at it and you’re dealing with the PGT, is dealing with individual property.

Now we also have to consider in these sections of clause 10 that a big intent behind this legislation is to address Indigenous children and their property. When you’ve got a whole system based upon case law on, say, individual rights, and there’s less case law, say, on collective property rights, how do you make this system work?

When legal professionals will be looking at this — say they’re involved with this legislation — how will they navigate it? What they’re going to have recourse to is case law based upon the common law, and with the Indigenous collective cultural practices, there may not be that much law.

I know the Attorney General tried to answer it, but I think it’s a very important question to have an explanation, quite in detail, because we are now heading in a direction where, say, some legal practitioners looking at this may want to rely on some PGT case law and how it’s being dealt with, but what they’re going to get is common law stuff.

Here this legislation specifically requires that you must take into consideration, when you’re looking at all these clauses, when you’re looking at clause 10, how it applies to collective Indigenous property as well. The answer was done, but it seemed like it was a pretty basic answer.

On the legal, technical stuff that comes out of this, when you’re actually looking at it in an empirical way, we really need to kind of understand the underlying structure to this clause and how it deals with collective rights. So I don’t know if there could be a further explanation, because it is a very important point.

When we’re looking at these clauses, every single clause that we’re looking at, and this one in particular, where it lays out discussion about property, money…. In our understanding of clause 10, we have to bring in the Indigenous discussion here. The difference is that here we may not have that much case law. How do we navigate this clause here, clause 10, when we’re talking about individual money and property rights? The trustee has to handle that.

Let me add that the trustee has fiduciary obligations to handle that property with utmost care, because a child doesn’t know anything about that property. Here you may be lacking case law. We have to make sure, when we’re debating today, that we come up with a proper understanding on how this will all work out. I don’t know if a further explanation can be provided.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of the context of when this would happen…. In order for the PGT to take on a role for property guardianship for the child, it’s up to that Indigenous authority. It’s a by-choice process.

If the Indigenous authority chooses not to use the property guardianship of the PGT, that’s up to them. If they sign an agreement where they want the PGT to take on the property guardianship of children, they understand the regime under which the PGT operates. That means that their role is to act in the best interests of that child and all the entitlements that they would be, as an individual property owner, entitled to. That’s the role of the PGT, and that’s what they would take on for the child.

The question about collective rights versus personal rights. Once the PGT takes on the role of property guardianship for the child, their role is very clearly set out in the act, and part of that is how to operate in the best interests of the child. That’s an aspect where they would take in the cultural components of that child. If it was an Indigenous child, then that would be an important aspect for the PGT to consider when making those decisions on the best interests of that child.

In terms of the collective rights, it’s up to the Indigenous authority and the Indigenous nation whether or not they want to use the PGT for this. That’s their choice.

Steve Kooner: That was a more thorough answer, and it sheds a lot more light than the previous answer.

I’d just like to get a clarification of my understanding of the answer, and then I’d like to add to my question. What I understand is that there’s a PGT system, under clause 10 here, that’s going to manage property, manage money. In terms of incorporating Indigenous children and dealing with Indigenous authorities, it would be entirely up to the Indigenous authority to give consent whether it wants to operate within this PGT system.

My understanding is that if the consent is provided, the system that would be applied would be a system that has not only this piece of legislation but also interpretive common law, case law that is currently existing, which has a heavy focus on individual property. That will be the law that will be relied on because there’s less law in regards to, say, collective rights or collective proprietary interests. Is my understanding accurate to state that?

[3:15 p.m.]

Basically, consent can be given from an Indigenous authority to the PGT. When that consent is given, part of that consent is going to be to operate within the framework of the PGT, which relies on a legal framework not only in, say, clause 10 here and whatever provisions are provided here but also to interpret that, maybe at times relying on common law, case law that supports this legislation.

Is my understanding accurate that that’s how it’s going to work once consent is given?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll just start by saying that the PGT is a statutory body. The powers of the PGT are derived from the statute, part of which is the bill and the amendments we’re seeking. But then, just like anybody, they’re subject to case law that may or may not impact their function or working, whether it’s to do with statutory interpretations about property guardianship or fiduciary duties or anything that they may be subject to in the law as it evolves in the courts, in the common law. Then they would be subject to them.

I think, based on the question asked, I guess the answer would be that generally, yes, that’s true.

Steve Kooner: I think that question and the answer will be one of the most important questions and answers throughout this piece of legislation, because it does involve two areas of the law kind of converging, and the system is trying to incorporate another system as well. That answer will serve the discussion in a fruitful way.

[3:20 p.m.]

The next question. I just asked a question, a couple of questions ago, more specifically to 8.1 here in clause 10. I asked about whether there was any legal analysis that was done for legal risks as a result of this extra framework of dealing with fiduciary obligations here, as first listed in 8.1 in clause 10. What was explained was, essentially, what appears to be, to my understanding, that after the legal analysis, there should be no legal risk, liability, but that goes to the financial aspect.

Now, there’s also another aspect. The other aspect is there might be a financial aspect. So the legal aspect and the financial aspect…. When you’re giving a framework, you’re codifying that framework in a more significant extent for the PGT, and that may involve a lot more.

My next question is this. What modelling has the Ministry of Attorney General done to project the long-term fiscal exposure created by expanding trustee powers related to investment, property and these money issues for children and now Indigenous children as well? What modelling has been done?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, there was an analysis and thinking done about any fiscal implications, and there are none. The reason is that the regime is set up in such a way as the PGT has listed, I think, its public fee schedule related to when they take on the property guardianship of a child. Usually those fees are subtracted from that work for that individual child. In this context, there would be no added cost in terms of managing it.

Steve Kooner: I get that the PGT has its own fees that it charges. We had a discussion last time where we were discussing…. Sometimes accounts have to be given to the court, and then the PGT deducts their fees as a result. But doesn’t the PGT get some of its funding from the government?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, I’d just seek your guidance on understanding where this is rooted in the clause that we are currently talking about. Then, if I can get that guidance, I’m happy to answer.

The Chair: Richmond-Queensborough.

Steve Kooner: This will probably go to the discussion about the fees. Later on in the clause, there’s a discussion about the fees, primarily in 8.7 of clause 10, where it talks about fees and accounting and all that. It also talks about it in 8.6.

The Attorney General just provided an explanation, saying that most of the adverse administrative costs will be taken care of by these fees. The PGT gets its funding from the fees. Why my question is relevant is…. If it’s getting all of its funding from these fees, it’s important to know that there is no other funding. That’s why the question was asked.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Right now about one-third of the funding for the PGT comes from public funds, and two-thirds is from these fee structures.

You have to remember that property guardianship for children isn’t the only role that they play. They also have adult guardianship arrangements and things like that. That’s generally how it works.

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up question to that. Out of the one-third of public funds that fund this system, how much of that is related to the children that we’re talking about in clause 10?

Hon. Niki Sharma: You know, I’m happy to answer questions like these in an estimates debate, because this is more of a funding and budgetary question rather than a legal question related to the clauses that we have before us. He’s asking for very specific line items related to a budget that I don’t have before me at this stage.

I’m happy to go back to discussing the bill.

Steve Kooner: I appreciate the honesty from the Attorney General’s department that they don’t have the answer, but there’s a specific reason that I was talking about these sections. The Attorney General asked me to go to specific sections to mention where it was discussed about fees. I brought that up too. There are specific sections, within clause 10, that talk about fees.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ve had relevant debate today and said that there are not going to be any adverse effects on the administrative costs of the PGT as a result of this legislation. Then I asked a follow-up question: is there a certain part of the budget of the PGT that relies on public funds? The answer that was supplied was that the money for the extra framework will come from the fees.

I wanted to know about the public fund. So it’s highly relevant. It’s not just a budgetary discussion. This actual clause talks about fees, and it talks about costs.

I would assume that we would be here ready to kind of talk about these items. I’ve definitely spent a lot of time on my own end, without staff, trying to figure out the right questions to ask here. There are probably a lot of people listening. That’s fine. Maybe an answer can be provided at a later date, but I think it’s highly relevant. For now, I will move to the next question.

Okay. Another question I did ask about clause 10 last time. We got to discussing how the system works. There’s going to be some accounting done by the PGT. They’re going to deduct their fees, and then they’re going to send their account, or they’re going to send the proprietary interest through the court. We discussed that portion.

What we did not discuss was that when anybody, any fiduciary authority, is dealing with property and fiduciary obligations, and they’re cutting their own money out of an account, there might be a potential conflict of interest. I know when there are certain professionals that deal with trust accounts, there’s an extra onus on those professionals to make sure that if they had agreements, those agreements were properly explained and that people had an opportunity to properly understand those.

At the end of the day, there will be a trust account, and money will be deducted from that. It’s not as straightforward as just saying: “Here’s my bill; please pay me.” There are fiduciary legal principles that come into play, and high ethical obligations come into play as well.

In this case, the PGT will be deducting their fees according to the fee portion, I believe, in discussion in the section 8.6. How do those sections reconcile conflict of interest into those provisions? That’s my next question.

What study was done, what analysis was done to make sure there will be no conflict of interest when children’s property is dealt with, when you’re looking at accounting of fees?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: As trustees, they are fiduciaries, so they have all the law related to fiduciaries, and their obligations are at play. They’re statutory creatures, the PGT, so if you refer to the legislation that guides them, you can look under 23, and it says pretty clearly exactly how payments are to be made and gives details about that. There’s a fee schedule that is public that sets out the fee structures related to their services, so it’s very transparent.

Barring any of those safeguards…. The PGT is a trusted organization, so they sit in a very particular spot that’s different than a fee-for-service model, which were some of the examples in the question. As such, they have all these statutory, legal and transparency obligations related to their work. Then if there ever were a problem, there is an ability to have the account reviewed by court.

Steve Kooner: Okay. I’m just going to change the line of questioning here just a little bit.

Now, we’re going to be dealing with children. The old definition was “young persons.” Now we’re dealing with the definition “child” or “children.”

We’re dealing with a bit of a transition here because there was the old PGT legislation that already exists, and now we’re updating it with this legislation. We’re on clause 10. That really is a very lengthy clause, has a lot in it, and it’s one of the bigger clauses within this piece of legislation.

It’s important to know how many children would actually get affected by this and how many children are in the system that are going to be affected by this, these transition rules or these new provisions here that are updated.

How many existing children or young persons currently under PGT supervision fall into situations that will require transition into the new regime? How many children are there currently operating with the status quo but are going to be transitioned into these new provisions?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of transitional provisions, I think I’m going to take a little bit of time to explain this, so we can understand that there isn’t actually that much need for transitional provisions, because we have the PGT regime that’s in place right now that sets the standards for property guardianship.

The PGT would like to have this additional ability to be able to form agreements with Indigenous authorities, through what we’ve set forward in the bill, to be able to take on property guardianship for kids that may be under Indigenous jurisdiction. So it doesn’t change the PGT’s role or ability or the work that it does in its role.

In terms of any transition of kids from one system to another, that’s…. Maybe the better way to look at it is that it enables the PGT, through the agreements with Indigenous authorities, to do the work that they do right now but for those Indigenous children. So that’s part of the way of looking at any transition.

The PGT, at any given time, has about 3,000 kids under property guardianship, and I think that fluctuates over time. So we expect that with this ability…. I don’t think it will be much different than the number of kids they have. It’s just where the kids are coming from or where their role steps in.

[3:45 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just a clarification in regards to the number of children. The number was mentioned, 3,000. Is there an additional number to the 3,000 that are the young adults from 19 to the age of 27, or is that 3,000 number inclusive of that age group as well? If it’s inclusive, what proportion of the 3,000 is for 19- to 27-year-olds?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are about 50 in that category, young adults.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Next question.

Now, in clause 10, we are dealing with accounts, fees and the PGT taking what’s owed to them and then dealing with the property. Why it’s more…. We’re dealing with a fiduciary obligation. We are dealing with Indigenous children or young adults that actually need more care in terms of their property. They still can’t handle their affairs.

Another thing that I’d like to point out is that in clause 10, in section 8.7(2), not only does the PGT have a right to deduct fees and commissions, but they also have a right to deduct other amounts payable, right? There’s some discretion there in what they can deduct. Now you’re dealing with….

I appreciate the answers earlier that there’s a fee schedule, and it’s available to the public. But the concern here is that these provisions not only have to do with fees and commissions; they also have to do with other amounts, pursuant to this legislation here. We are dealing with vulnerable children that may be young adults between the ages of 19 and 27, as well as Indigenous children.

Say that some of these vulnerable children or young adults disagree with the amounts that are being put forward in some accounting. They may be fees, and there might be some commissions, but then there are some other amounts. But they don’t agree with those other amounts.

Is there some sort of review mechanism that can stop the PGT from deducting the other amounts category?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That review mechanism, and I think I mentioned it in a couple of previous answers, is found in (2)(b), which is that you can have the accounts reviewed under the Supreme Court.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Steve Kooner: Okay. With clause 11, it seems to be fairly short in comparison to the last one. It just states that the following heading is added before section 9. But when you look at the actual heading and what it states, it requires some extra scrutiny. It refers to division 3, “Financial Powers, Duties and Functions and Related Trustee or Other Matters.” Sometimes it’s just a drafting issue, but sometimes you can take some meaning from the titles as well.

Here, as we were discussing in clause 10, we’re talking about fiduciary obligations. We were talking about accounting. We were talking about fees, other amounts, commissions. We were talking about vulnerable children. What was kind of highlighted throughout that discussion was that there needs to be some proper scrutiny because of these fiduciary obligations. There need to be some review mechanisms.

Now we’re going further into that discussion here in clause 11, as I listed what the title actually states. I have some questions in regard to clause 11. First of all, why put this specific wording in a title? Why must it be added into this clause?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for this new heading is to separate the sections of the act from the new division 2, which are related specifically to the PGT acting as property guardianship for children. The different descriptions in there are to describe the sections.

Steve Kooner: I appreciate the answer specifying that there will be a differentiation between the clauses before this clause and now this clause moving forward and maybe some subsequent clauses. But, in addition to providing a differentiation, does this help to provide some meaning to the subsequent clauses after this particular one?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In any statute, headings are not meant to have…. It’s the content of the clauses or the sections that are the meaning, not the heading.

Steve Kooner: I think that’s it for this one.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Steve Kooner: Clause 12 is also a relatively short clause. What we are dealing with here is sections 17(1) and (4) as well as sections 18(2)(a)(ii) and 19(2) “are amended by striking out ‘young person’ wherever it appears and substituting ‘child.’

We had discussed this similar thing in a prior clause, where I was asking questions along the lines of why it was done. It was explained that this was done to make it consistent with other statutes or other pieces of legislation. Now we’re running into the same or similar substituting of “young person” with “child.”

First of all, my question here is…. I thought we dealt with just changing the definition earlier, so how come this piece of legislation deals with this again?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The change from young person to child is the same reason that we made the changes earlier on in this bill. It’s just to keep consistent with language.

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up question.

I understand that there are other statutes and a lot of the other statutes, like maybe, perhaps, the Family Law Act may be using the term “child,” so I get all of that. But a follow-up question I have is that…. I understand that we have similar legislation that we have to make this one consistent with, but I brought up an issue earlier about common law and how we also have to look at some common law because it exists with PGT.

Now, with this piece of legislation, as I mentioned in the last clause, we’re going to bring Indigenous children into the framework, provided that Indigenous authorities provide that consent. But part of the consent is to allow the property of those Indigenous children to operate within this PGT framework that will operate with the existing case law that we have. It may not have some existing case law that may be dealing with children, Indigenous children and their property. So the system that we have is based upon the common law we have now.

[3:55 p.m.]

That leads me to my question. We have taken a definition of “child,” inserting it where “young person” appears. What analysis was done to make sure that that definition is coinciding with any sort of definition that Indigenous law may have, or Indigenous customs may have, to change this definition to that?

We’re inserting “child” specifically because there’s other legislation out there that now uses the word “child.” That’s the reason here. Another aspect of this legislation is we’re trying to bring Indigenous children’s property into the fold of this regulatory framework. I don’t know if this is the case, but there may be…. Another word for young person may be used in the Indigenous context versus this one.

I guess the first question is: what sort of analysis was done to make sure that “child” not only represents making this legislation consistent with other legislation but also with Indigenous customs and culture and any sort of legal precedent there?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re not changing any definitions here. “Young person” and “child” meant the same thing. It’s just for a matter of consistency in using words that are used in all acts. It means a person that is under the age of 19. In that context, I think it covers every child that is under that age.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Steve Kooner: In clause 13, we are dealing with consequential amendments, and we’re talking about the Adoption Act here. More specifically, it refers to “Section 3.2 of the Adoption Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 5, is repealed and the following substituted.”

Then we have a paragraph here, and this is a very important paragraph in light of the discussion that we’ve been having in the last few questions. It talks about the self-government principle.

“This Act, to the extent the provisions of this Act relate to the adoption of Indigenous children who are in the continuing custody of a director of child protection, must be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle that Indigenous peoples have an inherent right of self-government, including self-determination, that is recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

I have some specific questions in regards to this section. The first question will be a general one, just asking the purpose and intent of this particular provision.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The only change that’s being made here from the current piece of legislation, as it stands, is pretty small.

If we remember, in clause 6.6, there was a removal for the default guardianship. The default guardianship provisions are related to what happens if there’s nobody protecting the property guardianship. Then the default is the PGT, those powers. We removed the director of child protection as personal guardian just to make sure it was clear the default was PGT.

This amendment under this section is consequential by removing 3.2(b), which is another reference to the director of child protection as personal guardian. So it was necessary, because of clause 6.6, to also do this in this current clause.

Steve Kooner: It’s important to mention in this section, under clause 13, in 3.2, that references are being made to federal law, particularly the constitution, and also international legal principles. You have federal law in the constitution, section 35 of the Constitution Act, and then you have international, a United Nations declaration, in terms of legal principles, in this. It states that this provision must be interpreted and administered with these principles in mind.

So it’s important to actually really…. I understand. I get the answer that the Attorney General provided. It was just meant to kind of make…. What I got from the answer was it doesn’t provide that significant of a change.

But when you do have references to, say, international legal principles, and you do have references to the federal constitution of this country, you do have to kind of, really, look into this legislation and see how it coincides with those legal principles and that law, because there are also federal statutes that deal with children and, specifically, Indigenous children. You know, there’s a bill — that was C-92 — that deals with the federal Indigenous child welfare type of jurisdiction.

This particular provision says that we’ve got to respect the interpretation through that federal constitution as well as those legal principles. There is legislation federally, and I just want to make sure…. Say we’re adopting this, and we’re also incorporating federal constitutional law that exists, which means that you’ve got to stay within your division of powers or jurisdiction.

Was a legal analysis done here to make sure that there would be no inconsistency with what the federal government has done with Indigenous children and property protection?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This section is not new, so the only need for legal analysis that was done on this section for this bill is what I mentioned before, which is a consequential amendment because of clause 6.6.

Steve Kooner: Okay. I think that is it for this clause for me.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Steve Kooner: On clause 14, the first question I’d like to ask…. Clause 14 refers to…. Ssection 4(2) states that it’s repealed and the following is substituted.

For the record, we’re looking at subsection (2): “In addition to the authority under subsection (1) (a), a director may, at the request of a director of child protection, place a child for adoption with a person or persons selected by the director of child protection, if the child is in the continuing custody of the director of child protection.”

I had a specific question here in regards to this clause. When I was reading these provisions, I did see that there’s a director of child protection, but then there’s also a director of adoption. How do those two things relate with each other when we are looking at this particular clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: They’re just different directors. The director of adoption is different than the director of child services, and that’s a separate regime.

With respect to this clause, the only change was similar to clause 13, which was a consequential amendment because of clause 6.6, which removes the director of child protection as part of the consequential measures that were necessary.

Steve Kooner: Does it, through this clause…? It mentions both the director of child protection and…. Does it amend any sort of obligations or any duties amongst, say, the director of child protection and director of adoption? Is there any change as a result of this provision here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it just removes that one reference that’s currently found in that section.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Steve Kooner: Clause 15 is also a smaller clause. We are dealing with subsection 7(2), which is repealed and the following is substituted: “Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an Indigenous child who is in the continuing custody of a director of child protection.”

Why does it not apply to an Indigenous child that’s in continuing custody of the director of child protection?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way this would apply…. Again, it’s another consequential amendment along the same lines that we’ve been speaking about in the last two. I think, to the member’s question, the reason that it doesn’t have any actual consequence in terms of what consultation would happen is because in this section, the way it’s worded, before placing an Indigenous child for adoption, these are the consultation and cooperation requirements.

There also are similar requirements under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. That has similar consultation requirements. So they’re contained in both acts. That’s why that subsection (2) disapplies the adoption provisions to that.

The only change in this bill is specifically related to just the consequential amendment of the same one as “director of child protection,” removing that reference.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for providing the explanation that it’s just a consequential amendment.

I do have a follow-up question based upon what I was hearing from the Attorney General, it being consequential. What safeguards exist to ensure that Indigenous children in continuing custody are treated in accordance with Indigenous law and community practices?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is pretty far beyond the consequential amendment that’s related to this provision, which is quite narrow.

I will say that this provision that’s been in place already is the framework for some of the things that the member is talking about, so when it’s an Indigenous child that’s up for adoption or for child protection, the consult and cooperation requirements are that you work with the Indigenous governments to figure out what the plan is.

Steve Kooner: Just one more follow-up question to that. When an Indigenous child that’s in continuing custody, pursuant to this provision or whatever framework exists throughout clause 15…. How will the continuity or the protection for the Indigenous children that results as a result of this particular clause be communicated subsequently to any sort of adoption authorities and Indigenous organizations that may take over later on?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re getting beyond the scope of the amendments that are before us, which are very narrow and consequential. Nothing about the bill or proposals that I have are about, to the member’s questions, the deep policy analysis or what happens if, because they’re so narrow in what they’re trying to do. In that context, I don’t have answers related to the scope of how MCFD operates in different situations related to Indigenous children, but I’m happy to answer related to the amendments that are before us.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Steve Kooner: Clause 16 is also a shorter clause. It’s a couple of lines. It refers to…. “Section 13 (3) is amended by striking out ‘or a director of child protection is the child’s personal guardian under section 51 of the Infants Act.’”

In regards to this, as a result of the striking out, what is the effect of removing this wording?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is another one that’s consequential based on 6.6. It removes the ones that are in….

The last few that we talked about are just the policy and drafters making sure that anything that is connected to the change in 6.6 is also amended so that any of the rules that were there before, related to that, are…. There are consequential amendments related to that.

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up question to that answer. As a result of striking this out, does this create any gap for children whose guardianship status was previously under the Infants Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Steve Kooner: Clause 17. We have a new heading here, “Child, Family and Community Service Act.” We’re dealing with section 50.1 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996. Chapter 46 is amended.

We’ve got another amendment, and it’s amended by repealing a section. So sub (a) states: “by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following.”

What gets substituted is this. “Subject to section 50.06, a director may request a director of adoption to place a child for adoption if the child is in the continuing custody of the director, and (b) in subsection (2) by striking out ‘subsection (1) (a)’ and substituting ‘subsection (1).’”

In regards to this, I just have a couple of questions. Are there any transitional arrangements for cases initiated under the former version of section 51?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are no children under the current act that would fall into that category of a child where the director of the child’s personal guardian, under section 51 of the Infants Act…. There’s no such child that’s under the director of child protection that would fit under that.

Part of the reason why we made these amendments is that MCFD doesn’t use this authority. They prefer to use their act in terms of that. This is another consequential amendment that’s related to the changes in clause 6.6.

Steve Kooner: I take from that there aren’t going to be any consequential effects, but I still have to put this out there and ask this question. Will this amendment to this particular clause create any procedural delays?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Steve Kooner: Clause 18 deals with section 51, and it’s amended by striking out “given by section 7 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and sections 12, 14 and 16 of the Infants Act” and substituting “under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and section 14 of the Infants Act.”

There are a lot of references there. I’ve just got a couple of questions on this one. Does this change alter any rights or obligations for children, guardians or Indigenous authorities?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This one is very minor. It is just related to fixing up references. It was necessary to remove that “given by section 7 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act” and replace it with “under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and section 14 of the Infants Act” just to fix up the references because of the amendments earlier.

Steve Kooner: I understand we’re fixing pieces of the legislation here, but just one last question on this. Was there any sort of impact analysis undertaken to identify any unintended consequences in ongoing matters that are currently going on right now?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There will be no consequences from this amendment.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

[4:25 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Clause 19 seems to be quite brief. It just repeals section 51.1(3). Just a few questions on this one. Can the Attorney General specify which functions under this clause are not eligible or don’t need to actually be used? They’re being repealed. There’s a part of this clause that is being repealed, but it served certain functions in the original statute. What functions of that are of no use now, moving forward?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is related to the changes that were made to section 7.1 of the PGT Act, and it removes the language that the PGT is appointed by court order or enactment as a child’s guardian.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

As a result of that, it was determined that section 51.1(3) was no longer required.

Steve Kooner: It seems to not have any consequential effects, and there’s a provision. This provision wasn’t needed anymore due to the circumstances described by the Attorney General. But could there be any sort of procedural delays as a result of changing up the system here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

Steve Kooner: In clause 20, we’re amending section 79. What we’re specifically looking at is subsection (a).

“By repealing paragraph (h) and substituting the following: necessary to enable the Public Guardian and Trustee to perform duties and exercise powers as a child’s property guardian under this act or in other circumstances referred to in section 6.4 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, or to assess whether the circumstances for property guardianship referred to in 6.6 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act are present; and (b) by repealing paragraph (h.2) and substituting the following: made to a director of adoption to facilitate the adoption of a child if the child is in the continuing custody of a director.”

This clause, or this one section that’s being amended, seems to be quite wordy, and there seem to be some mechanics here. The first question is: can the Attorney General explain how this works?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This amendment will expand the circumstances in which the CFCSA director may disclose information to the PGT necessary to enable the PGT to perform duties and exercise powers in all circumstances where PGT is property guardian. It’s also related to the changes we made earlier in terms of disclosure of information.

Steve Kooner: Okay. From what was explained, this clause does have some sort of enabling authority to it that allows you to do something. In carrying out the responsibility in regards to this particular clause, what transparency mechanisms are there?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The limits on these amendments are part of the whole…. I think the question is about how we make sure that it’s the right amount of information but not too much and that people are abiding by protection of privacy.

The key words are that the disclosure can only be limited to necessary to enable the PGT to do those two things: to perform their duties or to assess circumstances related to the pre-determination of property guardianship assessment that they may have to do.

Also, if we remember, we talked about the earlier provision related to personal information with the PGT. The same oversight provisions that apply to all personal information in the province under FOIPPA and the Privacy Commissioner would apply.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

Steve Kooner: The important thing to mention about clause 21…. It’s referencing something that’s kind of…. It’s related, but it’s unrelated. The previous sections that we referred to of different legislation had to deal with…. A lot of the subject matter had to do with children.

Now we’re moving on to looking at the Court Rules Act. Clause 21 deals with section 1(2)(f) of the Court Rules Act and is amended by adding the Public Guardian and Trustee Act after the Power of Attorney Act.

If we didn’t have this provision in this, if we never put this provision in, what would be missing in the current legislation? What situation would not be covered?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These amendments were considered to be an abundance of caution related to if there were any changes that were needed to the Court Rules Act, related to any of the changes made in this bill. So although there aren’t any specific things anticipated that I could bring up, I think they were just in the case that there needed to be changes to the Court Rules Act, there’s an ability.

Steve Kooner: If there aren’t any anticipated items that would be affected by adding this legislation specifically, could this not have been just dealt with by the regulations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The caution was related to the fact that, and we talked about this in other sections…. There were some sections of the Infants Act that were removed from the Infants Act to the PGT Act. As a result of that move, I think, and for abundance of caution, we wanted to make it clear that there would be this ability under the Court Rules Act.

Steve Kooner: Since we are dealing with the Court Rules Act and we’re referencing that and we’re making a change to that…. You know, there are ongoing proceedings that happen in our courts.

[4:35 p.m.]

That may be applying with the current legislation, but now if you want to modify the Court Rules Act….It’s one thing how this change will affect this current legislation that we’re dealing with in terms of Bill 21. It’s another thing how it will affect a substantial provision that deals with court operation. Would there be any effect on the current court proceedings as a result of this change?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Steve Kooner: Does the Attorney General anticipate that although we’re making this change here right now to modify the Court Rules Act, there may be any further changes needed to the Court Rules Act to make this legislation in Bill 21 fully effective?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

Steve Kooner: Okay, clause 22. We’re moving on to another piece of legislation that gets amended.

What’s getting amended here is the Independent School Act, and the specific modification is this. “Section 1 (1) of the Independent School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 216, is amended by repealing the definition of ‘guardian’ and substituting the following: ‘guardian’ means a guardian within the Family Law Act.”

What we’ve seen in the past is we modified the definition of “young person” to change it to “child” in references to the PGT. Now what we’re substituting here is the word “guardian.” We already had the definition of “guardian,” but we’re substituting the following. We’re actually redefining what “guardian” means. We’re saying that it means the meaning within the Family Law Act.

The question to the Attorney General is: if we already had a definition of “guardian,” why do we need to redefine the word “guardian” pursuant to the Family Law Act? What specific changes is this going to bring about?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is another consequential amendment based on what was necessary from clause 6.6. It removes a personal guardian within the meaning of the Infants Act because there will no longer be a personal guardian authority within the Infants Act. It removes that reference, and that’s it.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that explanation.

The other thing is that when we are dealing with definitions, we just want to make sure that the laws are going to be consistent and it’s not going to affect anybody’s rights.

Was there some sort of analysis done to make sure there would not be any transitional inconsistencies between different legislation out there, and what mitigations are in place to make sure that there aren’t any effects for sure?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There aren’t any that are currently under this regime under the Infants Act, so there would not be any impacts.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

Steve Kooner: We spent some time talking about the subject matter of this next section, which is the Infants Act. Clause 23 specifically deals with sections 12, 16 and 51 of the Infants Act, RSBC 1996, chapter 223, by repealing those three sections.

[4:40 p.m.]

My first question is: what was the need of having to repeal these three sections?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As we talked about, I think earlier on at 6.6, 8.1, 8.6 and 8.7, we’ve added those sections of the Infants Act, with some minor changes, to the PGT Act. This is the other side of that, which is the removal of those sections in the Infants Act.

Steve Kooner: As a result of making this particular change, does this affect any sort of timing issues for cases to be looked at or subject matters to be looked at, any sort of procedural issues or delay issues?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

Steve Kooner: This particular clause deals with the School Act, and we’re doing work…. We’re looking at the government trying to do an amendment here.

More specifically, in regards to…. “Section 1 (1) of the School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412, is amended by repealing the definition of ‘guardian’ and substituting the following: ‘guardian’ means guardian within the meaning of the Family Law Act.”

Now, we’ve already seen a change in regard to guardian, and we’ve already seen that change in regard to guardian in the Family Law Act in the other separate heading of the Independent School Act.

Now, is there a reason why the references to guardian weren’t just changed in one clause rather than having two separate clauses?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is a separate act under the School Act, but it’s a similar amendment. It’s a change of the definition of “guardian” to remove the personal guardian with the meaning of the Infants Act.

Steve Kooner: I understand it’s two different acts, the Independent School Act and the School Act. But could there not have been one clause that said “guardian” means guardian within the meaning of the Family Law Act in all these different statutes? And could that not have been a clause and just one clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think this is just for clarity, that it’s clear that it’s two separate acts. It’s a choice of how you want to do it, but I think this just makes it very clear that two acts are being amended.

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up to that.

So it would not have made a difference if we had just one clause saying that this definition changed in all the acts. That wouldn’t have made a difference. This is just….

The government felt this provided more clarity. That’s why it was done this way. But it wouldn’t have made a difference just to put it in one clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think they’re just drafting conventions. As I know and I think we were talking about, it doesn’t make a difference in the actual content. My understanding is that it’s just drafting conventions to make sure, with these consequential amendments, that every act in this example…. Every act is separate.

Clause 24 approved.

On clause 25.

Steve Kooner: Clause 25 deals with commencement, when this legislation is going to come into force. Clause 25 states that “provisions of this act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2 of the table.” So we have two columns here, and then we’ve got a couple of items here listed.

[4:45 p.m.]

Column 1 states the provisions of this act, and then the commencement in column 2, but there are two separate times for commencement, as we see in this table. Sections 1 and 2 will commence on the date of royal assent. Whenever the royal assent happens, that’s when they’re going to come into force. But sections 3 to 24 are going to come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council — by regulation.

Why do clauses 1 and 2 come into force right away, by the date of royal assent, and then clauses 3 to 24 come into force by regulation, at a later date?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This divides up the PGT amendments from the ICBC ones. The ICBC amendments will go into force at the date of royal assent, and the other ones, from 3 to 24, related to the PGT, will be by regulation. That will provide transition time for awareness of the changes by impacted parties and for any required operational changes to be put in place.

Steve Kooner: Is there a reason that there is no sunset date for any of these clauses? Is it the intent that these need to be permanent pieces of legislation because they will assist us permanently?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. We wouldn’t want any of these provisions to sunset. We think that they should be permanent.

Steve Kooner: In the second part of this piece of legislation, we’re dealing with sections 3 to 24. It’s by regulation, but is there a reason why there’s no differentiation between all these sections? Some of them could come into force right away, and some of them could wait, by regulation. Is there a reason why all of them are going to come out and be in force at the same date?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s a change, in that a lot of things that we talked about are changed in more of a framework and approach. So we would give the time to the PGT to have some time before they were put into force, in order to respond.

Clause 25 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:48 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:49 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Reporting of Bills

Bill 21 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 21 reports the bill complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Attorney General
Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I would like to call for a five-minute recess, and then we’ll call Bill 24.

The Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 4:50 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Calling the House back to order.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I call committee stage on Bill 24.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 4:53 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages
and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

The Chair: Okay, we’ll take a few minutes recess as we allow the next team to gather and come in to prepare to discuss Bill 24.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, we’ll call the committee to order. We are now on committee stage of Bill 24, Vaping Products Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the opportunity at the beginning to thank the staff that will be here with me and that have been working on, I think, this legislation and much more at the AG. I want to thank them for being here.

We have Jasmine Dadachanji, senior policy analyst, policy and legislation division, justice services branch; and Peter Lawless, legal counsel, legal services branch.

I thank them for joining me.

On clause 1.

Brennan Day: As we begin the detailed review of Bill 24, I want to take a moment just to recognize the important work we’re about to do here in the chamber. Committee stage is obviously something that we always kick everything to in second reading. I think it’s very important, especially with this bill, that we have a full understanding of what to expect in the implementation of this bill.

Bill 24 is drafted as a significant and far-reaching piece of legislation. It establishes the legal framework for the province to pursue cost recovery actions related to vaping products. That’s a serious undertaking, with implications for the industry, for the courts, for consumers and for the government itself. It deserves a careful, thoughtful clause-by-clause review.

It’s also important what this bill does not do. It clearly does not regulate youth access. It doesn’t strengthen enforcement for the 90 percent of products that are currently sold in the grey and black market here in British Columbia. It doesn’t address the influx of high-nicotine products that are being largely sold through unregulated channels. It doesn’t deal with the illicit market that communities across this province, including right at home in the Comox Valley and steps from this House, are increasingly struggling with.

Those issues fall well outside the scope of this act, and I think British Columbians would benefit from clarity on that point. Is this going to have significant implications in terms of what there will be to recover upon implementation?

What Bill 24 does do is create a comprehensive litigation mechanism. When government builds a litigation framework of this scale and duration, we must ensure that it is balanced, coherent and rooted in sound legal principles. We have the responsibility to make sure that the provisions here are clear, that the definitions are consistent and that the powers granted are proportional and transparent.

We’ve had significant outreach from concerned communities. We’ve consulted and talked to Health Canada, Indigenous communities in the province as well as stakeholders and businesses in this space. They’re very concerned about the lack of consultation that will follow and be very much affected by this bill’s rollout.

[5:10 p.m.]

There are elements of this bill that raise some fairly legitimate questions: the ability to sue without demonstrating harm to any particular individual; the minister’s authority to issue certificates that are treated as conclusive proof; the revival of long-expired claims and the 15-year scope that this bill will encompass; the breadth of joint and several liability, which may reach further down the supply chain than the government intends; and the definitional choices in clause 1, where certain products are excluded while others, sometimes indistinguishable in practice, remain well within the scope.

These are not ideological concerns. They’re practical ones. These are the kinds of questions any legislature should ask when establishing a legal architecture that will be used for decades to come.

There are broader considerations we will need to explore carefully: matters of jurisdiction, matter of consistency with other provincial and federal frameworks and questions about how this bill interacts with sectors and communities that may not have been fully contemplated during drafting.

I won’t pre-empt all of these discussions now, and they will arise naturally as we work through these clauses. Again, I’ll just say 90 percent of the products currently sold in the vaping space in British Columbia are illegal. They do not conform to any labelling, dosage rates and are not taxed and, as such, we would assume, under this framework, will not be subject to this legislation.

On this side of the House, we are approaching committee stage in good faith. We’re not here to undermine the objective of holding bad actors accountable. If a company has misrepresented its product or concealed its risks, there should be consequences. But accountability must be paired with fairness and with a clear understanding of who is responsible for what.

Our role today is to help ensure that this bill reflects that balance. That’s why we will be bringing forward several amendments over the course of this debate, amendments that ensure due process, amendments that protect responsible actors who follow the rules, amendments that require transparency when cabinet wishes to expand the scope of this act and amendments that tighten definitions so that the bill functions as intended.

This is not about opposing the concept of cost recovery. It’s about ensuring the framework is solid enough to withstand the legal and practical challenges that will inevitably come through enforcement of this act.

Our job in committee is not to speed legislation through; it’s to ensure that we get it right. Over the next several hours, we will ask constructive questions, highlight areas where we believe the bill can be strengthened and work collaboratively to ensure that British Columbians are served by legislation that is fair, workable and grounded in common sense.

I very much look forward to these discussions.

Anna Kindy: Just to start off with, the MLA from Comox made some relevant points. Also, when I first heard about the bill and the title of the bill, which is Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, I was actually excited. I thought: “Okay, it kind of makes sense because vaping is probably not the healthiest thing to do.”

But when I started looking into the bill, it kind of surprised me as to the scope and how the government proceeded. There was an explanatory note here, when we got the copy of the bill, that says: “This bill provides to the government the opportunity to recoup some of the health care expenses it is required to incur as a result of the health ills caused by vaping products.”

It sounds good. Then you think about the scope of the bill and how the government, for some reason, has narrowed it to a very narrow scope, which excludes the harm caused by vaping in general, depending on the products and depending on the vaping.

The other issue, thinking about it when I was reading, is…. I know as a physician, the word on the ground is that vaping products…. Most of what’s bought is unregulated. The reason it’s bought unregulated is because it’s much cheaper, so it comes at a much lower cost.

[5:15 p.m.]

Part of the intent, I’m assuming, because it does have the word “health” in the title, is that it would be about the health of British Columbians and especially our youth. We now know that many of our youth are vaping. But because of the cost, most of the youth buy through unregulated channels or even through vape shops that sell unregulated products. To me, that’s a huge concern, unregulated products.

Well, first of all, I’m going to go back to, let’s say, the regulated products. If I eat a cookie, there’s a labelling on the cookie. I know what I’m eating — if there’s oatmeal, sugar, whatever. I decide that if I eat too many cookies, it’s probably not healthy for me, but I know what’s in my cookie, depending on the type of cookie I buy.

If I buy a sausage, it’s the same thing. If I buy a hot dog, there’s labelling. That’s because I’m consuming the product. It’s actually being diffused in my body and potentially helping by giving calories but also maybe causing harm because of all the added ingredients.

When you think of vaping, you’re actually ingesting the substances. Obviously, there are multiple substances in vaping products. I think one of the, again, intents was to protect somehow or make sure that the health of British Columbians is protected. But no vaping products have labels, regulated or unregulated. That’s a start. Why are we not mandating labelling of what we are ingesting? We all know, and many studies have shown, that there are effects of vaping and the chemicals themselves causing harm.

We’re going to go into the details of that as we proceed, because I think it’s important for the viewers. I’m not sure how many people watch Leg. TV, but I think it’s important for…. There always has to be, I think, an education component, as well, to build so that people understand on the ground what the government is doing and why it’s doing it. Hopefully, they gain something from watching Leg. TV.

I’m going to maybe start with a background question, not related as much to health. When we’re looking at the concern…. I’ll just be reading this. The concern is that we may be racking up a very significant legal bill in this process. The whole pursuit of this legislation is, hopefully, about health, but we’ll assume that it’s maybe all about revenue to government. I’m not sure. I think because it has health on it, I’m assuming it’s partly because of our health and protecting youth, especially.

This particular legislation will not have the effect of even one person in B.C. ceasing vaping, as far as I see. This is just a future potential cost recuperation.

If it’s all about revenue…. We saw that the tobacco settlement, which took 25 years, and we’re still not quite sure how much it cost the taxpayers. How many dollars are being diverted from the general revenue in pursuit of this?

Hon. Niki Sharma: At this stage in our development of this project, there’s no money coming from the government. The arrangements that we have to pursue legal…. Our lawsuits are based on contingency, so it’s a percentage of whatever is settled that’s paid out to lawyers.

Anna Kindy: If there’s a potential forecast, can we relate it to tobacco and the legal case with tobacco in terms of what was generated and what the cost was to the government to generate that amount?

[5:20 p.m.]

At least it gives us a bit of a precedent of what we’re trying to accomplish here.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just put the disclaimer out there that every case is different and evolves differently. But the member asked about tobacco, and I can give that number. The contingency amount that was paid to lawyers is 3.5 percent of the settlement — which, if you compare that to general private contingency agreements, is very much lower than what it would be generally in the market.

Brennan Day: We can understand the scope of the potential recovery through this act. Could you just break down what the current regulated market is in British Columbia for vaping products, so we can anticipate what may be at stake here, and also fill us in on any information you may have in regard to what the illicit market currently comprises in British Columbia? As we know, it is considerably larger than the legal market.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think it’s a good opportunity to provide some clarity with respect to this.

I think the members have raised issues of regulated and unregulated markets. We can sue anybody, whether it’s a regulated or a non-regulated vaping product supplier. There’s no differentiation between a regulated or non-regulated market in this piece of legislation.

Brennan Day: Could you explain, then, how we would be going after the illicit actors through this bill? We know that they far outweigh the proper actors. I’m just wondering. I don’t think this has ever been done before. I feel there are some fairly substantial challenges to government in going after the black market and overseas actors that are, potentially, involved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Setting up a legislative framework to have a lawsuit come from it doesn’t restrict government and whom they would target with these legal tools. You could be a manufacturer, wholesaler or consultant related to vaping products. There’s no restriction on regulated or unregulated, in the sense of regulations on whom government could target with this lawsuit.

Brennan Day: I think we’ll probably get back to that in a second.

I’m just wondering. Could you outline what consultations you’ve done?

The Chair: Member. Just a reminder that it’s through the Chair.

Brennan Day: Sorry, Chair.

Through the Chair to the minister, would it be possible to get some background on what consultations have been done with Health Canada to this point, as this potentially opens up B.C. to leading a nationwide lawsuit?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to start off, I think, in engaging in the discussion we’re going to have over this bill, it’s important to note that there are a whole bunch of tools that you would use to target vaping and the vaping industry.

One would be regulation, and Health Canada certainly has an important role to play in that. Another one is the Ministry of Education and the work they’re doing to get kids to understand and not take up vaping — which is an important thing. I think we should look at this not as the only tool related to vaping but as one of the tools.

Then we have to situate this as a tool in recovering health care costs. It comes in as a legal tool that we’ve championed in B.C., and been successful in tobacco but also the opioid recovery act, to show that we, as a government, can step in on behalf of the public and collect what was expended, for health care costs on behalf of taxpayers, from wrongdoers. That model has been, I think, an excellent model to act in the public interest, in the court setting, related to harms.

The questions about consultation, when we talk about them, have to be looked at under that guise. If you were talking about how to regulate the industry, you might go to Health Canada and say: “How would we do this?” But this is not that.

We are talking about how to recover health care costs that are incurred by the government in a potential legal action that this would set up the tools to launch. In that scenario, we wouldn’t talk to Health Canada about that, because they wouldn’t have a role in us recovering health care costs on behalf of British Columbians.

That’s a little bit of context that, I think, will help set the discussions.

Anna Kindy: Just for my own clarification, I still need to understand the intent of the bill. There’s a twofold, or more, intent. You talk about education for the kids, etc., and then you talk about recouped health care costs.

There was an article, on October 17, 2025, where the Attorney General stated that the vaping industry is targeting young people with misleading advertising and packaging. My assumption is that…. I will ask the Attorney General to clarify. My assumption is that the Attorney General is talking about recouping costs, which is a benefit to the public for health care reasons, for overall general revenue and being able to service health care.

She mentioned targeting youth. Is it the intent to decrease vaping in the general population as well as in the youth?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Cost recovery, I think, is one component of it, but I think another strong component of it is behavioural change. For those wrongdoers that are using deceptive practices to target kids and get them hooked on something that’s harmful to them, we want them to change their behaviour.

We’re using a model that we should all be proud of in B.C., which says: “We will take you on in court. We will meet you in court, and we will not only defend the rights of taxpayers but go after you for your deceptive practices.” Always our hope, in that context, is that it would lead to changes now in the behaviour of those wrongdoers.

[5:30 p.m.]

Anna Kindy: We talked about tobacco and talked about the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This bill, I guess, went after Purdue Pharma for hydromorphone or oxycodone at that point.

I’ll just read this out first, and then I’ll have my question. The Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which this bill is supposedly modelled after, has been successfully used and subject to 28 court applications, recovered $180 million thus far.

My question is…. This is, for me, confusing because the government is saying that it wants to cause behavioural changes. It sued Purdue pharmacy for a type of opioid. In the meantime, the government itself has a policy of safe supply, which is Dilaudid. Who is a producer of Dilaudid? Purdue pharmacy.

I personally, as a physician, am seeing harm done, especially to youth, because that’s how youth often start their journey of drug addiction. It usually isn’t through the route of fentanyl.

So if that’s the model, if that’s what you are trying to achieve here, I’m trying to understand the correlation with the tobacco and opioids and the government’s own use of safe supply, which has added costs to the health care system.

Can the government sue the government for the costs?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In the context of the act, we have said manufacturers, wholesalers and consultants are part of who could be sued. To the question about government and government’s role, hopefully that would answer it.

I think it’s really important to contextualize the role of a lawsuit when it comes to health care costs or changes in behaviour. With the opioid…. I think there have been a lot of revelations that came out over the use of opioids and the companies that did it that showed that they used deceptive practices to market something as not addictive that actually was addictive and then profited off of it. That deceptive practice in the marketplace has led to a lot of harm.

I think a lot of physicians would say that opioids also have beneficial uses that we use in the medical system — different ranges of them, different doses, all those things. But the key in terms of the lawsuit, which is what is the basis of our action of opioids…. It’s about the deceptive practices that led to the harm and led us to form lawsuits against them.

Anna Kindy: To the Attorney General: you brought this up, so talking about deceptive practices…. As a physician, I know that opioids are never, never safe. To market something or have a policy of prescribing something that is called “safe” is deceptive practice.

I’m just wondering. I’m trying to wrap my head around, again, that idea of trying to protect consumers and recover health care costs when the government itself has used deceptive practices.

[5:35 p.m.]

People have died from safe supply. There’s no doubt about that. In my riding, there have been two high school kids that have passed away.

Again, how do you correlate the idea of causing behavioural changes and recouping health care costs and having, potentially, an educational component with this bill? I don’t see it.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just in terms of the guidance, I appreciate that we may have a forum for a bigger discussion about our opinions about how to deal with what is an opioid crisis that we’re all, in many parts of the world and including B.C., facing and what policy options and what’s available for that.

This, I would suggest, is maybe not the place for that. I’m happy to talk to vaping, specific questions or questions related to our legislation.

Anna Kindy: I’m going to go through the bill a little bit to kind of go through what I think are points that I thought were important.

In the first clause, there’s the description of what disease, injury or illness is. When it says “physical and mental injury or illness,” for example, what would that include?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of these definitions and how they were approached, as with a lot of definitions, you want to be very broad so as to be able to cover categories in a broad sense.

In terms of the words that are chosen, they’re chosen to be that way, like physical or mental injury in the sense of that being a broad term that could encompass many things, or illness.

Also, I would say that it’s based on some case law. Mental injury is a broader concept than mental illness and does not require a formal medical diagnosis, and it’s proven through certain legal principles on a balance of probabilities.

When our legal team looked at what definitions to include in there, it was based on the legal analysis and that idea that you want to make them broad enough that, as potential court cases evolve, you can adapt them to our understanding of vaping and its impacts over time.

Brennan Day: In the same definition, the risk of disease, injury or illness is called out there, and I think that’s fairly broad. There are risks to many things. That’s an extremely broad category with no real measurable definition.

[5:40 p.m.]

I’m just curious. Does this line up with either the opioid or the tobacco recovery act language, or is this a departure from those two acts? This does seem to make it extremely broad, and everything has risks. I’m just wondering how the government wants to constrain that clause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of this part of the definitions, it has been restructured slightly to be clearer and broadened and modernized to account for evolving case law since the tobacco and opioid acts were passed.

Like in the TRA and ORA, this is an open definition, so the things listed are not exclusive. However, problematic substance use, addiction and general deterioration of health are all repeated from the opioid recovery act.

Brennan Day: If you could just clarify for me how the government can sue for a risk when no actual harm has been proven to occur. Again, it seems extremely broad, and without some constraint, I feel that there could be some later problems in interpretation of that definition.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: In legal proceedings and settlements or court resolutions, risk assessment happens all the time. When somebody has been injured from something and they pursue personal injuries, there’s a future care, or risks that are assessed of lost wages. What would have happened if this person did that? What was occurring? What might be compensable, and how much should they be paid for that? Risk assessment is a pretty common thing in the legal system.

With respect to this, it’s similar to some language we had in the opioid recovery act. I think you could think of it this way. Government action starts at the time of risk. We have prevention campaigns that are in schools now to prevent the risk of harm to children, so they don’t vape, don’t start vaping. There are many scenarios where government action has already stepped in at that stage.

The risk of disease, injury or illness is included to make the act structurally simpler but also emphasize that the harm need not have materialized or crystallized. It is valid for government to provide health care benefits, such as medical monitoring, once a wrongdoing has created a risk of harm. That’s just part of government responses.

Brennan Day: We’ll just go back a couple of lines here. Could you please give us the definition, as you see it, of “problematic product use” as it applies to this act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was a phrase that was used in our opioid recovery act. It’s intended to ensure that use disorders, not just clinically recognized addictions, are recognized as harms under the act.

Formal medical diagnoses, like under the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, often have a certain lag behind harms that are occurring. The proper interpretation is that the problematic aspect has to be the level of harm and not just an inconvenience, but this is ultimately a decision for the court, on the basis of the evidence.

Brennan Day: Could the minister please elaborate on how that’s meaningfully different than an addiction? Clearly, I’m sure a lot of us use problematic products regularly, whether it’s coffee or otherwise. How is that going to be interpreted here?

I feel we’re trying to attack a product that has potential addictive properties. It’s fairly clear, from the overwhelming usage and repeat usage, that that is something that is of concern. I feel that addiction is a better descriptor.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is related to sometimes, as I mentioned before, what might occur as a lag between an actual medical diagnosis of addiction and problematic use. For example, if we were looking at the vaping context, there may be very few people that have actually sought and obtained a medical diagnosis of being addicted to vaping. But the population that is actually addicted without that medical diagnosis may be much broader than that.

This helps us, in a legal sense, capture more broadly the harm that’s being caused by certain products.

Anna Kindy: Definitions and interpretation, looking at that section again…. I get the addiction part. If you’re addicted to vaping, it’s pretty obvious you’re addicted to vaping.

Now, if we look at the other categories…. We have five categories, so I get one out of five. The reason I’m saying this is…. I’m going to go back to my cookie example. If I’m addicted to cookies and vaping, and I’m eating boxes and boxes of cookies, and I get overweight and don’t move, that will cause me general deterioration of health. It will cause me the risk of disease, injury and illness.

I’m doing two things. I’m eating boxes and boxes of cookies. I’m overweight, and I get cardiovascular issues, one of the potential problems of vaping. It seems to me….

I’m not sure how the legal aspect will be decided. Is it vaping causing the cardiovascular issue, or is it being addicted to the cookies?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s dinnertime, and you’re making us all hungry for cookies. We were just talking about that.

What I would say is that generally, in every legal case where there’s a question of causation — what caused what, which I think is the example that the member provided — it’s up to the decision-maker, so the judge in the matter, to look at the fact scenarios before them and the connections between, likely, medical evidence or whatever you brought before to see what the causation is of the harms that are being sought for recovery.

Anna Kindy: Putting aside the cookies for a minute, and looking at…. Again, I’m not from a legal background, but if I look at the last five years, judges seem to be predisposed to be on the government’s side.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’m just going to state that as what I’ve kind of noticed.

Going back to my cookie example, a cookie is one example, but many people that vape have many problematic behaviours, because addiction is addiction to many different things. It could be addiction to cookies, sexual addiction, addiction to many, many things that all can cause harm. I’m still not also convinced.

The other thing I’m not convinced of when I look at (a), “physical or mental injury or illness,” especially mental injury…. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Often people that have mental injuries, which progress through time, so you might not even know that they have mental injuries, have problematic behaviours and addictive behaviours.

If their mental health deteriorates, what will be the cause of that? Will vaping be considered a cause of deterioration of mental health?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It would be every time there’s something that goes before the court, like in any of our claims. I think the government lawyers were really happy for your idea that judges are on government’s side, because I think they probably feel different with a lot of the cases that are brought forward, just as an aside. But it would be up to the judge to decide.

Each case puts forward its evidence. If we give vaping as an example, just as a hypothetical, the evidence that we would have to put forward, or whoever brought the lawsuit forward against the vaping companies, is that their product caused that harm.

There are provisions in here that I’m sure we’ll get to that talk about aggregate-level harm and population-level harm, which is unique to this type of litigation. That generally is the way that things go through the court, that you have to prove your case.

Anna Kindy: I’m wondering if the disease, injury or illness, if mental injury, if psychosis and schizophrenia, would be considered as part of the mental injury related to — and I go back to the title, Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act — vaping products. Would schizophrenia or psychosis be caused by vaping products?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The words “mental injury,” and I think we were talking earlier about how the definitions are drafted very broadly, is drafted broadly enough to include schizophrenia, the example that the member gave. The question would be if the causal link can be created between vaping and that mental injury.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:59 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: The committee on Bill 24 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: We are waiting for the other committee.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras
in Commercial Vehicles Act
(continued)

The Speaker: Members, earlier today during private members’ time a division was requested on second reading of Bill M217 intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the deferred division will take place now.

[6:05 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.]

It’s second reading of Bill M217, intituled Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 84A(1), the bill stands committed to the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Susie Chant: Section A reports Bill 25 complete without amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

The Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the question.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

On clause 26 (continued).

Linda Hepner: I wonder if I could get the minister to clarify for us the significance of clause 26.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Bill 44 established that heritage revitalization agreements following the date the section came into force can’t be used to prevent properties from being developed to the minimum density requirements. This provision ensures agreements under development can proceed if entered into before the legislation comes into force, even if they affect the small-scale, multi-unit housing minimum density requirements.

Linda Hepner: I think we talked about this a little bit last week. If, in the future, there is a heritage revitalization agreement signed, that same scenario would be permitted under this legislation. If you’d just confirm that for me.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The question was a bit unclear to me, so I’m going to try to answer it, and if I don’t, I’m happy to have you clarify. As we discussed last week, a future heritage revitalization agreement would need to allow for the density permitted under small-scale, multi-unit housing.

[2:50 p.m.]

You’ll remember I named a number of examples, including in my own riding and in Vancouver, where they’ve done a really excellent job of stratifying, adding laneway or additional dwelling units to allow for more units while protecting and preserving a heritage building.

Linda Hepner: If that doesn’t work, I assume that they would then appeal under extraordinary circumstances and say: “Relative to this particular heritage site, these provisos under Bills 25 and 44 won’t work.” Then they would have to come to you for those extraordinary circumstance extensions. Am I correct in that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As we again spoke to last week, yes. If there were other natural-hazard circumstances, they could apply for an exemption for that reason.

Clause 26 approved.

On clause 27.

Linda Hepner: I wonder if the minister could let me know how many municipalities are covered by these former extensions.

Hon. Christine Boyle: There are 18.

Linda Hepner: Of those 18, and if the extension period extends beyond June 30, 2026, how long do they have until they must comply with the new zoning bylaws?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Each of those communities has unique circumstances so will have their own compliance dates, based on the complexity of those circumstances.

Linda Hepner: Am I to understand that those 18 have already defined what their date of compliance is, and if so, could you share with me that data at some point? Or am I to understand that come June 30, 2026, they may come to you and say, “I have a particular circumstance,” and then we would get a defined date?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, those dates are set and publicly available. They were part of a news release at the time.

Clause 27 approved.

On clause 28.

[2:55 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for allowing me some time here to speak to Bill 25. I wanted to go over something that was brought to my attention last week, actually. It ties in quite well in regard to clause 28, which talks about the transition and the effect of a local community plan.

Métis Nation B.C. — their Columbia Valley Métis Association has recently had an application in for housing. Clause 28 is written for the compliance with section 481.3, which are zoning bylaws and small-scale, multi-unit housing.

Now, I read section 788 — which is referred to in clause 28 by section 478(2), that the effect of local community plan does not apply before the prescribed date — and then section 481.3, which is small-scale housing. This particular scenario is not small-scale housing, but I’ll loop back to that shortly.

It has more to do with purpose-built housing in smaller communities and, more specifically, culturally sensitive housing in the district of Invermere. I actually have their OCP printed out — which is this really fabulous document, might I add. It did a really good job. Specifically, the Columbia Valley site was zoned to CDZ-6 for the purpose of building a member-focused community.

The community that they originally wanted to build for their members, the Métis in that region, was originally intended for around 36 units, with a cultural centre on the site as well, but to even apply for B.C. Housing, they were encouraged to increase the door count to 41.

Some of the challenges are that, now, after a reiteration of redesign after community input, it went from four storeys to three storeys with the removal of the cultural centre that was to be a part of the Métis community there. It has now increased to 51 doors, which is beyond what they wanted, with a significant increase in number of studio apartments.

Now, again, this was purpose-built. This land was rezoned for this type of housing based on the OCP of Invermere. The challenge that they’ve got is that a significant portion of this has been mandated to be studio apartments. But this was supposed to be purpose-built for the Métis members, families and studio apartments, even though the solution told to them has been to just put kind of those adjoining hotel doors between units so that somebody could have two units side by side.

It’s just not really what their intention was. It seems like it has moved more to door count instead of really appropriate housing for these members.

As clause 28 is written, it has more to do with small-scale multifamily housing. Let’s just take that same scenario and downsize it, and let’s just say that the Columbia Valley wanted to build a culturally sensitive housing unit for a family in need, with maybe some funding attached to it. Are they now bound by the density that they neither want nor is appropriate for the application?

Say the local government is in transition of changing zoning bylaws…. Just take this scenario and put it into any community that hasn’t fully adopted all of the zoning changes required for densification by Bill 44.

[3:00 p.m.]

So the local government is in transition of changing zoning bylaws by the prescribed date for SSMUH. Say if the CVMA wishes to proceed with a single-family unit, will this clause force a redesign to create more units than they want?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The example in question, as the member opposite stated, isn’t relevant to the clause. The clause is specific to the transitional provision around small-scale, multi-unit housing and is focused on ensuring that local governments have the time to harmonize their official community plans with zoning bylaws.

I am happy to follow up on the specific project mentioned in the Columbia Valley, if that’s of interest, at a different time.

Misty Van Popta: No. I do understand that there are specific…. I was just using it more as an anecdotal piece of how transitioning and even…. You know, the effects of OCPs that this density has is….

It’s a hypothetical. What if somebody wanted to build a purpose-built home, a single home for a single family, cultural in nature? Do provisions within this bill and this clause specifically, as it goes to transitional timing for local governments…? Does it affect applications like that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It might stretch a bit from this, but I know folks are coming in and out, so I want to give this my best shot at answering. Just to be clear, the legislation would still allow a single-family home if that’s what the owner of the property wanted. It doesn’t set a requirement of what must be built. It simply sets what the local government needs to zone for. You can build less than what is zoned for.

It’s focused on the zoning and not a minimum of what needs to be built. A family, whoever, could still build a single-family home. It’s just that the local government couldn’t restrict something, a multiplex or such, being built there.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, thank you for that explanation. But it still has a bit to do with questions around B.C. Housing’s requirements to increase their door-count numbers. In this case, with the densification required on municipalities, there is a pressure, especially when organizations apply for funding through B.C. Housing, to increase the door counts.

If they’re only wanting to build…. The original intent was advertised as 36 units, and now I think that they’re required to build 51, most of which are studio suites. I just wanted to use this example for single-family multi-unit. Even if it was only a duplex, but B.C. Housing comes in and says, “No, we want a fourplex….”

If you can speak to that, if the mandate on local governments or the pressure on local governments has more to do with door counts than it does to the purpose of the housing that is actually appropriate for certain communities.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: B.C. Housing doesn’t build small-scale, multi-unit housing. I don’t think the two are comparable in this situation, but again, I’m happy to follow up on that specific Métis Nation project.

Clause 28 approved.

On clause 29.

Tony Luck: Thank you for the opportunity to stand here and be able to ask some questions today, just a few here on a couple of additional clauses.

One of the beliefs that we’ve had on this bill all along is that we don’t believe in a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. I know some of these questions might be repetitive, because we’ve already dealt with the Community Charter, but now we’re dealing with the Vancouver Charter. So there might be the odd question that sounds similar to that, but seeing how one size doesn’t always fit all, I think it’s very, very appropriate to ask some questions specifically to the Vancouver Charter, which we’re addressing right now.

Having said that, I think the first question I have is: what engineering analysis demonstrates that existing water, sewer, drainage and road systems can absorb the density increase triggered by clause 29? That’ll be good for now.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Maybe I’m missing something. If so, I invite the member to reframe the question.

Clause 29 is simply adding an interpretive rule for the purposes of the transitional provisions related to the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck: Okay. Let me see if I can just ask another question, then, in conjunction with that.

What safeguards in clause 29 ensure that municipalities can delay or phase development when infrastructure data shows systems are already at or near critical capacity? Once again, these are coming in to change the way the system is done so we can increase the capacity and the density on these lots.

How are we putting some safeguards in to make sure that we don’t overstretch the balance of some of that zoning and that within these communities?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, respectfully, I don’t see how this is relevant to clause 29.

Clauses 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

On clause 32.

Linda Hepner: I don’t have a lot of questions on 32, but I do have one, and that is: has there been any extension granted which would be applicable under this section, and if so, could the minister provide the detail on that or them?

Hon. Christine Boyle: No, there isn’t.

Clause 32 approved.

On clause 33.

The Chair: We’re on clause 33 and recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis: Well done, Mr. Chair. I know it’s a mouthful. Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions here this afternoon to the minister and her staff.

In clause 33, I just want to dig into a couple of things for clarity’s sake, I think, more than anything. In this legislation, specifically in clause 33, which I’ll speak to in a second, it appears that modern treaty Nations are taking sort of their own policies, their own governance to short-term rentals within their treaty territory. I just want to ask a few questions around how that looks.

[3:10 p.m.]

Under point 2 here, it says it replaces the definition of “First Nation law” with definitions of “short-term rental First Nation law” and “related First Nation law.” I just want to chat about that a little bit.

First of all, in clause 33 of this legislation, how many of the modern treaty Nations were consulted on the changing of that language in clause 33?

Hon. Christine Boyle: All modern treaty Nations were notified, and we specifically met for further discussion with the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ First Nation.

Scott McInnis: I understand that it’s probably most applicable to those nations, considering I think some of the modern treaty Nations may not — I don’t want to speak on their behalf — have a robust market for short-term-rental capacity at this time anyhow.

We’re looking at clause 33 and the change of this language for short-term rental First Nation law. This is kind of drafted through what’s called a coordination agreement.

Could the minister maybe break down what those coordination agreements look like, how they’re drafted and what some of the outcomes of those would be, related specifically to the short-term rental First Nation law language?

Hon. Christine Boyle: A coordination agreement is a legal instrument that enables the implementation of select services or regulations from federal or provincial governments on First Nations lands respecting First Nations’ right to self-governance. Coordination agreements are a common approach used by the Ministry of Children and Family Development and are also included in the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

Gavin Dew: Could the minister elaborate on who else was consulted? Were only First Nations consulted, or was anyone else consulted in the development of these agreements?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m not sure if the member is speaking directly to clause 33 or the legislation more broadly, but on clause 33, specific to the coordination agreements with First Nations, as I said earlier, staff engaged with, specifically, Tsawwassen First Nation, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ Government, Métis Nation B.C., the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and notified all modern treaty Nations.

Gavin Dew: Appreciate the answer. What I am looking to understand is any broader consultation that was undertaken.

Specifically, this is the only tool through which government is reopening the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. There are a number of different issues and dynamics that have been commented on fairly extensively in public by municipalities and others around the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

What I’m trying to understand is whether there was any broader consultation undertaken or whether the only consultation and the only action undertaken was specifically to address those changes for First Nations.

Again, if I could just get a little bit more information on the broader context of consultation or the broader conversations within which this was developed, because I would like to understand whether and why only First Nations were consulted in this regard, not neighbouring municipalities, not private sector actors, not individuals that would be operating on platforms.

I’m just trying to understand the narrowness of the consultation, because it seems extraordinarily narrow and extraordinarily disinterested in broader amendments to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is a very focused administrative set of amendments, and the ministry is in regular contact with local governments, with industry, with the platforms, with the tourism sector on broader conversations. What’s before us today are, as I said, focused administrative amendments.

Gavin Dew: If, indeed, government is in contact with municipalities and with the full range of stakeholders that has been articulated, could the minister clarify what, if any, formal stakeholder engagement and consultation processes have been undertaken since the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act was brought into force two years ago in order to make potential adjustments to it?

Really, just help me understand why, two years into the life of that legislation, with a wide variety of different issues having been flagged in public and discussed….

I understand that this is narrow. I want to understand why it is so narrow. Why is there no evident effort being made if, in fact, the government is here reopening the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act?

[3:20 p.m.]

Why is no effort being made here to address any of the other considerations, any of the other issues flagged by any of the other stakeholders, and instead focusing only on a very, very narrow set of changes limited to First Nations?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, as I said, we are in regular contact with stakeholders around these issues. This has been a phased implementation of the legislation, and we’ve seen significant positive impacts because of this legislation.

Through that regular contact, there were a few clear administrative areas of improvement that were identified and are amendments that are being proposed in this legislation.

There’s one piece specific to making sections of the act available to modern treaty Nations through a coordination agreement as well as three amendments to improve clarity of administrative process and interpretation — the amended definition of “principal residence,” a revised process for reviews of registration and administrative penalty decisions, and improved information-sharing authorities to ensure consistent interpretation of existing provisions.

Those were each identified, and that’s the reason they’re before us today.

Gavin Dew: In light of the regular contact with stakeholders, including but not limited to municipalities, it sounds as if some areas were chosen to prioritize. What I’d like to understand is what other priorities were flagged by stakeholders. What other changes were flagged by stakeholders. Why were some of those changes not included, and on what basis was the decision made to include only those changes that form part of this legislation?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Of course, the ministry receives a wide range of feedback, everything from clarifying definitions within the act to people not wanting the act to exist at all.

However, we are seeing positive impacts as a result of this work. In communities with the principal residence requirement, we saw a 12 percent decrease in the number of entire homes that were frequently rented as short-term rentals between March 2024 and February 2025. Average asking rents across B.C. for a one-bedroom unit decreased by 7.6 percent from October 2023 to August 2025. Some communities have seen an even larger impact.

The ministry takes a balanced approach. We are in regular contact with stakeholders. We hear a wide range of feedback and then make decisions to balance it and improve the legislation where we can while remaining committed to its existence.

Gavin Dew: With the utmost respect, that was a complete non-answer and a reversion to talking points.

The question that I am asking again, and I hope that I will receive an answer this time, is: what other feedback and suggestions for changes to make the act more practical…? What other suggestions were received from stakeholders, in the extensive regular contact that the minister has described, that were not brought forward through this act?

I am specifically trying to understand what feedback was received, what recommendations, suggestions, ideas and requests were advanced that the ministry or the minister concluded were not appropriate to be included in this, their tune-up job on the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

I am not looking for talking points. I’m not looking for a generic defence of the act. I’m looking to understand what specific requests and recommendations were put forward and were intentionally not included.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, we receive a wide range of feedback on all of these conversations.

I think I know where the member opposite is going, so maybe I’ll try to answer that question, which is that we have heard from Kelowna recently that they would like the opt-in date moved up. There are a number of reasons we aren’t proposing that now, and we can get into it. Not particularly related to clause 33, which we’re on though, so I’m happy to stick to clause 33.

Gavin Dew: I am asking these questions on 33 because they are the beginning of the section of the bill amending the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. I certainly expect there will be opportunities for us to canvass that particular issue in more detail at a later time. But again, at this stage, what I’m trying to understand is why the bill is and what the bill is in this particular part.

I’m glad that the minister has proactively mentioned the desire from the city of Kelowna to see the opt-out timeline changed, and I hope that she will join me in supporting that, as it is an obvious and commonsense change. But I am still looking for a little more clarity as to what other recommendations and requests were requested.

Since the minister does appear to have public opinions on this, I would like to understand whether the ministry, the minister or the government have received any feedback with regard to amendments that could be made to enable greater flexibility in the case of major events. This government has made quite a significant commitment to supporting major events like FIFA. It has been very proud of major concerts like Taylor Swift.

We have seen a significant commitment to and a lot of celebration of successes in terms of major, major events coming to this province in all kinds of different communities. I would really love to understand, in light of the fact that FIFA is going to be coming very soon and that there is expected to be a shortfall of thousands upon thousands of hotel rooms in the Vancouver marketplace, as one example….

I’m curious if the minister can elaborate on whether any feedback was received through those regular and ongoing conversations with stakeholders around changes that could be made to enable flexibility for major events and why we don’t see any coverage whatsoever of that particular issue in this legislation. If in fact such changes are going to be made, it would only make sense to bring them forward at this time, as once we finish this fall session, it will not be possible to bring anything forward to the Legislature until February.

I’m really just struggling to understand. In light of the significant, substantial ongoing conversations around FIFA, the desire to ensure economic benefit, the desire to ensure that the logistics of that particular event are well covered, why do I see nothing in here about addressing major surges of demand for major events like FIFA?

Again, can the minister explain whether any conversations were undertaken in those ongoing conversations with stakeholders around how that could have been fixed but is not in this present legislation?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I assume the member is referring to specific requests for legislative changes that Airbnb has requested. Those are in the public realm. What I can say is that the ministry, of course, hears those. We take a balanced approach in hearing those and in recognizing the very real benefits of the current legislation and a commitment to the protection of long-term tenants.

The changes that we’ve made through this act are providing business certainty to hotels and other operators, which is leading to important new investments in hotel supply in Metro Vancouver and other regions, with many new rooms already open or expected to open by 2026.

Under these short-term-rental regulations, people who don’t need to be in town for big events or who want to rent out a spare bedroom continue to be able to do so through short-term-rental platforms such as Airbnb or VRBO. This has not changed.

What we won’t do is allow loopholes that would see people evicted from their homes to allow landlords to make a greater profit in renting out those same units short term for major events and a reason we won’t displace people who work and deliver services that support these major events and activities. We’re confident that there will be places to stay for those who come to the province for major events, including FIFA.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. I’m struggling to understand what loopholes the minister believes are being proposed. Are there stakeholders who have proposed what the minister would deem to be a loophole? I’m just trying to understand whether that’s anything other than political rhetoric. What specific feedback from stakeholders has been received that the minister deems to be a loophole that would encourage bad-faith evictions?

I really want to understand that, because the minister has made that comment publicly and seems to believe that there are loopholes on the table that would “encourage bad-faith evictions.” Just really looking to understand what stakeholders the minister would characterize as having proposed loopholes that would encourage bad-faith evictions.

Hon. Christine Boyle: There was a request from Airbnb to temporarily remove the principal residence requirement for special events.

[3:40 p.m.]

This request appears to rely on the assumption that there are many secondary homes sitting empty that would become available as short-term-rental units by waiving the principal residence requirements. The reality is that this just isn’t the case. In addition to the provincial speculation and vacancy tax that applies in Vancouver, the city of Vancouver also has an empty homes tax, and both disincentivize homeowners from leaving their properties vacant.

If we were to create a temporary exemption for major events, what would really happen is that we would see long-term tenants evicted from their homes so that owners can benefit from the much higher rates they could charge for operating a short-term rental. Even if those units converted to short-term rental temporarily for a special event period were converted back to long-term units, that would be of little help to the people who lost their homes during the event.

The approach we’re taking already allows owners and renters to, short term, rent their own homes during events. This is a balanced approach that provides the ability for people to make short-term-rental units available without costing anyone their home.

The Chair: We’re on clause 33.

Gavin Dew: I just wanted to go back to the minister’s previous answer and make sure I understand fully. The minister indicated a lack of desire to make any changes because “there were more hotel rooms coming on stream.” From what I’ve read in the media, it appears that there is a potential shortfall of thousands of hotel rooms during FIFA, which, again, is coming down the pipe very quickly.

Could the minister, having indicated that there is no problem to be addressed here through amendments to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act…? Could the minister just help me understand those numbers? I’m hearing shortfalls in the thousands of hotel rooms, so could the minister just itemize all those hotel rooms that are going to be coming on stream before FIFA?

I would be happy to hear a list. I’d be happy to hear a number. I’d love to hear it quantified. If the minister does not have a list of all of the hotel projects that are going to be opening up in and around Vancouver before FIFA that will fill that hotel room supply gap, then I would be happy for her to provide that at a later time in writing with numbers attached to it.

What I’m hearing right now is a vague articulation that thousands and thousands of hotel rooms will be opened before FIFA. I would just love to hear the minister substantiate that claim.

The Chair: Member, I’ve given some leniency already regarding your questions, but I think we’re straying quite far from the intent of this particular section. If you’d like to ask a different question, please go ahead.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I…. No, I don’t think so. I think that this is a very reasonable question. The question I’m asking is an attempt to understand what is in the scope of the bill.

The Chair: I’ve already….

Gavin Dew: The minister has provided an answer. I’m simply asking her to substantiate it.

The Chair: I’ve already made a decision, and that decision is that you have strayed too far from clause 33. If you’d like to make a different submission, you’re more than welcome to do so, but otherwise, we’re going to continue on.

Gavin Dew: It’s my observation that I am being told that I have strayed because the minister is uncomfortable and cannot answer the question.

The Chair: No. As the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, I’m sitting here looking at what the clause states, and I’ve made that determination solely. So if you’d like to sit down, you’re more than welcome to, or you can ask a follow-up question.

Gavin Dew: Thank you.

My follow-up question is…. The minister has made a very specific claim that there will be an adequate number of hotel rooms available. She’s looking through her briefing binder for information on that. I’m fairly confident that she has an answer.

Would she like to provide that answer?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the Chair’s redirection to focus on clause 33.

I do have a brief answer. I’m happy to provide that, which is that updated data from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport estimates 30,000 available hotel rooms in the region in 2026, based on new hotel developments, which exceeds the 25,584 hotel rooms cited in the Deloitte report, which I believe the member is referencing.

Further questions on that can be directed to the Minister of Tourism Arts, Culture and Sport, and I would request that we respect the Chair’s direction and refocus on clause 33.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back to me.

I just wanted to clarify a few things. I think, maybe under the context of this line of questions that I would like to bring forward, if we could maybe use the Tsawwassen First Nation just as an example, that would be helpful.

In clause 33, replacing “First Nation law” with definitions of “short-term rental First Nation law,” in relation to the Short-Term Accommodations Act and these amendments, is it fair to ask the question or to assume that any short-term-rental regulation policy will now fall under the jurisdiction of the Tsawwassen First Nation exclusively?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m going to again do my best to answer what I think is the intent of the question.

Coordination agreements, as enabled through this clause, enable modern treaty Nations to better access provisions in the act, provide access to business licence information and platform data sharing, and support First Nations that are interested in using the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

In clause 33, maybe just for the record, could the minister help us understand what could fall under the guise of short-term rental First Nation law or related First Nation law, just to get some clarity?

Hon. Christine Boyle: First Nations law means law of a participating First Nation in relation to one or both of the following: short-term-rental accommodation services or similar services and platform services.

Scott McInnis: So what was the reason behind narrowing that scope from First Nation law to short-term rental First Nation law and related First Nation law?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is mirroring the approach that we have taken with local government bylaws, which is that it captures broader laws that a participating First Nation may use to regulate short-term rentals in alignment with the provisions available to local governments — for instance, the First Nations general business licensing law. It is a mirror of that same approach but enabling those tools to be used by a participating First Nation should they choose.

Scott McInnis: I think when we’re…. Again, using the context or the example of the Tsawwassen First Nation just for a moment, because a majority of the residents living within that treaty land are not members of the Tsawwassen First Nation, but there are, kind of, as the minister said, broader laws here under short-term rental First Nation law….

Who will be communicating to residents there that want to operate a short-term rental that they may have broader regulation and policy around short-term rentals that is not necessarily in alignment with the provincial Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act but is in a broader scope under short-term rental First Nation law — specifically what would be, in this case, the Tsawwassen First Nation? How is that going to be communicated to the public as to potentially being under the guise of some of these broader laws?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Maybe I’ll start by taking a small step back. I’m clarifying or reminding members that the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act does not apply on First Nation reserve lands, doesn’t apply on the lands of modern treaty Nations unless they choose to enter into a coordination agreement. Then information about coordination agreements are added to the province’s short-term-rental website to help the public understand where they are in place.

[3:55 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister’s answer.

As I’m understanding it, when this act eventually passes, a participating First Nation could enter into a coordination agreement, which then triggers short-term rental First Nation law. Then those living within that territory will be subject to short-term rental First Nation law, but the details about what that First Nation law will be would be posted on a website for operators to view.

Am I getting that right?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Treaty nations have their own law-making powers. We’re talking specifically about modern treaty Nations. They can currently set their own short-term-rental policies. The opportunity and proposal here is coordination to ensure clarity and consistency.

To the point about how that information would be found, residents who live on treaty lands know that they live on treaty lands. They would look to the nation for clarification around those rules. That is part of regular practice.

Scott McInnis: I’m not trying to get a gotcha moment here on the minister. I can assure her of that.

Roughly speaking, how many people live in Tsawwassen treaty territory?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I don’t have that number in front of me. We can dig it up. I assume the member could also google it, but I don’t have it in front of me.

Scott McInnis: It was just a question that came up to my mind, based on the answer. I would have prepared that in advance.

Now, during the consultation process with modern treaty Nations about this amendment in clause 33, did…?

It appears to me, if I just maybe go back a second, that it was Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ and Tsawwassen that actually provided feedback, if I’m not mistaken, to the government about this amendment to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Did they indicate to the government about what some of the specifics around their own individual short-term rental First Nation laws would look like in their own territory?

[4:00 p.m.]

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Oh, thank you, and welcome, Chair.

The Chair: My voice changed.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, you look different, but we’re glad to have you here.

I know this can get a bit complex, so again, let me do my best to outline it for the member.

Modern treaty Nations have laws on business licensing and land use that they can use to regulate the impact of short-term rentals on their treaty lands. Some modern treaty Nations face similar challenges as local governments when enforcing their short-term-rental regulations. Modern treaty Nations can enter into a coordination agreement to access provisions in the act that can help them to enforce their own laws that regulate short-term-rental accommodations.

Those coordination agreements were part of the original legislation. In fact, Tsawwassen First Nation already has a coordination agreement. The process of negotiating that first coordination agreement with Tsawwassen First Nation helped uncover provisions of the legislation that could be better drafted to support those types of coordination agreements.

Through further engagement with Tsawwassen First Nation, it was determined that legislative amendments were necessary to achieve the full intent of that act. Those are what’s before us.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

I’m wondering. Is it a scenario, when this act eventually does pass, that short-term-rental legislation and the subsequent regulation will be different entirely for somebody living on one side of the street outside of Tsawwassen treaty territory, for example, than somebody living on the other side of the street that is within the Tsawwassen territory? Is that what I’m hearing?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It is the case right now, as treaty nations have law-making ability. Laws may be different on treaty lands as opposed to off treaty lands, and this act doesn’t change that.

[4:05 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Mr. Chair, good to see you back.

Now, I understand that the laws can be different in a treaty Nation. Specifically when we’re looking at short-term rentals and First Nation law, are we creating two separate systems that could potentially be — regulations and this legislation — for neighbours, essentially?

Hon. Christine Boyle: We’re not creating that difference. It exists already.

The amendments proposed in this package are intended to expand the aspects of the framework that can be accessed by modern treaty Nations, so they can access them in the same way a local government can access them. In that way, we’re moving toward more consistency in terms of access to the same provisions and tools.

The Chair: We’re on clause 33.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. Lots of questions from my various colleague friends. You can understand that this act is giving us some consternation, as did its sister act, Bill 44, and we’ve seen the results of what’s going on there across the pond as they head into a discussion of some of those units and what it’s doing within the Burnaby community.

My question. I’m concerned about the First Nations law and the coordination agreements. Then, having a visitor from Belgium trying to use a platform and understand the differentiations of what’s going on in our community as they visit for a significant event, are there some conversations you’ve had with those platform providers that help them understand that there will be various laws within British Columbia to accommodate short-term-rental guests?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, the changes being made in this amendment are to ensure that modern treaty Nations have access to the same tools as local governments do to address short-term rentals.

From a platform perspective, whether it’s a business licence from a First Nation or from a local government doesn’t make a difference to the platform. For a visitor from outside the community or outside the country, it wouldn’t make a difference to them. If the listing has a business licence and is listed, that’s what they’re seeing.

Linda Hepner: So under First Nations law, they did not have the ability to do short-term rentals as they wanted to under their own nation law to start with? We had to put it into a short-term-rental accommodation law specifically here?

What I’m hearing you say is that there’s no difference, when I go onto a platform, to differentiate between me renting for short-term rental and First Nation renting. If they could do it anyway, why is it so specifically included in Bill 25?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I’ve said a number of times now, modern treaty Nations have their own law-making powers, and they have had the ability to regulate short-term rentals ahead of this.

The amendments proposed in this package expand the aspects of the province’s short-term-rental accommodation framework that can be accessed by modern treaty Nations so that they can access them in the same way that a local government can access them. The specific amendments outlined here, again, came out of lessons learned when working with the Tsawwassen First Nation on the type of coordination agreement that was outlined in the original legislation.

Linda Hepner: Can the minister table a cost-benefit analysis that would show the expected shifts from short-term rentals to long-term rental by region and time frame?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m failing to see how this question is related to clause 33.

Linda Hepner: Clause 33 is all around First Nations and the ability for them to do short-term rentals. So I’m wondering if there’s a cost-benefit analysis showing whether or not there was short-term-rental benefit and what that would look like if they were just simply doing long-term rentals?

Has there been any differentiation in terms of looking at what that benefit would be within the region of, let’s say, Tsawwassen, as an example, or Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ as another example?

Hon. Christine Boyle: We would leave that economic analysis to the nation as part of their decision about whether they want to regulate short-term-rental accommodations or not. As a self-governing nation, that is their prerogative.

[4:15 p.m.]

The Chair: We are on clause 33. Shall clause 33 pass?

Division has been called.

[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

The question is should clause 33 pass.

By the way, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes can vote.

Clause 33 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Routledge	Lajeunesse	Morissette
Boyle	Gibson	Valeriote
NAYS — 3
Mok	Maahs	Williams

The Chair: We’ll take a short pause while we wait for the staff to return to the room.

On clause 34.

Gavin Dew: Could the minister please elaborate on the intent of this change to the definition of “principal residence”?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause amends the definition of “principal residence” to mean “the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home,” to remove the time-based element of the definition and enable timely enforcement of the principal residence requirement.

Gavin Dew: I note that the prior definition of “principal residence” was that it means the residence in which an individual resides for a longer period of time in a calendar year than any other place. Noting the minister’s response that the intent is to remove the time-based assessment….

I’m just trying to understand the intent there. Is the intent of this changing definition to make it intentionally looser? Is it to make it easier to define? I’d just like to understand a little bit more the intent behind the change.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The change will make the principal residence requirement more flexible and responsive to the host’s actual living situation, such as if they move partway through a calendar year.

For example, under the old language, if a host sold their home and moved to a new one in September, the new home would not count as their principal residence until the following year, even if it’s the only home they have.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Under the new rules, if someone moves partway through the year, they can still, short-term, rent their primary residence as long as it is their primary residence at the time that they want to list it.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Kelowna-Mission.

[4:30 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and lovely to have you in the chair.

Thank you to the minister for the response. Could the minister speak a little bit more about who was consulted, when and how, in regard to changing this definition?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is an administrative change that was identified internally, and the proposed definition aligns with what’s in place for the Land Owner Transparency Act, the Home Owner Grant Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act.

Gavin Dew: To reconfirm, was anyone consulted in the development of this new definition?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As this administrative change relates to interpretation, only internal and legal consultations were conducted on it.

Gavin Dew: What I’m hearing is that there was no consultation undertaken before making this change.

Could we get a little bit more detail on what specific issues were identified that led to this change? I’m just trying to understand, again, if no consultation was undertaken and if internal discussion only was undertaken, then what were the specific issues that the government was trying to solve through this change?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The existing definition is straightforward. When a short-term-rental host lives in one property and doesn’t change their residence for the calendar year, then it is no problem.

It becomes more challenging when a person’s principal residence changes throughout the year or if they own multiple properties that may appear to qualify as their principal residence at a different time throughout the year. That’s why removing “a calendar year” from the definition matters. It’s clearer for people who have a change in principal residence due to life circumstances, such as they get married or divorced, inherit a property or move for work.

Consistency and clarity across laws will help people understand what we mean by principal residence, and the new approach better reflects lived realities.

[4:35 p.m.]

The change also makes it easier for short-term-rental hosts to understand and follow the principal residence requirement.

Gavin Dew: I just want to pick up on something that I heard the minister say.

I believe I just heard the minister say that the principal residence could be different depending on the time of year. Just to make sure that I fully understand that, is the minister suggesting that this definition of principal residence is sufficiently permissive that somebody’s principal residence could be different in the summer than it is in the winter? That’s what I think I heard her just say.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The definition intends to capture principal residence at the point in time that the property is offered as a short-term rental. It still has to qualify as your principal residence but is intended to capture somebody moving midyear.

Gavin Dew: I’m not sure that’s what I heard the first time around, so I’m really still looking for a little more clarity here.

Based on what I heard the minister say the first time around — which has not been, in any way, shape or form, clarified by the second answer — it sounds to me as if she was defining principal residence, for example, to include someone having a summer principal residence in one place and a winter principal residence in another, which is not an unusual circumstance, particularly for retirees or for those who have different work patterns.

It sounds as if she is describing this new definition of principal residence as meaning that someone could actually define multiple principal residences in a year and continue to do that on a cyclical basis, year after year, as they move from one principal residence in a given season to another principal residence in a different season of the year.

Is that what the minister means? Is that what the definition means, or does it mean something different?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It may be that we had a miscommunication on that first answer, so I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

An individual can only have one principal residence. They may move their principal residence during a year, but they can’t alternate principal residences back and forth seasonally.

Gavin Dew: I’m still a little bit stumped here on this one, because I don’t think I’ve actually heard that clarified.

[4:40 p.m.]

If an individual, for example, moves back and forth…. The minister is stating, I think, clearly that an individual can only have one principal residence at once, and I don’t dispute that characterization.

But it sounds as though, based on the written and delivered answer provided by the minister in the first place, the minister was describing what could be called a loophole, which is that an individual could be moving back and forth between a principal residence for six months of a year, a different principal residence for the next six months of the year, and returning to the prior principal residence for the six months of the following year.

I’m just, again, trying to understand whether what the minister seemed to have described is in fact the case. So what’s the deal there? Help me understand whether, in fact, under this new and somewhat unusual definition of “principal residence,” there is now the ability for an individual to move back and forth seasonally, for example, on the basis of their work or their retirement pattern or whatever other factor may be in place for them in their individual circumstances, and to define their principal residence on a moving basis, thus creating eligibility around short-term rental. Just trying to understand the meaning of the definition here.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, happy to continue to clarify.

If somebody has a winter home and a summer home in B.C. — very lucky — for tax purposes, that person will have had to declare one of those homes their principal residence.

This act defines principal residence at a high level. More details are provided through regulation, policy guidance and the registration process. For example, section 5.1 of the regulations outlines the documents that can be used to demonstrate principal residence during registration, including ID, relevant insurance certificates or a property tax notice. Those are all relevant to only being able to have one principal residence at a time and not being able to switch them again seasonally.

Gavin Dew: Okay, I’m still a little bit fuzzy here. It sounds as if the minister has just clarified that there is no connection between the CRA definition of principal residence and the definition of principal residence that is being used here. Is that correct?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The CRA is a federal act, but the proposed definition aligns with what’s in place for the Land Owner Transparency Act, the Home Owner Grant Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act.

Gavin Dew: Still on this definition, I have not…. I’m wondering if the minister can speak to any other legislation where principal residence is defined as the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home. I haven’t previously seen “making the individual’s home” used as definitional language. Perhaps I’ve missed something somewhere, but this sort of seems like a very new definition.

Perhaps to substantiate that, can the minister provide an example where a person’s principal residence is both the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home but is not the place that they reside the most?

I’m trying to understand the intent of this changing language, because it seems to be becoming less standard, not more standard, and perhaps to be introducing the kind of loophole that the minister seems very hostile to.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: For the third time now, the definition aligns with what’s in place for the four acts that I have listed — the Land Owner Transparency Act, the Homeowner Grant Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Land Tax Deferment Act.

The Chair: Let’s try and keep the repetition down a bit. I hear you, but let’s try and think about that, please.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is obviously a very consequential definition, so I do think it is relevant and important to get as much clarity as possible here, because the ways in which this is or is not defined obviously have significant legal meaning. And the intent behind those definitions obviously has significant legal meaning as both lawyers but also everyday individuals try to understand what the intent is here.

Help me understand. I’m hearing from the minister that this new definition around making the individual’s home is consistent with other legislation. Why, then, was the previous definition inconsistent with other legislation?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The original “principal residence” definition used in the act was adapted from the principal residence definition used in the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act. Amending the definition from the residence “in which an individual resides for a longer period of time in a calendar year than any other place” to the proposed new definition, which is “the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home,” aligns with the intent to capture principal residence at the point in time the property is offered as a short-term rental.

This consistency and clarity will help people understand what we mean by principal residence, and the new approach better reflects people’s lived experience.

Gavin Dew: As the minister raised people’s lived experience, I will just circle back for the question that was left incomplete in my last round here.

Can the minister please provide an example where a person’s principal residence is both the usual place where an individual makes the individual’s home but is not the place in which an individual resides for a longer period of time in a calendar year than any other place?

Again, if the intent is to reflect lived experience, if the intent is clarity, I’m sure it would be easy for the minister to provide an example of an instance where someone’s principal residence is both the usual place where they make their home but not the place where they reside the most.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes. Again, as I have stated in previous answers, the example is if somebody moves in the middle of a calendar year.

Gavin Dew: Was this change in definition also done to accommodate individuals that, for example, may be in a medical facility or other such institution so that a property is still their principal residence, even if they have not been living in it for a large period of time?

Again, I understand where the minister is coming from with regard to the moving example. I’m just trying to understand if there are other examples and if and how they have been contemplated.

Certainly an individual, whether they be a senior or not, who still retains a principal residence but has been in a medical facility or other institution for a significant period of time…. Is that captured by this definition?

Hon. Christine Boyle: That wasn’t the rationale for this change. The rationale was, as I’ve said, consistency and clarity across laws to help people understand what we better mean by principal residence and specific to the common example of moving one’s primary residence mid-calendar year.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that clarity around the intent. I would also like to understand the effect, because the example that I have provided is a real one for a good number of people. I just wonder if the minister can expand, for clarity, a little bit on what the effect would be.

Again, if there is an individual who is in a medical facility or in a jail or in some other place that means that they are not in their property, but that property is still where that individual makes that individual’s home, or if, for example, they spend more of their time in a given year staying in hotels than they do staying in that particular place, but it is still what they consider to make their individual home….

I’m again just trying to understand what the interpretation would be there, because there are very real circumstances that could be captured that…. I think it’s actually very important that the government provides clarity around what they mean, because there might, for example, again, be a senior who is indisposed, who is in medical care, but who still considers a given place to be the place where they make their home.

I just hoped that there was more thought put into this before the legislation was brought forward, but if there has not been, I would love to hear any thoughts on it. Frankly, if there are not thoughts on it today, I fully accept the possibility that it hasn’t been contemplated, and I would hope that it would be thought through as this moves forward.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The short answer is that it depends. We’re dealing in hypotheticals here, which we try not to do. There are a range of individual circumstances. Obviously, there’s a difference if you are going into the hospital for a month for a hip replacement surgery or moving into long-term care on a permanent basis. The statutory decision–maker, the registrar, would consider any unique circumstances when making a determination of principal residence.

Gavin Dew: I would submit that those are not hypotheticals. Those are people’s lives, and those are their circumstances. While I respect that there may be particularly elaborately complex circumstances where there needs to be a determination made, I think that it would be very valuable to make sure that as much upfront guidance as possible can be provided so that a fairly reasonable number of circumstances that occur with frequency can be appropriately described so that individuals have a clear sense of how definitions will apply to them.

Certainly, it makes sense if you’ve got a particularly complicated situation that you would need to make a phone call and get a definition, but it strikes me that there probably is some more work to do in terms of just making sure that some basic examples are provided so that people could have a clear understanding without having to chase through a government bureaucracy to get it.

Hon. Christine Boyle: There wasn’t a question there, but I just wanted the opportunity to respond to say that there are so many potential individual circumstances. That’s why there’s a statutory decision–maker to navigate these decisions.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

Tony Luck: The question here is…. We’re just looking for some clarity around this clause 35 here. Can the minister please expand on what authority shifts from responsible official to registrar or director means? Just to get some clarity on that for us.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: These amendments provide certainty on who can conduct a review and make clear that the review process is intended to be an initial internal review process, recognizing that there is a further external review process available through a judicial review after the initial review is completed.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

Tony Luck: On clause 36, has this section been just purely amended to include the new definition of “short-term rental First Nation law”?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Clause 36 approved.

On clause 37.

Tony Luck: On clause 37, does this mean that the act or regulations will apply differently to different areas within the Nisg̱a’a lands or the treaty lands of a treaty First Nation?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The short answer is yes. A nation would have the ability to apply the rules differently in different parts of their treaty lands.

For example, they could choose to apply the principal residence definition in urban areas but not in rural areas.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer.

I’m struck by the fact that these amendments go out of their way to give to First Nations levels of flexibility and discretional authority that the legislation similarly takes away from municipalities.

Could the minister just expand a little bit on the philosophical basis behind differentiating in legislation so clearly and starkly between the flexibility and self-governance afforded to First Nations versus that afforded to municipalities?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Provincial short-term-rental regulations, like other provincial rules, don’t apply on First Nations treaty lands, as these are federal jurisdiction.

[5:05 p.m.]

Modern treaty Nations can opt in voluntarily to have aspects of the framework apply to their treaty lands through a coordination agreement, and the amendments proposed in this package are intended to expand the aspects of the framework that can be accessed by a modern treaty Nation so they can access them in the same way that a local government can.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer. But to be clear on the net effect of these changes, the situation that is being created or maintained is that municipalities have significantly less flexibility over their control over what happens with short-term rental within their domain than First Nations do. Is that an accurate statement?

Would a general, reasonable person trying to understand the implications of this legislation in its totality and of the situation that will exist be reasonable in coming to the conclusion that there will be different rules for short-term rental on First Nations and on non–First Nations municipalities?

Hon. Christine Boyle: To clarify what I have already said, treaty Nations are self-governing nations whereas local governments fall under provincial law, so they’re currently different circumstances.

Gavin Dew: At any point did the government contemplate giving the same self-governance and subsidiarity to municipalities as exists for First Nations?

Again, the outcome here as understood by a regular everyday British Columbian who is trying to understand what the implications are here…. The outcome that is being produced is that there is far greater flexibility to do whatever you want for First Nations and to have market advantages, a greater ability to monetize property through short-term rental, greater flexibility to define periods of accommodation that differ from the period of time described in definitions of short-term-rental accommodation services.

The net effect being produced here is that neighbours across the street are going to have fundamentally different rights than one another. And the governing authorities governing those neighbours across the street are going to have fundamentally different levels of control over how short-term rental can and cannot happen.

Is it an accurate statement for the general public to understand that this will create two classes of short-term-rental property owners?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The member seems to not understand the basics of treaty, but this act doesn’t change anything on that specific front.

Gavin Dew: That wasn’t a question. The question, again, was: will there be, going forward, two different classes of property owners in their ability to do short-term rental depending on whether they are on First Nations land or non–First Nations land.

[5:10 p.m.]

Please help me understand that, because the public isn’t interested in legal analysis. The public is interested in understanding why it is that government sees fit to restrict their municipalities and to restrict their rights, while their neighbours across the street have far greater rights.

That is the nexus of the exact kinds of conflicts over land and title and rights that are playing out right now in this province, and the minister seems very unwilling to engage with that question from the perspective of an everyday British Columbian who will be affected by it.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, as I have stated earlier, those living on treaty lands know that the treaty nation is the government of those lands. This isn’t creating a change on that front. I’ll leave it there.

Gavin Dew: It sounds as if we are harmonizing administrative processes on treaty lands, but in no way are we harmonizing rights for individuals in municipalities who would like to have property rights.

Just one more question on this clause. How will potential conflicts between municipal bylaws and First Nations law be resolved on overlapping jurisdictions?

Hon. Christine Boyle: There are not municipal bylaws on treaty lands. Again, a modern treaty Nation is a distinct governing form from a local government, and there is not an overlap between the two.

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

Tony Luck: In clause 38, how will the registrar ensure that the process will be fully independent?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This section ensures that there’s separation between the person conducting the review and the person who made the original decision.

Tony Luck: Must the person who, as a registered delegate, has “the power to make a decision about a person’s registration or renewal of registration” be a responsible official for that purpose?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I need the member opposite to clarify the question. I don’t understand what they’re trying to get at.

Tony Luck: What we’re asking here is if the person who, as a registrar delegate, has power to make a decision about a person’s registration or renewal of registration, must be a responsible official. Is somebody officially indentured to be able to have that power?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause removes the designation of a “responsible official” and clearly allocates the responsibilities to the director and the registrar, to make it more clear to the public what to expect from the process.

[5:15 p.m.]

The registrar and the director have the authority to conduct or delegate reviews. However, to ensure fairness, this clause ensures that the same person can’t act in both of those roles to review their own decisions.

Tony Luck: Just for clarification, it cannot be the same person. Is that what I heard correctly? Is that right?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Clause 38 approved.

On clause 39.

Tony Luck: Why is the minister limiting the grounds for reviewing a person’s registration?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This amendment is not restricting it. It’s aligning the grounds for review of a registrar’s decision with the existing grounds for review of a decision on an administrative penalty and clarifying that the person responsible for conducting the review is the registrar.

Tony Luck: What exactly are the prescribed grounds going to be for when a review can be made, and does the minister have an idea of what these may be or will be in the future?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Additional grounds that are already prescribed for regulation for administrative penalty reviews include when technical errors or administrative procedural errors occur. Consequential amendments to the regulation will ensure that the same prescribed grounds are available for registration reviews as are already available for reviews of administrative penalties.

Tony Luck: Thank you for that answer and the clarity.

Will there be any hardship or fairness exceptions where evidence exists but couldn’t be gathered in time for review?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, there are provisions for if a person was unable to be heard because of circumstances beyond their control, which would include a legitimate timing concern.

Tony Luck: Thank you for that answer. It’s good, because some people run into extenuating circumstances, so I appreciate that.

Why is the minister limiting the requirements for when new evidence can be considered, and what will be considered to be “substantial and material” for evidence?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The amendment specifies that the registrar may “consider new evidence only if the registrar is satisfied that the new evidence is substantial and material to the review and did not exist when the decision was made or did exist but was not discovered and could not, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered.”

[5:20 p.m.]

Tony Luck: Just one follow-up. Is there an appeal process should that evidence not be accepted by the panel, the registrar or however it works? Is there going to be an appeal process?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The process provides an opportunity for a limited administrative review, not for appealing the original decision. Appeals of the original decision can be sought through a judicial review.

Clause 39 approved.

On clause 40.

Linda Hepner: It’s good to be standing up again for a little while. My turn.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

What are the consequences in clause 40 for providing false or misleading information to the registrar or a designated person by the registrar?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The act allows for revoking of a licence as well as an administrative penalty. An administrative penalty is a monetary penalty imposed on short-term-rental hosts or platforms who fail to comply with requirements of the act or regulations.

In the Short-Term Rental Accommodation Act’s administrative penalty framework, maximum daily penalties can range from $500 to $20,000, depending on the contravention. Some administrative penalty maximums can be issued daily for each day the contravention has occurred. While the administrative penalty maximums per contravention may appear low to some, daily penalties can quickly add up.

Linda Hepner: I have a question around enforcement mechanisms. That’s in clause 41, so I’m going to skip that, because when I look at clause 41, it identifies the enforcement mechanisms.

That’s actually all I have to ask of clause 40.

Clauses 40 and 41 approved.

On clause 42.

Linda Hepner: I do have a question on 42, and that’s about how the director will ensure that no person conducts multiple roles under this section. What happens if a person does conduct multiple roles in relation to the same matter?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Similar to the previous discussion, this clause lays out that the director must not assign to the same person a file that they have had previously.

Clause 42 approved.

On clause 43.

Tony Luck: So 43. Why is the director not obliged to make the information in subsection (1)(a) and (b) available to the general public?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This clause specifies that the director may publish or otherwise make available to the public orders, notices, agreements or decisions or summaries of them made under part 4.

Tony Luck: More of a personal one. Why may information made available to the public include personal information, especially after some of the chat we’ve been talking about around personal information?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Publishing compliance decisions is an effective tool used to deter contraventions of the law and to ensure accountability and is used in many other compliance frameworks.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer.

I think what we’re trying to understand is why the director “may” publish versus the director “must” publish. Just trying to understand the option of publishing versus the obligation to publish and what the thought pattern was behind that.

Hon. Christine Boyle: It simply allows some discretion in that publication — for example, if somebody made an error versus if they are a repeat offender in contravention.

Linda Hepner: Can you give me a real-life example of the kind of personal information that would be available to the public and what the thinking is behind…? I mean, I get what the thinking is behind the release. It’s that hopefully you’ll behave better. It’s like when they used to publish “Joe was drunk and disorderly” in the newspaper years ago.

But is the thinking that you’re bringing it into compliance? What kind of personal information and how much personal information? What if you’ve made a mistake? How do you correct errors? How is the liability managed and the reputational damage mitigated for if you’ve made a mistake and have misunderstood or received payment in a different fashion?

I won’t identify how the misunderstanding would happen, but if you’ve made a mistake, how are those mistakes mitigated, given that you’ve given personal information? What and how much personal information is given?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The process to investigate and take enforcement actions provides many opportunities for the person to address the contravention and come into compliance. By this stage, the person has had adequate time to assess the impact of having enforcement actions taken against them and the impact of having their personal information published online.

A basic summary of the compliance order or administrative penalty would be published that may include the person’s name; the general location of the property where the contravention occurred — for example, the municipality or community; the contravention and reasons for the action taken; and the amount of administrative penalty and reasons for it.

Clause 43 approved.

On clause 44.

Gavin Dew: If I can just get a little bit more elaboration on the kinds of discretion granted under this section. I’m trying to understand this. As I read it, it sounds like, effectively, we’re creating mechanisms for a plea deal or a negotiation between an individual who might be subject to a penalty and the director.

I’m just trying to understand what the mechanics envisioned are for this and, in particular, what kinds of terms and conditions might potentially be incorporated by the director in order to not enforce an administrative penalty.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

In some cases, the opportunity to have an administrative penalty reduced or cancelled could influence a non-compliant short-term-rental platform or host to come into compliance in alignment with the act’s housing objectives.

The residential tenancy branch uses a similar approach, where a notice of administrative penalty includes an option for the person to approach the rental tenancy branch compliance and enforcement unit director to negotiate the terms of an agreement appropriate to their circumstances. The RTB has used this feature to achieve significant outcomes when daily administrative penalty rates have accumulated significantly.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer. That makes sense.

I do want to understand. In the prior section, we’ve talked about disclosures. We talked functionally about public shame as a mechanism to get compliance. We’re talking, again, about discretion existing for the director.

Let’s imagine a situation in which, for example, the director has made an error. Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that the director has published an erroneous order, an erroneous notice that has brought embarrassment to an individual. Let’s imagine that they find themselves in a situation where they’re trying to reconcile and resolve that issue.

In that instance, as I understand the way this is laid out, the director has all the power. The director has all the leverage.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

If, for example, you are an individual who has been wrongly shamed through a notice or had what you believe to be an incorrect ruling made against you, you then have a director who can basically say: “Look, I will waive the administrative penalty so long as you sign this non-disclosure agreement and do not disclose the fact that we erred in our assessment of your situation.”

Again, there’s some leverage there. I’m trying to come up with a plausible hypothetical there, but there could very well be circumstances in which an error is made, and the director has all the leverage to effectively induce silence through waiving an administrative penalty.

What are the appeal mechanisms or the ombuds-type mechanisms that might exist for those rare circumstances in which there might in fact be an error made in the administration of the regulation by the director or by their staff?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The director is a statutory decision–maker, a role that takes these decisions very seriously. They wouldn’t be drafting them alone. They would have legal counsel involved. Were there a disagreement, there’s the option of a judicial review.

Clauses 44 to 49 inclusive approved.

Gavin Dew: I rise to speak to the amendment in my name on the order paper.

The Chair: So you need to move the amendment, please.

Gavin Dew: Yes, so moved.

[CLAUSE 49.1, by adding the following clause:

49.1 The following section is added:

Short-term rental permits

36.1 (1) In this section:

“major event” means an arts, culture, sport, academic, political or industry event that is expected to attract a significant number of attendees requiring accommodation;

“period of a major event” means the period during which a major event is to take place together with the three days before and the three days after this period.

(2) Subject to subsection (7), if a major event is to take place within the area of authority of a local government, the local government may, upon application, issue a temporary permit to a person that would allow the person to provide short-term rental accommodations in the area of authority during the period of the major event in accordance with the provisions of the permit and any bylaws made under subsection (4).

(3) The permit referred to in subsection (2) is to be in effect for the period specified in the permit.

(4) A local government may make bylaws respecting permits referred to in subsection (2).

(5) To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of a bylaw made under subsection (4) and the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the bylaw prevail.

(6) To the extent of any conflict between the provisions of a permit referred to in subsection (2) and the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the permit prevail.

(7) A local government may not issue a permit under subsection (2) in respect of any particular accommodation for a total of more than 45 days in any calendar year.]

The Chair: Okay, do continue to speak to it. Thank you so much.

Gavin Dew: I’ve brought forward two amendments. This is the more complicated of the two, but I believe that it’s a balanced, thoughtful, proportionate response to a specific situation that we have seen playing out, and that is uncertainty over the ability of municipalities to accommodate the full breadth of accommodation demand during major events in a way that reflects their individual local realities.

I’m a big believer in the idea that such issues should be addressed at the lowest possible level, closest to the situation, which, in this case, would be municipalities. In other words, we should treat municipalities like grownups and assume that they are capable of enacting their own rules and policies as it relates to specific circumstances on the ground for them.

I’m talking, of course, about FIFA-level tournaments, world-class concerts like Taylor Swift, large conferences, cultural festivities, the kinds of events that bring thousands of people into a community for a very short time, well beyond the capacity of existing hotels and traditional rental stock to expand to meet that demand, or well beyond circumstances where there is, in fact, long-term demand for the full accordion scope of long-term demand.

What this amendment sets out to do is to create a municipal event exemption. That would let cities temporarily adjust short-term-rental rules during major events that create sudden spikes in accommodation demand.

The approach that I’ve laid out in the amendment would still be capped at an absolute maximum of 45 days per year. Municipalities would have to define that event window, pass a resolution and report to the province. Temporary permits issued for that period would still be tracked and regulated but could be faster and cheaper to encourage surge capacity to come on stream.

Effectively, this does not diminish the many different controls and protections that exist. It does not create imaginary hypothetical loopholes. It is a good-faith effort to try to create a structure that is workable and that, again, would send a signal to housing markets that there is demand for additional short-term-rental housing in the short term.

Even very specifically, if we just look at the timing and cost of permitting, the process enacted by the province has encountered some criticism for its complexities, for its slowness, for its inability to keep up, and of course, for its cost.

[5:40 p.m.]

In those instances where a municipality, acting as a grownup, understanding what is needed for its community, wants to have the ability to encourage a short-term surge of temporary short-term-rental accommodations, in which the intent is not to take away from existing long-term-rental stock but simply to get more housing into the market, more accommodation into the market, that is what this amendment sets out to do.

Again, it’s a very carefully calibrated, commonsense, subtle amendment that I’ve brought forward in good faith and which I believe could be a way to address some of the additional surge in demand for major events and, again, to return a small iota of control to municipalities on the assumption that they will make good, smart rules because they are in fact grownups who understand their communities, their local housing markets, their tourism markets and the economic and other consequences of the approach that they take.

The Chair: First of all, I’d like to say thank you to the member for getting this amendment on the order sheet a couple of days ahead so that it had the opportunity to be reviewed fully.

It is the ruling of the Chair that this amendment proposed by the member from Kelowna is actually beyond the scope of Bill 25 and is therefore considered to be out of order at this time.

But thank you so much for bringing it forward. That’s appreciated.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Gavin Dew: I anticipated the possibility that that might very well be the case, and as the minister is aware, I have also brought the exact same amendment forward as a private member’s bill, which is now sitting on the order paper. If the minister would like to actually debate this good-faith amendment, I would encourage her to speak to her House Leader and ask that the bill be called.

The Chair: That is for some other time. Thank you so much.

On clause 50.

Linda Hepner: Speaking to clause 50, can the minister explain why cabinet can now direct what grounds a registrar or the director may consider when someone asks for a review? Why not allow the registrar or the director to include what they consider to be necessary in terms of a review?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the clarification question. The act allows additional grounds for review to be prescribed from regulation, as the member notes. Additional grounds that are already prescribed in regulation for administrative penalty review, including technical errors or administrative procedural errors, would also be available for registration review.

It’s not creating new grounds. It’s just ensuring consistency in mirroring those grounds that are already prescribed in regulation for administrative penalty to also be grounds available for registration review.

The Chair: I’m just going to take a minute to remind the committee that at six o’clock, or thereabouts, the division bells will ring, at which point I will adjourn the committee for this evening. So just be aware. This is kind of your 15-minute warning.

Linda Hepner: Okay, this question is relatively similar.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m wondering why cabinet needs the power to set the mandatory conditions on penalty and settlement compliance agreements rather than the director enforcing a fine. It seems to be a complicated process in terms of involving cabinet when in fact the director could simply have the power to enforce the fine.

Hon. Christine Boyle: It’s very standard to have cabinet oversight over regulations, and it’s consistent with what’s already in the current rules.

Clause 50 approved.

On clause 51.

Tony Luck: In clause 51, will regulations be made equally between local governments and participating First Nations, and if not, what will be the difference?

Hon. Christine Boyle: So (a) and (b) enable new regulation-making authorities for participating First Nations that are currently already available to local governments.

Tony Luck: Hypothetically, could this potentially lead a participating First Nation to lobby the minister to restrict all short-term rentals?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As we’ve covered previously, a treaty First Nation has their own law-making authority. If they wanted a coordination agreement, they would have these conversations through that.

Clause 51 approved.

Gavin Dew: I rise to move the amendment in my name, adding clause 51.1.

[CLAUSE 51.1, by adding the following clause:

51.1 Section 11 (1) (b) (i) of the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Regulation, B.C. Reg. 268/2023, is amended by striking out “November 1” and substituting “May 1”.]

The Chair: Very good. Carry on.

Gavin Dew: I have brought forward this amendment on Bill 25 because, as I have alluded to throughout debate on this bill, I believe there are opportunities to make simple, commonsense changes to the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act and that the opportunity to do so has, unfortunately, been missed in the development of this bill.

As the Minister of Housing alluded to earlier, the city of Kelowna has been among the advocates coming to the government and asking them to make this change. It is, unfortunately, absent from the bill.

The reason why it matters is that communities like mine, Kelowna, are tourism-driven and seasonal in nature. They face a real and serious challenge under the current opt-out timelines in the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Under the existing rules, as the minister is aware, a municipality that meets the vacancy rate threshold and submits its opt-out resolution by March 31 must wait until November 1 for the change to take effect. That can mean an entire summer season lost for local businesses, visitors, seasonal workers and hosts, with significant implications across a tourism-driven economy like Kelowna.

My amendment proposes an extremely simple, commonsense change. Keep the March 31 submission deadline, but move the effective opt-out date from November 1 to May 1 of the same year.

In regions like mine, the summer months are the beating heart of the local economy. Festivals, sporting events, wineries, tourism operators and hundreds of small businesses depend on the May-to-September season. Being forced to wait until next November to implement a locally justified opt out means we risk losing that entire window. That’s poor policy, and it fails to respect the housing and economic realities of our community of Kelowna.

[5:50 p.m.]

Kelowna has outperformed. It has built more homes, met our housing targets, raised our vacancy rates to its highest level in 20 years. Our vacancy rate reached 3.8 percent in 2024, and it is currently estimated right now today at over 5 percent. That is significantly in excess of the 3 percent threshold envisioned in the legislation.

If government genuinely believes in made-in-community partnerships with municipalities and not just top-down direction, then this change should be very simple, totally non-controversial and fully supported.

This change gives local governments the ability to implement decisions more quickly, based on real data, real vacancy rates and real seasonal demand, without waiting through another entire year. The opposite, failing to move it forward, sends a signal to municipal governments that they can do exactly what the province has asked them to do and still be confronted with inflexible obstinacy.

This amendment is not, in fact, the first way that I am bringing this forward. I’ve actually brought forward this exact same change through a private member’s bill, and I would submit that, actually, government has three easy options available to it if it wants to make this commonsense change.

The first is that, having already seen that the city of Kelowna is making a request to the provincial government to allow it to opt out earlier, government could already have done this through an order in council, but they haven’t, unfortunately.

Government is sitting here today. The Housing Minister is here across from me, and the Housing Minister could very well choose to support this amendment to Bill 25, which would be, again, a simple, really easy way to enact a change that should be totally non-controversial.

Again, the city of Kelowna has outperformed the standards set by the government, and the city of Kelowna is specifically and directly asking for this provincial government to repay its hard work by giving it some flexibility from an inflexible and impractical piece of legislation.

Finally, if the government is unwilling to act by moving this forward through an order in council, unwilling to act by supporting this amendment to Bill 25, then I would submit that government should have the courage to call my private member’s bill, to have it debated in the House.

If it will not vote for it, then vote against it, but do it now. Do it soon, and tell the people of Kelowna and the city of Kelowna whether, in fact, they can rely on the good faith of this government in repaying their hard work to reach and exceed the necessary vacancy thresholds to be allowed to opt out of the short-term-rental regulations and to be able to maximize on our summer tourism season next year.

The Chair: Once again, I say thank you for getting this on the order paper early so that it could be considered whether or not it was within scope. Once again, it is indeed considered beyond the scope of Bill 25 through these discussions.

Thank you very much for bringing it forward, and it is considered out of order at this time.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Gavin Dew: I hope that the Minister of Housing will either go to cabinet, secure an order in council or go to her House Leader and bring this bill forward for debate in the remaining days of this session so that she can provide clarity to hard-working people in Kelowna as to whether or not she will in fact continue to frustrate their desire to return to a greater degree of flexibility and to have a strong summer tourism season.

Can the minister confirm that the intent here is to grandfather undertakings that were begun before these amendments come into effect?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Gavin Dew: Residents in my community are curious as to why there is a grandfathering clause that’s being implemented here, but in Kelowna we have, for example, a development called Aqua that over the course of 14 years was developed, built, sold and brought to market on the assumption that it would be short-term rental at all times during that 14 years.

[5:55 p.m.]

It was literally that the land was purchased on the assumption that it would be eligible to be short-term rental. Individuals made presales contracts on the basis that it would be short-term rental. The development was built with an amenity package designed for short-term rental. There are little locks on the bottom drawer of bathroom cabinets for extra toilet paper on the assumption it would be for short-term rental. There are hotel-sized fridges on the basis that it would be for short-term rental.

Yet when the government brought in its Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, despite efforts by the city of Kelowna to carve out and grandfather such purpose-built developments, there was no willingness by the government to grandfather those kinds of developments. The result is that you have individuals who are stranded in very difficult financial circumstances because they are unable to secure long-term tenants at a price that comes anywhere near the mortgages that they are paying.

I’m trying to understand. Why is it that grandfathering is appropriate in this section of the act, but there was no consideration for grandfathering previously when it significantly affected individuals?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The two situations aren’t comparable. Removing legal non-conforming use zoning protections means that short-term rentals that were operating prior to local STR rules being introduced are now subject to these rules. We, in fact, heard from some local governments that non-conforming use rules prevented them from addressing the impacts of short-term rentals on housing challenges in their community.

Clause 52 approved.

On clause 53.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer on 52. I think it is cold comfort to those individuals who’ve been left in severely difficult situations as a result of the approach taken….

[Interruption.]

The Chair: Member, if you’ll just stop for a sec.

Have you got control? Great. Thank you.

Member, please carry on.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. As I was saying, I do feel that there’s still a tremendous degree of frustration from individuals in my community about the way in which grandfathering, or the lack thereof, was handled, and that frustration is not going away anytime soon.

I will just briefly ask one question on 53. Why is there so much urgency to bringing section 34 into effect on January 1, relative to almost everything else? Why the urgency of the changes to the principal residence definition?

Hon. Christine Boyle: It’s simply coming in at the start of the calendar year.

Clause 53 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:00 p.m.