Hansard — Monday, March 9, 2026 Morning, Issue No. 135

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to honour International Women’s Day by talking about this day from a bit of a different perspective, as a feminist woman raising boys.

[10:05 a.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

When I became a mom of only boys, I wondered how I could raise my boys to be feminists. It was an intentional, but not radical, choice that I made — the commitment to raise the next generation with the belief that every person deserves equality, safety, dignity and opportunity.

For decades, much of the conversation about gender equality has focused on empowering girls, and that work is vital, but equality cannot be achieved with the participation of only half of our children. If we want a future that is fair, that is inclusive, then boys must be part of that journey, and they must be raised with the tools, the values and the confidence to help lead it.

What does it mean to raise feminist boys or boys to be feminists? It means raising boys who understand that equality benefits everyone and that respecting women and girls is the foundation of strong relationships, of healthy communities and of a safer society.

Boys are not born believing in inequality. They learn it through the world around them — through media, through jokes, through peer pressure and sometimes even from the adults they are taught to trust the most.

A recent example of this is the spotlight placed on the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team laughing with the President of the United States as he makes jokes about the women’s hockey team, at the expense of the success of the women’s team — despite the fact that the women’s team has a far more superior winning record over decades, despite far fewer resources than the men’s team.

What message did that moment send to young men? That is how boys learn inequality. But they can also learn empathy. They can learn fairness. They can learn courage, the courage to stand up rather than stand by. Those lessons begin early in the smallest ways.

When a boy is encouraged to express his feelings, he learns that vulnerability is not a weakness. It is humanity. When he is taught to apologize sincerely and listen with intention, he develops empathy. When he is trusted with responsibility and held accountable for his behaviour, he learns respect. When he sees a woman in leadership — at home, at school, in the community — he internalizes the truth that leadership is not determined by gender.

Raising boys to be feminists is not about telling them they are the problem. It’s about showing them that they can be part of the solution. It’s about teaching them that strength and compassion are not opposites; they are partners. That consent is not a rule; it is an expression of respect. That equality is not a threat to them but a gift that opens doors to healthier friendships, closer families and workplaces built on collaboration rather than competition.

This is not only about the well-being of women and girls, although that alone would be reason enough. It is also profoundly about the well-being of boys themselves. For too long, boys have been boxed in by expectations that often harm them: “Don’t cry. Toughen up. Don’t show fear.” These messages don’t create strong men. They create isolated men.

When we raise boys with feminist values, we give them permission to speak, to feel, to grow. We also give them permission to be allies, to be the ones who intervene when they hear a harmful joke or when a friend crosses the line.

Imagine the impact that a young man, having the knowledge, the understanding and the confidence to step in, would have had on E.M. in that London hotel room in 2018 after a celebration of the Canadian men’s World Junior hockey team.

Boys who are empowered to act with integrity become men who build safer environments for everyone. This work belongs to all of us. It happens in conversations at home. It happens in how we talk about history and consent and relationships. It happens in how we model partnerships, how we respond when boys make mistakes and how we celebrate their successes. Every moment is a lesson, spoken or unspoken, about what we value.

As a mom of boys, I have learned, through my own beautiful humans, that boys are ready for this. Today’s generation is thoughtful, curious and more open than ever. They want fairness. They want to live in a world where everyone has a chance to thrive. This is not something radical.

As a mom of boys today, my job is to guide them toward the instincts they already have and to help them carry those instincts into adulthood. Raising boys to be feminists is one of the most powerful investments we can make in our future. It leads to healthier relationships, stronger families and communities grounded in mutual respect. It ensures that the next generation grows up with the belief that equality is not an aspiration but a responsibility.

I am raising my boys to foster empathy, respect and equity. By raising feminist boys, I am giving them the tools to grow not just into good men but into fair men who stand beside women and girls as equals, as partners and as champions of justice.

When we raise boys to be feminists, we build a world that everyone can thrive in.

[10:10 a.m.]

Process for First Reading of Bills

Brennan Day: The way this Legislature has been practising politics at first reading is hurting people in this room and people across this province. As elected officials, we have a duty to do better.

First reading was never intended to be a vote on the merits of legislation. Its purpose is simple. A bill is introduced. The text is printed. Members receive the legislation so they can actually read it. Only then does the work of this Legislature begin. This is the process in the United Kingdom. This is the process in the House of Commons. That is how it works across jurisdictions that share the Westminster tradition.

First reading is procedural. Standing Order 78 explicitly states that first reading is not debatable. It exists so that members can read the legislation before they are asked to render judgment on it.

Today in this House, members can be forced into a vote the moment a bill is introduced — before the text has been circulated, before anyone in this House has read the legislation, before the public or the media have seen what is actually in the bill. We are asked to vote on something no one in this chamber has had the opportunity to read. Increasingly, these votes have been turned into political theatre.

Let me give two examples. Last fall a bill was introduced recognizing freedom convoy recognition day. If we follow the political logic that now surrounds first reading, the government voted yes for this motion. That is exactly the conclusion that somebody might draw, inferring something where it does not exist.

Just last week another bill was introduced that according to the member presenting it would shut down all 58 provincially authorized drug consumption sites in British Columbia within six months. Moments later, the entire House voted yes on first reading, unanimously on the voice vote.

Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the House spent another ten minutes conducting a standing vote to reach the same outcome. Two Greens voted no, and several government members left the chamber to avoid scrutiny. If we apply the same logic, should we now conclude that the NDP supports closing every safe consumption site in British Columbia? I think not.

Of course, that is not what those votes actually mean, and everybody in this chamber knows it. First reading votes were never intended to be endorsements of policy. They were meant to do one simple thing: allow the text of a bill to be printed so members could actually read it.

But because we still allow forced votes at first reading in this Legislature, those procedural votes can be twisted into something they were never meant to be. Members are asked to vote on legislation they have not seen, and those votes are then used to suggest they support or oppose policies that they have not even had the opportunity to read. That is not good parliamentary practice, and it is not good for public trust in this institution.

A straightforward reform would restore first reading to its original purpose. Bills would still be introduced. They would be printed and circulated, but members would not be compelled to vote on legislation before they had the opportunity to read it. That would bring British Columbia back into line with the House of Commons, the United Kingdom and provinces across this great nation.

The current process creates the wrong incentives. It encourages members to shape the title of the bill and their two-minute introduction not to inform this House but to manipulate the moment. A harmless title can conceal legislation with serious consequences. A provocative title can make entirely mundane bills appear extreme.

In both cases, the House is asked to vote before anybody has even read the text. And if a bill is defeated at first reading, the House never gets the opportunity to examine it at all. So the decision being made is not about the legislation. It is about the framing of the moment. That was never the purpose of first reading.

This reform does not advantage government or opposition. It simply restores common sense to a step in the process that has increasingly become performative rather than practical.

Under the rules of this House, the government controls the agenda. At any time, they can choose to call my motion for debate.

The question before us is simple. Will the government allow this House to have that conversation? If we are serious about improving the functioning of this Legislature, reforms like this should not be controversial. They should be obvious. From this moment forward, if the sideshow continues, the responsibility rests entirely with the NDP government.

To my colleagues in this chamber and to my constituents watching from home, I apologize for the shame that this parliament has allowed to persist. But I will not accept it.

I will continue pressing for the reforms needed to modernize this Legislature and restore the standard British Columbians expect from those they entrust to govern.

[10:15 a.m.]

International Women’s Day and
Honouring Indigenous Women

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Today I rise to speak about what International Women’s Day means to an Indigenous woman.

For many Indigenous women, this day is both a celebration and a challenge. It is a day to honour the strength in matriarchs, Knowledge Keepers and land defenders whose leadership has always been present, even when the colonial system tried to erase or silence them. It is also a day to insist that conversation about women’s rights must include the lived realities of Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

In many Indigenous nations, women have long held central roles as decision-makers, life-givers and protectors of land and water. Matriarchs carry language, ceremony and law. They raise children, guide leaders, hold communities together in times of crisis.

International Women’s Day, through an Indigenous lens, is a moment to lift up those matriarchs — our mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters and daughters who are the heart of their families and their nations. But for Indigenous women, this day cannot only be about celebration. It is about the day of truth-telling.

Indigenous women and girls live at the intersection of sexism, racism and colonialism. They have faced generations of forced displacement, residential school, the Sixties Scoop, imposed band council systems and the laws that stripped women of their status and their rights. Those policies were not accidental. They were designed to break matrilineal lines, to weaken women’s authority and to sever the bond between women, their children and their territories.

The impacts of that history are still with us. The crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirited people is not a tragedy of the past. It is an ongoing national emergency. For Indigenous women, safety is not separate from sovereignty. When Indigenous women speak about International Women’s Day, they remind us that gender justice means more than pay equity and broad representation.

At the same time, there is tremendous strength, creativity and resurgence among Indigenous women across this province, this country. Indigenous women are leading movements of language revitalization, child and family welfare reform, land and water protection and community healing.

They are lawyers, Elders, educators, artists, Knowledge Keepers, front-line workers, politicians and youth advocates. They are building matriarchal systems that colonialism tried to dismantle.

Indigenous Women’s Day, from an Indigenous perspective is, therefore and also, a day of resurgence. It is a time to recognize the leadership of grandmothers who kept ceremonies alive in secret; to honour the aunts who raised children when systems failed them; to uplift the young women, the two-spirited youth who are stepping into leadership roles, asserting their rights and refusing to accept a future defined by violence or erasure.

For those of us in the Legislature, this day must be more than symbolic. Indigenous women have been clear about what needs to change. They have called for the full implementation of the calls for justice of the national inquiry for murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.

If we are serious about honouring Indigenous women on International Women’s Day, then we must be serious about changing the systems that harmed them. It means understanding that reconciliation and gender equality are inseparable and that neither can be achieved without the full dignity, safety and leadership of Indigenous women.

I want to be clear. Indigenous women do not need this day to prove their worth. They have always been leaders, protectors and teachers. What they are asking for is that our laws, policies and institutes finally catch up to that truth.

To all Indigenous women who carry their families, their nation and so much of the work of reconciliation on your shoulders, we see you, we honour you, and we have a duty to act in a way that matches our words.

[10:20 a.m.]

Challenges to Forest Industry

Ward Stamer: British Columbia’s forest industry has long been one of the pillars of our provincial economy. For generations, forestry has provided stable employment, supported rural communities and helped build the economic foundation of this province.

From communities like Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake and Kamloops, the forest sector has supported families for decades. These are communities where forestry is not simply an industry; it’s the economic heartbeat of a region.

But today that heartbeat is weakening. Across British Columbia, we are witnessing a troubling pattern of mill curtailments, permanent closures and layoffs. Families who have worked in forestry for generations now face uncertainty about their future. Entire communities are feeling the economic consequences.

In communities such as Houston and Merritt, 100 Mile House and Crofton, mill closures have had devastating ripple effects. When a mill shuts down, it impacts far more than the workers inside that facility. Truck drivers, logging contractors, equipment operators, mechanics, small business owners and their workers all suffer the loss. That ripple spreads across the entire community.

Yet many in this industry feel that their concerns have not been heard by this current government. Instead of providing certainty and stability for the forest sector, government decisions have created growing uncertainty.

Policy announcements have often come without meaningful consultation with the workers and communities that depend on forestry for their livelihoods. Companies need long-term certainty to invest in modern mills, new technology and workforce stability. Unfortunately, the regulatory environment today has made those investments far more difficult.

We are also facing serious challenges relating to timber supply. The impacts of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and the increasing severity of our wildfire seasons have dramatically reduced fibre in many parts of B.C. Yet rather than implementing strong and proactive forest management strategies, this government has too often allowed uncertainty and delay to dominate the conversation.

Active forest management — including responsible harvesting, reforestation and improved wildfire mitigation — is essential to maintaining a sustained forest sector. Instead, industry and communities are often left navigating lengthy permitting processes and unclear policy direction.

Forest workers are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for common sense. They’re asking for a government that understands that forestry is not just an industry; it’s a way of life in British Columbia.

The reality is that forestry remains one of B.C.’s most important economic drivers. It supports thousands of jobs and generates billions of dollars in economic activity every single year.

Our lumber producers and products are recognized around the world for their quality and sustainability. British Columbia already has some of the highest standards in the world, but current policies continue to push investment away from the province, and we risk losing more mills, more jobs and more opportunities for our communities.

B.C. deserves better. Forestry helped build this province. It built our towns, our infrastructure, our economies. People that work in this industry deserve to know that their government supports them and understands the importance of their work every single day.

At the end of the day, we are left with a very clear choice. We can either have significant change in forest policies from this government — policies that support timber supply, investment and active forest management — or British Columbians may soon be calling for something else — a change in government. If this government cannot recognize the importance of this important industry and the communities that depend on it, then it is those communities that will ultimately demand the leadership that will.

Forest workers, their families and communities across British Columbia deserve better.

Women’s Health Research and
Support for Women’s Health Care

Jennifer Blatherwick: I had a speech prepared for International Women’s Day, but this morning I had the privilege of meeting with a bunch of women who work deeply in women’s health research. They reminded me that, in fact, this is Women’s Health Research Month.

[10:25 a.m.]

I would like to acknowledge those women who visited us here today to speak so knowledgeably and deeply about their work: Dr. Jen Gunter, Dr. Gina Ogilvie and Dr. Lori Brotto, from the Women’s Health Research Institute of British Columbia; and Dr. Laura Schummers, who is a reproductive epidemiologist.

I hope that you hear some of your words in my words today and know that both the Minister of Health and I listened so carefully to what you had to say, because it was for the good of all women and all people in British Columbia.

One of the things that we are so fortunate to have in British Columbia is a unified system of research. If you swim in other systems, if you live in other systems where research is not unified across your jurisdiction, you know how challenging it is to receive a unified theory of care, especially around women’s health.

Women’s health has only been a focus in research and medicine for the last 25 years. Women were not equitably included in health care studies. Women were not even thought of when drugs were designed and systems of care were implemented. Over the last two decades, we’ve seen significant changes, but there’s still more to do.

We know that, broadly, women receive less than 7 percent of the health care focus when it comes to dollars, despite the fact that women are 50 percent of the population. We know that when women receive the care that they need, it benefits not just them, not just British Columbia and the societies in which they live. We know that women take care of everyone else in their lives. We know that it changes the health outcomes of the children in their lives as well.

There’s a real practical basis to caring for women. They need the things in their lives — the medication, the health care and the supports — that allow them to continue to raise their children, to care for elders, to continue with their careers and make the lives they choose. In British Columbia, they have a better chance to do that than almost anywhere else in the world.

In January of 2024, British Columbia was the first province in Canada to launch a cervix self-screening program. Now, this means that women who don’t have access to health care because they have to work, they have to take care of their kids, they live in areas where it’s difficult to access a gynecologist or even a family doctor can do their screening right in their own home and get those results.

Because we now have an improved test, we know that we can spread that test from three years to five and get the same and even better high-quality results. Between February 2024 and November of 2025, 230,000 cervix self-screening kits have been mailed to eligible patients.

British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in Canada to provide free prescription birth control. Since it was introduced on April 1, 2023, approximately 394,000 people in British Columbia have benefited from this policy.

We have seen a 49 percent increase in long-term, reversible reproductive health care uptake. That means that for methods of birth control like IUDs and implantable birth control, there were women who were not getting that birth control because cost was a barrier, and now that has been removed.

We can do more. There are women, especially youth in British Columbia, who have no idea that this program exists. So please take the time to share this information with the young people, especially, in your lives. It will help them save hundreds of dollars a year, and it will help make an enormous change to the rest of their life if they can choose the timing of when they reproduce.

In June of 2023, the province also expanded the pharmacists’ scope of practice so they could provide contraception. We’ve also improved access to IUDs and cervical anesthetic by increasing physician compensation for those procedures.

We’ve launched the province’s first publicly funded in vitro fertilization program, with more than 1,600 individuals and couples approved for funding this fiscal year, with more applications still in process.

These are the practical steps we have taken. We have taken them for British Columbians, and we will continue to advance.

[10:30 a.m.]

Ageism and Sexism in Society and
Contributions of Older Women

Lynne Block: The American diplomat Madeleine Albright once said: “It took me quite a long time to develop a voice, and now that I have it, I’m not going to be silent.” That statement captures something profound about age.

A voice is not developed overnight. It is built through experience; through hardship; through decades of learning, contributing and leading. Yet despite that wisdom and experience, we live in a society where one of the most socially acceptable forms of discrimination remains ageism.

We rightly condemn discrimination based on race, gender, disability and many other characteristics, but age is different. It is often dismissed with humour or casual remarks. You hear it in everyday conversation: “Okay, boomer” or “She’s too old for that” or “He’s past his prime.” If those phrases targeted almost any other group, we would immediately recognize them as offensive. Yet when directed at seniors, they are often treated as harmless jokes.

In Canada, age is recognized in law as a protected ground. Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality before the law. And human rights codes, including here in British Columbia, protect individuals from discrimination based on age in areas such as employment, housing and services.

But laws alone cannot eliminate cultural attitudes. Ageism persists in ways that are subtle but deeply damaging. Older workers are often pushed out of the workforce despite decades of knowledge and skill. Seniors are underrepresented in conversations about innovation, technology and leadership. Too often older voices are treated as though they are no longer relevant.

For women, the challenge can be even greater. Ageism and sexism combine to create what many scholars call double invisibility. Women who spent much of their lives navigating expectations about appearance and youth often find that as they grow older, society simply stops seeing them at all. Yet history repeatedly proves the opposite of this stereotype.

Some of the most influential women in modern history made extraordinary contributions well into their senior years.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a global symbol of legal courage and equality in her 70s and 80s, shaping constitutional law and inspiring generations.

Maya Angelou continued writing, lecturing and influencing global conversations about justice and humanity well into her later decades.

Angela Merkel guided Europe’s largest economy through financial crises and global uncertainty during the later years of her leadership.

Margaret Atwood, one of our own, saw one of the most powerful cultural resurgences of her work in her 70s, when The Handmaid’s Tale once again shaped international conversations about democracy and human rights.

These women remind us that wisdom does not diminish with age. In many ways, it deepens. Experience builds judgment. Experience builds resilience. Experience builds perspective. Yet despite this, society operates on the mistaken assumption, often, that innovation belongs only to the young, that relevance has an expiration date and that aging somehow means decline.

But the truth is the opposite. Societies depend on the knowledge accumulated over a lifetime. When we dismiss seniors, we are not simply overlooking individuals. We are ignoring decades of insight, leadership and understanding.

As Canada’s population continues to age, this issue becomes even more important. By the end of this decade, seniors will make up a significant portion of our population. The question before us is not whether they still have something to contribute. The real question is whether our institutions, workplaces and communities are prepared to recognize the value they bring.

More than 2,000 years ago, the Roman statesman Cicero wrote something that remains remarkably relevant today: “Old age, especially when honoured, can be a time of great influence.”

Our responsibility as a society is simple: not to treat age as a reason to dismiss a voice but as a reason to listen more carefully to it, because the voices that have taken the longest to develop are often the ones that have the most wisdom to offer.

[10:35 a.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M232 — Long Term Care Access
and Transparency Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, the House will continue second reading of Bill M232, intituled Long Term Care Access and Transparency Act.

Kiel Giddens: I’m very glad to speak in the House today in support of the Long Term Care Access and Transparency Act.

Before I talk about policy, I want to talk about family, and my family in particular. My nonna, my grandmother on my dad’s side, lived with Alzheimer’s. Like so many families, ours watched someone we loved slowly change in ways that were heartbreaking and beyond our control. There came a point when caring for her at home was no longer safe or possible, no matter how much love surrounded her. Long-term care became essential. What mattered most to our family was knowing she was safe, treated with dignity and cared for by professionals who understood what she was going through.

Because of that care, my dad and his siblings were able to visit her simply as sons and daughters, not as exhausted caregivers trying to manage an impossible situation on their own. They could hold her hand, sit with her, talk to her, play music she loved or recite Italian nursery rhymes that she loved. They could just be family. That is what good long-term care makes possible.

Across Prince George–Mackenzie in northern B.C., I meet families who are walking the same difficult road right now — adult children worrying about their parents, spouses doing everything they can until they simply cannot anymore and seniors themselves afraid of losing independence or becoming a burden. What they want most is reassurance so when that time comes, there will be a place for their loved one. They will not be left waiting without answers.

This bill, I believe, speaks directly to that need. At its heart, it is about transparency, about giving families clear, honest information so they can plan ahead and make incredibly difficult decisions with some measure of certainty.

The B.C. seniors advocate’s report on rural seniors makes it clear that communities like the ones I represent face unique challenges. Rural British Columbia has a higher proportion of seniors than urban areas, and that number is actually growing very quickly.

I think of a town like Mackenzie. The proportion of seniors, historically, that are moving to Mackenzie in search of affordable housing is changing the community rapidly. Seniors in rural regions often have fewer services, fewer care providers and longer travel distances to access support. In some northern areas, life expectancy is actually lower than in the south, and that is simply something that we cannot accept.

At the same time, rural seniors are fiercely independent. They want to stay in their homes and communities for as long as possible, but when their health declines, they deserve timely access to appropriate care close to the people that they love. Right now that access is not always timely or predictable. Health care workers across the North are doing extraordinary work under immense pressure. Nurses, care aides, physicians and support staff show compassion every single day.

In my own community, at the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia, approximately one-third of patient beds are occupied by alternative-level-of-care patients. These are individuals who no longer need acute hospital treatment but cannot be discharged because they are waiting for long-term-care placement. Behind that statistic are real people — mothers, fathers, grandparents, neighbours — spending weeks or months in hospital rooms that are not designed for long-term-care living. Families visit them there day after day, often not knowing how much longer the wait will be or where their loved one will ultimately go.

That is why reporting requirements in this bill are so important. Requiring monthly data on wait-lists, wait times, alternative-level-of-care patients, hospice access and home support availability will give us a clear picture of what is happening on the ground. Making that information public means families will no longer be left guessing. Transparency builds trust, and it allows families to plan. And I think that’s really important. When hospital beds are tied up this way, it affects everyone from seniors waiting in placement to patients arriving in emergency who need acute care.

[10:40 a.m.]

The system is under strain, and families feel that strain most acutely. When a loved one begins to decline, families face agonizing questions. Should someone reduce work hours, modify the home, move closer to services, prepare financially? How long might the wait be?

These decisions can’t be made overnight, and they cannot be made without information. So this bill requires, as well, the development of a plan to improve timely access to long-term care and reduce the number of patients waiting in hospital for placement. Reporting is important, but it must lead to action as well. A plan that is reviewed regularly ensures we remain focused on solutions.

Above all, this legislation is about dignity, and it’s why I will be supporting this bill. Our seniors built this province. They cared for us when we were vulnerable. Now it’s our turn to care for them. When I think about my nonna, I’m grateful that long-term care allowed our family to focus on love rather than logistics.

For these reasons, I’m proud to support the Long Term Care Access and Transparency Act.

I thank you for the time to speak to it.

Scott McInnis: It’s a real pleasure to rise this morning and speak to my friend’s bill — from Courtenay-Comox — Long Term Care Access and Transparency Act.

Although it’s not a be-all, end-all fix to some of the challenges we’re facing with seniors care, I do find this to be quite a good SOS bill: save our seniors. I’m going to address the merits of this bill, and then I want to just speak briefly about some of the issues raised by government related to this.

It’s very simple. The nature of this bill is to provide that timely, transparent and equitable access to long-term care and hospice services. Families across B.C. — they’re struggling to find that reliable, timely information about that long-term-care availability.

I have to say, as somebody with — sorry, Mom and Dad, if you’re watching — parents that are getting older, it’s important to me, as within the next decade or so, hopefully longer, we’ll be looking into various levels of care and areas for care for my parents. I just find, on a personal level, accessing timely information is going to be helpful in many respects for myself and my brothers and my sister.

It’s no secret that we do have an aging population, and that number in that demographic is growing. We have to find ways and methods to ensure that our long-term-care system is keeping pace.

Just to address specifically what my friend’s bill does, it identifies the total number of patients on wait-lists, the median and maximum wait times, the number of alternative-level-of-care patients that are stuck in hospitals.

This is a real issue. We are seeing seniors that are in hospital, taking up time in hospital, when there could be another way to find them care.

Addressing these issues and knowing where people are will help us find strategies in order to deal with that — the number admitted to long-term care; very importantly, patients who have passed away on waiting lists; how many patients have waited various thresholds for specific days to be on lists; and several other components.

I just find this to be a very transparent bill that really provides that accountability. I want to make this very clear, and it’s not the intention of my friend with bringing this bill up. It’s not meant to point fingers. The nature of this bill is to find specifically targeted data around seniors and the waiting lists and find how we can actually address those.

The minister also must compile these reports and publish them for public consumption, which I think is very, very important. When we don’t know what we’re measuring, it’s really difficult to find those targeted strategies, again, and policies to help fix some of these issues. I just find this to be a very, very sensible bill, again, in addressing those concerns.

[10:45 a.m.]

I really like the idea of developing a provincial plan within a year here to address those specific concerns from within the data that’s being compiled and to update that plan annually so it is a working document. Transparency does drive improvement. I think this regular publicly accessible data does create that sense of accountability when we’re looking at addressing the growing concern of senior care.

Families shouldn’t have to guess about waiting times and access to services. I know it’s a very nerve-racking time as families enter that chapter of their life where they’re having to find various options for their parents, moving forward — options for various facilities. Having that data is not meant to make people nervous. It’s to help them plan. It’s that simple.

Health authorities can better plan their staffing. That’s extremely important. They’re also able to look at targeted investments around such pieces as well. With the better data and planning, we can reduce the alternative-level-of-care backlogs and free up acute care beds for patients where we need them.

I do want to address a couple of things raised by government. One member had brought up the concern around staffing hours — to be able to report on this. Let’s figure that out. We have a growing bureaucracy in the Health Ministry. There’s got to be a team in there somewhere that can actually sit down and look at this data, compile it and publish it. I’m sure it’s not something with the intention of my friend’s bill here, to be overly onerous on the public service within the Ministry of Health to be able to do this.

Another member was quoted as saying: “This gives people a false sense of hope.” I look at that differently.

Amna Shah: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Amna Shah: I’d like to welcome the first of three groups of students from Richmond Christian School. We are joined by 33 grade 10s. They are joined by their teacher Deanna Smith. We would like to welcome all of these amazing students to the chamber.

We are currently debating a private member’s bill. I hope that you’ll enjoy the debate.

Please have the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Scott McInnis: Yes, welcome to the students for the debate this morning.

This isn’t meant to be a false sense of hope. This is to allow families to better plan around the data that they have in front of them for their family members.

We need to invest and prioritize in looking at how we’re going to expand upon addressing the specific issues behind senior care. As I mentioned, this is a rapidly growing demographic in our province. I feel like we need to find all the tools in our toolbox collectively, in a non-partisan way, in order to address these issues around long-term care.

I want to close my time today by urging members in government to support a bill. Again, my friend’s intention wasn’t meant here to shame anybody or to point fingers at anybody. This is about addressing the core issues and the data, having a data-driven approach based on the information we have available to us to help our seniors find the care they need.

With that, I thank you for the time and I hope everybody can support this bill.

Stephanie Higginson: I will be quick.

I’m rising to speak to the Long Term Care Access and Transparency Act.

As a person who…. People have all mentioned their parents. My parents…. As I’ve talked about in this House, my dad died waiting in the hospital for transition to long-term care. He didn’t die because he was waiting. He died because his heart was the size of a walnut. This is what I worry about when you talk about making these lists and how many people died waiting. Well, it’s not that clear.

I have personal experience, as well, with this, as we’re dealing with my in-laws who have complex care issues. We all have experience with this, and we all have different reasons why we support or don’t support the intentions of the bill.

As the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside…. In the Oceanside end of my riding, the median age is 68 — the median age. My constituents really love to tell me that I have the most senior population in the country. I haven’t checked because they’re all so dynamic that I don’t need to worry about their age. They keep me busy.

Through the Oceanside Caregivers group, the work they’ve been doing recently, I have learned that those in charge of long-term-care placement know exactly how many people are on the waiting list for long-term care at any moment. They also know, and I’ve also learned through this work, that that list is not static. You don’t start at 25 and then move to 24 and then move to 23. What happens is that that list changes based on complexity of issues.

[10:50 a.m.]

As many of us know if we are dealing with seniors in our lives, sometimes if you’re dealing with particular issues, there’s rapid onset of cases where somebody might all of a sudden need to be moved into long-term care much more quickly than they thought. So this list becomes quite dynamic, and my concern with this is that we create expectations in the public that don’t reflect the reality of the situation.

I think it’s also important to note that my riding actually will benefit from the completion of the Lantzville long-term-care home. That will include palliative and complex care beds, and it’s scheduled to open in 2029. So we are addressing these things.

This bill…. I am concerned that it creates administrative burden on the folks who are doing this work, who are dealing with folks. That it necessitates that resources are put into publishing a list rather than connecting people to the services they need is concerning, particularly when we constantly hear the other side talk about staff not being on the front line. This pulls people away and creates a false narrative that this is really simple and you just start at 25 and you move up to 24 and this is how long it’s going to be.

Having said all that…. While I support the intention of the bill, I do believe that the structure laid out in it is problematic. Perhaps those are some things that can be fixed during the committee stage. I’m unsure.

But I do want us to recognize that if we put a lot of time into creating a false narrative to the public, then that also creates stress on the people who are waiting and the caregivers as well. I think it’s really important that we recognize the problematic nature of the bill.

Perhaps some of those problems can be worked out in the committee stage. I’m unsure. But I felt it important to talk about this, as the member for Ladysmith-Oceanside, which has a median age of 68.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Courtenay-Comox closes debate.

Brennan Day: I just want to address some of the comments from the previous member. Most of what you’ve said is a barrier is already tracked. What this bill is seeking to do is to establish trends so we know where to deploy resources, because currently that information is not being disclosed proactively and publicly.

I appreciate the debate that has taken place on Bill M232, the Long Term Care Access and Transparency Act.

Over the course of this discussion, we have heard the government’s central argument. They say this bill would place an undue administrative burden on the system. They say health authorities lack the capacity to produce and publish this information on a consistent monthly basis.

But here’s the reality. British Columbia now operates the largest health care bureaucracy in the history of this province.

Entire divisions within our health authorities exist to track performance — there’s one on Fort Street — analyze data and report on system capacity. Bed flow is monitored daily. Occupancy is tracked constantly. Executives review patient flow weekly, yet we are asked to believe that this system cannot publish the numbers it already tracks internally.

A spreadsheet, a pivot table and regular release of information — that is all we are talking about in this bill. This is not complicated. It is not a technical bill. It is not a capacity issue. It is a question of will — the will to acknowledge that we have a crisis, the will to tell British Columbians the truth of the scale of it and the will to confront a reality every member in this chamber already understands.

The truth is simple. You cannot fix what you do not measure, and public pressure is the only way systems change.

This bill does not ask for anything exotic. It asks for basic operational indicators that tell us whether a seniors care system is functioning or failing. How many seniors are waiting for long-term care? How long are they waiting? Where does capacity exist, and where does it not? Those numbers exist today. The only question before this House is whether British Columbians are allowed to see them.

The position of this side of the House is simple. The data of government is the data of the people. Bureaucrats do not own their successes or failures. The people do, because behind every one of those numbers is a person — a senior who has already been assessed and approved for care, a family navigating uncertainty, a caregiver stretched to the limit.

We know the scale of the challenge. More than 7,400 seniors are currently on wait-lists for publicly funded long-term care in the province of B.C. At the same time, hospitals across British Columbia remain filled with alternative-level-of-care patients. These are individuals who no longer require acute hospital treatment but cannot be discharged.

[10:55 a.m.]

That pressure ripples through the entire health care system. It contributes to emergency room congestion. It delays surgeries. It increases ambulance off-load delays.

Long-term-care capacity is a key structural pressure point that affects everybody’s health care. Yet British Columbians still cannot see a clear and consistent picture of how this system is performing or a plan to fix it.

This bill simply turns on the lights. It requires standardized reporting and an annual plan to be updated regularly. It also requires something else: a plan. Not recycled announcements, not aspirational language, not recycled promises from yesteryear — an actual plan to address the long-term-care crisis in the province of B.C.

I want to acknowledge something important in this debate. The Green Party has indicated they will support this legislation. Multiple stakeholders in the seniors care sector have expressed support for this legislation, and that should tell us something.

Transparency should not be a partisan issue. Data should not be controversial. Planning for the needs of seniors should not divide this House. Yet speakers from the government benches have indicated that they are not willing to support this bill. I would ask them to reflect carefully on their decision before doing so.

We have an obligation to British Columbian taxpayers to be honest. In fact, we have an obligation to transparency. If the system is improving, the data will prove it. If it is not, then this Legislature is responsible to confront the reality and fix it, because you cannot fix what you do not measure.

I urge all members of this House to support Bill M232. Vote yes to transparency. Vote yes to accountability. Vote yes for British Columbian seniors. If this House cannot support something as simple as publishing the truth about seniors health care in British Columbia, then we have a far bigger problem than long-term care.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill M232, Long Term Care Access and Transparency Act.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member next on the list of precedence to move their item of business.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M201 — Access to Clean Water
and Canadian Sovereignty

Sharon Hartwell: I move Motion M201, standing in my name on the order paper:

[That this House affirms its commitment to affordable, equitable and accessible clean water as an important component of Canadian sovereignty.]

Affordable drinking water is defined as the ability of a household to pay for essential water and sanitation services without sacrificing the ability to meet other basic needs such as food, housing and health care. It is a human-rights-based concept where costs do not prevent access.

As of February 2026, a combination of all health authorities in B.C. have issued a total of 1,027 boil-water notices and advisories. For many communities, this is an ongoing reality.

When I started looking into water security in B.C., I found the information very unsettling. I did find that in Canada, our fresh water is not protected under our Canadian constitution. This all started with trying to work with the provincial and federal governments to fund a water treatment plant.

Canada possesses 20 percent of all the fresh water. This is a resource that should not be taken for granted. B.C. is rich in resources, and our water is a resource that should be protected for all British Columbians. Access to sufficient safe and affordable drinking water shall be recognized as a fundamental human right held equally by all residents of British Columbia.

Ensuring successful delivery and management of community water supplies requires sourcing, treating, distributing, planning, engineering, monitoring and managing infrastructure systems. Most local governments will have a wide range of water-related responsibilities.

While some communities have reliable access, gaps remain in rural areas, with small systems and underserved communities. Many of these systems use raw, untreated water to supply the residents. Many communities have aging infrastructure, and updating or investing in new delivery systems is expensive.

[11:00 a.m.]

Cities like Prince Rupert, which is now using surface water, are required to provide water samples to Northern Health. This, for many communities, is a requirement to ensure that the water meets the regulation standards.

No person or community should be denied clean water due to cost, geography, infrastructure failure or regulatory neglect. In addition, many local governments are grappling with underinvestment in water infrastructure, compounded by a backlog of maintenance and capital improvement projects; rising systems costs; limited resources; changing technology; changing regulations and legislation, requiring system upgrades; and a history of underpricing and/or inadequate funding.

Communities that are using surface water as their source are required to provide weekly bacteriological samples from locations and send them to their health authority for testing, and in many cases, this will cause a boil-water advisory. Annual metal tests are also performed to ensure that they meet Health Canada’s guidelines for safe drinking water.

Ensuring successful delivery and management of community water distribution requires sourcing, treating, planning, engineering, monitoring and managing infrastructure systems. Most local governments will have a wide range of water-related tasks and ongoing financial responsibilities.

Small communities like Telkwa pump raw water directly from the Bulkley River into their system. The only treatment for water in some systems is chlorinization. The village is on the confluence of two river systems, the Telkwa and the Bulkley. In extreme weather events — such as spring freshet — as well as heavy rain events, the water turbidity is extreme, and that is where the concern is.

Fecal coliform attaches to the silt and is then distributed to the community water system. The community lived with this for decades. For years, the community had made presentations to government, then were told they were required to use all their capital reserve money before they were considered for a grant-sharing program.

The community at that time had approximately 1,200 residents. The population has increased by over 11 percent and is still growing. Now the community is facing another challenge. The upgrade for the treatment plant is estimated to be $9.8 million to keep up with community growth.

You must remember that many of our smaller rural communities have no industrial tax base to assist with this cost.

The other factor is ongoing operational cost. Is it moral or reasonable to expect a small community to pay hundreds of dollars per month for safe, clean drinking water? We need to preserve this legacy and ensure that our water resources are not abused or turned into private commodities.

Access to safe, reliable drinking water is essential to the well-being of every British Columbian. Local governments across B.C. are responsible for providing drinking water to their communities. Local governments face a broad range of challenges, including aging infrastructure, evolving workforces, changing populations, groundwater and surface water quality. To this end, we must make water a priority for our communities.

Steve Morissette: I am pleased to rise today in support of this motion, tabled by the member from Bulkley Valley–Stikine, calling upon the House to affirm its commitment to affordable, equitable and accessible clean water as an important component of Canadian sovereignty.

British Columbia takes a whole-of-government approach to water, with relevant ministries working closely together to deliver on the overarching goal of securing sustainable clean water for all needs. People in B.C. and our government know how important water is to everyday lives, and this is reflected in how well-legislated the topic of water is in our province.

B.C. has three main laws regulating and protecting water.

The Water Protection Act, which protects B.C.’s water by reconfirming provincial ownership of surface and groundwater, defining limits for bulk water removal and prohibiting the large diversion of water between provincial watersheds and locations outside of B.C. This law protects our water sovereignty explicitly.

The Water Sustainability Act. This is the primary statute for managing and organizing our water resources in B.C. The WSA sets out requirements for the transparent allocation and pricing of water, orderly sequencing of rights to water and clear mechanisms for redistribution of water during times of scarcity.

[11:05 a.m.]

The Drinking Water Protection Act, which sets out requirements for drinking water operators and suppliers to ensure the provision of safe drinking water to consumers. The act aligns oversight and accountability to the provincial health officer to ensure there is safe and potable drinking water available for all British Columbians.

B.C. also has other policies and clauses in various laws that ensure water is protected and also affordable, equitable and accessible.

In terms of affordability, British Columbians are protected from their water services being increased in price solely for profit when they have an agreement with a private water utility under B.C. law. These private water utilities are generally small community services where there are no public water purveyors available. Water utilities are required to explain to their ratepayers and the provincial water comptroller why a rate increase is necessary. This helps protect everyday people from utilities unfairly increasing the price of a rural community’s only source of water.

In terms of accessibility and equity, when developing policy, programs and initiatives, provincial public servants are required to analyze a list of considerations to understand who will be impacted by proposed changes and how.

The unique circumstances of Indigenous Peoples must be considered. The risk of racial biases is considered, and gender-based analysis plus is employed to assess how various groups of people may be impacted by any policy change. This includes any potential impacts to privacy, businesses and the economy, affordability and marginalized peoples.

The Constitution of Canada establishes the division of powers on water quite clearly between different levels of government. While it is established that the federal government is the primary authority with respect to water on First Nations reserves, the province has committed to working and collaborating with First Nations when we look at policy and legislative reform to better respect the social, cultural, economic and spiritual value of water to Indigenous Peoples.

Historically, B.C.’s water resources have been seen as never-ending and abundant. However, in recent years, the province has seen multi-year droughts exacerbated by climate change. Water is increasingly being recognized as something that needs to be carefully managed for the citizens of the province.

The work to ensure our water is affordable, equitable, accessible, clean and sovereign is ongoing, and there is always work to be done. We remain committed to responsibly managing our water resources by working on new policies, legislation and programs.

Donegal Wilson: I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine affirming the importance of affordable, equitable and accessible water.

I want to begin with something that every member in this House should be able to agree on. Clean water is not a luxury. It’s not optional. It is one of the most fundamental services required for people to live, work and raise their families in communities across British Columbia. It represents life. It supports our homes, our schools, our hospitals and our local economies. It supports agriculture, industry and the long-term health of all British Columbians.

When we talk about strong communities, when we talk about economic development, when we talk about sovereignty, none of that is possible without reliable and affordable access to drinking water.

For many people in large urban centres, access to drinking water is something we rarely think about. We turn on the tap and it’s just there. But in many smaller communities across British Columbia, water infrastructure is aging, costs are rising and residents are increasingly being asked to shoulder financial burdens that are becoming difficult and in some cases impossible to manage.

As the critic for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I hear about these pressures regularly from communities across the province. Today I want to bring this conversation down to the ground, to the real experience of families in my own region, because behind every policy discussion about water infrastructure are real people trying to manage real costs in their daily lives.

[11:10 a.m.]

In the community of Sage Mesa, just outside Penticton, families are facing a crisis. This subdivision operates on a private water system that was seized by the provincial government in 1990.

Residents have paid their water bills for decades, seeing modest increases along the way. Then, last week, they received a letter from the comptroller of water. Their water bills must increase by 300 percent, up to $3,600 per year, simply to keep their water system operating. That’s $300 a month. Imagine opening that bill today.

But that’s not the end of their story. Next month residents will vote in a referendum on transferring the utility to the regional district, along with borrowing of up to $32 million to rebuild their system. That cost will be shared between a couple of businesses and just over 200 homes.

If approved, the estimated cost to households will average roughly $9,000 per year. Combined with the operational costs that they’ve already been told to expect, that means these residents are going to be approaching $12,000 a year just for their water — $1,000 a month. That’s not their mortgage. That’s not their hydro. That’s not their groceries. That is just their water.

I want every member in this chamber to imagine going to their mailbox today and finding a bill for $1,000 that you need to pay every month, going forward, just to turn on your tap.

I’ve spoken directly with families in that community — young families who bought homes only a few years ago, seniors on fixed incomes, people who stretched financially to purchase a home in what they believed was a stable community. They did not know this was coming, and now they are being told the cost of keeping water flowing to their homes is going to exceed what they can afford.

I ask the members of this House, is that what we consider affordable water in British Columbia — $1,000 a month? For the families in Sage Mesa, that is the reality facing them today.

Unfortunately, Sage Mesa is not alone. Across my riding, small communities are facing similar pressures. In Heritage Hills, a water infrastructure solution is estimated at roughly $13 million. In Skaha Estates, another community facing infrastructure needs, it’s estimated at $12 million. These are small communities with less than 300 homes. They do not have a large tax base. They cannot simply tax their way out of the problem.

At the same time, policy changes are triggering additional infrastructure requirements. In Kaleden, I have a new treatment standard requiring an ultraviolet system estimated at $4.5 million. In Hedley, naturally occurring arsenic levels have now exceeded updated thresholds, requiring the development of an entirely new water source for the community.

In Keremeos, residents were asked to support a new well simply to meet provincial housing density requirements. In Osoyoos, the community faces a $73 million price tag for the water treatment infrastructure required to meet their current standards. Their water today comes out looking like tea.

For small communities, numbers like that are simply beyond their means. Across British Columbia, we are now seeing the consequences of decades of underinvestment in water infrastructure. The issue is systemic, and local governments are expected to manage these systems.

Amna Shah: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Amna Shah: I’d like to welcome our second group of students from Richmond Christian School along with their respective teachers.

We are currently debating a private member’s motion that is on the floor. I hope that you will all enjoy the debate back and forth.

Would the House join me in making all of these amazing students feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Stephanie Higginson: I rise today to speak on Motion M201, that this House affirms its commitment to affordable, equitable and accessible clean water as an important component of Canadian sovereignty.

I have to admit that I did find the wording of the motion a little bit odd, without having heard from the member, because it focuses on Canadian sovereignty. We’re the provincial government. When it comes to water, the province holds the responsibility for natural resources, including water use and development, while the federal government holds responsibility for boundary and transboundary waters.

[11:15 a.m.]

I have a bit of a better understanding now on the intent of the motion, and perhaps I would have chosen a different framing. But I will never shy away from the opportunity to talk about the importance of watershed security and all the actions that the government has taken to ensure watershed security for all British Columbians.

I recognize now that the members are focused on the infrastructure part of the water delivery, but water that runs into that infrastructure needs to come from somewhere, and those places need to be protected. This government doesn’t just talk about watershed security. We back it up with generational actions and investments.

On March 6, 2023, the province of British Columbia and the B.C.–First Nations Water Table jointly announced a $100 million investment from the province of British Columbia to establish the creation of an independent watershed security fund. Through innovative approaches and strategic partnerships, the watershed security fund aims to address the urgent and long-term needs of watersheds. It provides a permanent and enduring funding stream for watershed projects across British Columbia.

The watershed security fund grants program funds freshwater projects focused on ecosystem health, on reconciliation, on climate resilience and on sustainable economies. Through collaborative approaches, they aim to address urgent and long-term needs, and it’s working. To date, through two intake processes, the watershed security fund has funded 54 projects totalling just under $12 million, with the results of a third intake scheduled to be released this spring.

The watershed security fund sees watershed security as a shared responsibility, requiring that everyone within the watershed actively contribute to its care and its preservation. We are starting to see that philosophy and understanding move beyond just government-funded entities.

Recently, Mosaic Forest Management announced that they are testing a new kind of forest management in the Koksilah watershed. This is a multi-year pilot project on Mosaic private lands in the Koksilah watershed on Vancouver Island to demonstrate how working forests can deliver both economic performance and environmental resilience by integrating watershed stewardship and services.

Mosaic president Duncan Davies said that the pilot is about figuring out what works by combining sustainable forestry with watershed stewardship and other land solutions. Mosaic’s pilot reflects a trend amongst private timberland owners globally, who are increasingly integrating watershed resilience, climate solutions and community values into their land management and business models.

That’s not just happening in private timberlands. Agreements in projects like these reflect B.C.’s move towards climate resilience by recognizing the importance of integrating watershed management into forestry practices through the creation of forest landscape planning. Among many things achieved by forest landscape planning is the recognition that the forests where fibre is extracted — the fibre that creates good jobs and strong communities — are also where the watersheds are located that provide clean and reliable drinking water to those same communities, to those workers and to those families.

Because we know that communities depend on clean water and because this motion goes so far as to say that it is a matter of sovereignty, we know that we must align forest management to strategic land and water objectives. That’s what forest landscape planning does.

A strong example of this is the recently announced FLP co-created between Western Forest Products and the ʼNa̱mǥis First Nations. By recognizing that we need healthy forests for a sustainable future, the FLP for tree farm licence 37 covers approximately 142,000 acres of the ʼNa̱mǥis territory, which represents approximately 89 percent of TFL 37 on northern Vancouver Island. The draft plans were prepared under this government’s forest landscape planning pilot program to support long-term forest health, climate adaptation and a sustainable and secure forestry sector in the province.

Moving to a model of healthy forests for sustainable futures is hard work, and it’s transformational work. But it’s work that’s necessary to support the actions behind the words of motions like M201 that affirm the necessity of equitable and accessible clean water.

Lorne Doerkson: It’s great to hear support on both sides of this House today for M201, that this House affirms its commitment to affordable, equitable and accessible clean water as an important component of Canadian sovereignty.

I’m going to take a slightly different approach at this as well, but I do want to speak to the challenges that some of our members have mentioned this morning with respect to small communities and the challenges that they find with respect to drawing from an aquifer.

[11:20 a.m.]

We have communities like Tatla Lake, in my riding, which really is only a couple hundred people. The well there in Tatla serves not only the medical clinic but the local restaurant. I do mean one restaurant. It supports the community hall and, of course, the store and that kind of thing. We have noticed levels of arsenic in that well. Of course, there have been a number of applications to the province for support for what would be, really, an affordable — pretty affordable — well for that community, but we haven’t been successful.

Even in communities like Williams Lake with a little bit more robust population, 100 Mile…. Those areas are really struggling, as well, with millions of dollars of expense for their water system. In smaller communities like Horse Lake, where, you know, we heard about the tea-coloured water…. We’re really seeing that a lot throughout our riding.

These challenges are real for these small communities, small regional districts, that just simply can’t raise that kind of money through taxation. We’re calling on the province for some support there and, certainly, the federal government as well. I think that’s important that those levels of government get involved.

I want to turn my thoughts to dams, weirs, diversion points that are on the landscape that have become pretty challenging pieces of infrastructure. The reason really is, I think, innocently, frankly…. What we’ve seen is that you’ve got a dam that might be six or seven or eight decades old, and different levels of government and different governments decide to build 100 houses below that dam. Suddenly that dam…. The liability that is attached to it, the challenges around inspection and the challenges around repair become significantly more than they were, because they are now deemed as high-consequence dams.

I can assure you that I never thought that, in my tenure, we would see residents and neighbours fighting over water supply. But that’s happening in Cariboo-Chilcotin. It’s happening in areas where we are now seeing rivers and creeks going dry.

The problem that I just mentioned is real. The cause of that is that we’re seeing a few of these pieces of infrastructure actually being removed. In the case of Borland Creek, where I actually witnessed the dam being removed, the dam was only removed for that reason — because of the high level of liability for homes and structure below it and because of the high level of expense not only to insure it but, as I said, to inspect it. Some of these ranchers and different families that might control these waterways are facing fees of $100,000 just for inspection.

The loss of that freshet that we would regularly enjoy in a dam situation or in the situation of a weir…. We’re losing all of that water. We’re seeing it obviously flow out to the ocean, and it’s a huge loss. It’s a huge loss, not for just the residents that need that water for consumption later on in the year when the rivers are typically dry — and they are now. Borland Creek, Knife Creek — many of them.

Bridge Creek was so dry two years ago that…. We had the annual duck race. If you haven’t got your ducks, Madam Speaker, you should. We had the annual duck race. It wasn’t much of a race, because we had to push the ducks down the river, right?

There’s no water in some of these areas. That is a result, in some cases, of the loss of this piece of infrastructure.

I suppose why I’m speaking here today is that I really think the government must — absolutely must — contemplate considering some of these high-consequence dams as part of the infrastructure and supporting the people that see this high expense.

Potentially the last thing that I want to remind members of is that it also allows us to keep water on the landscape for that very important wildfire effort.

Jeremy Valeriote: I also was particularly interested in the title of this motion. I was glad to hear the member speak to it.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’ll just start out by saying this caucus is quite supportive and believes that working for clean, accessible, affordable water can happily coexist with and benefit items of priority for us — climate action, biodiversity protection and co-governance with First Nations and local governments.

We have a distinct advantage in Canada. All people can and should have access to clean water. It’s the foundation of our health and the backbone of our local communities and forests, fish and wildlife.

Yet we know that, particularly in rural and First Nations communities, this access is not guaranteed and water sources are regularly contaminated with bacteria, fossil fuels and other pollutants. This is an injustice that has been slow to be rectified, disrespects these communities and endangers reconciliation.

There are currently 11 First Nations in B.C. with a water quality advisory notice, 21 with a boil-water advisory and 13 with a do-not-consume notice. In 2021, SEMYOME First Nation had a 16-year boil-water advisory lifted after connecting to the nearby Metro Vancouver water supply through the city of Surrey. The community is only a five-minute drive from the city of White Rock.

I’m old enough to remember the Walkerton, Ontario, crisis, where there were multiple fatalities. Very serious, and I know it has changed the way we look at water, yet the results and the outcomes have not materialized.

With regards to climate, as climate change intensifies, risks to our environment increase and here in B.C., as has been mentioned, water scarcity and contamination of water sources threaten access to clean, potable water.

Declaring equitable, affordable access to clean water means adopting a new direction, one grounded in the realities of our climate crisis. It doesn’t involve sticking our heads in the ground as another fracking well is drilled or we cave to another pipeline proposal. The foundation of our health and water is being seriously impacted by the expansion of fracking and reliance on the LNG industry for economic salvage. Climate action is integral to B.C.’s access to water.

On biodiversity and environmental protection. As B.C. faces more frequent and intense wildfires and floods, it only becomes clearer that we need a fundamental shift in how we manage our land; air; and, of course, water. We have to prioritize resilience, value ecosystem services — I will note a primary ecosystem service that is generated is clean water — and we have to invest in our communities for the long term.

The member for Ladysmith-Oceanside mentioned the watershed security fund — a good first step. I believe it’s about $5 million a year, which is, I have to say, a paltry sum for something that’s so important. We also know that the watershed security strategy has not been released by this government.

It presents a real opportunity to rise above some of the recent anti-reconciliation and anti-Indigenous rhetoric and actually work with local communities, including First Nations and municipalities, to ensure the clean water that we’re looking for is accessible to all.

A lot of this is to do with watershed governance and watershed security tables. The B.C. government can engage with, for example, the Quw’utsun, the Nicola Valley watershed, the Okanagan Basin Water Board on public input for development of a watershed and a water sustainability plan. B.C. government can work with members across this province to ensure that, whether rural or urban, British Columbians have access to clean water.

Very quickly finishing up, what this caucus sees is needed in response to this motion is that equitable access to water remain an integral component and that no cost-prohibitive barrier should exist for British Columbians who wish to access or obtain clean water. Water rental rates for commercial and industrial users need to rise to a level that demonstrates respect and value for this diminishing resource.

The other piece is, of course, 30 by 30 — 30 percent land and water protection by 2030 — and modernizing our mining and mineral staking regimes to respect Indigenous rights and reduce risk to our watershed and communities.

We support this motion and look forward to tangible government actions to achieve it.

[11:30 a.m.]

Sunita Dhir: I’m pleased to rise in this House today in support of Motion M201, which affirms our commitment to clean, affordable, equitable and accessible water as a vital component of Canadian sovereignty.

Water is fundamental to life. It sustains our communities, supports our ecosystems and shapes the identity of our province. In British Columbia, we are blessed with extraordinary natural beauty, from majestic rivers and lakes to vibrant coastal waters. Whether people are drinking from the tap, swimming in our lakes, fishing in our rivers or simply enjoying the outdoors, access to clean water is an essential part of what makes our province such a special place to live.

Water governance in British Columbia is strong and comprehensive. The province holds responsibility for natural resources, including water use and development, while the federal government plays an important role when it comes to boundary and transboundary waters across Canada. This shared responsibility highlights the importance of collaboration and stewardship at every level of government.

Our province takes a whole-of-government approach to water stewardship, with clear accountability through the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. This ensures that the protection of water resources remains the top priority for our government and for the people we serve.

British Columbia has several key pieces of legislation that protect and regulate water.

The Water Protection Act ensures that both surface water and groundwater remain owned by the province and prevents large-scale diversions of water outside of British Columbia or between watersheds. It also sets strict limits on the export of water in containers, helping safeguard this vital resource for future generations.

The Water Sustainability Act provides the framework for how water resources are managed in our province. It establishes requirements for water licensing, allocation and pricing, and it also gives the province the ability to redistribute water during times of scarcity.

Meanwhile, the Drinking Water Protection Act ensures that operators of municipal and private water systems provide safe, drinkable water to residents, with oversight provided by the provincial health officer.

Beyond legislation, our government uses a range of practical tools to ensure water quality, affordability and accessibility. These include requirements for potable water in buildings, oversight of water utility rates, strong drinking water guidelines and watershed protection efforts that safeguard our rivers, lakes and ecosystems.

At the same time, we must recognize the growing challenges we face. Climate change is already affecting water systems across British Columbia. In recent years, drought conditions have impacted many parts of the province, reminding us how critical responsible water management truly is.

While conditions improved in parts of the province during the summer of 2025 compared to the severe droughts we saw between 2022 and 2024, recovery has not been consistent everywhere. Several basins still experienced high drought levels, meaning impacts to ecosystems, communities and local economies remained of some concern.

Our government continues to take action to address these challenges. Investments are being made to strengthen water infrastructure and build resilience for communities, farmers, fish and wildlife. We have committed significant resources to watershed protection and to programs that help farmers manage water more efficiently.

For the health of our communities, the protection of our ecosystem and the security of our future, I’m proud to support Motion M201.

[11:35 a.m.]

Tony Luck: It’s a real pleasure to be here this morning to talk to this absolutely critical motion that’s been placed on the form by a member of the opposition here. I really thank her for doing that because in my area, as in my colleague’s to my right here…. It’s fundamentally important to our area because we’re a large agricultural and recreational area there. Water security and affordability is very, very important to that area.

The ranchers in my area are really concerned about water security. They’ve talked to me about that a number of times when I visited the small cofferdams that have been built up there in the last 60 to 70 years, which are starting to fail and need that inspection, need that work done.

It’s absolutely critical for food security in this province as we move forward, so this bill is very timely that we recognize this. We can start putting some planning in place that we can move forward with this motion and be able to get things moving in the right direction here for water security.

I’m really happy to hear that on the other side of the House, it sounds like they’re supporting this motion as well, so this will come out of the House. This will be really, really important as we move forward, as we work together on something so critical as life-sustaining water. We all know that none of us would be here if it wasn’t for the water.

When you look at a picture of the Earth, you see this beautiful, blue planet out there, all this beautiful water on it. We have an interesting perspective here as British Columbians, as part of Canada. You know, 20 percent of the available fresh water is in Canada. That’s an amazing statistic when you think about that. We’re often recognized and cited as the third-largest renewable water resource in the world.

It is huge, the water that we have here, yet so many times we mismanage it. We don’t do the work that we need to, to preserve that water and take care of it. This motion will help us, I think, move in the direction where we need to spend a lot more time considering our relationship with water, dare I say. I think it’s a very, very important relationship, as we move forward.

This motion provides an important step in the direction. It signals that this Legislature understands the strategic importance of water not just as a resource but as a foundation of public health, agricultural productivity, environmental stewardship and economic stability.

Water connects every region of British Columbia, from coastal watersheds to interior valleys, from rural farms to growing cities. It nourishes our forests, supports our fisheries, powers our hydroelectric system and sustains the agriculture that feeds our province. Protecting and strengthening our water system is not simply an environmental issue. It is an economic issue. It is a food security issue. And it is a generational responsibility.

Supporting this motion affirms that we are prepared to take that responsibility very, very seriously as we move forward. Strengthening water infrastructure therefore strengthens something much larger — our economic resiliency, our agricultural independence and the health of our communities.

This motion recognizes that reality. It highlights the importance of water sovereignty, ensuring that decisions about water resources remain grounded in the needs of communities, Indigenous nations and the public interest. Water must be managed responsibly and transparently, recognized in both ecological limits and the needs of people who depend on it on a regular basis.

It recognizes affordability — the principle that access to clean water must never become a financial burden that pushes families into hardships. Water is not a luxury good. It is a fundamental necessity to see life, and we need to price it accordingly.

It emphasizes sustainability. The responsibility we have to modernize infrastructure protects aquifers and watersheds and ensures that our water system can withstand drought, flooding and the growing impact of climate change, creating longer dry periods in some regions and some extreme flooding in others.

If British Columbia is to maintain strong, resilient food security, we must ensure that the most fundamental element of life — water — is protected, accessible and sustainably managed. This motion moves us in that direction, and I encourage all members of this House to support it.

Sunita Dhir: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

[11:40 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Sunita Dhir: Today in this House, I’m very excited to welcome a school group from Richmond Christian School on behalf of the member for Richmond-Steveston. We have 34 students from grade 10 along with their teacher Ms. Deanna Smith and two staff members.

May we all welcome them to witness the proceedings of this House this morning.

Debate Continued

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to Motion 201, that this House affirms its commitment to affordable, equitable and accessible clean water as an important component of Canadian sovereignty.

Initially I will acknowledge that I speak today on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations.

When I am at home in North Vancouver–Seymour, I work, live and learn on the traditional lands of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations.

Especially in this instance, I honour the stewardship, past and present, of the water that First Nation communities have continued to do.

B.C.’s most precious natural resource does not need to be extracted, processed, refined or shipped. As a province of lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, oceans, glaciers, wetlands, bogs, aquifers and swamps, we often forget about water being a commodity in many other parts of the world. As you have heard from my colleague from Kootenay-Monashee, the province has a variety of policies, regulations and legislations that speak to the stewardship of water, making it accessible and ensuring that it is safe for all users.

My husband and I lived for three years on a small island in Micronesia. When we arrived there, I was surprised to see that most of the houses had large water cisterns attached to them. The water was available between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. If you wanted water pressure, that was the time to do laundry, run a bath and other such things that we take for granted. The municipal water was briny and not potable. We purchased large bottles of drinking water that used a dispenser. One did not use a tap to fill the glass.

We have travelled to other parts of the world where clean water is not a given. We take care not to drink non-processed beverages, not to use ice, to make sure that fruit and vegetables can be peeled and to use vaccinations — such as those for hepatitis — to keep ourselves safe.

In other areas of Canada, boil-water advisories are a regular part of community life, and although the water is potable in other communities, it has a taste that is not palatable. However, here we are lucky. The water looks, tastes and is clean.

I appreciate hearing from the members who recognize that water is critical to all aspects of life. People, animals, health, agriculture, industries, recreation and tourism are all affected if the supply of clean, safe water is impacted.

Rivers don’t have enough water for the salmon to spawn or survive. Aquifers are getting low, unable to replenish for a whole variety of reasons, which includes runoff that goes straight to drainage, creeks or rivers. Heat domes have resulted in deaths, where dehydration and hyperthermia combine to create fatal results. Flooding in our agricultural lands has resulted in fields having to be fallow for a number of years because the ground has become toxic.

Oil spills have coated birds, marine mammals and shorelines, again creating a poisonous environment that is incompatible to life for an extended period. Streams and creeks buried during construction, filled with debris and pollutants, are not able to sustain life for the creatures that used to inhabit them.

Fortunately, in the past several decades, the world as a whole has become much more aware of the importance of keeping water clean in all of its forms.

I used to polar bear swim in Coal Harbour in Vancouver in the ’80s and early ’90s. You didn’t worry about the cold, although that was awful. You worried about the contamination from the oil and pollutants that were in the water. Now the water is clear enough that you can see the bottom at three metres — not possible 30 years ago.

Streamkeepers, salmonid societies and Indigenous communities — among others — are rehabilitating and rebuilding rivers, streams and shores through a variety of projects, initiatives and ongoing activities — cleaning, maintaining and preserving the waterways of B.C.

[11:45 a.m.]

Water treatment plants are critical in the maintenance of clean drinking water for many of our communities, and others are dependent on keeping watersheds as pristine as possible. We all depend on water for life and all that life entails. As such, I am very happy to support this motion, going forward.

John Rustad: I’m very pleased that this motion has come forward from the member from Stikine. Water is essential. We’re hearing it now from both sides of the House, and I think that’s good to see the recognition of what needs to be done in this province to support water and the vital role that water plays. Clean drinking water, agriculture, wildlife — there are so many components, of course.

It’s often said that if you make sure that you take care of water, the land will take care of itself. I think that’s true. Water is critical. It’s one of the reasons why, in this last election, we ran on a platform that suggested that we needed $1 billion annually to be invested in water infrastructure, whether that is your drinking water, whether that’s the sewage side of it. We need that infrastructure around the province, because it is sorely lacking.

There is a huge need in all communities, especially in small communities and rural areas. The investment that is required is tremendous. You need to be able to have a consistent investment, an annual amount of money coming in that just flows through and allows the communities to be able to save up as well as to invest in this critical infrastructure that we all have come to rely on.

In addition to that, it’s also important to think about the relationship between surface water and, of course, our subsurface or the aquifers. Some communities are relying on surface water. Many communities tap into the aquifers with their wells to be able to pump water into storage. We need more research in terms of that relationship.

A couple of years ago, there was a significant drought. Farms were having problems. They had wells to use to water their fields, but they were actually told not to use that, on a precautionary measure, because they were worried about the dropping level of a river that was close by.

We don’t know exactly what that relationship is, so this was a precautionary. In the meantime, by doing that, now you’re hurting our agriculture sector and the very food that’s being produced that we need within this province. We need money to go into research so that we have a better understanding, so that we’re not just making knee-jerk reactions to the situations but we’re actually being able to do proper planning.

Associated with proper planning is making sure we actually invest in things like dams. The member from the Cariboo talked about the need for the investment in dams, a need for us to be able to maintain those dams, but I would suggest we also need to work at storage.

At the end of the day, we are going to have variations in our weather. We’re going to have some years where we’re going to have lots of water, some years where we’re not going to have as much water, but we’re still going to need to be able to irrigate our crops. We’re still going to need to make sure we’ve got water available in our communities.

We need that investment in critical infrastructure of storage of water so that we can take more of the runoff that comes, we can store it, and we can make sure it’s there and available. These are things that, quite frankly, we haven’t been investing in as a province for quite some time now, and it’s something that needs to be done.

I want to bring this back to the needs in my riding of Nechako Lakes. I think about, for example, how the government has a piece of property that is a trailer park in Fraser Lake. It’s gone over two years without any water. It’s had to have bottled water come in because water has not been provided by the landlord — in this case, the province.

We’ve got a situation in Fort St. James where there have been discussions between the community and the First Nations. They’re trying to figure out how you deal with the sewage side of things, the lagoons. There needs to be a new lagoon put in, yet this challenge is coming forward in terms of how this is going to be funded and what the options are that they’re going to look at. This is critical infrastructure.

Right now in Granisle, for example, they’re on a do-not-consume water order for their water supply. It’s a serious issue for the people up in Granisle, and there are issues going on associated with that. I won’t go into the great details on it, but these are the types of things that we need to make sure we have this investment fund for, on an annual basis, so that we can provide those waters.

Houston, of course, spent years waiting to be able to get the funding to build a water tower. They finally got the water tower, which is great for a community like that.

[11:50 a.m.]

It goes on and on, all the way across. Whether it’s the water quality, whether it’s the storage, whether it’s making it available, whether it’s investing in the pipes and infrastructure, we need significant investment.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

As the member from Stikine says, this should be a right. This should be something that we recognize that has to be done for all of our communities, for the people of this province. I’m very pleased that she brought forward this motion.

Sheldon Clare: I rise today to support the motion from the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, M201, on water. On Tuesday, February 3, I was pleased to attend the Hixon Community Hall for a meeting about exactly this topic.

Water is essential to life. It’s essential to many things. We use it for recreation. We use it for watering crops. We use it for producing power. We take it for granted. This House is resplendent with water. We use it all the time. We see the water coming as rapidly as we would expect or need it.

But in some communities, that is not reality. In Hixon, in my riding, before 2003 a water supply system for legal operation only needed an emergency response plan in case of water contamination. Water providers were not responsible for the quality of the water.

In 2003, the Drinking Water Protection Act and drinking water protection regulations were published, and in 2016, groundwater protection regulations were added. These acts said that the water system operator is legally responsible for operating the water system and the water quality. They talked about well construction, maintenance, treatment, amount of water distributed and so on. The penalties for non-compliance with those regulations are a fine up to $200,000 and 12 months of jail time.

In 2025, Northern Health started the process of inspecting water suppliers in Hixon, and they are still in the process of evaluating the water systems. Now, the Hixon Community Hall used to supply water to approximately 100 to 125 families, nearly half the population of Hixon. People would come, they would fill up at the tap at the hall, and they would take the water away.

Well, unfortunately, for legal operation, the Hixon Community Hall water system needs from Northern Health a construction permit, an operating permit, and it has to satisfy the Drinking Water Protection Act, the drinking water protection regulations and the groundwater protection regulations. That system no longer meets the legal requirements to be an approved and legal water supplier for the community.

What does that mean? That means that people needing water have to find another source. That means they have to haul water. Some people are hauling 10,000 to 15,000 litres per load of water, costing as much as $750 to $1,000 a load to move water every month.

It’s something many of us take for granted by paying our city utilities and dealing with that — just water out of the tap. That’s not the reality for many people. This is a real problem in rural British Columbia for real people, and it affects their lives. I heard it loud and clear from the people of Hixon that they need water and they need it now.

That’s not the only issue with water in my riding. We also have a severe problem with water in lakes and rivers and streams being polluted.

I think, for example, of Bouchie Lake, in my riding, which has suffered from a great deal of pollution over a long period of time. It’s pollution that has come from no ill intent. It’s just the practices of agriculture, fertilizer, recreational use, sewage and all sorts of other things that have gradually worked their way down the water table to be deposited in the lake.

What is happening is that lake is in jeopardy. The lake is dying, and the people there are at a loss for how to solve that problem.

When we start thinking about water, we need to take a macro approach as well as a micro approach and understand that it is essential to life, it is essential to everything we do and it is essential for the success of mankind — people-kind, if you like the use of a term that was popular a few years ago in another group.

I see my colleague on the other side having a grin at that. I share the humour.

I just want to emphasize that my colleague from Bulkley Valley–Stikine has brought forth a very important motion. I’m glad to hear that it is getting broad support from all parties, and I want to support it as well.

Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.

Sheldon Clare moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Contents