Contents

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Motion 13 on the order paper.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Forests.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 13 — Support for Human Rights
Code and Enforcement

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 13, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, to affirm unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the Human Rights Tribunal.

[That this House affirms its unequivocal support for the B.C. Human Rights Code and the Tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting people from hate speech and discrimination based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and age.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s my pleasure to speak in support of this motion.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I believe that this motion is an opportunity for every party, every member of this House to be clear on where they stand on human rights. A couple of weeks ago, I have to say, I would not have imagined that this would be necessary.

The human rights code is pretty simple. It protects people from discrimination based on the colour of their skin, their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age and more.

The human rights code has existed in various forms since 1969. It has almost always been a matter of cross-partisan consensus. The B.C. Liberals, including some members still in this House, added “gender identity or expression” to the code in 2016. It was passed unanimously.

The Human Rights Tribunal enforces the code. It investigates complaints to find out if discrimination has occurred. Without it, the code essentially has no effect. Again, support for the tribunal has almost always transcended parties. The B.C. Liberals strengthened the tribunal, and they appointed the current chair.

The code is different than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter protects people from the government. The code prevents organizations and people from discriminating against other people.

For example, in 2024, the tribunal ruled on a case involving a man who was denied service at a massage business because he was Muslim. The business demanded that he “certify you are not of the Islamic faith, which, as you know, has earned a bad reputation for raping and killing of infidels in Canada and elsewhere.” Then that business turned him away.

[1:05 p.m.]

The tribunal ruled that this behaviour violated the code and directed the business to compensate him. Without the code and tribunal, he would have had no recourse and there would be no consequences for this kind of horrific behaviour in our society.

Unfortunately, fighting hate is as important now as it ever was. We’ve seen spikes in hate and white supremacy across this province. We’ve seen far-right commentators and activists, including members of this House, attempt to co-opt the tragedy in Tumbler Ridge to advance a shameful and completely false agenda against the trans community.

Both the code and the tribunal have come under attack since a recent decision regarding the former trustee Barry Neufeld. The tribunal found that: “Contrary to his arguments that he was merely expressing his opinion about legitimate topics of political and social debate, his expression went beyond a critique of a government program. Mr. Neufeld’s publications are replete with negative stereotypes and pejorative assumptions about LGBTQ people, which undermine their inherent dignity and discriminate against them.”

The member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream’s objections go well beyond the queer community. She has said: “Multiculturalism is anti-Canadian.” I am in this House from parents that emigrated from India, left their family to come here to build a life for us. I am so grateful that they made that decision.

We are a country and a province that takes pride in people coming from all over the world to set up their home here. Unlike many jurisdictions across the world, we welcome them. We build a good life for them. We respect their identity, their religion and who they are, and we call them neighbours.

I am just so profoundly offended by that comment that she made about multiculturalism being anti-Canadian, and I think we all should be. She has said Canada needs “mass deportations,” and that we have to end and reverse mass migration. The member should clarify what she means by reversing immigration. Say it to the members of this House who come from families, all of us, that immigrated here to build a life.

White supremacists advocate for what they call re-immigration, which means deporting legal immigrants, including Canadian citizens, based on their ethnic background and skin colour. It’s racism, pure and simple. We on this side of the House will not stand for it. It’s no wonder that she wants to abolish the human rights code entirely.

But she’s not the only one in this House who has attacked the code. The member for Chilliwack North introduced a motion this week that targets section 7 of the code, which is a section about discriminatory publications — hate speech. She has strongly defended Barry Neufeld on social media.

The member for Langley-Abbotsford has said about the tribunal: “When I become Premier, it’s gone on day one.” That’s what his leadership would bring to this province — gone on day one.

What would he say to that Muslim man who was denied access because of his religion? What would he say to women who have been fighting for pay equity for years when they are paid, because of their gender, less than their male counterparts? What would he say to all the immigrants who fought for equal rights in this country since the founding of this province? I would love to know.

A candidate for the opposition party’s leadership, Caroline Elliott, called the tribunal a playground for NDP activists to live out their social justice dreams. What would she say to those people that I was talking about? What would she say to women across this province who have fought for their pay equity?

It’s really ironic, given that it was her own party, the B.C. Liberals, who first appointed the current chair of the tribunal in 2016 and that all appointments to the tribunal are made in consultation with that chair.

[1:10 p.m.]

I know many of the opposition members dispute the meaning of their first reading votes and have been working to clarify their position. Well, here’s their opportunity. But when prominent members of their own party are openly attacking the code and the tribunal, it’s natural for everybody in this province to wonder where they stand.

It’s also right for the public to expect them to not only vote for this motion but to ask all of their colleagues to do the same. I genuinely, genuinely hope that that’s where we get to today. Too much is at stake.

For too long, we have let this far-right, racist ideology take root in this province. For too long, we’ve seen members of this House bring in bill after bill that attack people who are vulnerable, who deserve equal rights. Where is their line?

There’s no reason that this motion should not be supported by every other member in this House. This is about standing up against hate. But at the heart of it, it’s about freedom, the idea that you can work to build a good life for yourself without overt discrimination. Isn’t that what we all want? That you can’t be denied a job because of your skin colour or be denied renting an apartment because of who you love. That you can go to work without being attacked for your identity.

My hope for today is that all of us send a strong message to those British Columbians who are watching that we will stand up for their human rights and will never give up ground to those who are seeking to compromise them.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I want to thank the Attorney General for her comments on this topic and this motion that the government has brought forward.

I want to make it very clear, as was afforded by this opportunity to bring this debate to the House, for all of us to have the opportunity on public record to clarify positions in this conversation.

I want to start off by revisiting the very specific wording in the motion just to ground the conversation a little bit that we’re having here today and to allow for the public to understand, as we’ve worked really hard, what processes happen within the House and what they really mean.

There has been misunderstanding about the difference between a private member’s bill — which could be debated as legislation, which could be passed; the chances of that are very different than legislation that governments would bring forward — or the ability for members to bring forward motions and the difference of when government has the ability to bring forward motions that can be debated.

On this one in particular, it reads that this House affirms its unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting people from hate speech and discrimination based on — and this is where the list starts — Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and age.

[1:15 p.m.]

Again, I think the Attorney General did justice to some of the history that we know exists in this province, that we know exists in this country and around the world.

I do have to say that I’m proud to be in a province and in a country where we have debate about our differences, where that’s allowed to happen, where we have the freedom to express ourselves and where we are not driven to the kind of violence that we’re seeing around the world today. We live in a country where that ability and freedom of expression is a very coveted and protected right.

As an elected member of this House, I have a responsibility to my constituents. I have a responsibility to the values that I believe we all hold. Again, I really welcome the opportunity to have this debate in the House. I welcome the opportunity for us to be able to understand just how heavy words can weigh and how we have to inspect and understand them very carefully. And the risk of a category, a type of person, maybe something that is missing off of that list….

One of the things that immediately comes to mind is that I’m not sure if health conditions could be defined as a physical disability. As far as I know, they’re not. A lot of people experience discrimination based on having a chronic health condition, so in a list like this, as the motion is before the House and we’re debating it, then that could be misunderstood. That group of people could feel that they are not included.

But why I’m bringing the House’s attention and talking about it today is that oftentimes in this House and in politics — I’m new to this, and I am learning as I go — motions will pack a lot of ideas into a statement.

I think that the premise of it is something that I can fully support and that I agree with. I support everyone having equal human rights, absolutely everybody, and that there is protection that is afforded and that there is a fair process that ensures that it isn’t just something that exists where there’s no way to enforce it.

But when we look at the tribunal specifically…. There are other models around the world and there are models federally that have a different way to enact justice, to ensure that there is never any blurring of lines between politics and the way that that justice is enforced.

I think that it’s very important to note that as a country and even as a province, we’re growing. We’re young. It wasn’t too long ago that Indigenous people did not have the right to vote, and if they did, then they would have to agree to become enfranchised — not long ago, 86 years ago.

I know that there are people in my family, in my community, other members’ families and communities, other members in this House that gave their lives for the rights that exist today, for the ability for me to stand in this House, to be elected without hate or discrimination. I’m not blind to that reality. But I also understand nuance, and I understand that what we do sometimes as people is we single one another out.

[1:20 p.m.]

As a community and, as I said, a province and a country, we’re growing. When you’re growing, you have growing pains. When you have diversity, you have diverse opinions.

I don’t like to see that we would be drawn into any sort of conversation, comments that might elicit hate. But I also don’t think that we should be driven by fear, because we have faced a lot together as a country, as communities.

Right now there are a lot of important questions on the table in front of this House. It takes a lot of time to get into those questions and to debate them with finesse and to be very careful about how we choose our words and to be very careful about what we choose to stand on.

What I really don’t want to do today is give any impression, as I said, that we can debate something as fundamental and foundational as human rights. It’s non-negotiable. It’s the foundation of our relationship with one another. Where we’ve gone as a society and within politics, unfortunately, is back to some of these conversations. But there’s a lot of noise.

Some have caused statements to go out with no context, and then we’re forced to answer to those statements. Some have shown up as votes that will have no impact on the law. We are, in my humble opinion, taking the precious time of the House and elected officials at certain times to just really test one another on our words and how we choose them, on the integrity and our commitment to the oath of office. When we do this, unfortunately, nobody’s perfect, and mistakes can happen. Mistakes can happen to anyone.

My mom has taught me a lot. She’s instilled values in me that I still am learning, I’m still trying to live up to. One of those ideals and one of those teachings — and something she always says, actually, a lot — is the less that you say, the better. At first, I could take her words and think: “This is somebody who faced far too much punishment and oppression, and she had to stand in way too many rooms where the cards were stacked against her.”

In my younger years, in my immaturity, I often silently thought to myself: “Mom, the times have changed. I’m meant to speak up. I’m meant to use my voice. I’m meant to stand up, unapologetically, for what I believe in and for what I believe to be true.” But here’s where the wisdom comes in, because I’ve sat back and I’ve listened and I’ve watched a lot happen in this House — a lot.

In politics and in our communities, some extremely important conversations have happened. I’ve heard a lot of things that I don’t like, that I don’t agree with, from all sides. But I sat back, and I waited patiently. I listened, because listening is just as important as any opinion that I might have, that I might feel and that I might charge into debate with.

So I understand her words better than I ever did before. They have way more meaning to me now than they did before. What’s profound about this teaching is…. As I hear her voice in my mind saying, “The less you say, the better,” what she means is that when somebody is angry or they’re misunderstood or when there is malice or there is gossip and even in heated debate when we’re angry at somebody else, mistakes can be made. You can say words that even you don’t quite understand in the moment.

[1:25 p.m.]

I can learn a lot more from listening, and I have. I’ve learned from almost everybody in this House, even the people that I don’t agree with. It certainly taught me where I stand on things. I represent constituents that elected me to come here to debate issues responsibly on their behalf. I have to put the question forward, back to government, back to everybody: are we taking that responsibility seriously?

So before I add my voice to all of the noise…. If I choose to do so, I certainly should add more clarity and calibre to the conversation. I should choose my words wisely, or I should save them altogether. I know that’s what my mom meant. I know that’s what she means when she says: “The less you say, the better.” It comes from wisdom, not restraint.

As leaders, we’re tasked with a few simple things to accomplish. I don’t want to pare down a very complex world or a very complex job. I don’t want to make it seem easy because I know it is not.

To go back to my original point, about the question put before this House today, I stand by the fact that as leaders, we must listen to everyone. We must absorb the emotion that people may have. We must consider their opinions deeply, try to understand a great many perspectives and understand their positions with compassion and care for why that person may think or feel the way they do.

Then we have to decide: what is the right thing to say, and more importantly, what is the right thing to do? It’s to honour and trust what people have placed on me. That is the duty to lead. For some, maybe, that’s easy and the set of values that they operate on and with allows for the answers to arrive without great distress or journey. But my guess is that for most, this is a process of great precision. It takes time, introspection and calculation.

Everyone has two things that drive us all: love and fear. My question to each and every one of us is really simple: what drives you? Is it love, or is it fear? I think it’s an important one. I think it relates directly to the debate that we’re having today. I go back to the words, as I said, as they’re put in the motion. It comes on to us as a technicality: do you agree with it wholeheartedly, every single word, yes or no?

Of course, this is something that filters out to the public. The public has to understand processes. Is that a law? Is that a motion? What happens with a motion? Well, the short answer, in terms of a motion, is nothing. It’s non-binding. What it does do, and the Attorney General touched on this, is bring to light a conversation, I think, that perhaps was bubbling up because of events in this House.

Those events are also tied very closely to things that we have in our power to decide on and to choose. Between my office as the Opposition House Leader, the Third Party and the Government House Leader’s office, there are decisions before us all the time, every day that we’re here, about how we want to accept or change processes and what kind of pressure that puts on people’s time — and even their mental health, to be quite honest.

What do we give time to? We have the power to decide that and to be responsible with the time we have to debate legislation that, actually, will impact and will change people’s lives.

[1:30 p.m.]

It is a serious question that I ask myself all the time. When I’m coming here and I’m leaving behind responsibilities I have at home to my family and my community, I ask: “Is it worth my time? Am I using it wisely? Am I representing the voices of the people that elected me to be here?” These are really important questions.

I go back to, again, the words and the motion as they’re put. Whether we list individual groups or not — and I understand the history; trust me, I do — definitions can be very important. I think, at the end of the day, that we can agree all people deserve the dignity to be free of discrimination and hate and that it should be a very fair, transparent, accountable, arm’s-length and non-influenced process.

If we can make that system better, I think it’s incumbent upon this House to do that — to see how; to examine those questions, whether it be through legislation or committee or further debate; to talk about: are there other systems that address this process better than we are, than we do it today?

If there are criticisms about the process — not about the premise; the process — and if anybody is feeling that they are not accepted or covered or seen under the law as it’s written, then we all should take pause, take that seriously and reconsider. That’s how I truly feel.

With that, in today’s debate, I’d like to offer an amendment to the government motion. I’d like to move:

[That Motion 13 be amended by deleting all the words after “Human Rights Code” and substituting therefor the following “and protecting all people from hate and discrimination.”]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. The amendment is in order, so continue to speak to it, and we’ll print it and circulate it to all the members here.

On the amendment.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I know that this opens up debate on the amendment. Again, back to the reasoning. I feel we can simplify this discussion. It is not to simplify the history. It is not to diminish the importance of the discussion that we’re having. It’s truly not to take away from anyone’s ability to speak about the premise of the government motion put before us today.

What this is about is being able to answer the question simply, in a straightforward manner, leaving out any attempt to wedge anyone and their ability to speak about how they relate to human rights. I think in this instance, less is more because we know what’s in the human rights code.

I made reference to a specific question. If I have that question, that means lots of people have that question. I doubt if it’s everyday practice for people to look up the code and read it and become super familiar. Oftentimes, people may only visit that code if their rights are being violated.

[1:35 p.m.]

We know through the work of the commission and their report and other systems, that has happened. Sadly, that has happened. Sometimes there is systematic discrimination.

There is a need for us to have, as I said before, the ability to examine any process to ensure that there is a fair approach and that that approach applies to everyone equally under the law.

If we can make a system better, I urge the House and anybody who may sit on that committee, and I’ll be talking to members that we have in our caucus who sit on that committee, to offer those solutions, offer those clarifications and offer the adaptations that we could take to consider but to not be afraid of having voices on these topics.

I think we have to have limits. Of course, we all do. But as I said before, and these were in my opening comments, we’re a very young province and young country and our societies are growing. So that is why I tabled the amendment as I did.

I don’t believe that it takes away from the premise of the debate put before us. But it simplifies and allows for people to talk truly just about one idea and to not have to try to discriminate between words, because words are very powerful. We know that. Not everybody has the ability or the quality to quantify exactly how they feel about something, what they know, in an eloquent way. That’s just the difference that we have among all of us.

But I think that what we’ve been afforded in the House is a chance to examine that more closely. I truly believe that with this amendment, we have the opportunity to talk about the premise and not allow any sort of divergence or off-ramps from what we should be examining here today and taking the precious time of this House to do. That is to talk about this motion in the amended form as I tabled today.

With that, I thank you. Thank you for the time. I look forward to further debate on this.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I listened closely to my colleague across the way’s words. She’s correct. Words are important, and words are very much relevant to this debate because we’re talking about B.C.’s human rights code.

She shared concerns that maybe people who had a health issue might not be covered in the code. Well, I can assure her that a quick google, a quick check on the internet or a quick conversation would tell her that, indeed, they are.

If that was a concern, I would hope that members would do research before coming into the debate, because these words matter. To suggest that people with health conditions aren’t covered by the code doesn’t tell the reality of what actually is covered.

She wanted clarity on words. The Conservatives wanted clarity on words. They said that we need to be clear about who’s covered and who’s not. Yet their amendment completely eliminates who is protected by B.C.’s human rights code. It makes what was explicit invisible.

So if the concern was that we don’t know who’s covered, she’s done exactly that through her amendment. She’s deliberately taken out those people who are covered, and she suggests that, well, maybe more people should be added to the list.

[1:40 p.m.]

If she supports the human rights code, I would urge her to support it, and not bring forward an amendment that would take out support for the covered grounds of discrimination in the human rights code, or move an amendment to suggest more people should be covered in the human rights code. But that’s not what this is about.

Of course, hate against anybody is wrong. But you know what? We need to be specific when we’re talking about discrimination because people feel discrimination in different ways. I’m currently being attacked online because I’m gay and I have a family. Those are protected grounds in the human rights code. This amendment would eliminate those grounds from this motion. This amendment would suggest that race is gone, that religion is gone.

Let me go through. “Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and age.” All of these are currently in B.C.’s human rights code, and I don’t know why the B.C. Conservatives can’t endorse those covered grounds. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Trying to get us to amend this motion to eliminate those specifically covered grounds that are in the law is sending a very clear message. The clear message is: “We won’t stand up for each one of those protected grounds.” If they did, they would support them being in here. They would support them being in the motion.

But by voting to eliminate them and trying to get the House to take out the protected grounds in the B.C. human rights code on a motion specifically about supporting the B.C. human rights code, they’re being clear, I believe, that they don’t want the protected grounds to be supported in the human rights code. Otherwise, they would support them.

That to me is a problem. That to me is a big problem. It’s saying we could move an amendment to say: “Why don’t we just eliminate the whole thing and say we all love each other?” We’ll move a motion to say we all love each other and we’re against people being mean to each other. That’s, basically, what this comes down to if you support this amendment.

I like that idea. But the fact is that when one specific group, and this is something maybe some Conservatives don’t understand, is targeted for who they are, you need a targeted response. You need a response that actually stands up for that person. I think the tribunal does that.

The current chair was appointed by a former government, not this one, so to suggest there’s some sort of partisanship going on — not correct. Again, trying to muddy the waters of human rights. The tribunal stands up so that when you get denied a job because of your race, you have a place to go, you have an ability to stand up for yourself.

Again, the Conservative motion eliminates the tribunal for consideration here. Again, why is that? Probably because of a fellow named Barry Neufeld and OneBC trying to eat the Conservatives’ lunch in terms of which party is more radical.

Well, Barry Neufeld targeted staff in the Chilliwack school district by calling them things like “pedophile,” by saying they were groomers trying to grab children up. This is not somebody you want to be associated with. You don’t want to be on the cheering squad like OneBC is, but it seems this party has been dragged so far to the OneBC view that they have to try and suggest they are much the same. It’s wrong.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member says I’m obsessed. Well, it was her candidate who’s online right now trying to defame me. It’s her candidate, not me. It’s gross.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Minister.

Recognizing the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Question of Privilege

Dallas Brodie: I’m now being repeatedly attacked personally and subjected to hatred by a member on the other side of the House. It’s ironic that right now we are discussing hatred directed at people when I’m engaging in my job as a legislator and representing points of view in this province that want to be represented. If you can’t catch, then don’t pitch.

I would like this member to retract the personal comments he keeps hurling at me in the context of making — whatever he’s doing today — this defence of comments on this motion. This is way off topic, and he’s using this as an opportunity to once again come after me. It has become an obsession.

Deputy Speaker: Before we continue debate on this motion, I want to remind all members of the importance of respectful and orderly conduct in the chamber. The topic of the motion will understandably elicit strong views, and I expect all members to approach their remarks with care.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s unfortunate that when I talk about racism and hate, the member always feels I’m talking about her. I didn’t mention her, didn’t discuss her.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member. Member, just a minute.

I have to recognize you before you speak.

Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, do you have a point of order?

Dallas Brodie: Yes, Madam Speaker.

This member cannot have it both ways. Personally attacking me in the Legislature, using my name, the name of my party, pointing at me, looking at me, sneering at me, and then turn around and say that he says that he’s not directing comments at me…. It’s very obvious what he’s doing.

Once again, if you can’t catch, then don’t pitch.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. That’s not a point of order.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 13 — Support for Human Rights
Code and Enforcement
(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just to say that I speak against this motion, and I do it for a couple of reasons.

Very specifically, if you’re going to stand up against hate and discrimination, you need to know who’s being hated and discriminated against. It says it in the code, and that’s why we have it in this motion. I don’t understand why the House Leader for the Conservatives would move an amendment to delete the protected grounds in the code. It doesn’t make sense.

When you say you stand for human rights, you’re explicit on what those human rights are. You don’t say: “It’s just to everybody, but we’re not going to be clear about who we’re talking about and how.”

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member wants to heckle me now?

The member is heckling me now because I’m speaking to her amendment, an amendment which eliminates the protected grounds from this motion. Very specifically, the amendment….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Hold on, Minister.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you.

Very specifically, her motion deletes all the words after “human rights code.” And what are those words? The protected grounds in the human rights code. So let’s not pretend this amendment does anything different than deleting “Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and age.”

Those are grounds in the human rights code. So specifically, if somebody is discriminated against from getting a job because of their race, their family status; if they’re discriminated against because of housing, so they can’t get a suite; or they get evicted because they have a mental disability; or maybe they’re transgender; or maybe they are old or young or something that somebody doesn’t like, and they make that decision based on their identity, their ancestry, their religion…. Maybe the person doesn’t want to provide them a health service because they’re married or they’re not married.

Those are the protected grounds in the human rights code, and that’s what we’re asking the House to support. Right now this amendment does not support those grounds. It eliminates those grounds from this motion.

I will not be supporting this motion and I urge members not to support it, because we should be explicit in what we support. This actually obfuscates. This hides. This eliminates the code so we can say: “We all support everybody. Everything’s fine. All things are all equal.” But they’re not, and the member knows that.

The member knows that there are specific people who are targeted for hate worse than others. That’s why we have protected grounds in the human rights code. That’s why we need to stand up for those grounds, not create smokescreens to hide because a party is not united on supporting the human rights code, because the Conservatives do not support the human rights code and do not support the tribunal. Otherwise, they would stand and support this motion.

This is a basic motion, our motion, but the amendment actually eliminates the guts of this thing to replace them with: “We all just get along. Everybody should just get along. We should all say we don’t like hate.”

Well, that’s an easy thing to say; it should be. But it should also be easy to say that you don’t support hate against transgender people, you don’t support hate against Indigenous People, you don’t support hate against somebody who has got a disability, you don’t support hate against somebody because of their religion. These are all things that should be easy to stand up and support.

I don’t understand why the Conservatives would not support these grounds and why they’re voting or seeking to vote on an amendment that would eliminate them from this motion.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I rise on a point of order, mainly for clarification.

The minister repeated many times that it’s about deleting the human rights code, but I want to be clear and put it on the record that the amended motion would read that “this House affirms its unequivocal support for the human rights code and protecting all people from hate and discrimination.”

[1:50 p.m.]

So drawing the fine, fine line between what the motion says and saying, “There are some things in the code. You should do your research.” Then saying, on the other hand, that deleting those things from the motion means those people aren’t protected actually isn’t true.

We’ll pull the….

Interjections.

Á’a:líya Warbus: No, but I just….

I would like to make a point of order on the record because I don’t want to be characterized as not supporting the human rights code. So that’s my point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Thank you for expressing that. It’s not a point of order, but thank you.

Kiel Giddens: I’m going to speak to the amendment put forward by the Opposition House Leader. I respect the words that we’ve heard from the Minister of Indigenous Relations previously. I respect the passion he has brought to this. But I do want to turn the temperature down in the room a little bit with this discussion as well. I recognize the strong emotions, and it’s for good reason.

We’re talking about, in the broader context of the government motion, support for the B.C. human rights code and the powers under it. At its core, this motion asks us to reaffirm something very fundamental, that people in British Columbia deserve protection from discrimination and hate and that our laws must provide meaningful mechanisms to uphold those protections.

I also want to acknowledge the comments made by the Attorney General as well as the Opposition House Leader, in eloquently explaining how important those protections are. I am going to get into a little bit about British Columbia’s history and why this amendment is actually part of the DNA of the code overall.

I think the code reflects a basic principle that I would hope would unite members of the House — that every person deserves dignity, fairness and equal opportunity. Of course, as we’ve said, it protects people from discrimination based on race, including Indigenous identity; colour; ancestry; place of origin; religion; marital status; family status; physical or mental disability; sex; sexual orientation; gender identity or expression; and age. That has been clearly talked about.

To be honest, I am happy to affirm those particular views. I have no problem with that whatsoever. But the code includes more provisions, as well, that need to be taken into account.

Sections 13 and 14 of the code speak, in matters related to employment, to those who have faced a criminal conviction or summary conviction. It also speaks to political belief. These are other areas that need to be taken into account. Another area speaks, in tenancy matters, to a lawful source of income. These are areas that are missing.

I am going to get into a little bit of the history of the code and explain in context why all of the protections in the code and support are, actually, quite important to make sure that we are, in fact, protecting all people from hate and discrimination.

The history includes many moments where individuals and communities have been treated unfairly because of who they were. I’ll just mention Chinese Canadians, for example, who played a critical role in building the Canadian Pacific Railway and contributing to the development of British Columbia. Yet they were later subjected to discriminatory policies such as the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Japanese Canadians faced one of the most profound injustices during World War II when thousands were forcibly removed from their homes, had their property confiscated and were interned solely because of their ancestry.

Indigenous Peoples in this province experienced and continue to confront systemic discrimination and policies that sought to suppress their cultures, languages and rights.

Other communities, indeed, have faced barriers to employment, housing and public services simply because of their race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

These injustices affect real people, real families and real communities. I hope we can agree on that.

Over time, British Columbia came to recognize that preventing discrimination required more than goodwill. It actually required laws. And that is what has led to the creation of the human rights code.

But it didn’t happen overnight. The recognition led to a gradual development of human rights protections in the province.

[1:55 p.m.]

Beginning in the mid-20th century, B.C. started adopting legislation to prohibit discrimination in certain areas of public life. In the ’50s and ’60s, laws were introduced to address discrimination in employment and public accommodations. Those early measures represented important progress and reflected a growing understanding that discrimination had no place in a modern society.

Over time, those protections were brought together into what we now know as the human rights code. This code created a comprehensive framework protecting people from discrimination in all of these key areas. It created mechanisms through which individuals could seek remedies if they experienced discrimination.

Later the establishment of the Human Rights Tribunal strengthened this system by providing an independent body capable of hearing complaints, evaluating evidence and making binding decisions. I’m bringing this in because the history of the human rights code and what is included in it is important here.

Later, of course, with the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all of that is overlapping with our human rights code in B.C., and that goes right to the Constitution of Canada.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder. We’re speaking to the amendment, so if you can just refer your remarks to the amendment.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The amendment related to the history of the code is also related to what I’m going to bring into my remarks here.

A big portion of that is one of the protections that I believe matters very much, and that’s protections in the workplace. Work is more than earning a paycheque. It’s about dignity, stability and opportunity, and it’s how people support themselves and their families. The workplace is essential, and it’s something that the code also takes into account.

All of the areas that we’ve already brought into the debate are part of what needs to be protected in the workplace, but there are other areas as well. The human rights code ensures that employment decisions are based on merit and ability and not on prejudice in any way. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation and to maintain workplaces that are free from discrimination and harassment.

Imagine a young worker starting their first job. They’re eager to prove themselves. They show up early, work hard and want to contribute, but over time they hear comments in the workplace — comments about their background, their accent or their identity or, indeed, their political belief. Perhaps they are passed over for opportunities while others move ahead. Perhaps they’re made to feel like they don’t quite belong. Eventually they begin to wonder whether the problem is their performance or whether it’s simply who they are.

That kind of experience can have a profound effect on a person’s confidence, their career and their sense of belonging. The code in its entirety exists with all the protections included to ensure no one in British Columbia has to accept that kind of treatment as simply part of working life. It exists so that individuals have somewhere to turn if discrimination occurs.

One particular Human Rights Tribunal case, Schrenk v. British Columbia…. In that case, a construction worker alleged that he experienced repeated racist harassment while working on a jobsite. The individual responsible for the harassment was not his direct employer but an employee of another company working on the same project.

Eventually this reached the Supreme Court of Canada, and the court confirmed that workplace discrimination protections can apply even when the harassment comes from someone who is not the complainant’s direct employer. The court recognized that modern workplaces often involve people working side by side and what matters is whether discriminatory conduct affects someone in their workplace, not simply their formal employment relationship.

So I’m just saying with all this, it’s why the work of the tribunal…. Bringing all that into it, there is a legacy of precedents that have been created that are also part of the code, that need to be reflected into the totality of what we’re speaking to here. All of this ensures that the protections contained in the law are not symbolic. They’re actually enforceable, and they help to ensure that workplaces across our province are governed by principles of fairness and respect.

But I don’t believe human rights should ever be the subject of political games. I sincerely hope that is not what is happening here.

I want to turn to sections 13 and 14 of the human rights code. It differs from what the government language is in the original motion in its favour, which seems to be limited to section 7, which is specifically related to discriminatory publication.

[2:00 p.m.]

Section 13 says…. I quote right from the human rights code.

“A person must not refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person or discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.”

I raise that because these provisions do reflect an important principle, in that employment decisions should be based on a person’s ability to do their job, not on two things that are omitted from the government’s language in their original motion. They should not include any discrimination based on political views or on past circumstances that have no relevance to work. I think that’s what that’s speaking to here. These protections are part of the broader framework of fairness that the human rights code was actually designed to establish.

One case…. I’ll reference another Supreme Court decision, and that was Fraser Health Authority v. Hospital Employees’ Union. While the case ultimately focused on labour arbitration, it arose from disciplinary action taken against employees who posted comments that were considered offensive online about their employer during a political dispute in the workplace.

The broader legal discussion in the case touched on how employee expression and political viewpoints intersect with workplace discipline. It relates why protections related to political belief and expression in employment contexts exist within human rights law. This also is in the code but is not included in the government’s motion.

In British Columbia, section 13 of the human rights code recognizes that employees should not face discrimination because of their political beliefs. These protections help to ensure employment decisions are not made on the basis of a person’s political views rather than the ability to perform their work.

Whether a person votes Conservative, whether they vote NDP or Green Party or whatever, there should be no discrimination based on this, either, in the workplace, and we need to actually fundamentally protect this. That’s something that is currently missing from the government motion, and that’s what I believe the amendment would actually cover.

Furthermore, section 14 mirrors many of these provisions. It says:

“A trade union, employers’ organization or occupational association must not exclude any person from membership, expel or suspend any member or discriminate against any person or member because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age of that person or member or because that person or member has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to membership or intended membership.”

I add all this because this is fundamentally within the code as well. It has these points that are meant to protect against discrimination both in the workplace and in a trade union, employers’ organization or occupational association.

That’s why I think that the motion needs to be amended. The government’s motion should reflect a genuine commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of people in our province, all people, and I think it currently falls short in that.

Even the motion’s use of section 7 in the bill, related to discriminatory publication, because I think that’s where their interpretation of the original motion is coming from, in its current form…. It says, of course, and I’ll repeat again for the House: “because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age.”

But that has left out the last part of that sentence that is actually in the legislation, which reads: “of that person or that group or class of persons.” So we’re missing a very important part of what is actually in the legislation itself, and we should reference the code in its entirety, not pick and choose what is convenient or preferred sections.

[2:05 p.m.]

That last part about “group or class of persons” is very, very important. I’ll use a very important example that we’ve been talking about in the House. I won’t speak to other bills, but I will state that the Jewish community in B.C., for example, has expressed serious concerns regarding allegations of antisemitism within the public service. There were also accusations that this included the cabinet of the day as well.

These are things that we’re actually excluding from the government’s motion because it is inconvenient to include “a group or class of persons.” I don’t think that’s acceptable. We need to make sure that we are keeping the true intent of the code intact.

We should be affirming our support for the entire code and really standing up for the Jewish community. They’ve faced, over centuries across the globe, discrimination for being part of a group that has faced historical discrimination — many other groups as well, though. So I think that’s something that we need to take into account. That speaks to the Opposition House Leader’s amendment.

I’ll mention one other area that is not reflected in the government’s motion, and it’s under section 10. That section of the human rights code speaks to non-discrimination in residential tenancy from a lawful source of income. I won’t repeat the whole list that’s in the government motion, but that particular section of the human rights code adds: “or lawful source of income of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.”

What that is saying is that we don’t want to see people on income assistance discriminated against in residential tenancy when they’re trying to rent or someone who is on a fixed income, like a senior. That income source can’t be a source of discrimination, and that is actually left out of the government’s original motion.

I think what the Opposition House Leader has done is actually doing a service and making sure that those on income assistance, those seniors on a fixed income can’t be discriminated against when they’re trying to rent housing. I think that’s something that’s very important. That’s why it’s in the human rights code to begin with. So when we speak about human rights in this chamber, we should do so with seriousness and respect for the people whose lives are affected.

Human rights protections were not created overnight. There are decades of jurisprudence, decades of work that have gone into this code. So let’s not pick and choose what we put into the code. Let’s just say we’re respecting it in its entirety. All of this represents our collective decision in British Columbia that discrimination has no place.

For that reason, I believe this House can affirm its support for the human rights code and the work of what’s included in it. But let’s affirm our support for that entire code, not select provisions that are preferable.

I want to just go to something that is very important at the outset of the code — again, it’s because I want to turn down some of the temperature with what we heard from the previous speaker a little bit, what we’ve heard so far and what we’re likely still to hear in the House — and that’s the purpose of the code, and that is in section 3. I’m going to quote it directly because it is important for the House to recall.

“The purposes of this code are as follows: to foster a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia; to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights; to prevent discrimination prohibited by this code; to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this code; and to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this code.”

In summarizing, that is the purpose of the code. Let’s remember what this actually is and bring that into this debate. It’s not about politics. This is about that original purpose that was embedded in this code for a reason. We can’t pick and choose what is convenient from the code.

[2:10 p.m.]

Let’s take it for all its entirety, whether that’s making sure people aren’t discriminated against because of their political beliefs, whether that’s making sure that they’re not discriminated against if someone, for example, has had a minor offence, like a drug possession charge at the age of 19. Are we honestly going to say that we’re going to allow discrimination from future employment because an employer can decide to say they can’t have a job down in the future? Have they not faced justice and retribution? Is that not something we want to make sure is not happening?

If someone has had a minor offence, if they’ve had a penalty and all that, we want to make sure…. If justice has already been served, let’s make sure they’re not being discriminated against later — when the dignity of them rejoining society and having that dignity as persons includes work, I believe, and employment in the workplace.

So regardless of the political context surrounding the government’s original motion, I do think the dignity and equality of people in this province should never depend on partisan considerations. Let’s just fix this motion to include the code in its entirety.

For that reason, I will be supporting this amendment, and I believe that the House should do what we can to support all human rights and prevention of discrimination.

Hon. Grace Lore: I appreciate the chance to speak to this briefly. I rise to speak against the amendment, and I have significant concerns.

My first concern is what happens to some of the most vulnerable people at this or any point in time. Trans people, queer people, people who are discriminated against based on their gender identity or expression are facing unprecedented attack. They would not have protection in the absence of this explicit recognition.

Members opposite should know that. They must know that at this point in time. They should know that the rights; safety; opportunity for expression, employment, sport and joy are at stake and need to be explicitly listed as a protection.

There are many others that require explicit recognition, and those needs change over time. I mentioned it today, but I’ve seen some of the worst attacks I’ve seen in politics before today against a friend in this House. It should be a reminder of the importance of explicit recognition.

Second, not only was the explicit list removed, but you’ll notice that the amendment removes the tribunal’s power to enforce. Their amendment either contains a significant error or reflects an intention to end the tribunal and its enforcement, to end the tool that keeps people safe and accountable.

Finally, if the members are concerned about what is missing…. I hear criminal conviction, political belief, source of income, and I share a belief in the rights of people to be free from discrimination on these bases. I believe that people should be able to access employment and support and housing regardless, for example, of their source of income. I ask members why the amendment did not add the pieces missing instead of removing all.

The member referenced also antisemitism. The Jewish community, including my community where the synagogue has faced graffiti, where threats and attacks have been real…. Religion is in that direct list. If members think that that’s not sufficient, that it needs to be explicit, then I would encourage a motion to add, not take away, religion as an explicit protection.

I hear the concerns on the basis of source of income — low-income seniors, those on assistance. I agree. Those protections are important.

As a believer in the rights of sex workers, I also believe that discrimination on the basis of conviction or source of income is important. Again, I ask why the motion did not add.

We’ve been asked not to pick and choose among the protected rights. To me, the solution of that is not to remove all. It is to add the ones that you are concerned about.

[2:15 p.m.]

Again, I just draw a note, also, once again, to the removal of the tribunal and its powers to enforce. This amendment could have expanded the list, could have addressed the concerns of the people that members opposite are worried about. It could have supported the enforcement and the power to use tools. It did not. That is why I do not support this amendment.

Hon Chan: I just want to say something very clearly. On this side of the House, we support human rights. We support dignity. We support the fundamental belief that every person in Canada and British Columbia deserves to live free from discrimination and hatred and has the freedom to express themselves without the fear of retaliation.

For the amendment, this government — the government side — keeps attacking and saying we are removing stuff. I want to be very, very clear. In the motion paper on the amendment, it clearly says that we support the human rights code — not subtracting something, not deleting something from the human rights code. So please do not spread misinformation or false information that we’re removing anything from the code.

A motion cannot remove anything from the code itself. It’s in the act. Whenever we put a motion out, do we need to…?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, hold on. The member has the floor.

Continue.

Hon Chan: Thank you.

When we put a motion out, do we copy and paste the entire act out? I bet the government bills do not do that. Do they always copy every single word? No.

In this motion paper, in this amendment, it clearly says that we accept and we respect all people. So nothing is deleted. The human rights code is still the human rights code, and nothing is deleted from the code.

However, before I continue on the amendment, I also need to respond to the minister’s response to the amendment and also to the AG’s previous note. I will have to quote.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that all your remarks are on the amendment right now.

Hon Chan: Yeah, it is, because it’s a response to their point of having this motion. We need to explain why we need to put an amendment out to respond to this motion.

The AG mentioned, and I quote: “I know many members of the opposition dispute the meaning of their first reading votes and want to clarify their position. Well, this is their opportunity.”

Thank you. I will take this opportunity to stand in support of human rights but also to question the AG’s position and the Minister of Indigenous Relations’ position. The AG and the minister know, all members of this House know, all the ministers should know and the Premier should know — even if the public may not — that it is a long-standing parliamentary tradition to allow the first reading to pass so that legislation can proceed to debate.

All members know we do not have the bill before us before the first reading.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder again — on the amendment.

Hon Chan: Yes, thank you. Again, we need to explain the reason behind this amendment. This is what the AG mentioned about why this motion is being brought forward and why we have to remove some of the words in our amendment. Without the background, I cannot fully describe why we have to remove them.

I would urge the Chair to let me finish the whole background of this motion and why we have to put an amendment forward. I will continue.

That is why, exactly, we need to explain to the public that nobody in this House actually knows the bill in first reading. However, this government, this Premier, Attorney General and this minister have chosen to twist that very tradition to attack the opposition just mentioned before. This is not a good faith debate. This is playing political games.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is comments specifically on the amendment. When we go back to the main motion, then you’ll have an opportunity to more wide-ranging…. So just with respect to the amendment. Thank you.

Hon Chan: Okay, I will be more specific then.

The human rights code exists for a reason. It exists to protect all people for any characteristic that makes up who we are as individuals and as communities. Those protections matter. They matter deeply.

As someone who represents a very diverse community in Richmond Centre, I see every day how very important those protections are for people who come from different backgrounds, cultures and life experience.

[2:20 p.m.]

Speaking personally, as someone who is Chinese, as someone who grew up in an immigrant family, this issue is not abstract to me. It’s part of our history.

Chinese Canadians in this country did not always enjoy the rights that many people today take for granted. Chinese workers helped build the Canadian Pacific Railway, one of the very most important infrastructure projects in our nation’s history. They did the hardest and most dangerous work. Many of them lost their lives doing it, yet after helping to build the country, they were denied basic rights. They were denied the right to vote. They faced a head tax. They faced the Chinese Exclusion Act. For decades, Chinese Canadians were treated as second-class citizens.

It took generations of advocacy and courage for Chinese Canadians to gain the rights that should have existed from the beginning. In fact, statistics repeatedly showed that immigrants with comparable education, skills and experience often earned significantly less than Canadian-born workers. Some studies show that newcomers earn roughly 20 to 30 percent less, especially in their early days in Canada.

I just want to share a little bit of my own story and highlight the important role that ethnic media plays in bridging these gaps. During my years working in the news industry, there was a reason why we had an ethnic media round table. Many immigrant communities do not always have the same access to mainstream information networks. Language barriers matter. Cultural familiarity matters. And access to information matters. Ethnic news outlets help bridge the gap so that communities can stay informed, engaged and connected to public life.

I understand the importance of the human rights codes because, personally, I lived it. When I was in elementary school and secondary school, English was not always easy. Like many immigrant kids, I had an accent, and even today, I still have it. Anyone who grew up as an immigrant knows what that experience can be like. Sometimes you can be judged before people even know you or know who you are. Sometimes people assume things about you simply because of how you speak.

Those experiences also shape resilience. That reminds us of why fairness matters, why equality matters and why we ensure that every individual, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to succeed and be treated with respect. That is why this amendment matters. All people need to be respected.

Let me be very clear again. The goal of the protection is for all people, protection from discrimination. That is something that we support. Supporting human rights does not mean that we should never ask the question of how the system operates. This is where this motion and this amendment become more complicated. We need to amend it because this motion also raises another very important question about priorities.

At a time when British Columbians are struggling with affordability, when small businesses are closing, when families are worried about the economy and the rising cost of living, this government chose to bring forward a motion like this. We have to ask why.

Interjection.

Hon Chan: It is.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder: on the amendment.

Hon Chan: It is relevant, because the wording in the motion has so many things behind the tribunal’s power, etc. We have to delete it because it matters. Why do you guys bring forward such a motion? We need to amend it because we found out that the government is trying to play political games.

That’s why we have to delete some of the wording, to make sure we do not support the government’s political game and we move forward in discussion and debate on the stuff that matters to British Columbians — like public safety, like housing, like private property rights. Those are the things that matter.

I will just end with the words and tone, just like the AG. I genuinely hope that’s where we will get to today, because too much is at stake. For too long, we have allowed this government to play political games, instead of actually working to solve the problem and the mess this government has created.

I genuinely hope that today we can discuss and debate the issues that truly matter to British Columbians — the growing deficit, jobs for younger generations, senior care, long ER wait times, private property rights, growing our economy, strengthening our education system and improving public safety.

These are the issues that we should be focusing on, not a motion that asks us to support the expansion of a powerful tribunal appointed by this government. That’s why this amendment matters, and I urge the House to support this amendment.

[2:25 p.m.]

Jody Toor: I rise today to speak in response to the government’s Motion 13 and the amendment that was put forward, which calls on the House to affirm its support for British Columbian human rights and protecting all people from hate and discrimination.

Let me begin by stating something very clearly. Human rights matter, and I am in full support of all that it includes. They matter to the people of this province, they matter to the communities we represent, and they matter deeply to me. I support the amendment because it adds to the code.

Human rights protections are fundamental to free and democratic society. They exist to ensure that every person in British Columbia can live free from discrimination, hatred and injustice. They protect individuals based on many characteristics, like race and religion, that form the diversity of this province.

Those protections are not abstract principles. They affect real people. They affect families. They affect communities. They affect the everyday lives of the citizens we are elected to represent. That is why debates about human rights often evoke strong emotions and passionate responses.

Over the past several days and weeks, that passion has been very visible, and it also has been very personal. Over the past week, I have received numerous numbers of emails, phone calls, messages from loved ones, from family, from people in my community of Langley-Willowbrook. Many of these individuals care deeply about human rights and equality. Many are people who have long supported policies that protect communities, that protect people and ensure fairness within our society. I respect that deeply.

But many of these messages I received were written under the belief that my actions in this chamber somehow represented opposition to human rights. Some messages expressed disappointment, others expressed frustration, and some accused me of abandoning principles of equality. A few suggested that I even turned my back on my own community, from the South Asian community. We have historically faced discrimination.

When an elected representative receives messages like that from people….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. Just one minute. The member for Penticton-Summerland has a point of order.

Point of Order

Amelia Boultbee: On a point of order, I believe we’re supposed to be debating the amendment. If I’m not mistaken, the other member is talking about a debate that happened days ago, and the other members are often debating the original motion, not the amendment.

In the interest of getting through this, this afternoon, my point of order is just that, if I’m not mistaken, we are supposed to only be debating the amendment at this time.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The member from Langley-Willowbrook continues. I know you were making your case for the amendment, speaking to the amendment.

Debate Continued

Jody Toor: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

When an elected representative receives messages like that from people they serve, it is not something that can be simply ignored. It must be addressed, and that’s why I’m standing up today to address that. It must be clarified and it must be examined honestly, because the citizens of British Columbia deserve clarity about how the chamber functions and about the intentions of those….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. I’d like to recognize the member from Surrey-Cloverdale.

Point of Order

Elenore Sturko: She just said that she was standing to address the concerns of her constituents. She’s supposed to be addressing her concerns with the amendment to the motion.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. I’m providing leeway in the debate to allow the member to make her case with respect to speaking to the amendment.

Continue.

Debate Continued

Jody Toor: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It must be clarified. It must be explained honestly, because the citizens of British Columbia deserve clarity about how this chamber functions and about the intentions of those who we serve within it. That is why I rise today, not only to speak on the motion before us but also to explain how the events that led us to this debate have been widely misunderstood.

Before discussing those events, however, I want to make something very clear. I believe deeply in human rights.

[2:30 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you, but just a reminder that we’re not speaking to the motion. It’s specifically to the amendment.

Jody Toor: Yep.

Human rights are not a political slogan for me. They’re not a convenient phrase used to score points in debate. Human rights are fundamental to democracy. They’re fundamental to justice and are central to my own personal journey in public life.

I did not enter politics because it was easy. I did not enter politics because it was comfortable. I entered politics because I witnessed injustice. I saw individuals and families navigating systems that felt distant from their everyday realities. I heard stories from citizens who believed their voices were not being heard within the institution.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute.

Point of Order

Hon. Grace Lore: I also rise on a point of order.

I appreciate the member’s comments. They seem very relevant and important to the motion. I don’t want to take away from her opportunity to speak to the motion, but she’s explicitly saying she’s speaking to the motion, and I haven’t heard the tie to the amendment.

I would like to make sure that we’re able to discuss and vote on the motion, so that’s my point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

My ruling is that I’m providing leeway to the member to speak to the amendment.

Debate Continued

Jody Toor: I support this amendment, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

Jordan Kealy: I’ll make this very quick. I’m in favour of this amendment with the intent of the motion that’s brought forward to this House. The intent, when it’s brought forward to the public, is that it’ll support the human rights code. It gives that impression. When this House votes on it, we will be displaying that intent to the public.

Right now with the way that it’s phrased, it is not worded to reflect the whole human rights code. This amendment clearly changes that and makes it represent that intent. When it is voted on this House floor, that is how it will be displayed to the public.

I am in favour of this amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, we will call the question.

The question is the amendment to Motion 13, to delete all words after “human rights code” and substituting therefore the following: “and protecting all people from hate and discrimination.”

Division has been called.

[2:35 p.m. – 2:40 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question before the House is the amendment to Motion 13 moved by the Opposition House Leader.

[2:45 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 36
Loewen	Kindy	Warbus
Halford	Wat	Kooner
Banman	Hartwell	L. Neufeld
Van Popta	Dew	Clare
Rustad	Wilson	McInnis
Paton	Day	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Dhaliwal
McCall	Block	Stamer
Gasper	Mok	Davis
Chan	Brodie	Kealy
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper
NAYS — 50
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Valeriote	Botterell
Boultbee		Sturko

The Speaker: The House will continue debating the main motion.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

On the main motion.

Jody Toor: I rise today to speak in response to government Motion 13, which calls on this House to affirm its support for the British Columbia human rights code.

Let me begin by stating something very clearly. Human rights matter. They matter to the people of this province. They matter to the communities we represent, and they matter deeply to me.

Human rights protections are fundamental to a free and democratic society. They exist to ensure that every person in British Columbia can live free from discrimination, hatred and injustice. They protect individuals based on many characteristics like race and religion and that form the diversity of this province.

Those protections are not abstract principles. They affect real people. They affect families. They affect communities, and they affect the everyday lives of the citizens we are elected to represent. That is why debates about human rights often evoke strong emotions and passionate responses.

[2:50 p.m.]

Over the past several days, that passion has been very visible, and it has also been very personal. Over the past week, I have received numerous emails, messages, phone calls from family, loved ones and people from my community of Langley-Willowbrook. Many of these individuals care deeply about human rights and equality. Many are people who have long supported policies that protect people and communities and ensure fairness within our society. I respect that deeply.

But many of the messages I received were written under the belief that my actions in this chamber somehow represented opposition to human rights. Some messages express disappointment; others express frustration. My own family members, some of them, accuse me of abandoning principles of equality that they fought really hard for. A few suggested that I even turned my back on my own loved ones.

When an elected representative receives messages like that from people they serve and their family members, it is not something that can be very simple or ignored. It must be addressed, it must be clarified, and it must be explained honestly. The citizens of British Columbia deserve clarity about how this chamber functions and about the intentions of those who serve within it.

That is why I rise today not only to speak to the motion before us but also to explain how the events that led to this debate have been widely misunderstood. Before discussing those events, however, I want to say something very clearly. I believe deeply in human rights.

Human rights are not a political slogan for me. They are not a convenient phrase to use to score points in debates. They are not something I invoke only when it benefits a political narrative. Human rights are fundamental to democracy. They are fundamental to justice. They are central to my own personal journey into public life.

I did not enter politics because it was easy. I did not enter politics because it was comfortable. I entered politics because I witnessed injustice. I saw individuals and families navigating systems that felt distant from their everyday realities. I heard stories from citizens who believed that their voices were not being heard within the institution that governed their lives. I saw situations where transparency was lacking, where accountability was insufficient and where decisions that affected people’s lives were made without accurate public understanding.

Those experiences left a profound expression on me. They strengthened my belief that democracy must function for everyone, not just for those who have access to power, not just for those who have influence but for every citizen of British Columbia. That belief is why I chose to serve. It is why I chose to stand for election. It is why I continue to work in this chamber on behalf of the people of Langley-Willowbrook.

Much of the dispute surrounding this debate arises from a misunderstanding of the legislative process, particularly the stage known as first reading. In the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, bills must pass through several stages before they become law. The first stage is called first reading.

At first reading, the title of a bill is read into the official record of the House. The bill is introduced formally and becomes part of the public record. Its text is printed and made available to the public, to the members of this chamber and to the journalists who follow the work of this institution.

At this stage, there is no debate. Members do not rise to argue in favour of the bill. Members do not rise to argue against the bill. Members do not yet examine the principles contained within this bill. First reading is procedural. Its purpose is simple: to allow the bill to enter the public domain so that it can be examined and debated at later stages.

The real debate occurs at second reading. Second reading is the stage where members stand in this chamber to express their support or opposition to the principles contained within a bill. The bill passes second reading and moves to committee stage, where the bill is examined clause by clause and amendments may be proposed.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member, just a minute.

Recognizing the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Point of Order

Hon. Kelly Greene: I rise on a point of order. Relevance. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Allowing some leeway to allow the member to speak to the motion. So speaking to the motion….

Debate Continued

Jody Toor: I will continue.

Finally, if it passes third reading, it receives royal assent and becomes law.

This process exists for an important reason. It ensures that the bills are examined carefully. It ensures that proposals are debated and transparent, and it ensures that democratic accountability is maintained.

[2:55 p.m.]

This structure is not unique to British Columbia. It reflects the Westminster parliamentary tradition that guides across Canada and around the world — in Ottawa, in London and in provincial legislatures across Canada.

First reading is widely understood as a procedural stage, not an endorsement of the ideas contained within a bill. That difference is important because the events that led to the debate we are having today began at that procedural stage.

Recently a private member’s bill was introduced. This bill proposed the repeal of the British Columbia human rights code. Let me clarify several important factors.

First, this bill was introduced by an independent member of this chamber. It was not introduced by a Conservative caucus member.

Second, it was introduced as a private member’s bill, meaning it was not a government bill.

Third, it reached the stage of first reading, where a procedural vote took place to determine whether the bill will be formally introduced and printed for public review. It is the procedural vote that sparked the public reaction we are seeing today in this House.

There’s an important distinction that must be made here. That is between process and narrative.

The process is the legislative procedure that governs how this House operates. It ensures that the bills can be introduced, reviewed, debated and scrutinized before becoming law. It protects transparency. It protects democratic debate, and it protects the ability of citizens to see how their government functions.

The narrative, however, is something different. The narrative suggests that a procedural vote automatically represents the personal beliefs or moral positions of the members who cast that vote.

But those two things are not the same. Process allows democracy to function. Narratives can sometimes distort how that process works. Let me say something clearly. Allowing a bill to be introduced is not the same as supporting it.

I would like to speak personally on Motion 13. I’m a South Asian woman, a woman of colour, and I’m proud to be the first Punjabi woman of colour elected to the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

My father, my mother, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law immigrated to Canada in the late 1960s. At that time, many newcomers faced barriers that we sometimes forget. They experienced discrimination. They experienced exclusion. And they fought for human rights and equal opportunity for their families and for their communities.

Those values shaped the environment in which I was raised. From a young age, I understood what it meant to fight for a seat at a table. I understood what it meant to sometimes be overlooked because of the colour of your skin. I understood what it meant to work harder just to be heard. Those experiences do not weaken a person’s belief in human rights. They strengthen it.

Earlier this week I spoke in the chamber about the importance of freedom of information. I described freedom of information as the anchor of democracy, because democracy depends on citizens being able to ask questions. It depends on citizens being able to access information. It depends on transparency.

My purpose in politics has always been rooted in protecting the rights and the freedoms of British Columbians — the right to take part in democracy, the right to question government, the right to access information and the right to live with dignity and equality. I entered public life because I believe deeply in the integrity and the rights of every person in this province.

That belief is not new to me. It is the reason I chose to serve. It is the reason I will continue working every day to defend both democratic freedoms and human rights for the people of Langley-Willowbrook and for all British Columbians. In the end, democracy is strongest when citizens know their voices matter, their rights are protected and their representatives remain committed to truth and transparency.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I rise today in strong support of the motion to affirm our unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s powers to enforce it.

I recognize that the member that spoke before had really powerful words and spoke to why the B.C. human rights code is so important and why we have gotten to a place where we need it and we continue to need the code. In saying this, I have to say that it is deeply troubling that we are in a place where this affirmation is even necessary.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

When I was elected to this Legislature, I never imagined that I could be standing here debating people’s human rights. But here we are.

Before I was elected, I spent my career as a human rights lawyer. I stood before the Human Rights Tribunal representing people who had been discriminated against because of who they are — the colour of their skin, their religion, who they love or their sex or gender identity. These are all protected grounds under the B.C. human rights code.

This means you can’t pay a woman less simply because she’s a woman. You can’t fire someone because you find out they’re gay or trans. You can’t turn someone away from housing because of the colour of their skin or because they wear a turban.

When these rights are violated and people have nowhere else to turn, the Human Rights Tribunal hears these cases and enforces the law.

I remember standing before the Human Rights Tribunal and representing a woman who had been harassed for years in the workplace because she worked in a workplace that was male-dominated. She was the only woman in the workplace. Think about that. All she wanted to do was go to work every day and make an honest living for her and her family. She wasn’t able to do so without intimidation, without facing daily insults, jokes at her expense and safety dangers that the male co-workers thought would be funny to impose on her.

I represented people who faced racial discrimination in the workplace, people who came to work each and every day to serve in our health care systems only to feel like they did not belong, like they were less worthy than their co-workers because of the colour of their skin.

We’ve seen many other historic cases also make their way through the Human Rights Tribunal, like the landmark case of Brar v. the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association, which spanned a decade and found that the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association discriminated against a group of 13 South Asian veterinarians in Vancouver for over a decade, causing them to face unequal licensing barriers, intense scrutiny, complaints, inspections and disciplinary actions — all because they did not look like what their co-workers expected them to look like, because they were educated in a different country or because of the language they spoke. Because of a characteristic that they had no power to control, they were discriminated against.

Each and every one of these cases, and so many more, have taught me something that every single member in this House should understand clearly. The human rights code is not theatrical. It’s not symbolic. It is a shield that protects real people when discrimination shows up in their workplaces, in their housing and in their everyday lives. This shield exists because generations before us fought for it.

On this side of the House, that is not something that we forget. We remember that each and every day. We remember that these rights that others may take for granted were not freely given. They were hard-won through struggle and through persistence.

Women in this country did not always have the right to vote. Many women of colour and Indigenous people were excluded even decades after women won the right to vote. South Asian people and Asian people had no right to vote and then had their rights stripped away and could not vote until 1947. Someone that looked like me could not enter this House, let alone speak in this House — could not even enter the building.

Equality protections in workplaces, houses, housing and public services only became better because people organized. They spoke out, and they demanded better. So when people and members opposite hesitate or fail to affirm these protections, it is and should be profoundly concerning.

[3:05 p.m.]

Instead, in this House, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream brought forward a bill to repeal the Human Rights Act after the tribunal ruled against former school trustee Barry Neufeld for his years-long campaign for publicly attacking gay and trans teachers over their identities.

We struck down that bill at first reading with a principled stance that included the Greens and former Conservatives.

But the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream isn’t the only member of this House to defend Barry Neufeld. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has. The member for Langley-Abbotsford has. The member for Chilliwack North has.

All of these members have publicly criticized the human rights code and tribunal in recent weeks because they disagreed with the decision against Barry Neufeld. In fact, the member for Chilliwack North has introduced a motion to try to limit and decrease the strength of the human rights code because of this decision against Mr. Neufeld.

This case has triggered debate, so it’s important to be clear on the facts of what happened in this case. The tribunal wrote in its decision:

“People can debate the protections afforded to different groups of people, express disapproval of sexual orientations or gender identities and opine on what the government should do. Tolerance of such speech is a pillar of our democracy which nourishes self-fulfilment and furthers the search for truth.

“However, as we have said, this is not what Mr. Neufeld did. Contrary to his argument that he was merely expressing his opinion about legitimate topics of political and social debate, his expression went beyond a critique of a government program. Mr. Neufeld’s publications are replete with negative stereotypes and pejorative assumptions about LGBTQ people which undermine their inherent dignity and discriminate against them.”

Mr. Neufeld regularly accused gay and trans people of sexually abusing children.

The tribunal wrote: “Mr. Neufeld says repeatedly that teaching children about sexual orientation, gender identity, non-heterosexual people and non-cisgender people confuses them and grooms them to be abused by sexual offenders.”

He defended anti-gay laws in other countries as attempts to control pedophilia. That’s only a few of the examples of what Mr. Neufeld did over these years. I’d encourage members to read the whole ruling, if you haven’t already, rather than making assumptions based on what you read or what you hear in a 30-second clip online.

I think it’s time for the members for Chilliwack North and Langley-Abbotsford to ask themselves if they really agree with those things. If they don’t, they should stand with us today and the member for Chilliwack North should withdraw her motion and the members opposite who say they stand for human rights should ask them to do exactly that.

As we speak about human rights, I cannot let pass a flagrant comment that was made in this chamber yesterday. The member for Kelowna-Mission stood in this House and said that women in this House would sit like meek women while men in suits decide things for us. That comment says far more about that member than it does about any woman in this chamber.

Let me be very clear. There is nothing meek about the women in this Legislature. Women here have fought their entire lives to earn a seat in these desks. They are leaders. They are advocates. They are lawyers, businesswomen and community-builders who have fought to be here and who fight every day for the people they represent. Dismissing women as meek is not just insulting. It reveals exactly the kind of outdated thinking that human rights laws were created to challenge.

So if that member wants to talk about courage and spine in this Legislature, then here is his moment. Have the courage to stand up for human rights, because it takes absolutely no courage to stand up in this chamber and throw around deranging comments like he did.

The real test of courage is whether that member for Kelowna-Mission will stand up when the vote is called and support something as basic as defending the human rights code. If he truly believes in equality and dignity for people in this province, then the choice should be easy.

But if he and his colleagues cannot bring themselves to support a motion that simply affirms the fundamental protections against discrimination that people rely on, then why should British Columbians trust them with anything else? When leaders refuse to defend human rights clearly, it sends a signal.

[3:10 p.m.]

Silence — or worse, opposition — creates space for racism, sexism and misogyny to flourish. It tells people who discriminate that maybe the rules protecting equality are negotiable.

We don’t have to imagine what happens when that door is opened. We can see what’s happening right now. When human rights protections are weakened or dismissed, as we can see just south of us from here, it emboldens discrimination and division. It tells marginalized communities that their rights depend on who is in power, and that is exactly the opposite of what human rights law is supposed to do.

But given the highly questionable remarks we heard in this chamber yesterday, I must say, it, unfortunately, would not surprise me if the members opposite don’t support this motion, because they simply do not believe in these protections in the first place. They may not believe in equality in the first place.

This motion gives every single member in this House a chance to prove otherwise. Affirming this commitment should be the easiest vote that any of us have had to make in this chamber.

So I will say this plainly to all the members on all sides of this chamber. If you truly believe in equality before the law, if you truly believe in fairness and dignity for every single person in this province, then supporting this motion should not be difficult.

This is not a partisan issue. This is not ideological. It is far more basic. It is about whether we as legislators are willing to stand up and say clearly that human rights in British Columbia are non-negotiable and that the protections in our human rights code are worth defending.

Tara Armstrong: Well, everybody knows that you should never judge a book by its cover, but that is precisely what the government is asking the members of this House and the people of this province to do. They think that just because they have a law with the phrase “human rights” in its title, everyone will believe that this law actually protects human rights. But it doesn’t. It actually does the opposite. That is why every member in this House should oppose this motion.

The code, together with the commission and the tribunal, is taking human rights away from people of this province. They are taking human rights away from women — the right to fair competition in women’s sports, the right to privacy in women’s bathrooms, the right to safety in women’s shelters. They’re taking those away thanks to section 7 of the so-called human rights code. So if you support the human rights of women, you must oppose this motion.

They are taking human rights away from white people, as well, along with men. As I explained last week in question period, the NDP-appointed Human Rights Commissioner uses section 42 of the human rights code to intentionally exclude healthy white men from university hiring. And the NDP’s Attorney General says that the government is “proud of that.” They are proud of taking human rights away from white people and men.

I’m not. I will never accept the unequal treatment of any race or either sex. So if you oppose discrimination on the basis of race or sex, you must oppose this motion.

And how about the human rights of children who are being convinced that they need harmful puberty blockers and surgeries? The human rights code is taking away their right to go through puberty with their bodies intact and to one day have children of their own. The code is taking away the reproductive rights of our children. So if you support reproductive rights, as I do, you must oppose the motion.

And let me address the right to free speech, which has come under great threat in this same code. Free speech is a human right too.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Tara Armstrong: It is a fundamental duty…

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Tara Armstrong: …of every MLA to protect free speech.

Yes?

Deputy Speaker: Member, I need to interrupt for a moment and recognize the member for Penticton-Summerland.

Amelia Boultbee: I rise on a point of order. The member has stated that the code takes away the rights of children to go through puberty.

[3:15 p.m.]

The code protects rights. It does not impose anything on anyone, especially children. This is factually incorrect, and I would ask that the Speaker ask the member to withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Penticton-Summerland, it appears that this might be a matter of division on the interpretation of this act, so I will not rule on that.

Tara Armstrong: I’ll go back to free speech. Free speech is a human right too. In fact, it’s a fundamental duty of every MLA to protect free speech. Free speech is the foundation of our democratic traditions and constitutional laws.

That is why as members, we are afforded absolute privilege when addressing these matters of debate in the House. Absolute privilege, this immunity from defamation claims, is granted because in order for ordinary people to have their interests protected, the peers that they elect to represent them in this House must be able to speak freely, without fear of political reprisals. We don’t have to agree, but we do have to have the debate.

Contrary to the claim by the member for Burnaby East, it is not terrorism to be invited to debate matters on which we disagree. In fact, it is a great privilege. Debate is the literal opposite of terrorism. It is how we resolve disputes without violence. Terrorism and violence are what we are left with when all forms of peaceful and civil debate are eliminated.

That is what made the Human Rights Tribunal ruling against school trustee Barry Neufeld and the commissioner’s related comments afterward so indefensible. These NDP appointees have no place telling elected government officials, like Mr. Neufeld or any member of this House — or really any other citizen, for that matter — that they must adopt the political ideology or religious beliefs of another group holding favour with the current government.

In conclusion, it is obvious to anybody who isn’t benefiting from this discrimination that we need to abolish the code, the commission and the tribunal and replace them with laws that actually protect human rights for everybody equally.

That is what members in this House should support if, like me, they actually support human rights and equality. They cannot unequivocally support a law that the government uses to abuse the human rights of British Columbians, no matter how nice the name of that law sounds when they say it. Every member of this House should stand with me and demand that this broken human rights code be replaced with fair laws that actually protect the equal rights of every single citizen in British Columbia.

Rob Botterell: Before I begin my remarks, I just want it noted on the record that I have no intention of responding to the statements made by the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream. I don’t want to grace them with a reply, because they do not deserve a reply in any way, shape or form.

Instead, I wish to rise in support of the motion, from the Government House Leader, “that this House affirms its unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting people from hate speech and discrimination based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression” — yes, gender identity or expression — “and age.”

[3:20 p.m.]

I just want to thank all the previous speakers who have risen to speak in support of this motion and draw on their lived experience to remind us how incredibly important the human rights code of B.C. is.

I’d like to start by thanking the Pride organizations from across British Columbia, which stepped forward to register the need for all members of this House to do more to uphold human rights in British Columbia. My thanks to the Pride societies of Langley, Kelowna, Chilliwack, Vancouver, Delta, Prince George, Fernie, North Island, Nelson, Sunshine Coast, Nanaimo, Vernon and Cranbrook, the Northern Pride advocacy group, Queer Centre Comox Valley, Northern Pride Centre and the UVic Pride collective for your powerful and important advocacy.

We must always support those organizations in the community, which work so hard to bring forward their views and help us and support us to advocate for the protection of their rights and their members’ rights through the B.C. human rights code.

I’d also like to thank the Government House Leader. Also, the Attorney General, for her remarks; the House Leader, in particular, for bringing this motion forward; and the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity, for her thoughtful written response to these Pride organizations.

The hate-fuelled actions of a member of this House have brought us all into disrepute. Our democracy in this House should be a place that all British Columbians can look to proudly, knowing that the people there are working for them and their best interests. Instead, the public is witnessing racism, sexism, ignorance and disinformation from this building.

We must be better than this. As hate and fascism find traction around the world, we cannot stand idly by. All of us — and that’s what we’re doing today — must recommit ourselves to an active defence of human rights. We must stand up for all members of our society, particularly those who continue to face marginalization and hate simply for existing, as they are, in this world.

This is no time for precedence to be more important than human rights. We must also, though, go further than words. Words are important, but we need to go further than words. We need to take concrete action to improve the human rights situation in British Columbia.

None of us can stand here and congratulate ourselves or consider it a job done while we represent a province with incredible human rights failures. It’s up to all of us, on all sides of the House, to work together in unity to take the actions that bring meaning to these words.

I’d like to put on the record some of the types of areas that we need to work together to focus on.

Housing is a human right, yet British Columbia has the highest rate of unaffordable housing in Canada. For people on social assistance, the provincial shelter allowance rate is only around one-third of the median rental price.

I am not making these comments to assign responsibility. I’m making these comments today so we can develop a shared vision and a shared effort, as a unified House, to address these issues.

In 2022, 342 people experiencing homelessness died due to violence, lack of nutrition, sanitation or housing. Some 40 percent of people experiencing homelessness are Indigenous, 11.3 percent are 2SLGBTQIA+ and 3.2 percent are transgender. These are vastly disproportionate and a shame on all of us.

[3:25 p.m.]

The life expectancy of First Nations people in this province is 7.3 years shorter than that for non–First Nations British Columbians. Some 44 percent of women in Canada have experienced some form of intimate-partner abuse — whether physical, sexual, psychological or emotional. For young women without homes, 63 percent have been assaulted and 37 percent sexually assaulted. And 16.7 percent of children in British Columbia live in poverty. This is a shocking figure, and it rises to 34.8 percent for First Nations children and 42.2 percent on rural reserves.

Children with disabilities face numerous barriers to their full participation in education, and nearly 18 percent of parents have indicated that their disabled child was secluded or restrained at school. And 62 percent of 2SLGBTQI+ students across Canada report feeling unsafe at school due to exclusion, harassment, intimidation and violence.

The rate of death from the toxic drug crisis is six times higher for First Nations people than for other British Columbians and 12 times higher for First Nations women compared with non–First Nations women. There were 43 incidents of human trafficking reported to police in 2023, a figure that is grossly underreported.

These are sobering, sobering facts, and they just remind us how important the human rights code is as a guide for the work we have to do, the work we can do together to change the lives of these people. This is not the time to weaken the human rights code or the Human Rights Commissioner. It is a time today to reaffirm our strong support for the human rights code and for the Human Rights Commissioner. If anything, we need to make them stronger.

It is embarrassing that this House even needs to put this statement up for debate, but here we are. We all know how we got here. Today is an important opportunity for us to reaffirm that support for the human rights code, turn the page on the hate and the things we’ve experienced over the last few months and move forward together to address these many challenges I’ve outlined.

I urge all members of the House to support this motion. I urge them to go further than this too, to work together across party lines to take meaningful action in support of a province where all people’s human rights are upheld every day of the year.

Elenore Sturko: Before I start, I just want to address — I don’t know if I would call it an explanation or a defence — some members in this House that voted on first reading for a bill to repeal the human rights code of B.C.

I’m not buying that defence, for a couple of different reasons. The first reason is it’s not something that the opposition did every time. There have been instances where they did reject bills on first reading, so why not this time? If they uphold their commitment so strongly to following procedure, then why was it not done previously?

A person can say that they don’t know what the bill says until it is read a first time and they would be able to review it. But you knew the context, because you know the member that was entering the bill, and you know the rhetoric that she has been posting online.

[3:30 p.m.]

You know the context of almost every single bill, statement or question that that member has brought in, the discriminatory things that that member is promoting and the misinformation that she is spreading. In that context alone, you should’ve rejected it on first reading if you truly believe in upholding the rights of British Columbians.

I support the government’s motion to affirm the human rights code because we are encountering a rise in the use of discriminatory language. We’re witnessing the proliferation of discriminatory misinformation online, clickbait, rage farming on social media against trans people in particular — even by members of this assembly. It has never been more important to reaffirm our commitment to upholding the rights of all British Columbians.

When I started the process of coming out as a lesbian more than 32 years ago, I worked in a restaurant in Kamloops. It wasn’t easy to come out. There was a waitress that I worked with. I had thought that she was my friend, so I confided in her. I told her what I was going through.

That very same day that I told her, she went and she told our boss, who pulled me aside and told me that she heard about my little revelation and that if I didn’t keep it to myself, she would fire me. I was 19. I was terrified. I was scared. I couldn’t lose my job. I didn’t live with my parents anymore. I was scared that I was fired for being homosexual. Those weren’t baseless fears because at the time, people did get fired for being homosexual.

There have been a lot of changes over the last 32 years. We’ve fought, and we’ve earned a place of equality in our society as women, as 2SLGBTQ people, as ethnic minorities and as diverse British Columbians and diverse Canadians.

It takes laws like the human rights code in B.C. That’s helped us to find equal footing. But it wasn’t the law coming into force in 1969 for the first time that resulted in change. It didn’t result in equality. It was the application of law over time, the ability to push back, to fight discrimination and to have legal affirmation of our human rights protections.

The tribunal is where those who experience discrimination can be heard and where reports of discrimination can be reviewed. It’s where we fight back against those who would put unjust limitations on us because of who we are — those who discriminate based on legally protected categories.

Laws are meaningless without enforcement. We have to make sure that our human rights laws are enforced and are protected in British Columbia. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal offers multiple opportunities for exchange of information. It offers negotiation and settlement, allowing both parties to access a procedure that can be built to suit their needs.

Not every case brought before the tribunal results in finding a breach of the human rights code. Those who disagree with the decision can ask the tribunal to reconsider, they can revisit the decision or they can ask the court to review it. Disagreeing with the tribunal is no reason to throw away the B.C. human rights code.

I’m keeping my remarks short today, but I want to speak with my whole heart, my whole chest and be unequivocal in my support for the human rights code and for this motion. I encourage all members of this House to vote in support.

Thank you for the opportunity to affirm my commitment to uphold the code and my commitment to uphold human rights.

Jordan Kealy: This is a House where we make laws, we amend laws, we find the faults in laws and we create laws to better our lives and the lives of British Columbians.

Right now we have a motion in front of us. It doesn’t change the law. It doesn’t change the human rights code. It’s currently not in place. That’s not what this vote is about. This motion that’s in front of me doesn’t include the whole human rights code. It’s missing parts. But when we vote on it, how is it going to be portrayed?

[3:35 p.m.]

This is actually wasting time that’s critical in this Legislature. We’re not making a law. We’re not amending a law. Right now the motion that got rejected actually had the true intention of the B.C. rights code. It was to stop hate and discrimination and to protect all people. That’s currently the law. That’s the way it is right now. We should be upholding that.

But right now I have a motion in front of me. I rise today because I believe that in this House, we need to pause and reflect on the direction we are heading in when it comes to freedom of expression in this province.

Members opposite often speak about inclusion, tolerance and human rights. Those are important principles, and they should matter to every member of this House. But tolerance cannot mean that only one viewpoint is allowed to exist while others are condemned or punished. In a free society, people will disagree. I welcome the debate. They will hold different beliefs, different convictions and different understandings of the world around them. That diversity of thought is not something to fear. It is something that strengthens democracy.

What concerns many British Columbians today is the growing sense that disagreement with certain ideas is no longer treated as part of a healthy, democratic debate but as something that must be suppressed. When institutions begin to punish citizens simply for expressing a sincerely held belief, we are stepping onto very dangerous ground.

There is a very well-known line from George Orwell’s book 1984 that says: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” That warning was written as fiction, but it was meant to caution societies about what happens when governments begin deciding what people are allowed to believe or say.

When citizens see people facing enormous financial penalties for expressing views that others disagree with, it raises a very serious question. Are we protecting human rights, or are we policing thought?

A democratic society must be strong enough to tolerate disagreement. Freedom of expression does not exist only for comfortable or popular ideas. It exists precisely to protect the right to say things that others may strongly oppose. The moment government institutions begin punishing speech simply because it challenges a current ideology, we risk moving away from open debate and towards something far more troubling.

Members opposite may disagree with certain viewpoints. That’s their right. But disagreement should be answered with debate, with evidence and with persuasion, not punishment. British Columbians expect their Legislature to defend the principle that all citizens are equal before the law and that their fundamental freedoms are not conditional on whether their views align with the government of the day.

Freedom of expression is not something that should belong only to one side of a political argument. It belongs to everyone. If we truly believe in a free and democratic society, we must be willing to defend that freedom, even when we disagree with what is being said.

[3:40 p.m.]

I must also say that I disagree with this motion because it does not address the full human rights code. Instead, it appears to selectively highlight certain elements while leaving the broader principles unexamined.

Is there intent to that? That could raise concerns for many people across this province. It gives the impression that the motion is less about strengthening human rights as a whole and more about political messaging. Human rights should apply equally to every person in British Columbia. They should not be framed in a way that elevates one group while ignoring the broader principle that rights belong to all people.

If we are serious about human rights, then we should be discussing the entire code and the protection it provides to everyone, not narrowing the conversation in a way that risks dividing people instead of bringing them together.

Let me give you a real-world example of why people feel increasingly unable to raise questions about issues that matter to them. A few years ago, here in Canada, in a women’s regional powerlifting competition, a transgender athlete competed and won first place. Reports about that competition noted that the winning lift was 470 pounds heavier than the runner-up.

For many Canadians, that raised serious questions about fairness in women’s sport — not out of hostility, not out of hatred, but out of concern that the categories created to ensure women have fair opportunities in athletics may be changing in ways that deserve open discussion.

It would be like if, in order for you to win a debate over me, you had to beat me in an arm wrestle. Good luck.

Women’s sports exist because biological differences matter in athletic competitions. Those categories were created to ensure that women have a fair chance to compete and succeed. When people raise questions about fairness in those circumstances, those questions should not be treated as something dangerous or unacceptable to discuss.

That leads to the broader issue before us today. If elected officials begin to fear speaking openly about issues their constituents are concerned about, then the very purpose of democratic debate begins to erode. What is the point of the Legislature if those elected to represent their communities cannot raise difficult questions?

Democracy does not function by silencing disagreement. It functions through debate. British Columbians did not elect us to repeat one approved viewpoint. They elected us to represent them honestly, even when the conversations are uncomfortable.

As adults and as leaders in our communities, we should have the resilience to hear opinions we may disagree with. Leadership requires the ability to listen; to debate; and, yes, to develop a thicker skin when difficult conversations arise. Disagreement should be met with argument and evidence, not punishment.

A healthy democracy, again, requires open debate. It requires the ability to question ideas, to challenge assumptions and to speak honestly about issues that matter to the people we represent. If we begin punishing speech simply because it makes someone uncomfortable, then we are no longer encouraging democratic discussion. We are discouraging it.

If elected representatives cannot raise concerns freely on behalf of their constituents, then the very purpose of this Legislature begins to fade. The moment debate disappears, democracy itself begins to disappear with it. You may as well call it what it is: a fascist regime.

[3:45 p.m.]

When you look at this motion, it’s not changing a law. It doesn’t even represent the full code. What are we voting on? What does it do? It’s wasting my time. That’s why I’m against this motion.

The human rights code is in place. It’s in force. It protects people. It’s doing what it’s meant to do. It’s not perfect. But we are here as legislators to protect people and examine laws, pass laws, amend the laws if we have to. That’s what I’m here for. Right now this amendment is wasting my time, and I’m against it.

Trevor Halford: I want to thank those that spoke before me in this House, on either side of the House.

I think this is an important conversation, but I want to preface this by saying that I hope it’s an important conversation for the right reasons. I really, really do. I hope it’s an important conversation with the right intentions. The members on every side or wherever they sit in this House — I think they understand what I’m saying by that.

Human rights need to be supported. I support human rights — full stop. If anybody wants to challenge me on that record, they can go right ahead. Yes, on first reading, since taking on as interim leader, I have said we were going to do a different path and we’re going to be consistent about that path. Just like today. Members voted yes on first reading until a division was called. Then they changed their minds. That’s their prerogative to do. It’s up to them, and that’s their right in this House. But they all voted yes until a division vote was called.

We all need to protect against discrimination. We all need to protect against hate.

I’ve got a special audience today. It’s one that I take dearly. It’s one that, every time I get up in this House and speak…. My daughter is here in the gallery right now, and in some of this stuff, she’s more well-versed than I am. When I come and speak in this House, on this platform, I have her in my mind consistently, in creating or helping create a world that shapes a safe place for her to grow up in. It’s important.

I support a human rights code that protects vulnerable people and upholds human dignity. Supporting human rights does not mean we must give any institution, whether it’s the Human Rights Commission or anyone, unlimited deference or treat any decision beyond review — full stop.

Let me be clear. This House can support human rights while still asking whether the current system is balanced, fair, timely, respectful of fundamental freedoms. That doesn’t make you a racist. It doesn’t make you a bigot. It doesn’t make you any of those things. And if you say different, that is incredibly lazy.

I can say that this motion is drafted in ways that ask members to not only support the human rights code. It also asks the Legislature to affirm unequivocal support for the tribunal’s powers as they currently exercise. That is a very different question, and it’s an important one.

Now, I want to go back to the fact of what I just said. We are not here to rubber-stamp any institutions — full stop. We are here to do important work. I want to ask everybody in this House: in the last couple weeks, have we been doing that important work? Have we?

[3:50 p.m.]

Are we debating DRIPA legislation today? We’re not. We’re talking about human rights, which is important, and human rights needs to be talked about in this House, outside of this House, in the classrooms, on the streets, in coffee shops, at the dinner table. Those are important conversations. That needs to happen. But I will say this.

This House gets weaponized politically, and it’s lazy. It is very, very lazy. And you know what? Thankfully, I think the public sees through it now. I do. I’m not going to get into polling numbers or anything like that, but I think they get it.

I will gladly sit here and take my time and talk about human rights, and anybody else that wants to get up, I encourage them to do so, because it’s an important conversation.

But you know what else is an important conversation? I want to talk to my colleague who got up from Langley-Willowbrook, somebody who has faced racism from the day she was born, and she talked about that today. I know there are other members of this House that have faced that prejudice as well. We need to call it out every single time — every time. If they think that’s going to be done on a first reading, then I don’t get that.

What I will say is that consistency matters. Where was this debate for Selina Robinson? We didn’t get a chance to do it because it was shut down every single time by this government.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: Nobody heckled the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, and I’d appreciate the same leniency, but that’s up to her to do. If she wants to speak again, she can. I’m sure she will.

Parliament exists to question power, not to bless it unconditionally. We should support the principles of human rights protection, but we need to make sure we don’t suspend the scrutiny of the machinery enforcing it. Now, we can talk about how when the tribunal imposes penalties, it can reshape the boundaries of acceptable belief without even weighing different freedoms. We have to be careful that it does not send an unmistakable message to people on what they say.

There are consequences for everything that anybody says. I have that conversation with my daughter. She has it with me. We have it with each other. Free speech, but it ain’t always free. But we have to figure out who defines what that price is. We do. Human rights protections — they are essential.

Accountability is also essential. People make mistakes. Institutions can make mistakes. As legislators, we can make mistakes. This is why we can amend bills. Every commissioner has made mistakes. The Human Rights Commissioner has made mistakes. Tribunals have made mistakes. And I think we can all agree that accountability strengthens public confidence in the human rights system.

But do not lose focus of what the real issue is. Balance is paramount. It is. Balance is paramount. A human rights system must protect people from discrimination — full stop. It also must be clear, fair, timely and respectful of freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. And if the balance is off, there has to be a duty to say so.

[3:55 p.m.]

We have to make sure that where legal consequences are severe, the threshold must be clear and carefully defined. If the law is too vague or too expansive, people lose confidence that it is being applied fairly. When expression — political, moral or social questions — can attract extraordinary penalties, it is okay to examine that. It is okay to question it. It is okay to support it as well. It is okay not to support it. Be careful when you weaponize it.

We’re in a place here where democratic values and free speech are paramount. I would hope we all in this House oppose hate and discrimination, but review is not repeal. Oversight is not opposition. Scrutiny cannot always be called extremism. When they do, it’s lazy; it is. I can tell, and I hope I’m wrong.

There are important things that we need to be canvassing in this House. Like I said, human rights are vitally important to those conversations, but so are some of the other challenges that are facing British Columbians right now.

As I look across the way, almost every member is on their phone. That’s okay, that’s fine, but if this conversation is so vitally important on both sides of this House, engagement is also important.

Interjection.

Trevor Halford: I don’t think so. I don’t think they are.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Surrey–White Rock has the floor.

Trevor Halford: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand that these are difficult days. They’re difficult days for this government. They’re difficult days for members of this House. Unfortunately, they’re getting more difficult. On top of that, they’re actually getting more difficult for average British Columbians who are wanting us to do this. They’re wanting us to actually show up when confidence votes happen. They’re wanting us to be here and to be accountable for the work.

I will support human rights. We’ll continue to do that, to support protections against hate and discrimination. We need to defend that with dignity and liberty and with both equality and fairness.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the adoption of this motion.

Division has been called.

[4:00 p.m. – 4:05 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members. Members participating remotely, please make sure your camera is on and mic is on.

[4:10 p.m.]

Members, the question is on the motion that was tabled by the Minister of Transportation: “that this House affirms its unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting people from hate speech and discrimination based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and age.”

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 83
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Elmore	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Chant	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Loewen	Kindy
Warbus	Halford	Wat
Kooner	Banman	Hartwell
L. Neufeld	Van Popta	Dew
Clare	Rustad	McInnis
Valeriote	Botterell	Paton
Day	Chan	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Dhaliwal
McCall	Wilson	Block
Stamer	Gasper	Mok
Davis	Sturko	Boultbee
Williams	Bird	Doerkson
Luck		Tepper
NAYS — 3
Armstrong	Kealy	Brodie

Susie Chant: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 9.

I know it has been in the…. Section C was the Ministry of Forests, but I will move that to the Douglas Fir Room, Section A.

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Sorry? Oh, they haven’t reported back. Okay, then we will leave them in Section C. Okay.

And in Section C, it is the Ministry of Forests.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: We will call this chamber back to order, where we are going to continue Bill 9 debate, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act of 2026.

Korky Neufeld: Well, this is strike 3 for me. I’ve had two interruptions on this, speaking to this bill. I hope there won’t be any others.

[4:15 p.m.]

I just want to read a quote from Thomas Paine, which states: “A body of people holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.”

I also have an article here from the United Kingdom, and I just want to read a couple of phrases from this. This was six months old, but they’re going through exactly the same tension that we’re going through about FOI.

Here it states: “Labour is facing a backlash over plans to dramatically curb access to government documents under freedom-of-information rules. The Attorney General, Michelle Rowland, has announced the biggest changes to transparency rules in more than a decade, including new changes and charges for freedom-of-information requests and government departments and ministers, as well as tougher rules related to cabinet confidentiality.”

We’re not the only area going through this, but it’s a deep concern.

Let’s go to clause 21. I think that’s where I left off. Clause 21 allows government to charge a fee for copies of records that are available without filing an FOI. Currently proactive disclosures are accessible without a fee. Proactive disclosures should mean open access, not pay-per-view government.

This is not administrative housekeeping. It is a new financial barrier, and we know how British Columbians are squeezed financially. Let us not forget that this government already introduced a $10 filing fee in previous amendments. We were told that fee was absolutely necessary, and now we see further expansion of financial barriers.

Transparency should not depend on the size of a citizen’s wallet. The public already paid for these records through their taxes, thank you very much. Charging again to access them is not modernization. It is monetization of accountability, and I’ll repeat that. It is monetization of accountability.

Clause 7 introduces new sections in 16.1, allowing refusal of disclosure of communications from judicial officers about policy, programs or legislation. That is a significant expansion. Section 16 already protected sensitive intergovernmental and Indigenous negotiations. This goes further, shielding policy communications involving judicial officers.

Judicial independence is fundamental. But transparency in executive policy-making is also fundamental. If members of the judiciary are communicating with government about legislation or programs, the public has an interest in understanding the context. This new exemption expands secrecy into a whole new territory.

Clauses 8, 9, 11 and 20 establish a power a connected service provider has. This entity may operate centralized digital platforms, facilitate sharing of personal information across ministries, identify program eligibility and share categories of personal data between public bodies. The minister may issue binding directions regarding what data is shared, how much is shared, what source must be used and which categories of a person are affected — all by ministerial direction.

Yes, privacy impact assessments must be shared with the commissioner upon request. But here there’s no veto, no mandatory approval, no binding oversight. We are centralizing data authority while weakening statutory guardrails in an age of cybersecurity risks, of AI analytics, of data breaches.

I remember when I worked at the school board. We were well ahead of the game as far as spending a lot of money on computers and security around our computer systems and our data collection. But we would get hit hundreds, if not thousands, of times a week.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m sure this provincial government gets that as well. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people trying to collect data. And now we’re going to be spreading more data around. I think it’s going to cause leaks to come out. We’re going to have data breaches. We’re going to have personal information now come to the public.

We’ve had some in other areas. I think it was one of the drugstores that had all their information leaked.

Expanding executive control over data sharing should come with stronger, not weaker, constraints.

Clause 15 allows the commissioner to extend review timelines beyond 90 days. Currently there is a hard limit. Applicants already wait nearly a year for responses. Instead of accelerating the reviews, the government is adding flexibility to extend them. Efficiency should mean faster resolution, not more elasticity in delay.

Freedom-of-information laws exist because governments do not naturally lean toward transparency. I hadn’t watched a lot of debate here in the House prior to becoming an MLA. I saw some things on postings and stuff, and you hear about things. I watched question period once in a while. But transparency from government is lacking.

Now we wonder why the public is not trusting us as politicians. I knocked on doors, and people would say: “You know what? You’re all crooks. I’m not even voting, because it doesn’t matter who gets into office. You’re all crooks.”

Now we’re going to tighten transparency and hope trust builds? It’s going to make it harder for us knocking on doors. “Hi, I’m MLA Neufeld.” “Oh, you’re one of those people who doesn’t like transparency.”

They lean toward control. They lean toward convenience. They lean toward risk management. Strong statutory language counters that instinct. How about if we had clear timelines so the people requesting the information know exactly the timelines? Narrow exemptions, not broader exemptions. Narrow the exemptions. Define standards. That would be wonderful, to know what we’re understanding. Limit discretion.

But Bill 9 moves in the opposite direction. They have looser timelines, undefined standards, expanded dismissal categories, new fees, centralized data authority. Individually, they may appear incremental. Collectively, they represent a philosophical shift — a dangerous philosophical shift.

How dangerous? Well, it moves from citizens-first access to institution-first discretion. It moves from transparency to manageability. It moves from accountability to control.

People often say that this side of the House is always negative. Here are some solutions for the other side of the House. This is what we think should happen.

If government were serious about strengthening this system, it would (1) impose enforceable service standards, (2) fund backlog reduction, (3) narrow exemptions, (4) expand proactive disclosure, (5) strengthen the binding authority of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, (6) limit discretionary refusal powers, (7) protect access rights from retroactive application.

That is modernization. That is reform. That is democratic strengthening.

In conclusion, freedom-of-information laws are not technical statutes. They are democratic statutes. They reflect a simple and powerful principle: government records belong to the people unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.

Bill 9 weakens that principle. You may ask how. It expands secrecy. It broadens discretionary refusals. It softens timelines. It introduces new fees. It centralizes personal data authority. It shifts power away from the citizen.

Transparency should not be optional. It should not be expensive. It should not be vulnerable to undefined discretion. In a healthy democracy, governments narrow secrecy; they do not codify it. For this reason, I cannot support the bill as it is written.

I urge the House to reconsider these amendments we just talked about carefully, clause by clause, before we erode the rights that took decades to build and that British Columbians depend on to hold their government that they elected to account.

[4:25 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, I want to just give a bit of a general reminder. It happened twice or three times yesterday while I was hearing debate, and it has happened today as well. With respect to naming any one of us, including ourselves, it would be best to use your riding name, please. Thank you very much.

Lynne Block: I’d like to open with a very wise man’s quote. I’ll explain a little bit about him, but his quote aptly describes what is needed here. He said: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light, the most efficient policeman.” These words of Louis Brandeis have never been more relevant than they are today, as we gather to debate the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, Bill 9.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Brandeis, who served on the United States Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939 as its first Jewish justice, was known as the people’s lawyer before his appointment — a relentless advocate for workers, consumers and the public interest against concentrated corporate power.

He was also a pioneer of modern privacy law, which is incredibly important and relevant today. He co-authored the seminal 1890 Harvard Law Review article “The Right to Privacy,” which articulated the enduring principle that individuals possess a “right to be let alone.”

Even as he defended personal privacy, Brandeis championed transparency in public life, insisting that democracy depends upon open institutions and informed citizens, warning that secrecy breeds corruption and inefficiency.

This Bill 9 is not just a matter of legal phrasing or procedural updates. It affects the lives of students, parents and every British Columbian who relies on transparency to hold public institutions and this government accountable.

While Bill 9 claims to modernize our access-to-information laws, it quietly introduces a series of what I would call trapdoors, which risk undermining the very principle Justice Brandeis championed — that democracy thrives only when government operates in the light, not behind veils of secrecy.

That is precisely what is at stake today. This debate is not abstract. It is not theoretical. It is not confined to statutory language buried in legislative binders. We see a lot of big binders around here. This bill is about power. I’ll say that again. This bill is about power — who holds it, how it is exercised and whether the public retains the ability to scrutinize it in real time.

As the critic for Education, I examine Bill 9 through a particular lens. I see it through the eyes of a parent in Prince George trying to understand school board spending decisions that affect classroom supports. I see it through the eyes of a teacher in Surrey concerned about how student data is being transferred between ministries. I see it through the eyes of trustees attempting to reconcile ministry directives with local accountability. And I see it through the eyes of journalists and citizens who rely on freedom-of-information laws to ensure that government decisions are made in the open.

[4:30 p.m.]

Bill 9 promises modernization. It promises efficiency. It promises digital integration. But woven through this bill are structural changes that risk diminishing the immediacy of transparency, expanding discretionary power and narrowing independent oversight.

Let us begin with the most fundamental shift — timing. Currently the law requires public bodies to respond to access-to-information requests “without delay.” Bill 9 proposes to replace the standard with “without unreasonable delay.”

At first glance, this may appear modest, but words in legislation are never modest. They carry intent. They shape culture, and they guide conduct. “Without delay” is directive. It establishes urgency. It affirms that access to public information is not a favour but a right.

“Without unreasonable delay” introduces elasticity. It creates interpretive space. It allows argument of whether a delay, weeks or months, is justified. Who determines what is unreasonable — the citizen seeking information or the institution being asked to disclose it?

For parents seeking documents related to school safety, funding allocations or inclusion supports, timing matters. Decisions about budgets and policy are not static. They unfold in cycles. If disclosure comes long after decisions are finalized, the opportunity for meaningful engagement disappears. A right delayed becomes a right diluted. This shift risks transforming the public’s right to know into a procedural negotiation.

Clause 2 compounds this concern. It grants the head of a public body sole authority to determine whether a request contains “enough detail” to enable records to be located within a “reasonable amount of time.” This creates a subjective, not an objective, gatekeeping mechanism.

If a parent requests “all records relating to school safety in a district,” a superintendent may deem the request too broad. If a teacher seeks communications between the ministry and a district regarding policy implementation, that request may be characterized as insufficiently specific.

The burden shifts. The citizen must not only seek information but must do so with drafting precision. Democracy should not require legal craftsmanship.

Clause 13 adds yet another layer. It allows the commissioner to authorize a public body to disregard requests deemed “excessively broad,” “abusive,” “malicious” or those that “unreasonably interfere with operations.”

Certainly, public bodies should not be paralyzed by harassment. Absolutely not. But definitions matter. Is being persistent malicious? If a parent advocacy group files multiple requests about special education funding because their children are not receiving services, are they systematic or are they responsible? If a whistleblower files detailed and repeated access requests to uncover irregularities, are they abusive or are they courageous?

Throughout history, uncomfortable scrutiny has often been mislabelled as disruption. We must ensure that mechanisms intended to prevent abuse are not repurposed to suppress accountability.

[4:35 p.m.]

Bill 9 also introduces a profound structural change — the creation of “connected services providers” and an online platform enabling personal information to be shared across public bodies. Under sections 26 and 69.3, the minister may designate a public body to facilitate the sharing of personal information to determine program eligibility.

Efficiency is cited as the objective. Citizens will be identified as eligible for benefits more seamlessly. Administrative barriers will fall. But efficiency must not eclipse privacy. That’s really important in this day and age. We have seen so many times when there have been data breaches, and that will happen. So if efficiency is cited as the objective, we have to be extremely careful. We really do.

Section 69.3(4) grants the minister, again, authority to determine not only the type but also the quantity and circumstances under which personal information may be shared.

Now, in education, personal information is deeply, deeply sensitive. You’ve got health data on students. You have psychoeducational assessments on students. You have individual education plans on students. You have behavioural records. You have family financial information as well as private family information. These records all concern children — our children. Children cannot meaningfully consent. Parents deserve clarity.

Data, once centralized, becomes attractive, very definitely, to cyber threats and vulnerable to misuse. Is there a clear opt out for families who do not wish their child’s information to circulate across a centralized platform? Are safeguards robust enough to withstand sophisticated breaches? Will there be transparent reporting of data-sharing volumes and incidents? I don’t know. Who does? Yes, centralization does create convenience, but it also creates concentration of risk.

Perhaps most troubling is the alteration of oversight mechanisms. Currently privacy impact assessments must be provided to the Privacy Commissioner. Bill 9 changes this requirement. The government need only notify the commissioner that a privacy impact assessment exists. The commissioner must request it to review it.

Oversight by invitation is not oversight. It is accommodation. Why create an additional procedural step between the watchdog and the records necessary to protect citizens’ privacy? If the government is confident in its safeguards, automatic disclosure to the commissioner should not be burdensome. Trust in public institutions is strengthened not by limiting scrutiny but by embracing it.

Bill 9 further introduces a new refusal provision under section 16.1, permitting public bodies to withhold the substance of communications from judicial officers regarding proposed or existing policies. If members of the judiciary raise concerns about the legality of an education policy, should the public not be aware? Transparency about legal risk strengthens governance. Concealing such concerns diminishes informed debate.

[4:40 p.m.]

Additionally, section 3(5)(e) excludes records required by law to be produced in legal proceedings from freedom-of-information access entirely. This removes a category of documents from public access simply because they are connected to litigation. The public interest does not evaporate when a court file opens.

Yet it would be unfair to ignore positive elements. Clause 5 empowers applicants by requiring their consent for deadline extensions. That is meaningful. Section 71 and 71.1 mandate proactive disclosure of categories of records. That is progress. True modernization means making information public by default, reducing the need for formal requests. But proactive disclosure cannot compensate for weakened response standards or expanded discretion and reduced oversight.

As we move to committee, I have a few questions. How will “unreasonable delay” be defined to prevent misuse? I’d like that to be defined. Two, why not automatically provide privacy impact assessments to the commissioner? Three, what safeguards ensure that persistent citizen engagement is not mislabelled as abuse? Another question. Is there a genuine opt out for families within Connected Services? What cybersecurity investments accompany centralized data sharing? That’s something that is absolutely critical in this day and age of technology.

Let’s be clear. These are not partisan questions. It doesn’t matter from where they come. They are democratic questions. Democracy requires friction. It requires questions. It requires oversight that may be deemed inconvenient.

Justice Brandeis understood that tension between privacy and transparency was a good thing. He defended the individual’s right to be let alone while insisting that public institutions must operate in the open.

Bill 9 stands at that intersection. It modernizes, but it also obscures. It streamlines, but it also centralizes. It discloses, but it also, at the same time, withholds.

So we return to the sunlight that I mentioned in the beginning. Sunlight is not hostile to government. It is protective of it. It protects institutions from suspicion. It protects citizens from overreach. It protects democracy from decay. If we weaken clarity around response times, if we expand discretionary refusal powers, if we soften independent oversight and if we centralize personal data without ironclad safeguards, we dim that light. We truly do. Modernization should bring transparency, not blur it.

Let us together, on both sides of this House, amend this bill so that efficiency strengthens accountability rather than substitutes for it. Let us together ensure that oversight is automatic, not optional — automatic. Let us together guarantee that privacy protections are explicit, not implied, and that brings clarity.

Justice Brandeis warned that secrecy breeds corruption and inefficiency. He truly believed democracy depends on informed citizens and open institutions. If we are to honour that principle, we must ensure that Bill 9 does not become a shadow cast across the very transparency it claims to modernize.

[4:45 p.m.]

At the end of this debate, the question is simple. Will British Columbia move toward greater openness or toward greater discretion? Will we accelerate sunlight or filter it?

For the parents in Prince George, for the teachers in Surrey, for every British Columbian who believes that public institutions belong to the public, let us choose the light.

Tony Luck: I really appreciate the opportunity here to stand and talk to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act of 2026. I do so with a sense of urgency on this bill. I feel that things are happening here that don’t seem very transparent to the public, and they need to know where we’re going with this.

Now, when I first started looking at this bill and everything, I thought: “Is this a one-off? Is there some oversight on this particular bill? Is something going on in here that I haven’t seen before?” But the more I look at this bill and a number of the bills since the 18 months ago that we came into this House, I can safely say that there’s certainly an entrenched trend going on, and this bill exemplifies that in no small measure.

This bill is not simply about administrative adjustments to a statute. It is about whether the people of British Columbia will still have the right to see what their government is doing. It is about whether transparency will remain a pillar of democratic government in this province or whether it will continue to erode under a growing culture of secrecy and shutting out.

Let me begin with a simple principle that every democratic society must uphold if they want…. As my colleague before me said, shining the light on some of this stuff. As legal scholar Harold L. Cross once wrote: “Public business is the public’s business. The people have the right to know.”

This bill is doing everything but that. It is slowly squeezing out the people’s right in British Columbia to know what this government is doing, what any government is doing, whatever future government is doing, whatever past government has done. This quote is a foundation of freedom-of-information laws that is used a lot when we’re talking about freedom of information.

Government records do not belong to the politicians. They don’t belong to us. They do not belong to ministers, and they do not belong to the bureaucrats. They belong to the people. But this bill seems to be putting that aside. There’s an emphasis in this bill, as I look at it and as I analyze it, that this is about: the government has the right to all the information and is making it harder and harder for the public to get to the thing.

The taxes that fund government programs come from the people. The authority that government exercises is granted by the people. And the decisions that shape this province affect the lives of the people. Therefore, the people have the right to know what decisions are made and why those decisions are made for them.

Freedom-of-information law exists because democracies understand a simple truth: power must be watched. History is full of situations where power was not watched, it was not monitored. And it has changed, fundamentally, countries all over the world and the history of our world.

When transparency weakens, accountability weakens as well. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper once said about the dangers of secrecy in government: “Without adequate access to key information, incompetent or corrupt governments can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.” Those words apply just as much today as when they were first spoken by Harper.

When governments restrict access to information, they do not simply hide the documents. They hide what’s written on those documents. They hide mistakes. They hide waste. They hide decisions that the public might otherwise question. That is precisely why the debate before us today matters so much to the people of British Columbia.

Bill 9 does not strengthen transparency. It weakens transparency, and it does so at a time when British Columbia is already facing serious concerns about secrecy and accountability. Trust is blown. People in the province of British Columbia are having trouble respecting politicians, respecting the process, because they’re losing trust in the government.

[4:50 p.m.]

This kind of bill is exactly why that happens.

I’m sorry they don’t like it over there. They’re chuckling. But this is what’s happening. Trust is gone. Part of trust is making sure government is….

I thought, as well, if a government is so proud of the work they’re doing, let it be shown. Show the processes and what’s happening. And it does so at a time…. Let me speak plainly.

Point of Order

Stephanie Higginson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I do not agree with the accusations and the characterizations of the members on this side chuckling, and I would like the member to withdraw.

Tony Luck: I will withdraw that.

Deputy Speaker: Continue.

Debate Continued

Tony Luck: This government has developed a reputation for secrets that extends far beyond this chamber. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take this side of the House’s word for it. I’ll be talking to some groups that have agreed with what we’re saying on this side of the House. Journalists have written about it. Transparency advocates have warned about it, and civil liberties organizations have criticized this bill.

In fact, the government of British Columbia was recognized nationally with an award back in, I think it was, 2022. They’re fully aware of this. I think I mentioned it before, the Code of Silence Award. The most secretive government in Canada is right here in British Columbia. This award was given to institutions that obstruct access to public information. Once again, not us saying. I am just talking about what’s been done out there.

Let that sink in for a minute. This government was given a national award, not for openness, not for transparency, not for accountability, but for secrecy. That’s the hard thing to take in here — that this government is trying to shut down our access to freedom of information at all levels, in all the bills that we’ve been seeing coming forward here. And I’ll get to that as proof.

So now instead of reversing that trend, the government is introducing legislation that moves us even further down the dark path of secrecy.

Transparency advocates have been quick to sound the alarm. Let’s talk about one in particular. FIPA, the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, one of the province’s most respected watchdogs on access to information, has issued and reviewed Bill 9 and reached a very clear conclusion. Once again, not our words but their words. They have said: “Bill 9 weakens access rights in British Columbia and expands government discretion to refuse requests.”

These aren’t partisan words. They come from an organization whose sole mission is to defend transparency and the privacy rights of the citizens of British Columbia. And when an organization like FIPA warns that access rights are being weakened, this Legislature should be listening to the words that this is.

It sounds like this side of the House over here is tone-deaf to some of the things that some of these organizations have been saying. We want to make sure that the people that pay the bills and elect us have the opportunity to access their information.

One of the most troubling changes in the bill is the replacement of the requirement — and I think my colleagues have spoken to this before — that public bodies respond to requests without delay. As we were talking about earlier, words mean things. “Should,” “must,” “may” — words mean things. The Premier of the province is a lawyer, and he knows more than anybody that words mean things. So when they take out something like “without delay” and weaken it to “without reasonable delay,” what is that doing to the process for the citizens of British Columbia?

Some might dismiss that change, but anyone who understands legislation knows that words matter. “Without delay” sets a clear expectation that they need to get out and respond as quickly as possible to the citizens, to the requester of the information. “Without reasonable delay” opens the door to interpretation by anybody. Once interpretation enters the picture, delay becomes easy to justify. It becomes easier to explain away, and eventually it becomes easier to normalize.

[4:55 p.m.]

The government is not lowering the bar for itself because transparency is working perfectly. The government is lowering the bar because the system is already struggling to meet the standards that exist today. The department is struggling. But why is it struggling?

Instead of fixing the system, the government is changing the rules. It’s like somebody growing a garden. The garden isn’t growing anything. Let’s just rip it out. Same kind of idea. This is not reform. This is not retreat.

Bill 9 also expands the ability of public bodies to disregard requests. How do we measure that? How do we do that? How does somebody disregard a request?

Somebody comes in and requests some information about who knows what and somebody arbitrarily says: “Oh, we don’t want it. We’re backed up. We’re backlogged. This is a menial little request that you’re doing, but we have the right to say no to that.” Well, that should not be happening. Everybody’s request should be treated with respect. Everybody that comes in and wants something should be treated with respect — every request that comes in.

Think about what that means in practice. The requests most likely to interfere with operations are often the ones that seek large volumes of records. Those are the requests that journalists file when investigating government spending. I could give you some examples of that right now, what’s happening out there in the province.

Those are the requests researchers file when examining policy decisions. Those are the requests citizens file when trying to understand how government decisions affect their communities.

I had a mother of some children who are going to school in Merritt who wanted some information, and she was having a heck of a time getting information that she requested. As my colleague spoke of earlier, her experience with the schools and getting the information she needed to find out what was happening in the school district…. Every time she turned, she was being shut down, shut down, shut down. That is not right.

Now the government is making it easier to dismiss them. Well, they’ve already done that, actually. All they’re doing is codifying what they’re already doing. They’re making it harder and harder for people to get access to their own information.

This bill is being introduced at a time when freedom of information in British Columbia is already under immense strain. Governments are struggling to keep the trust of the people. This does not help them.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has documented serious delays across public bodies, and thousands of requests have exceeded legal time limits. I guess you could say the government’s breaking the law, their own law, by not processing these in an expeditious way. Seems that way.

A thousand requests have exceeded legal timelines. Deemed refusals, cases where government fails to respond within the time required by law have become increasingly common. In other words, the system is struggling to meet the standards that exist today.

Once again, we’re not going to fix this issue. We’re just going to put other roadblocks in the way, and we’ll just shut it down kind of thing.

What does this government propose? Not stronger transparency. Not better recordkeeping. Not increased resources. Instead, the government proposes to weaken the law itself.

If this bill stood alone, it would already raise serious concerns. But it doesn’t stand alone. It’s a broader pattern — a pattern of reducing oversight, a pattern of weakening independent watchdogs and a pattern of concentrating power behind closed doors.

Let me go through and highlight some of the examples that I’ve just outlined there. Let’s talk about one of the most troubling examples — the closure of the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. Instead of going out and helping local governments and auditing them, make sure they….

Local governments spend a lot of money every year. They want to make sure we’re doing it right. The taxpayers are demanding this. Taxpayers I’ve talked to would like to see a better oversight in their local municipalities and make sure that they’re spending their money correctly.

But let’s gut the Auditor General for Local Government. The office was created to provide independent oversight of municipal governments and spending. Municipal governments in British Columbia manage billions of dollars of public funds. The public wants to know how that money is spent.

They oversee infrastructure, land use, utilities, emergency services and housing. The Auditor General for Local Government existed to ensure that those resources were managed responsibly. It conducted performance audits, examined governance practice. It provided independent scrutiny of municipal decision-making.

[5:00 p.m.]

What did this government do? It shut the office down. One-offs? I don’t think so. A troubling trend? I think so.

That decision sent a very, very clear message into the public. It told British Columbians that independent scrutiny of local government spending was no longer a priority.

But the pattern does not stop there. The government is now eliminating another independent oversight body, the Office of the Merit Commissioner. Trend. For more than two decades, the Merit Commissioner ensured that hiring in the public service was conducted fairly and transparently. No more. “It’s okay. We’re on the right track. We’re doing the right thing.” Well, if you’re doing the right thing, open the books and let the public see it.

The office existed to ensure that public service appointments were based on merit, not political question. Yet the government now proposes to dissolve that office and transfer the responsibility into the Public Service Agency — the ones that do the hiring. Well, that doesn’t make sense. In other words, the government wants the system to oversee itself.

That is not independent oversight. That is internal management, internal control — control the message, control how people get the information that they need. And internal management is not a substitute for independent scrutiny.

The removal of watchdogs should alarm anyone who believes in transparent government, because watchdogs exist for one reason. They ensure that power is exercised responsibly. They ensure that mistakes are identified. They ensure that public institutions remain accountable. And when government removes watchdogs, they remove the very mechanism designed to keep them honest.

That’s what I always wanted when I was a citizen paying my taxes. I wanted somebody over there reviewing everything, making sure…. I used to go to council meetings and ask those questions: “Why are you spending money here? Why are you spending money? What’s happening here? Why is the zoning changed?” That’s our right as citizens — to be able to do that and go. But they’re being shut out of the process. They’re shutting down our opportunity to ask them tough questions.

There is another piece of the transparency puzzle. I think one of my other colleagues pointed this out, but we can’t ignore it. Some time ago they introduced a $10 fee for freedom-of-information requests. It was introduced by this government. And $10 doesn’t sound like very much, but to a lot of people, that is a lot of money.

Here’s what happened. Transparency advocates warned from the beginning that the fee would discourage a legitimate request. Civil liberties organizations raised concerns. Journalist associations raised concerns. Public policy experts raised concerns. And evidence suggests they were right. Requests for government records declined significantly after the fee was introduced, dropped off precipitously. I’ve got the number. I didn’t put it in the speech but I do have the number, and it dropped off significantly, more than 50 percent.

Requests for government records declined significantly after the fee was reduced. That decline does not mean the public suddenly became less interested in what their government is doing. No, no. But it shut out a lot of people from being able to come here. It’s a nuisance fee. It’s a nuisance fee, what they introduced; $10 is a nuisance fee. “Don’t bother us.” When barriers are introduced, fewer people attempt to access information.

Journalists have also been sounding the alarm about secrecy in this province. Veteran political columnist Vaughn Palmer has repeatedly warned about the declining transparency. An investigative reporter from the Tyee, their paper, has described British Columbia as operating under what is called a regime of secrecy.

These are not fringe opinions. These aren’t our opinions. I’m just showing the evidence here today. They are observations from experienced observers of government. They reflect a growing concern that transparency is being replaced by opacity.

There is one more dimension to this debate that we can’t ignore either, and that is the increasing use of orders in council and regulatory powers. While we were doing estimates last year and bills, we were pointing this out time and time again — how they’re moving things out of this House into the Premier’s office so they can expedite legislation, they can expedite rules, once again out of the view, out of the purview, of the public. Not the right thing to do.

[5:05 p.m.]

What I’m trying to do here in this paper…. I could go clause by clause and point out flaws and things, but what I’m trying to do in this paper is show that we have a terrible trend going on with this government and shutting down access for the people to their information. It reflects a growing concern that transparency is being replaced.

There is one more dimension — the increasing use of orders in council and regulatory powers, as I’ve mentioned. Orders in council have their place in government, but when they become the primary mechanism for implementing major policy decisions, once again, transparency suffers.

Why do we know after the fact that things happen? I think there’s been some…. We’ve had some debates in this House during question period and that, about some of the things we’re not knowing about. Surprise, surprise. We signed another agreement. We signed a new order in council that’s going to build something or do something. It just goes on and on.

The frustration is growing with the public, and it needs to end. It needs to be changed. This bill needs to be seriously looked at. Legislation debate in this chamber is subject to public scrutiny. We get to know here. If you have orders in council, it doesn’t come into this chamber so we can shine the light of day on it. Regulations made behind closed doors are not.

When access-to-information laws weaken at the same time that regulatory powers expand, the public loses visibility in both directions. Decisions move further from public debate, and the tools available to investigate those decisions become weaker.

Let us remember what transparency is really about. It’s about trust. You wonder why we have a bad name as politicians. One of my other colleagues mentioned it. They don’t like us. They don’t trust us. “You’re all the same.” We’re all labelled with the same brush, and that’s not good.

Trust between citizens and governments and trust that decisions are made honestly…. Trust that public funds are used responsibly and trust that mistakes are acknowledged rather than hidden…. You know what? A lot of people…. They just want you to apologize. “We made a mistake. Let’s back up. Let’s move on, and let’s change what we’re doing.” That’s all they want. They want to know that we can be trusted. We’re good for our word.

Transparency helps us do that, but secrecy destroys trust. We know that. Some of us have had secrets in our families. We know that. What happens? Trust is lost. It’s no different as it is in this House. When there’s secrecy, the trust is gone.

I don’t want to quote an American, but Thomas Jefferson once said: “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” It’s not a good thing to have. People are starting to fear the government. They’re really concerned about what’s happening.

So those remind us that transparency is not merely a bureaucratic process; it is a safeguard of freedom. When governments operate in the open, citizens can hold them to account. When governments operate in secrecy, accountability disappears, because they don’t know what to be looking for. They don’t know what to expect.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than that. They deserve a government that welcomes scrutiny rather than dismisses it. They deserve legislation that strengthens access to information rather than weakening it. They deserve independent watchdogs that protect the public interest.

Thank goodness there are some out there like FIPA that are watching and exposing some of the nonsense that goes on here in regards to not being able to access our information on a timely basis, expeditiously. They deserve a legislature that stands up for transparency when it matters the most.

So that’s what we’re doing today. We’re trying to shine a light on a bill that we don’t think is right, that needs to have some amendments to it or even just be thrown out and start again. Sometimes I wonder about some of the amendments. We waste a lot of time. Let’s go back and rewrite the bill and bring it back to the House. Let’s get a proper bill in place that works.

Let me remind you, once again, that public business is the public’s business. The people of British Columbia have the right to know where their government is going, and Bill 9 moves us in the absolute wrong direction.

Bill 9 and the continued erosion of transparency and the right of citizens to access their information is broken. It needs to be fixed. We need to rebuild the trust. As politicians, all of us need to rebuild the trust of the people out there, and that’s so important. The people have the right to know what their government is doing, and Bill 9, once again, moves us in the wrong direction. For that reason, I cannot support this bill moving forward.

[5:10 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: I rise today to speak to Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

The title of this bill contains a cruel irony. It contains the words “freedom of information.” Yet as I stand here and review the clauses, the subclauses and the bureaucratic language woven into this legislation, I see very little freedom and I see very little information. What I see is a wall — a wall built brick by brick, clause by clause, designed to separate the people of British Columbia from the truth about how their tax dollars are spent and how decisions are made in this chamber.

We are debating this bill in the context of a government that has already earned a distinctive, if shameful, reputation.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The NDP administration has been widely criticized by journalists, by watchdogs and by the public as the most secretive government in the history of this province. They have operated behind closed doors. They have centralized control in the Premier’s office to an unprecedented degree. Now tired of the inconvenience of transparency, tired of the nuisance of accountability, they have brought forward Bill 9 to codify their secrecy into law.

Before I dissect the draconian measures hidden in this legislation, I want to be fair. I want to acknowledge that there are elements here regarding connected services providers, modernizing data sharing between public bodies and improved efficiency.

Noting the hour, I would reserve my right to continue and move to adjourn the debate.

Bryan Tepper moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Darlene Rotchford: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress of the estimates for the Ministry of Forests and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

[5:15 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026

Trade Recognition Act

Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth thank His Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. Wendy Cocchia (Lieutenant Governor): I just want to say a quick thank-you, if I may. I want to thank all of the members as well as the outstanding legislative colleagues for your collective efforts in this session since it has opened. It continues to be challenging times throughout British Columbia, in Canada and around the world. Your work is very hard, and it’s often thankless, so I want to say it is appreciated. Thank you.

Lastly, I would like to recognize the incredible athletes that have taken part in our Olympics and are currently taking part in our Paralympics. Day 6 is going well. We’re so proud of all of them for the way that they represent Canada so proudly.

Go, red and white!

Thank you to all of you. I know you’ve worked very hard, as always. Now you’ll be going back to your constituents and continuing to work incredibly hard. Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor retired from the chamber.

[5:20 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I know everybody is happy that we’re coming to the end of our first five-week session and looking forward to two weeks away from this place.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock on Monday, March 30.

The House adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:03 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Children and Family Development
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $2,711,928,000 (continued).

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for this opportunity to ask questions and get into conversations about what is happening in this file.

Before examining the details of the government’s proposed changes to services for children and youth with support needs, it is important to consider the evidence the ministry relied on when developing this policy. The ministry itself commissioned an external evaluation of the family connections centre pilot program and began operating in several communities in 2023. That evaluation, completed in April 2025 by MNP and the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., was intended to assess how the pilot model was functioning before any broader expansion.

[1:05 p.m.]

According to the evaluation’s family service results, satisfaction among families in pilot communities declined in several key service areas compared with the period before the transition. For example, satisfaction with school-aged extended therapy declined by roughly 20 percent, and satisfaction with individualized autism funding declined by approximately 10 percent. At the same time, families in the non-pilot communities reported increased satisfaction with those same services during the same period.

Those findings matter because pilot programs exist precisely to test new models before they are implemented at scale. When a pilot identifies weakness or declining satisfaction among families, the responsible course is to understand why those results occurred and make adjustments before expanding the model across the province.

Families are now being told that significant changes will occur to how autism and developmental services are funded and delivered. So the central question becomes whether the system being proposed today reflects lessons learned from the pilot or whether the province is moving forward despite warning signs identified by its own evaluation. When government expands a model before underlying challenges are resolved, the risk is that those problems simply grow along with the system.

Can the minister confirm whether the ministry reviewed the April 2025 evaluation of the CYSN pilot program before announcing the new funding model?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Absolutely. Yes, the evaluation was taken into consideration prior to our announcement of a redesigned system. There are a couple of things that are really important to consider, given your question and comments.

[1:10 p.m.]

First and foremost, the family connections centre model is not expanding through our new system. It was a pilot. It is a pilot that we learned quite a bit from.

We learned through those pilots the importance of navigation. We learned through those pilots the strong desire for mental health services for neurodivergent youth. We learned through those pilots that the expansion of behavioural services that were provided in conjunction with other therapies like speech therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy for child development centres was very welcomed. There were a lot of things that we learned from those pilots that will help inform how we move forward in the new system.

One of the things that we learned from the way that those pilots were delivered is that families were prohibited from having choice and flexibility. They had to choose to receive services in the family connections centre or choose to remain using their individualized funding. In the new system, we’ve expanded individualized funding and are expanding community-based services, which preserves choice and flexibility for families.

Another really key and important point to note is that evaluation of the family connections centres is just one consideration that we took when designing the new model moving forward. We also had an engagement website that anybody could submit a submission to. Parents, caregivers, therapists could submit their suggestions and ideas.

We met with experts, leading pediatricians and psychologists, to inform the new model. We had Indigenous-led engagement and had submissions from Indigenous organizations. Organizations like the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention submitted a white paper on what future services should look like. An organization called the parents and professionals, which included parents and leading psychologists…. All of that information together was a part of what was used to inform how we moved forward.

Reann Gasper: In that data collected, is there a place where the public can access that correspondence and those…?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes. On our CYSN ministry website, there is a comprehensive package of information for families and service providers, not only about what the new, redesigned system is, what the different funding streams are…. Also, a what-we-heard section is on the website. You can drop down each section with each organization that made submissions.

Reann Gasper: How does the minister explain the decline in family satisfaction reported in the pilot communities for services such as school-age extended therapy and individualized autism funding?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: So first and foremost, I have to reiterate that when we announced the four pilot family connections centres, there was a strong commitment to evaluate those pilots, which is exactly what we did. Again, that evaluation, all of that input, informed how we would move forward.

I also have re-looked at the data from the evaluation, and it’s not actually universally down. There are a lot of areas where satisfaction went up in the family connections centres, such as physiotherapy. Satisfaction went up. Respite services — satisfaction went up exponentially. Behaviour support services, which largely are services that are utilized for children with autism, went up quite a bit. Life skills support went up quite a bit.

It’s important to note that many of these services that are being delivered in community have not traditionally been delivered before in community-based programming. So families haven’t had the opportunity to access them before in this way.

We also know, based on the evaluation, that one of the biggest factors was the inability for families and parents to have choice and flexibility, which is exactly why we’re delivering the new system the way we’re delivering it.

Reann Gasper: Just for clarity’s sake, what are the pilot communities? What are the communities that were piloted for this?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The four communities were Terrace-Kitimat, Prince Rupert–Haida Gwaii, Kelowna and Smithers–Bulkley Valley.

[1:20 p.m.]

Reann Gasper: Did the ministry conduct additional analysis to determine why satisfaction declined in the pilot communities while increasing everywhere else in the province?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’ll respond to the question, but I also want to take a moment to say that I had the opportunity to visit all four pilot communities and all four family connections centres and really commend the work that these communities did in coming together to provide a really different model of services. I encourage the member opposite, if she has the opportunity, to visit some of these communities to meet with these service providers.

I talked to speech and language pathologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists in places like Terrace and Prince Rupert who were flying up into rural and remote communities and serving Indigenous children who had never in their entire life seen a speech and language pathologist or occupational therapist. These family connections centres truly did teach us a lot about how we expand services in rural remote communities particularly.

I also think that this is a point of clarification on some misinformation. I also have the report here, and it says: “As mentioned above, roughly 73 percent of CYSN family survey respondents in pilot communities accessing services post-transition reported either agreeing or strongly agreeing that they were satisfied with the overall quality, compared with roughly 66 percent of respondents in non-pilot communities accessing services post-transition.”

Reann Gasper: Just as a clarification point, that data was…. What was the poll? What was the amount of people that were polled to collect that data?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to highlight that this is an independent evaluation. We did not conduct the evaluation. It’s posted publicly. The numbers are different by service type, but we can get those numbers and provide them to the member.

What I can, though, also add to that is that the numbers for the pilot communities and the numbers for the non-pilot communities were similar.

Reann Gasper: Yes, I would love that information and to know the difference between the pilot communities and the non-pilot.

What specific changes have been made to the pilot model since that evaluation to ensure that those issues will not occur under a provincewide rollout? I guess, under your findings, what did you find to make the evaluation of that pilot model, the issues that were coming up, so that it would not occur as you developed the provincewide rollout?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to clarify that we are not scaling up or rolling out family connections centres across the province. As I mentioned earlier, family connections centre pilots were just one aspect of what we evaluated.

Again, we learned from speaking to leading psychologists, pediatricians, Dr. Suzanne Lewis from SFU, service providers, families. All of that information informed that there was more support needed — new and increased funding for children with the highest needs, including those who hadn’t received support before; a simpler system; less paperwork; fewer programs to navigate; clearer pathways so that families can focus on their children and not the bureaucracy of invoices and paperwork and everything that some families have to do today; more free, community-based supports across B.C.

I can’t stress this enough. We do have well-established, highly specialized child development centres. For the member’s community, it’s the Fraser Valley Child Development Centre. We have speech and language pathologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists. Those programs have not been invested in. They haven’t seen lifts to funding for those programs and services for decades, so there was a real call to ensure that those services were increased.

Easier access to services close to home, including potentially expanded supports delivered on school grounds…. We are speaking and working across ministries on what ways we can better support children in school and in child care. Flexible options — that came up time and time again. That included increased direct funding and coordinated community-based programming and services.

I think it’s really important to highlight that not every family wants to or has capacity to use direct funding, hire their own people, deal with invoices, manage, be an employer in their home and manage their own team. There are families who really need to be able to go to a community-based program and get support that is tailored to them, that supports them and helps them navigate.

But some families do want access to direct funding, so that’s why we have designed the system we have designed.

[1:30 p.m.]

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer. How many autism service providers were formally consulted before this funding model was announced?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Through the entire engagement process, about 5,000 people engaged in providing feedback. There was a comprehensive call-out to the community across all disability groups and service providers to let them know how and where they could engage.

It was, probably — from my perspective, in the role that I’ve been in and in community previously — the most extensive consultation and engagement process that a government has ever taken. There were abilities for any organization, any professional, any autism service provider to submit their recommendations or a blueprint for what services could or should look like in the future, online. There were multiple opportunities to.

For example, the parents and professionals plan. That was written and created by autism experts, was posted on the ministry’s website, and then there was an open opportunity for people to provide feedback on that plan — things that they liked about the plan, things that they would suggest further or whether they agreed with it or not. That engagement was open for long periods of time.

We had submissions, like I’ve said before, from the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention. All of the organizations that are a part of that provincial body are autism service providers.

The Health Sciences Association made a submission. Health Sciences Association members are — many of them — autism service providers, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists.

So there were a number of autism professionals that participated in the engagement process.

I also just want to reiterate that I’m very proud of the opportunity that was provided to everyone. Anyone — an individual, a family, a service provider, a community group, a provincial association…. Everybody had the opportunity to provide their feedback.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Just as a way of a conversation here, there are over 15,000 signatures saying that they have not been consulted on the process. I’m happy to hear that it was on the ministry website, but we have service providers, community care partners that have felt isolated from the process.

Will the minister commit to publicly releasing the ministry’s internal analysis of the pilot findings so families and service providers can understand how these policy decisions were made?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think I answered this earlier, but the ministry hired an external group to do the evaluation, and that evaluation is posted publicly.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister.

Yesterday in estimates, we spent considerable time discussing the workforce responsible for delivering services funded through MCFD. Those discussions highlighted the importance of ensuring that the systems and policy this ministry develops can actually be carried out by the people responsible for delivering those services on the ground.

According to the ministry’s own transition binder and other oversight reports examining conditions in the social service sector, workforce pressures remain one of the most significant challenges affecting service delivery.

The Representative for Children and Youth, in No Time to Wait reports released in 2024 and 2025, describes a system facing persistent staffing shortages, heavy caseloads and significant strain on front-line workers. At the same time, the ministry’s evaluation of the CYSN pilot program identified recruitment and retention of quality staff as one of the most significant barriers to implementing the new service approach.

These findings are particularly relevant as the government moves forward with changes to the children and youth with support needs system. Many of the services that families rely on for children with autism and other developmental conditions are delivered by specialized clinicians, including speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists and behavioural specialists.

Practitioners across British Columbia have indicated that shortages in these professions already limit access to services in many communities. When a system already faces challenges recruiting and retaining specialized professionals, expanding demand for those services requires careful planning to ensure that families are not left waiting for supports that may not yet exist. If workforce capacity is not aligned with the policy changes before being introduced, the risk is that families may face longer wait times or reduced access to services even as expectation for the new system increases.

Can the minister indicate how many speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists and behavioural specialists currently provide services funded through the CYSN system?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The member touches on a challenge in our communities with recruitment and retention that is felt not just in this sector but across the board.

I will say that the short answer to your question about numbers is that we don’t have that number. But I can confidently say that the model itself is designed exactly for the reason that the member brings up. Allowing for families to have choice and flexibility with direct funding means not all families are going to be spending their funding on the same thing.

Not all children are going to require or families are going to be looking at speech and language pathology, for example. They may choose a different type of service to use their funding for. Some families may say, “I really want my child to have support in this city camp that’s happening,” and they can choose to use their funding in that way. That is the real promise of the new model with respect to having that flexibility of funding and community-based services.

There are also really important points around innovations that are currently happening in this sector with respect to team-based care. As a really clear, concrete example, right now, for a family who has a child with autism, their home team might look like having a behaviour consultant and then a couple behaviour interventionists who are paraprofessionals that work under that consultant. That’s a way to expand the hours that a child receives of direct intervention.

So expanding community-based care to include those types of models of service will support other children who have not had access to those types of services before.

We could have a speech and language pathologist in community-based programming working alongside a speech-language therapy assistant. The speech-language pathologist creates the program. The assistant works one-on-one with the child more often than when the speech-language pathologist might work with that child. So you can expand more hours. It’s a highly utilized model of support and really effective.

We also are growing the workforce faster by doing things in our programming like offering practicums and having…. There’s an example in the B.C. Centre for Ability where they have student-led therapy workshops. Students have the ability to go to the B.C. Centre for Ability and do an entire workshop for children.

We do all kinds of things around recruitment and retention by going to post-secondary institutions and really showcasing pediatrics so that students are interested in working in pediatrics.

There is a student loan forgiveness program for therapists, and I had a number of therapists who stayed in public community programming for at least five years because their student loans were being forgiven.

[1:45 p.m.]

There’s also work that we’ve done — careful, considered consultation with the sector and with service providers about these workforce issues. That’s why we’re taking a phased approach to the implementation of the programming.

Autism funding remains to be delivered over the next year. We will continue, and our investments in community-based programming are over a couple of years. That’s how we will phase in and make sure that we’re increasing the workforce.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

How many additional clinicians does the ministry estimate will be required once the new funding model is fully implemented?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’m going to give a couple of examples. How we measure the workforce is through full-time-equivalents, FTEs. This year we are adding 75 FTEs to the suite of community-based programming. We know that will serve approximately an additional 4,000 children. That’s just this year.

That example of how we’re doing that this year is a part of the deep, thoughtful engagement that we’ve done with the sector and community-based programming and how we will phase that in over the next couple of years.

[1:50 p.m.]

We know our contracts are based on deliverables, so in working with the sector, those contracts will outline what types of services are delivered, how many hours of service are delivered and how many children are supported and receiving services through those expansions so that we have a really good idea of how many new children we can foresee receiving services in the new system and the FTEs that it will take to serve those children.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Has the ministry completed a workforce capacity analysis specifically for autism and developmental services before announcing these policy changes? If the analysis exists, will the minister make that information available so families and service providers can understand the planning behind the transition?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We wouldn’t do a workforce analysis around a singular diagnosis. We look at a variety of pieces of data that inform how we move forward to better meet the needs of children and families. We monitor disability rights. We look at prevalence rates, which are fairly stable and predictable. We have data in our Ministry of Education around numbers of children in that system that have different categories of diagnoses.

The way that we look at how we plan for service or how we monitor what’s needed in the system is through things like children who are waiting for services. Are families using all of their direct funding? We have an ability to see, for families right now who have children with autism that receive direct funding, if they are using all of their direct funding.

[1:55 p.m.]

The money that we provide communities, the funding that we budget for, is based on staffing and programming. It’s a collaborative exercise with the sector and with the community providers who collect a lot of data around the number of service hours they’re providing, the number of staff that they have, the number of children they see per day — all of those things. All of that together informs how we plan for programs and services that would impact the workforce.

Reann Gasper: What specific recruitment strategies are being used to ensure that rural and northern communities will have access to these specialized services?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A number of really exciting things actually, I think, this new rollout provides for rural and remote communities.

First and foremost, the hybrid approach. The expansion of individualized funding to families in rural remote communities who have never had it before will be transformational. For those families to be able to use that funding in a variety of ways, including therapies…. It could include things like respite. Again, as I mentioned, if there’s an activity or a camp in any community that a family wants their child to have support in, they can use the individualized funding that way.

A couple of things on the recruitment front. There are strong partnerships with UNBC. There are career fairs that child development centres participate in, in those colleges and universities to recruit OTs, PTs — things like that. We have a lot of different options, also, in the ways that we support rural and remote communities with the new rollout of a different system.

[2:00 p.m.]

The family connections centre in Smithers, for example, has a partnership with the Yukon to provide services and outreach therapies to Atlin, which is probably one of the most remote communities in our province.

I mentioned before about travelling therapy teams. Denisiqi in Williams Lake has a travelling therapy bus that drives to Indigenous communities and provides therapy for families in those communities who have never received it before. The new model offers an opportunity to use that model team-based care approach, where you can really expand the expertise of a clinician with paraprofessionals so that families in those communities receive more service and the most effective types of services that they can receive.

We have expanded virtual options for families in rural and remote communities. We also have a pediatric therapy outreach team that flies to different communities across the province that are hard to reach or that don’t necessarily have specialties in their communities. We have a really great partnership with the B.C. Centre for Ability, which goes and supports northern communities with capacity if they don’t have the therapists that they need. There are real, tangible, innovative ways that we can make sure we’re stretching our resources and reaching as many communities as possible.

There were a couple of things from yesterday that I just wanted to read into the record that the member had asked for follow-ups on.

The first was the 12 tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 contracting reform priorities that I committed to reading into the record — so the 12 priorities of the social services contracting committee.

One, tier 1, alignment of stakeholder engagement. The status of that is complete.

Two, tier 1, opportunities for multi-year contract terms. The status of that is complete, and I would say many organizations are very happy about that.

Three, tier 1, cybersecurity and secure data sharing is in progress still.

Four, from tier 1, timing for contract review and approvals is complete.

Five, tier 2, build in local knowledge and community connectedness in evaluation criteria is in progress.

Six, tier 2, operating cost assumptions and non-compensation issues is in progress.

Seven, tier 2, provincial consistency and contracting approaches for social services is not started.

Eight, tier 3, funding allocations is not started.

Nine, tier 3, consistency and quality assurance in the contracting process is not started.

Ten, tier 3, new solicitation approaches is in progress.

Eleven, tier 3, operating cost assumptions compensation is not started.

Twelve, tier 3, timing for responses to solicitation opportunities is in progress.

Again, the priorities were co-developed with the sector through the committee. Each priority is assigned to a working group with both the sector and the ministry to review and provide recommendations. Numbers five, ten and 12 are being worked on in one group, examining the solicitation process and opportunities as a whole.

That was one follow-up. The second follow-up was around former youth in care. How many kids go to post-secondary education? There is actually a report available that I can provide to the member, How Are We Doing: Educational Outcomes of Children and Youth in Care and Former Children and Youth in Care. We can provide that to the member.

And then I will ask for just a break, please.

The Chair: The committee will recess for seven minutes, which means you’ll be back in your chairs at 2:11 p.m. on my watch, please and thank you.

The committee recessed from 2:04 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. Yes, we are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Reann Gasper: We’re going to move on to a new section.

A central feature of the government’s recent announcement regarding children and youth with support needs is the expansion of community-based services intended to support children with developmental and behavioural needs. According to the ministry’s materials, this expansion will be supported by approximately $80 million over three years and will focus on services such as behavioural supports, pediatric therapies, navigation services and programming for older children and youth.

Expanding access to community services is a goal that many families and practitioners share. However, the effectiveness of this investment, ultimately, depends on whether it results in the clinical capacity required to deliver those services across the province.

During recent discussions with practitioners and service providers, many clinicians raised concerns about existing workforce shortages in key professions such as speech-language pathology, occupational therapy and behavioural intervention. These professionals are essential to delivering the types of supports that the CYSN system is designed to provide.

When the availability of those professionals is limited, service expansion becomes dependent not only on funding but on the ability of the system to recruit, retain and deploy specialized staff. If the number of clinicians available to deliver services does not increase alongside new funding commitments, families find that announced expansions do not translate into improved access to services in practice.

For families navigating developmental challenges, the difference between a funding announcement and an available clinician can determine whether a child receives timely intervention or remains on a wait-list. For that reason, it is important to understand how the ministry expects this investment to translate into real service capacity across British Columbia.

How many additional clinicians does the ministry expect the $80 million investment to support across the province?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to first start by just saying the challenges in our system currently are also there because of lack of investments, so community-based organizations have not had the opportunity to increase their workforce for quite some time.

Since the pause in 2022-2023, we did provide communities with funding for more FTEs — about 90. Organizations showed that they were able to staff their agencies to provide increased support to families through that investment over those years.

It is also why we’re taking a phased approach and why we are delivering $80 million over the next three years so that organizations can build capacity. We do want to increase capacity in free community-based programming. That came out loud and clear in the engagement process. Just as we have had deep, strong, collaborative relationships and discussions with community-based service providers up to this point, we will continue that through the rollout of the increased FTEs.

I mentioned that this fiscal year, so starting April 1, there will be additional funding for 75 FTEs. Again, that’s a combination of staffing and programming. In working with our community providers, we’ll ensure that there are clear programs and service deliverables in contracts that outline how we’re going to better support and serve children and youth with disabilities.

Reann Gasper: How many speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists and behavioural specialists are currently delivering services funded through the CYSN system?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I would just want some clarity. Our entire CYSN system currently includes autism funding, at-home program funding and our community-based services.

With individualized funding and direct funding, we wouldn’t necessarily have access to…. Those are largely private providers, and how families choose to use their money is of their choice. So it would be difficult for us to access and compile all of that data and information.

I would just want clarity. Is the member just asking in our community-based services?

Reann Gasper: Yes, in your community-based.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We don’t have the exact number and statistic with us right now, but we can get it. I would just expand, though, and say that every single local service area, every community, has a child development centre or an organization that delivers child development programming. That contract is designed around community need and population.

Service levels…. We would have speech-language service hours that would be required for a particular community and PT hours that would be required for a particular community. Those are designed, like I said, based on the population, based on the community and based on what have been identified as the needs in those communities. We can pull those up and provide that to the member.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for that. That would be awesome.

How many community agencies across British Columbia currently provide pediatric therapy services funded through the CYSN program?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We did post this on our website as well, in the “Community-based service” section, which lists every organization in each community that delivers not just pediatric therapies but also supported child development, infant development, FASD key worker programming, family support.

One of the really wonderful things about our community-based programming is that they are wraparound supports and services. There are 49 that are all listed on the website.

[2:25 p.m.]

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Will the ministry track and publicly report whether the $80 million investment results in measurable reductions in service wait times for families?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are a number of performance indicators that are written into our contracts and our contract deliverables with organizations that deliver therapies, family services. All of those things are written into the contracts.

Also, as a part of my mandate, we are working collaboratively across ministries on a comprehensive child and youth well-being plan and, accompanying that, an outcomes framework that looks at well-being of children and being able to demonstrate that we are making progress on the well-being of children.

As a part of that work, we’ll…. Looking at how we’re delivering these programs and services, how they show up for children and families and what those outcomes are will be collected from those contracts. The reporting requirements from those organizations, which include number of children served, the collection of wait-time data — all of that will be included.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for that. I think it’s just important to have that worked into that contract so we can track and be accountable. We’re going to move on.

Yesterday in this committee, we spent time discussing the challenges the ministry faces in recruiting and retaining staff across the province, particularly in small and remote communities. Those workforce realities are particularly relevant when we examine how services for children with support needs are delivered outside of major urban centres. British Columbia’s geography presents unique challenges for service delivery. Many families live in communities where access to these specialized clinicians is limited and where services may be available periodically or through travelling providers.

The ministry’s own evaluation of the CYSN pilot program noted that travel costs and the availability of specialized professionals must be accounted for when designing service models intended to operate in rural and remote regions. In some areas of the province, families may rely on only one or two specialists to serve large geographic regions. In those circumstances, accessing therapy or behavioural supports can involve significant travel, long wait times or limited provider options.

When services are expanded through community-based models, ensuring equitable access across the province becomes particularly important. A program that functions well in large urban centres may face very different challenges in smaller communities where workforce shortages and geographic distances are more pronounced.

For families raising children with developmental needs, access to services must reflect the realities of where they live. Ensuring that rural communities are not left behind requires careful planning to address both workforce availability and the practical barriers families face when seeking support.

[2:30 p.m.]

Can the minister indicate how many communities in British Columbia currently lack local access to specialized services such as behavioural intervention, speech-language therapy or occupational therapy?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I commented a little bit on this in previous answers, but I want to just emphasize that every single community in our province is served by an organization that delivers these services. For example, in Williams Lake, there’s the Cariboo Chilcotin Child Development Centre Association. They work in partnership with Denisiqi.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called in the main chamber. This committee will take a recess and return to business when the division is concluded.

The committee recessed from 2:33 p.m. to 2:50 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I believe that prior to us having to leave for a vote, we were talking about capacity in rural and remote communities in British Columbia or how many communities have services in British Columbia. The quick answer is that all communities are served by organizations that might serve the region.

Some examples are the Cariboo Chilcotin Child Development Centre Association. They have a partnership with Denisiqi. Denisiqi — I mentioned it earlier that their outreach therapy bus is a really amazing bus. I went on it. They have swings and equipment — PT equipment, OT equipment. They serve 13 First Nations around Williams Lake and the Cariboo-Chilcotin area. Their current caseload is over 80 children who have never accessed services before.

Other organizations like the Northern Rockies Child Development Association serve the Peace region — the South Peace Child Development Society, Thompson Nicola Family Resource Society. We have organizations all over the province that serve rural and remote communities.

In addition to those organizations, we have expanded our mobile teams and expanded our teams in the Lower Mainland that may have a larger capacity to support rural and remote communities.

Where appropriate, we utilize virtual care. What that might look like, for example, is that a speech and language therapist working in Terrace might provide virtual support assessment or evaluation, and then a behaviour interventionist or speech-language assistant would work in a different community based on virtual consultation. That model can work really well in communities that are hard to reach or hard to recruit.

We have the benefit of technology to help support those communities better than they’ve ever been supported before. Those are just a couple of ways that we provide services in rural communities.

Reann Gasper: I know it’s coming up with creative ways of how we service communities that are remote and rural. I feel like, though, online assessment could be really hard, especially in this community, because a hands-on approach is so important to these children when it comes to diagnosing them and then helping them in their treatment.

Has the ministry assessed how travel costs and geographic barriers affect access to services under the CYSN model?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to clarify my previous answer. When I used the term “assessment,” I didn’t necessarily mean a clinical assessment, like an assessment for autism or an assessment for a diagnosis. There are a number of assessments that happen in delivery of services for children on an ongoing basis. A clinician could make an assessment by watching a video around how a child is using a pencil, for example. I meant the term “assessment” more broadly, not necessarily on a specific diagnostic assessment.

As far as travel costs, those costs are all included in our contracts. When we contract with an organization, travel costs are included. They would vary, based on the community and the travel costs that are incurred. Many organizations also have staff who are part of collective agreements. Collective agreements outline mileage costs and things like that.

The expansion of direct funding for families means, also, that families who have never had access to direct funding will, and that will support travel costs that are incurred. That direct funding — they’re able to use it more flexibly.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I’m just going to go a little fast because I know our time is quickly approaching. What specific safeguards are in place to ensure that children currently receiving autism services will not experience interruptions in care during the transition to the new funding model?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: First and foremost, the most important thing is that autism funding is remaining for the entirety of the next year. The way autism funding works currently is that it is distributed based on a child’s birthday. For example, if a child’s birthday is, let’s just say, February, the child’s new funding year would have started March 1.

[3:00 p.m.]

For that same child, the funding will continue to be delivered, based on how it is currently delivered, all the way up until March 31 of next year. That year gives us time to work with families to engage in that phased approach, which I talked about earlier, with community service providers to identify families who also will be directly admitted to our benefit program.

We already know that there’s a group of children with autism who automatically are eligible for the benefit program. And it’s really important to note that a third of the children with autism currently receiving autism funding are actually going to receive more funding in the new system, and most of the children with autism in our current system will continue to receive direct funding.

Those families who have an adjusted net income of over $200,000 a year will be supported in our community-based programming. That phased approach that we’re taking and the immediate investment this year of the 75 FTEs will help support us with that phased approach.

Reann Gasper: Will families be permitted to continue working with their existing service providers during the transition period?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes.

Reann Gasper: How will the ministry support families who fall between income thresholds and the cost of privately funded therapies?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Can I just ask for some clarity? I’m not sure that I understand the question.

Reann Gasper: I think families are looking to know, within the income brackets, thresholds…. There’s a certain amount of income that will put them in a different category for the privately funded, because of course, if your income is over $200,000, then you go to the hubs. So they’re wondering: if they need private therapy, what does that look like under this new model?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think the member has highlighted a really important issue. We can’t control the private market, and we can’t control costs of private providers. So that is why we are investing heavily in community-based services and ensuring that our publicly funded community-based services have more programming available, more clinicians available, more team-based care available.

[3:05 p.m.]

The opportunities for community-based providers to deliver things like social skills groups, employment readiness programs for youth, mental wellness programs for children who are neurodivergent…. Those types of programming in community-based services are, as we know, very beneficial, particularly for children who have an autism diagnosis that have more moderate needs who may not be captured in the supplement in ways that they were receiving direct funding before.

Also, the positive aspect of the supplement is that it goes directly to families, directly into their bank account, so they can use it much more flexibly, spend much less time on administration. Announcing that we would roll that out was based on the feedback families provided.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister. I think she can understand that is scary for parents. That’s the feedback.

Will the ministry track and publicly report whether access to autism services declines during the transition program?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Over this next year of transition, we will be able to track utilization of funding. We will be able to track the transition to the benefit program. We will be able to track utilization of services in our community-based programming. We already track those things, so we will be able to track them during the transition and the ways that we have access to the data, moving forward, after next year.

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I’m going to move on.

Many children with developmental and behavioural needs are supported not only within their families but through placements arranged by this ministry. Reports examining outcomes for children receiving protection services have consistently shown that developmental and behavioural challenges are more common among this population.

Children who are living in foster homes or kinship placements may require a combination of supports, including developmental services, behavioural intervention and mental health care. Foster parents and kinship caregivers often rely on access to these specialized services in order to provide stable and supportive homes for the children placed with them.

When those services are difficult to access, the strain does not fall only on the child. It also affects the caregivers who are working to provide stability and continuity in the child’s life. Ensuring that children receiving ministry-supported care have reliable access to developmental services is, therefore, essential not only for their individual well-being but also for maintaining stable placements.

As the ministry introduces changes to the CYSN system, it is important to understand how those changes may affect children who are already receiving care through protection and placement programs. These children depend on many of the same services as other children, but they may face additional barriers when navigating access to supports.

[3:10 p.m.]

When developmental needs are not addressed early, the impact can extend beyond the child to the broader systems responsible for supporting them.

Can the minister indicate whether children receiving care through ministry-supported placements, who have autism or other developmental disabilities, will receive priority access to community-based CYSN services?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I really want to highlight that this issue is one of the issues that is why it is so important for us to move to a needs-based system and not a diagnosis-only system of providing direct financial support.

The very children and youth who are at risk for coming into care because of their challenging and complex needs are children from families who never received direct funding before — children who are on special needs agreements with the ministry, typically because families are overwhelmed and have not received the direct benefits that families will receive in our new system. I think that that’s a real bright light of the change that we’re making — that a child today will receive drastically more throughout their childhood than they would’ve received previously.

I’m pretty passionate about this issue. I’ve talked publicly about personally having a child with autism with moderate needs. But I have a niece who has significant, challenging disabilities; needs a wheelchair, a feeding tube; cannot walk; cannot talk; and has severe self-injurious behaviour. In our current system, based on a singular diagnosis, my child has received more direct funding than my niece. That is a system that just fundamentally is unfair and does not work.

Just to expand, for children who are in care currently, who have developmental disabilities, behavioural disabilities, they will receive the same supports as children in non-care. A child with Down syndrome who today is in care will receive the direct funding that non-in-care children will receive. Any child with autism in care who may not qualify for a direct benefit will receive priority access into community-based programming.

I think that we could probably do some analysis and know that the vast majority of children in care would qualify if they have a functional need for either the supplement or the benefit.

[3:15 p.m.]

Reann Gasper: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

How many children currently receiving care through the ministry placements have been identified as having autism or other neurodevelopmental conditions requiring specialized support?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We don’t have that number on us readily right now, but we do know how many children in care receive autism funding. We can provide that information to you.

Reann Gasper: Has the ministry conducted an analysis on how access to developmental services affects placement stability for children receiving protection services?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’m going to ask that we come back to the question.

We’re just checking on a couple of things, but if we can move to another question, then we’ll look at some of our data and come back.

[3:20 p.m.]

Reann Gasper: I am nearing the end of my time. It has been a privilege to stand here and ask you many questions for the clarity of parents and community providers.

I have just a one-page.

As you know, I had hosted two town halls with over 500 parents and community providers that attended. I was pretty moved and impacted by that, simply because they are concerned — real families trying to navigate a system that feels stretched before any changes are made.

One parent described waiting three years just for an autism assessment before their child could access support.

Another family in a rural community explained that if their current providers disappear, the nearest services could require four hours of driving in a single day just to attend therapy.

Other parents told us that they may be forced into debt just to maintain therapists for their children before losing those relationships, which would mean starting over with people that don’t know their child. We all know, like the minister quotes: “If you meet one child with autism, you meet one child with autism.” That relationship and connection and consistency is so important.

Families are worried about being pushed towards the federal disability tax credit, where some are already paying hundreds of dollars just for doctors to complete the paperwork, with no guarantee of approval.

Service providers warned us that community programs are offering wages far below private sector rates, meaning experienced therapists may leave and children could be left with constant turnover in care. I know the minister talked about looking at incentives to keep our clinicians employed and attract qualified people to this sector.

Parents told us that for some children, therapy funded today is the only reason that they can attend school and daycare successfully. We know that if a child can get care early on, it just opens a world of possibility.

Others pointed out that private autism assessments can cost between $3,500 to $6,000, raising concerns that fewer families may pursue diagnosis if support becomes harder to access. They may not pursue diagnosis.

Meanwhile, public services are already under strain. One parent described receiving only one therapy appointment per month while another noted that Sunny Hill currently has wait-lists for up to three years.

Indigenous service providers raised concerns that centralized hubs may not work for rural Indigenous communities that need culturally grounded services delivered locally.

Many parents expressed fear that children with level 1 or level 2 autism may now be considered not severe enough for support, even though those children still struggle every day.

These paint a picture of the real-life stories and the real-life journeys that our parents across British Columbia are walking.

I know, as the minister has shared, her desire to allow this model, whatever it looks like, to benefit more than just a few children in B.C. but all of the children that need the support. I think that together, as we listen to parents and community providers, we can provide something that families are happy with.

I know it’s not an easy fix, and I know it’s not a tomorrow fix. I know it’s a journey. We will continue to advocate. We will continue to bring that forward to the ministry — as we hear, on the ground, what parents are experiencing — in a way that moves everybody forward, because that’s really at the heart of this.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they’d like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Sure. Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank my critic, the member for Abbotsford-Mission, for her care and attention through the estimates.

[3:25 p.m.]

Her closing remarks are not lost on me. I appreciate her passion for Children and Families. I am more than willing and would work collaboratively with the member. My office door is open. I know that the staff are willing to provide information and I’m willing to provide information, at any point in time. I appreciate the questions that have been asked today and yesterday.

The opportunity that I have in this role is, as I mentioned earlier, one of a lifetime and a privilege that I take incredibly seriously. Hearing stories from families is what drives me in this role — not just families who have children with autism but families all across our province who have children with varying needs.

I know that redesigning a system is incredibly difficult when a system has been built and delivered for so many years. Over the last number of months, when looking at the reports, the feedback and the engagement that were provided, I had those pieces of feedback and what parents and families and service providers had provided in that engagement at the centre of what I was listening to.

I have a lens, a lived experience in this province, of being a parent and an aunt and a service provider in community, delivering services. I have worked with many families who have children with autism. I spent years on living-room floors, delivering therapy myself.

So I don’t take these changes lightly. I am proud of being able to be a part of redesigning a system that I do truly believe, in my heart and in my soul, will be better in years to come for families.

I do rest my head on my pillow at night reflecting on the work that we do here and the incredible work that our public service does to ensure that we are doing everything possible with our policies, with our funding, with our practice, with our staff, to ensure we’re moving forward in ways that are about continuous quality improvement, continuous listening, learning and adjusting. I have made a commitment to experts, service providers and parents to walk alongside them in this transition year and, as we move forward, to deliver better.

I appreciate the member’s passion, and I appreciate her also wanting to provide correct and accurate information for families so that they know that they are eligible for programs and services so that they can get connected to the things in their communities that they need.

I think we don’t need more anxiety and fear around this particular issue. Families have enough that they’re dealing with. We need to make sure that they are getting the information. We are committed to ensuring that our website continues to be up to date, that we’re continuing to answer emails and that we’re continuing to do robust outreach so that everybody has accurate information.

I thank the member for those closing comments, and I thank her for the time that we spent together.

I want to thank the team that has been here over the last two days. They have big jobs and big responsibilities to deliver programs and services to all corners of the province and worked really hard to ensure we had all of the information we needed during these estimates. I appreciate the support they provide me and the support that they provide to our child protection workers, to our team leads, to the organizations that deliver services in our community.

[3:30 p.m.]

We are doing incredibly important work with respect to Indigenous jurisdiction. We have our very first Indigenous child welfare director, who’s doing crucially important work supporting Indigenous communities, and I’m grateful for his stewardship.

I am grateful to all of the people in our ministry, and it has been a privilege to be able to do this work today and yesterday.

With that, I guess I’m done estimates.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister and Members. Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $2,711,928,000 — approved.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I move the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

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

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call this Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $406,398,000 (continued).

The Chair: Do you have opening remarks?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: No opening remarks.

We’re going to continue the fun this afternoon. I really enjoyed the back and forth with my colleague a couple of days ago.

Maybe just very briefly…. I hope my colleague will indulge me, because I know he’ll know this name almost as well, if not more than me.

This past fall we lost a true pillar in our forestry community at a national level, international level and local level. That’s Leo Gerard. This afternoon, back east, Steelworkers are going to be honouring the life of Leo Gerard. I know with the House in session, my colleagues are unable to be there to be able to participate in honouring a man who is a larger-than-life character.

A boy from Sudbury who was raised in a mining family, who spent time working on the shop floors to leading an international organization, Leo comes from mining but spent a lifetime fighting for forestry workers in every corner of this country across North America. In particular, as we deal with the challenges of duties and tariffs, I think of Leo Gerard and the strength that he showed over the course of the last 20, 30 years in our countless battles as Canadians with the Americans.

I just want to take the opportunity, being that many friends are not going to be watching the House but will be honouring the life of a good man who did so much for forestry workers and for workers from coast to coast to coast and, in fact, all over North America.

I committed to getting some answers for the member across the way to some questions that he raised. I’ll be happy to follow up in writing with some of these specifics as well. The member across the way asked for some fire salvage details.

In 2024, there was 3.1 million cubic metres of wildfire salvage available. We harvested 2.7 million that year, and that includes volume from the previous year’s fires as well. There is still an additional 512,000 in 2024 that is permitted, just waiting to be harvested.

In 2025, there was 1.653 million. Of that, 1.2 million was harvested last year. I guess 2025 is last year. That includes volume from previous year’s fires as well. There’s 423,320 that is, again, similarly permitted, ready to be harvested as well.

The global number, if I add the two years up — just to give my colleague a little bit of help with that — is 4.654 million for 2024-2025, 3.9 million of which was harvested and about 935,330 cubic metres that is permitted and ready to go, which, I think, will show the member that we’re actually doing quite well in terms of our ability to be able to speed up salvaging work that we’ve been doing in the forest service.

We can’t provide information on the grades of salvage, because when salvaging wildfire-damaged timber, the heaviest-damaged part of the trees tends to be bucked out and left in the bush. As such, wildfire-damaged timber is usually put in the same scaling sample population as green wood from unburnt stands. This makes it impossible to tell grades.

Then finally, Interior cruising policy doesn’t tally log grades, since stumpage is based on lumber, not log.

The only other piece the member had raised when we last met on Tuesday was around CRI funding and the question around applications that have come in. Since 2019, 280 communities — 132 First Nations and 148 local governments — across B.C. have applied and been approved funding through FireSmart community funding and supports.

We’ll follow that up in a letter to the member across the way.

[1:10 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for those updates.

I was just going back through some of the transcripts that we had on our previous meeting on Tuesday. I just wanted to pick up again on some of the closures that we had.

I wasn’t trying to be like a member of Congress when they always put up things in the background when they want to say something, but I just wanted to show everybody that this is a map of all the facilities that have closed since 2014.

The Chair: Member. Member, we’re not allowed to have props.

Ward Stamer: Oh. I won’t be putting it up then.

The Chair: Thank you.

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: No Congress members.

The Chair: Continue.

Ward Stamer: All right. Well, thanks for that, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to show everybody that it wasn’t just the sheer number of them. It was all over the province. I wasn’t trying to make a point on anything like that and no disrespect to the minister. I just wanted to show that it’s all over the province. It wasn’t just the total number.

The number is 25 since 2017, under this government’s mandate, and the previous ones were in the past. But I just wanted to bring that up to everyone’s attention, that it’s all over the province — not just in the North, not just in the south, not just on Vancouver Island. It’s the whole province that is suffering from a downturn in the forest industry.

What I wanted to ask I asked the minister last on Tuesday when we talked about supports and different mechanisms that there are available to workers that are laid-off, whether it’s temporary or it’s permanent, in our forest industry.

When we talked about…. The minister likes using the word “transition,” and that’s fine. But I’m going to read a couple of things that came forth to my attention, just to give us a little bit of clarity on what we’re talking about.

On some of these recent closures, particularly 100 Mile, the one in Crofton and also the one in Chemainus, which was a curtailment as of, I believe, July of 2025 and is now extended over a period of time…. We’ll get into the meat of that.

But what I wanted to bring to the minister’s attention is that one of the only main support mechanisms that is available now is EI. I mean, when we look through the documents back from the previous…. Even 2021, there were significant support mechanisms that were offered specifically to forest workers, not just all the workers, in British Columbia.

The minister is right in the assertion that there are other ministries to help lessen the load when people are laid-off, but there were specific support systems for forestry workers that no longer exist.

So now with the EI, what’s happening with EI…. There are a couple of things. I’m sure the minister is aware of this, but I just wanted to bring it up for review. Many of these EI payments are going to be coming due. They’re going to be running out. I know the one in Chemainus, I understand, is running out at the end of March.

There are questions that I have to the minister in regards to severance. Because Western Forest Products has only done indefinite curtailment, they don’t believe that they have to pay severance. Many of the workers believe that they do. So I’d like clarification on that question.

I also would like, discussing with EI…. This was a letter that was actually sent to the Prime Minister by one of the union presidents. Basically, what it spells out is the second issue of EI on the temporary measures:

“The federal government introduced important supports, which include waiving the one-week waiting period and suspending separation payment rules until April 11, 2026, for claims starting in March 2025.

“In addition, long-tenured workers were granted up to 20 additional weeks of benefit up to a maximum of 65 weeks for claims beginning in June of 2025. These measures were intended to provide stability during periods of economic disruption, particularly those related to tariff impacts.

“While these changes are positive and necessary, a significant concern remains. The second round of layoffs at the Crofton Mill is scheduled for April 13, 2026, just two days after these temporary EI measures expire. As a result, affected workers may miss access to critical supports through no fault of their own.

“This timing is creating substantial and unnecessary anxiety for workers and their families. We are therefore asking that these EI extensions be continued to ensure workers impacted by the Crofton Mill closure are not excluded from essential supports due to an arbitrary timing gap.”

[1:15 p.m.]

That’s another question that I’d like to bring to the minister’s attention because I know that he has been in discussion with his federal counterparts on exactly this issue.

One of the things that came up in discussions that we’ve had on this side is: has the minister had an opportunity to speak not only with his federal counterparts, because there are tax implications federally, but also with the Finance Minister to look at opportunities to possibly waive the tax portion of the EI benefits, knowing that the EI benefit only represents 55 percent of the gross wages and everything about EI is taxable?

We also know that with WCB, there’s short term and long term, but of course, all the WCB benefits are tax-free. So I’m asking the minister if he has had the conversations with his federal counterpart to see if there are opportunities for workers in the forest industry to be able to waive that portion, depending on what the timeline is in that benefit package.

Also to the Minister of Finance: what could those implications be if we did the same in British Columbia?

Because not only is there an incredible amount of uncertainty in this industry right now…. I’m sure that some of the mills that have curtailed their operations have done it because of economic reasons. But at the same time, they may want to have a look at that opportunity, going forward, to restart that mill.

There are costs associated with that, I understand, but for the workers right now, they’re left in limbo. Talking to somebody who has worked at that mill in Chemainus for 34 years…. Now what is that person supposed to do? They’re 55 years of age.

We know there’s some job training available, but there are no other jobs, necessarily, in that region. So that person is asking me: what are they supposed to do? Their EI is going to be running out. They didn’t get a severance package. It’s very tight for himself and his family, as it is for families throughout the region.

I’m hoping the minister can clear up a couple of those questions and we can move forward.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member opposite talked about closures over the course of the B.C. NDP’s time in government. I think it’s important for us to not just look at the last eight or nine years. If we want to look from 2001 to 2017, there were over 100 sawmills that closed. We lost 45,000 direct jobs, over 100,000 indirect jobs.

The member opposite has heard me talk about that in question period, just as he has relayed the numbers back to me. I think the question we have to ask ourselves is: why are we losing sawmills? There’s a fundamental problem in this industry. I hope the member opposite will agree, and I know he will agree because he comes from the forest sector.

We have to transform this sector. This is not about a transition. This is about acknowledging that the status quo does not work for forestry anymore. We need a fundamental transformation to ensure that no worker is ever put in this position ever again.

The situation around President Trump and the tariffs, at some point, will go away because that man’s term will end. We will continue to face issues with the United States around duties, I would expect. Even if we solve the issue tomorrow, it will come up again in a few years’ time.

So we have to fundamentally transform the sector. We have to get more value. We have to get more out of our logs here, more out of our fibre. I’m committed to doing that, and I know the member opposite is as well. That’s a big piece of our work over the course of the next year, trying to stabilize the sector but also putting in the hard work to transform the sector as well.

[1:20 p.m.]

The member opposite raises really important questions pertaining to worker supports for people in 100 Mile, Chemainus and Crofton. He has noted the impacts of the closures of the mills in Crofton and 100 Mile while also acknowledging the indefinite curtailment at Chemainus. I want to assure the member that I’m working very hard with Western Forest Products to better understand the issues that face the Chemainus mill.

The member will know very well that we have had a strike on Vancouver Island over the course of the last nine months, which has had an impact on fibre supply from one TFL in particular. We can certainly get into that.

To the member’s questions around Chemainus and Crofton and for those workers, in terms of EI, the member opposite will know that myself and my colleague the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction have been working very hard to advocate — alongside Geoff Dawe, who’s the president of PPWC, and Brian Butler, who’s the local president of the United Steelworkers for coastal British Columbia — to encourage the federal government to extend EI.

I can advise the member that last week both my colleague the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and I met with the federal minister responsible for EI, a minister by the name of Patty Hajdu.

Minister Hajdu was here in British Columbia last week announcing the agreement being signed between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada on a labour market development agreement, which leads to $70 million in funding being provided to the government of British Columbia to be able roll out more supports — workers’ transition supports, community transition supports, training supports.

I can assure the member opposite that I’ll be working with my colleague who holds that $70 million in funding to ensure that, for forestry workers here in British Columbia, we can get the supports out.

I know the member opposite and I will agree that…. Some of the workers that I’m most concerned about, that we don’t often hear enough about, are the contractors and loggers in these situations. I have a lot of time for those millworkers, as we should, and want to ensure that we have support for them, but I also want to ensure that our contractors and loggers don’t get lost in this as well.

That’s why the forest employment program was so critical when we faced these challenges back in 2018, when we really saw the impact of the end of the pine beetle kill in the interior and the north of our province. So I’m going to be very committed to working with my colleague the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction to ensure that we get those supports out.

To the member’s question specifically around EI, the tax piece, we’re having conversations with the federal government. The federal government just needs to extend to ensure that those workers are captured. We’ve certainly received good feedback, but I will be heading to Ottawa in two weeks, and rest assured, I will be raising this issue.

The mayor of the local government of North Cowichan as well as the Steelworkers president Brian Butler have written a letter. The member opposite may have a copy of that letter. I want to assure the member opposite that by end of day today, I will be sending a letter as well, because I’ll be heading up to the mid-Island tomorrow to participate in some events and some conferences and some meetings as well.

I want those Steelworkers who have been impacted by the indefinite curtailment at Chemainus to know that the government of British Columbia is going to hold the federal government accountable to ensure that the necessary EI changes are made, to ensure that they are captured.

The minister committed to taking that message from Jeff Bromley — who participated in the meeting between myself and the other minister, with Minister Hajdu. We’re going to continue making that commitment, making that case to the federal government that they need to step up and ensure those workers are supported, in addition to the work that we’re doing to roll out more supports.

I would advise the member that the key work that we’re doing right now, in addition to supporting the federal government, who need to step up to provide those worker supports, is…. We have to keep the lights on. That’s why we have our stumpage payment deferral program.

I would also add, as it relates to coastal British Columbia, one of the key aspects of Budget 2026 was a PST tax credit.

Coastal British Columbia’s forest sector has not seen a substantive investment in some time. We need to see more investments. We were proud to stand with Western Forest Products and invest in North America’s largest kiln project. That is an investment that should have happened a long time ago but is happening now.

We need to see more investments in coastal British Columbia to be able to transition away from our primary forest to our second-growth hemlock. There’s huge potential, from my conversations in Japan and South Korea — lots of interest. We’re going to be committed as a government to working alongside industry to be able to make those investments. That’s why we’ve got that strategic investment fund as well.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for his answers.

One of the questions that I asked specifically was the waiving of the tax portion of EI, and I would be curious to know if the minister has had that conversation or if the Minister of Finance even thought of it as an opportunity to not only help boost the amount of money coming to the laid-off workers, understanding that there’s also a federal component…. The feds can do their own thing. It doesn’t necessarily matter what we do on the EI side of things.

[1:25 p.m.]

But also, the minister, again…. We can go around a little bit in circles on this transition part, but I just want to make it very clear, on my side of the fence, that primary manufacturing and secondary manufacturing are tied together, and we can use the Tolko example in Heffley Creek that the minister and I chatted about on Tuesday as a perfect example.

Yes, the manufacturing jobs fund did help enable Tolko Industries to put modernization into their plywood plant for additional value-added. Again, $2 million of taxpayers’ money was leveraged for $6 million of private money so that an $8 million investment could be proposed and is currently being worked on at the Tolko mill in Heffley Creek. But without primary manufacturing, that mill does not get the logs that they need to actually make the value-added product in the first place.

I want to make sure that people out there understand there’s a distinction. We can make 2-by-4s till the cows come home, and there’s no money in 2-by-4s. But we still have to be able to have primary manufacturing in most cases, to be able to get the initial dimensions from that tree into something that a value-added company can use — end stop. So blanket statements about getting rid of primary manufacturing doesn’t help our industry, because without them, we don’t have value-added.

To add to that, there were a couple of other funds that the minister wasn’t able to mention, and I’d like a clarification on that.

The $50 million worker support fund. Now, it says here that B.C. approval is required. “Worker support funding announced federally must be delivered through labour market development agreements. British Columbia’s agreement remains pending approval. These funds must be activated immediately and directed to workers, not employees.” I have a question on that fund. I’m sure the minister has more clarification than I have.

Then let’s, if we can, talk a little bit more about the federal $1.2 billion. Again, how much is the breakout on that money? Is there going to be money set aside for displaced workers? Is there going to be money set up for additional investment? Can the minister explain how that money is supposed to be spent? Again, that, I believe, is Canada-wide. So how much is B.C. going to receive?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite. I agree wholeheartedly with the member opposite that you cannot have a strong and vibrant value-added secondary manufacturing industry without a strong primary industry.

I think what has been really important for me over the course of the last year as Minister of Forests is…. We spend a lot of time talking about the primary industry and the secondary industry, being that the member spent most of his time in the bush. We can’t have a thriving primary industry without a successful woodlands industry, and we can’t have a successful woodlands industry if we don’t have a stable land base.

It’s a pyramid, right? It starts with the land base — a stable land base where the woodlands can go in and harvest the trees, provide it to the primary manufacturing industry and then provide it to value-added. Soon there’ll be an addition to that when we get into biomass and to bioproducts and the future that holds for our residuals as well, which I know is something that we’ve talked about in the past.

To the member opposite, the questions that he is posing around tax policy would be better suited for the Minister of Finance. I’m not going to speak for the Minister of Finance in terms of the conversations that she’s having with her counterparts.

Any questions related to the labour market adjustment, the LMDA agreement, would be best posed to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. Again, she signed the agreement with the federal government and is going to be responsible for providing that funding through the various programs. Of course, as the Minister of Forests responsible for our softwood lumber sector, I’ll be working very hard with her to ensure that forestry supports are being rolled out as well.

The member raises the $1.2 billion. It’s actually $1.2 billion-plus now, because of the hard work of our Premier, the hard work of our government to not only stand up for forestry workers here in British Columbia but to be able to stand up for our industry. We’ve shown national leadership.

The member opposite will know that I also serve as the chair of Canada’s Council of Forest Ministers, and I’ve been using that platform to be able to stand up for forestry workers, not only in British Columbia but from coast to coast to coast.

The member opposite will know, from the announcement that the federal government has made, that there are $700 million in loan guarantees that were initially announced by the $1.2 billion. There was an additional $500 million announced just this past fall. There’s $500 million for product and market diversification. And then there’s the $500 million for worker supports, which are the labour market development agreements that my colleague from Social Development and Poverty Reduction will be best to speak to. We get $70 million out of that.

I want the member opposite to know that we are going to fight like hell to ensure that British Columbia gets its fair share. We’ve been very clear with Ottawa. We’ve been very clear with the ministers. That’s why I’m heading back to Ottawa in a couple of weeks, during the break week, to be able to make the case, once again, that forestry is our auto sector, forestry is our skill sector.

We expect as British Columbians, as the government of British Columbia, that our workers matter just as much as workers in Ontario, in Quebec and in other provinces. This is not about pitting workers from B.C. against workers from Ontario. This is about ensuring that we get our fair share.

We know that, here in British Columbia, we are national leaders in forestry. Over half of the forest products that are created come out of British Columbia. British Columbia is one of the world’s largest exporters of softwood lumber in the entire world. We expect from our federal government our fair share of funding.

Rest assured, Member, that we’re going to fight for that fair share of funding.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for his line of answers. I appreciate that.

Let’s go back a little bit again, because we had sort of a condensed version in our discussions. We talked a little bit about the allowable cut of 61.6 million cubic metres. The minister mentioned that was sustainable, in his comments.

We talked about the mandate letter with the path to 45 million, the target to 45 million and the fact that we’ve been stuck at 30 million for the last two years. Again, we discussed about the fact that, yes, it’s in the budget for 30 million or 29 million. But I think, and the minister can back me up, that 45 million is the target, not 30 million.

[1:35 p.m.]

I know the minister talked about having another review, amongst all of his ADMs and the district managers, on some of the things that are happening in our industry when it comes to permitting, access to fibre and all those kinds of things. Is there a formal process within the Ministry of Forests to get there?

The reason I’m asking that question is that there’s a joint industry-government pulp and paper task force that works internally in the pulp and paper sector, right? They are actually looking at annual targets. They review them every four years. They also meet regularly. They have explicit targets. They have a senior ministry champion. They have specific action plans, responsibilities and timelines to hit those goals. If corrective actions need to be taken, they’re identified and they’re done.

Is there anything similar to that at the Ministry of Forests going on right now so that there is actually a cohesive timeline in how we are going to get to 45 million? What is that timeline for that to occur?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We chatted a bit about this on Tuesday. I’m happy to get into some more details for the member.

In the short term, I want the member to know, we’re continuing to make investments in lidar, make investments in ensuring that the chief forester has the best information to be able to make the decisions that he does around the allowable annual cut. As an example, my government made an investment of $38 million in improving our lidar data. Again, that’s the foundation for us to be able to make the best decisions — and better decisions, I might add.

Commercial thinning — which is something we’ve been talking an awful lot about in the forest service, getting more out of our merchantable yield — is something that’s very important and something that we’re going to continue to invest in. I would just note that commercial thinning of young forests is a form of investment in our forests for today and tomorrow.

[1:40 p.m.]

The member opposite will know, from his time in our forests, that this is something that we’re quite behind in and something that we need to step up our game on. We completed 846 hectares last year of commercial thinning, mostly in the Cariboo and the Skeena natural resource regions. We’re going to likely do a similar amount this year, though I’m going to continue to push the team.

We know that B.C. Timber Sales is getting more sales out, but there is a huge opportunity in this space as well. It’s just about better forest management as well.

To the member’s question around pulp, I think it’s really important. I want to thank the member for acknowledging the work that we’ve done on the pulp fibre supply task force. That task force — led by my ministry in partnership with industry, with folks like Domtar and Mercer and others like Harmac that are at that table — has achieved 90 to 100 percent of their goals of securing three million cubic metres of residual fibre and low-value timber in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Government has invested more money in the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. to be able to help meet those goals as well.

The province has also increased pulp log sales through BCTS to improve the utilization of residual and wildfire-affected timber as well. We talked a bit on Tuesday about the new wildfire salvage planning and administrative guidance process to increase the use of wildfire-affected timber. As we know, many of our pulp mills in the Interior and in the North and some on the coast are making more use of wildfire-salvaged logs as well.

The member asked about the success we’ve had there and what processes are in place in order for me to be able to meet the mandate objective that the Premier has provided to me.

This goes back to our management unit reviews. We talked a bit about our ten-year cost obligation. That’s kind of the provincial work that we’re doing to better address the cost challenges on the landscape, but each area ADM — we’ve got three areas, three assistant deputy ministers — is the champion in their respective area in order for us to be able to meet the path forward.

It’s very different work than the work that we are doing with the pulp task force. This work is space by space. It’s planning by planning. It’s cutting permit by cutting permit. We are on the ground. We are not just a regulatory body. We are literally partners on the ground, better understanding and helping licensees understand what’s holding them up in submitting a permit.

The member opposite has referenced the length of time it takes to get a permit submitted. Once a permit is submitted, we’re usually very quick in terms of turning it around. What’s taking so long? Is it the economics? Are there challenges with First Nations? What is the issue? Once we know that issue, it provides that ADM and their team — their district managers, the resource managers, BCTS managers — the ability to be able to help support those licensees.

We do have an established process in place called the operational issues forum that those various area ADMs have in place that allows them to be able to bring industry, bring First Nations to the table to raise what those issues are and for us to be able to work together to find solutions.

I’m committed to my mandate and committed to increasing more harvesting. These are some of the tools that we have in place to be able to do that, in addition to the investments that we’re making for the future of our forests.

Ward Stamer: I was going to go and talk a little bit more about access, but I just wanted to ask the minister what he thinks about…. He mentioned wildfire salvage, and I’ve got a copy of the manual. It still seems like there’s an incredible amount of fibre being left out on the landscape in our fires. I know that was identified by the Pulp and Paper Coalition, that they would like to be able to see more access, and there seems to be a bunch of reasons why there’s not.

But I just wanted to see what the minister’s take was on…. Not only as we add more wildfire-damaged fibre to our pulp inventory…. Obviously, they have a greater resilience when it comes to the deterioration of a log in the time frame. If you have a fire and the tree is damaged — not totally, but it could be dead — the difference between a peeler log to a sawlog to a pulp log can happen very quickly. The pulp industry ends up having a little bit more time to play with it, but they still end up having a significant amount of residual that they can’t put through the pulp mill.

I’ll use Kruger as an example in Kamloops. What happens is they end up having to bark off so much of the burnt cambium layer of that log because it can’t go and be made into chips. So what they do is use that portion of the fibre for co-gen.

Everyone knows that every pulp mill has a co-gen plant because every pulp mill relies on their own electricity. They do not require electricity from B.C. Hydro or anybody else because they run their plants 24-7 and they can’t have interruptions.

[1:45 p.m.]

Now as an example of Kamloops, with Kruger, Kruger has a 65-megawatt co-gen plant at their pulp mill. That pulp mill needs between 40 and 45 megawatts on a 24-7 basis to be able to operate that pulp mill, and 20 megawatts is available back to the grid to B.C. Hydro to be sold.

Now, unfortunately, because it’s classified as dirty fuel or dirty energy, they barely get paid for that energy. So now, Kruger has decided to think outside of the box. They’re going to put in a small hydrogen plant with the Tk’emlúps Indian band to be able to use that 20 megawatts, and B.C. Hydro is not going to get it.

My question to the minister is quite simple. It’s that if we continue to be able to extract more fibre from these wildfires, and some of it may not make it as primary or secondary manufacturing on the forest industry manufacturing side of things, are there opportunities going forward with those co-gen? Are we stuck at making sure that there are no emissions when we’re creating electricity in this province?

Again, this isn’t the Energy Minister that I’m talking to. What does the Forests Minister think about moving forward on some of these initiatives?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member opposite, with his line of questioning, almost doesn’t want to be here. He wants to go and chat with the Minister of Energy. I don’t hold anything against that. It’s good to get questions.

It’s more important that we talk a bit about the work that we’re doing in forestry. I would encourage the member opposite to go and have those conversations with the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, in terms of the earlier questions. But I will talk a bit about some of the pieces that he relayed as it relates to my ministry.

I shared with the member opposite that we do have a rapid ecological assessment program in place. The member opposite will know from our conversations a year ago that this program is in place. A team of professionals — foresters, biologists, agrologists — go in after a fire has occurred on Crown land and assess the damage.

I think it’s really important, when we’re having conversations around wildfire salvage…. Maybe some of the frustrations that the member opposite is expressing — and those that I’ve heard — around why, sometimes, it takes a long time for salvage logging or why salvaging doesn’t happen in particular areas….

When this team is in place, they’re looking for soil stability. They’re thinking about wildlife habitat, nutrients for future forests. So there are some reasons why we don’t go in and salvage in a particular area. It’s for those reasons — again, soil stability, wildlife habitat, nutrients for the future of our forests.

[1:50 p.m.]

Then there’s another area that’s just economics. There are many situations where a fire has occurred — I think of the northeast, as an example — where it just doesn’t make economic sense for a company to go in and harvest.

That’s where a great organization like the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. comes into play. Again, we may continue to make record investments in that organization to be able to ensure that it can provide a helping hand in supporting the ability for us to be able to get more of those logs that maybe wouldn’t be salvaged to our pulp mills.

I’d also add, just as an opportunity, that the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. is going to be celebrating ten years as an organization this year. It just gives me an opportunity to be able to thank Jason and the team at FESBC for the outstanding work they do.

Countless dollars have been invested in that program. More will be invested in the years ahead to be able to help ensure that we are doing a better job of managing our lands and in making sure that, in this case…. Over the course of the last year of investments that we’ve made, 60,000-plus truckloads of fibre that would typically be burned as slash piles are now making their way to pulp mills and, in some cases, to smaller sawmill operations as well.

The member opposite has his questions for Energy. Obviously, the role that I play, because the conversations that he raised…. The questions he raised specifically speak to agreements that are in place between B.C. Hydro and, in this case, Kruger. I’m going to be in Kamloops next week. I hope to get the opportunity to be able to engage with Kruger this trip — if not, on a future trip — to be able to talk about challenges and opportunities for them. They have briefed me at a high level around their plans for hydrogen.

When you look at 2025, there was 1,653,300 cubic metres of volume available for salvage. In 2025, 1.2 million was harvested in that year, and there’s an additional 423,320 that’s under permit.

That is good. That is progress. That is the work of the forest service speeding things up from the manual that the member referenced. We will continue to do the important work of trying to speed things up, but we’ll do it in a way that brings people together.

I encourage the member to take some of the questions that he has raised, very important questions, to the Minister of Energy. But in the forest service, in the Ministry of Forests, we’ll continue to do our part to ensure that we’re increasing wildfire salvage.

Again, I would just use the Mine Creek wildfire as an example. I’ll get an opportunity to be able to tour that salvaging operation next week. That’s an example, a 2025 fire where we’re salvaged by the end of the year.

Ward Stamer: A couple of things I’d like to add to that. In just about every single case, the fibre that’s in a junk pile has not been burned. It’s totally different when you’re trying to convert that into pulp and paper than it is the tree that is burnt and then trying to remove that black, damaged portion of the tree before they can actually make pulp out of it. So I just want to make sure that people are a little bit clear that those aren’t apples-to-apples comparisons.

The other one I’d like to add, and I’d like an answer as well, is that, looking through the manual here, there was a wildfire salvage leadership committee that was formed back in 2023.

Again, this is in recognition of working with our First Nations in partnership — getting out on the land base, as the minister says, trying to determine what the environmental impacts are going to be, not only from what the fire did but what it might be when we’re going to be trying to recover some of that burnt fibre. What time of the year can we do it or not do it? Whether it’s wildlife-related protected areas or repairing lines or whatever it is, that’s all being done.

But there’s also, when they talk about…. The minister talked about increasing investment in lidar. I believe that the Provincial Forest Advisory Council specifically had that as their number one recommendation, that we are long overdue in doing in this province, by having a proper inventory of all the fibre in the province. And that doesn’t mean just Crown land. That is private land, community forest, First Nations, woodlots — you name it.

We should know already what is available and then determine: are we actually going to be able to go into those areas, and what are we going to do? Are we just going to do wildfire mitigation and we’re not going to be harvesting? Or yes, we are going to be harvesting and have rotating crops? Or protecting it, we’re not going in? I mean, all those issues….

But with these changes to the wildfire salvage leadership committee, I would think that there’d be more improvements. I’m going to ask the minister. Have there been improvements since 2023 on the total amount that they’ve been recovering?

[1:55 p.m.]

Those two numbers that he gave us…. That’s great. That’s important because it still represents around 3 to 4 percent of the total overall volume that was utilized in fibre in this province — 1.6 million or 1.2 million is 3 to 4 percent of 30 million. But looking at the other data, there is significantly more fibre that has been identified that has been impacted by wildfire. So I still believe the numbers are still quite low compared to what is still left on the ground.

Again, the reason why I framed the co-gen portion of it is if the minister is willing to push back at the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Energy and say: “If we were able to co-gen some of this, maybe we would make it….” There would be opportunities for other users of that burnt fibre. But if we’re only going to strictly be making wood products out of it or we’re only going to be looking at it from a pulp perspective, we’re not looking at it from even a portion of a co-gen in that formula — whether it’s 20 percent, 30 percent, 50 percent of a stand.

My question to the minister is: have there been any improvements overall since 2023 in the percentage of the wildfire-impacted fibre in that period of time?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I agree with the member opposite, and he noted, in the PFAC report, the importance of data. The member opposite will know that in the past, there was this document that was provided called The State of B.C.’s Forests in the ’90s and the early 2000s. We are looking at how we can be more transparent of an organization in providing that data.

I alluded to, a couple of questions ago, the $38 million we’ve invested in lidar. In order to be able to lidar the entire province, that would be a significant investment that we would make.

I would also note that when we create that stable land base, that leads to stability with the woodlands, that supports the primary sector, that supports our value-added sector. The conversations that I’ve had with CEOs of major companies that are the major licensee holders in the province are that they will be more than willing and able to make those necessary lidar investments.

We just have to use the examples of ʼNa̱mǥis and Western Forest Products and the TFL 37 partnership that has happened there with the forest landscape plan. Western Forest Products has made significant investments in lidar and data inventory and has actually shown a 300-year outlook for what the forest could look like with different harvesting, with impacts of climate change and a whole host of things.

Again, kudos to Western Forest Products for making those investments, but they made those investments because they see stability on the land base and a strong partnership with the ʼNa̱mǥis First Nation.

To the member’s question around salvaging from the two years and then the year before, I don’t have the exact numbers, but I can assure the member that year over year, from 2023 to 2025 we are showing an increase in the amount being permitted in those years. That just shows continued progress that we’re making as a government to be able to get more salvaged areas permitted.

I would still note for the member opposite that when our REAP team goes in, and I’m sure for licensees as well, the economics are a big factor, as are all of the other things we talked a bit about in terms of wildlife habitat as well as soil stability and nutrients for future forests.

Again, I’m not a forester, but I trust the foresters and my ministry and those out working in the land and in the bush to be able to make those decisions based on the science. I’d also note that not only are we seeing an increase year over year in permitting of wildfire salvage, but B.C. Timber Sales is also stepping up over that same period, and we’re seeing improvements within that organization as well.

I feel like there was one more piece that I was going to raise, but I will sit down, and the member opposite will remind me if I forgot.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for that. The minister was talking about land base, and I certainly will get into FLPs a little bit later.

One of the questions I had, and it was provided to me…. This was just as a review, because it seems like we’ve gone through an incredible amount of reviews in this province, not only under the minister’s mandate or the government’s mandate but in subsequent governments.

Obviously, it’s not something that’s easily fixed in many cases. But since 2017, there have been 53 policy changes or initiatives to the B.C. forest industry. Again, as a reminder, the cut on the coast is down by a third from the previous five-year average before your government took office.

We’ve lost 14 sawmills, three pulp mills permanently and 6,000 jobs. That represents approximately the same amount of money as what we are receiving totally now in revenues — anywhere between $400 million and $500 million yearly.

We still have challenges on the land base with policy. We have a 30 by 30 initiative moving ahead, I believe, by 2030. All indications are, according to the government, that 20 percent is already set aside. We know that there’s a halt to the Heritage Conservation Act, but that has subsequent challenges as well, and there’s also the old-growth set-asides.

[2:05 p.m.]

My question is: if we protect another 10 percent of the B.C. land base, are we even going to be able to get to 45 million, let alone have an allowable cut in the neighbourhood of 50 million to 60 million cubic metres a year? And if so, what is that number going to be? If we’re not going to be able to hit 45 million because of some of these land decisions or constraints, what will that number be?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for asking the questions and, particularly, noting the challenges we face in coastal British Columbia.

I was listening to a podcast this morning that had Scott Lunny on it, who is the director of United Steelworkers, district 3. He spent much of his career working on coastal forest policy and was describing the challenges that we faced in the ’80s, the ’90s, the early 2000s, the 2010 period and now.

Similar to the first question you asked when you tried to show that diagram showing mill closures and I responded with 100 mill closures, I think we have to ask ourselves what is going on, on the coast. What is going on with our forest sector in British Columbia and the need to transform it? I’m a big believer in the need to stabilize the sector but also to be able to take the necessary steps to transform it.

The mandate that the Premier has provided to me in order to be able to meet that harvest rate that the member opposite speaks to requires us not to tinker around the edges. The member would have heard my remarks in the Q and A that we had at the Truck Loggers Association. I think governments of all stripes have tinkered around the edges with forest policy. And here we are.

Obviously, we are dealing with a very unique period of time because of duties and tariffs, the price of lumber as well as U.S. housing starts. That is compounding the challenges we’re facing. Let’s transform the sector. Let’s ensure we’re not putting workers in this position ever again.

I think it’s also important to recognize what we inherited when we formed government in 2017. The major company on the coast had 28 percent of the tenure. By 2017, when my government came into power, they had 55 percent of the tenure.

Tenure concentration was significant on the coast. There was an erosion of social licence. There was a lack of First Nations participation. There was a lack of investment and second-growth milling capacity. There was a failure to harvest the forest profile, with a particular focus on cedar. Log exports went up 140 percent from 2003 to 2017 — unacceptable.

[2:10 p.m.]

The last year, 2016, when the B.C. Liberals were in charge…. B.C. Liberals, B.C. Conservatives — you guys are all the same anyway, right? When they sat on this side of the House…. A 140 percent increase over the period of time when they were in office. I would add that that last year, in 2016, there was six million cubic metres worth of logs, worth of fibre, that left our coast. That is enough to be able to build 100,000 homes. That is just unacceptable.

To the member opposite’s questions around our government’s commitments to 30 by 30, to protecting 30 percent of our land base by 2030 — in addition to, I’m sure, some of the other comments and questions he may have around wildfire habitat protection and other things that happen on the land base — it is my responsibility as the Minister of Forests to be able to defend the interests of our working forests, and we’ve been doing some work over the course of the last year.

We may have touched on this last year in estimates around a tool that we’ve been working on. We took all the economists that were spread out in the Ministry of Forests and put them all in one branch, in our tenures branch. We got them to create a tool that allows us to be able to look at the impact on the land base. So when a wildfire comes in, what does that do to our milling capacity? We started in the northeast in particular because, the member opposite will know, we’ve lost a lot of mills in the northeast over the course of the last 30 years.

I was in Fort Nelson. There is a community that should have a healthy forest sector. Right now it doesn’t have any milling capacity. The leaders in that community are the community itself, the local government and the First Nations. I went up there, and I made a commitment to them. I said: “I want you guys to organize a committee. We’re going to have our team join that committee. I know we’re going to start from scratch, but let’s build a forest sector again.”

The Chief there made a commitment to me that he would put time and energy into this. And they’ve done an outstanding job. My team there — our executive director, the regional executive director in that area — has done an outstanding job supporting the nation, supporting the community.

They’ve been able to get an increase in a forest tenure opportunity agreement, which is going to lead them to be able to hire members in the community and to be able to increase harvesting as well.

I want the member opposite to know that tool that we created allows us to be able to look at all of the decisions we make on the land base, whether it is protecting more or adding more. It could be protecting for the case of 30 by 30 by creating a provincial park or expanding a provincial park. It could be because of wildfire impacts. It could be because of caribou or spotted owls — you name it — in terms of the complex decisions we have to make on our land base.

It allows me as Minister of Forests, with my cabinet colleagues, to be able to make the case known what impact this has on the working forests and our working timber-harvesting land base.

I want the member opposite to know that on this side of the House, we believe very strongly we can have a strong, prosperous forest economy while still looking after our environment. What I hear in my community of Langford is the need for a strong balance — a strong balance between a strong forest economy while also looking after our environment.

I think we can accomplish that. I think that is something that we are entirely focused on. I’m committed to working with my colleague the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, who has important values, an important mandate that she has been provided by the Premier. I’ve been working with her over the course of the last year to ensure that our mandates align.

That is just one of the tools that we use to be able to meet not only her mandate with 30 by 30 but also the mandate that I’ve been provided by the Premier, which is to increase our harvest in this province and, again, build that strong working forest that can last generations.

Ward Stamer: There is a distinction between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives weren’t around when the Liberals were here, so I would suggest that that’s a little bit different. But thanks for bringing that to our attention.

A couple of things the minister mentioned…. I’m not going to be trying to justify what previous governments have done, because the dynamics always change. I’ve been in the forest industry for, let’s see now, 45 years. So I think I’ve had a little bit of experience on what it used to be like and what it’s like now, going forward.

A couple of things that come to mind…. I know this is a touchy subject, but I want to bring it up because, on one hand, the minister was able to offer up a stumpage reduction cost to licensees on raw log exports out of this province just recently.

I have a couple of questions around that. One of them is: if there are going to be stumpage reductions on raw logs, why aren’t there other stumpage reductions for the rest of the province? Why only raw logs?

[2:15 p.m.]

The second part of that is…. It was brought to my attention last year. Maybe the minister can correct me if I’m wrong. This 5,000-mile rule came to my attention, where you can actually ship a raw log all the way to New Zealand, have it manufactured and ship it into the United States manufactured with no tariffs. Maybe the minister can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what we heard six months ago, that that was occurring.

The other thing the minister mentioned was recovery. He mentioned about thinning and opportunities to be able to get fibre from our land base, particularly in some of our reforested plantations that could be 40 to 45 years old in the Interior and maybe a little younger on the coast.

Commercial thinning gives us two benefits. It gives us the benefit of thinning the stand because in most cases, by that period of time, the trees, even if they’re ten inches around, are barely growing because it’s too thick.

I’m glad that I just saw online that the minister is announcing that BCTS was fortunate enough to have two auctions purchased up in the Prince George area. I know the person very well that was successful on that. I was also down in the Okanagan at Christmastime, where licensees have been able to do this far quicker than BCTS has.

I know that BCTS has some significant challenges on how they’re going to move forward and how they’re actually going to be able to auction some of this wood because of the challenges around supervision and the qualified people that are going to be doing the work. But I’m quite sure that BCTS will be able to work that out.

There’ll be a significant amount of fibre that could be available to our manufacturing facilities, but again, it’s not an ideal tree. It’s not an ideal log. It’s only a smaller-diameter log that we can use for certain things. But it certainly doesn’t have the value-added characteristics that the minister enjoys as much as I do.

Having said that, my question to the minister is: if he’s willing to reduce the stumpage price for raw logs, is he willing to reduce stumpage prices across the province on some of the other profiles?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ll maybe welcome the member paraphrasing his question. We have not reduced stumpage for raw logs.

Ward Stamer: Yes. I’m not disagreeing that in some cases, if we are looking at the whole profile of reducing stumpage…. I’m suggesting that it should have been looked at in other areas, not just on the raw logs.

Now, raw logs are always political inasmuch as that people believe that we should be manufacturing every single piece of wood that we have in this province. I’d love to hear the minister’s take on that because he was saying things almost to the effect that every single log in this province should be manufactured here. Well, that would be great in a perfect world, but it’s not. Some businesses have to be able to export raw logs, and then they get other fibre back.

It’s a lot more complicated than just saying we’re not going to have raw logs anymore, unless the minister wants to make that statement today and then deal with the consequences from that. That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m saying that if the minister is going to be reducing stumpage in one area, is he going to be reducing stumpage in another area?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m not trying to be difficult for the member, but I just want to be very clear. We have not reduced stumpage for raw logs. So I would welcome the member opposite to, again, maybe rephrase his question in terms of what exactly he’s looking for.

I am committed to ensuring that we are making more in B.C. by building a competitive, value-added forest economy. Making more in B.C. means we’re continuing our efforts to reduce raw logs — an 80 percent reduction since my party, since my government, came into office in 2017 to now. An 80 percent reduction — we’re very proud of that.

My predecessor John Horgan…. One of the reasons why he decided to run was his frustrations around raw log exports. Again, in 2016, six million cubic metres…. It’s a significant reduction of 80 percent.

I’d welcome the member opposite to rephrase his question.

Ward Stamer: It was just brought to my attention — to the minister, thank you for that — that there was a reduction in stumpage offered for raw logs being exported from B.C. If I stand corrected, that is the information that I received.

[2:20 p.m.]

But again, we are still, in this province, and the minister knows this…. It’s that we had a pulp mill that was actually importing wood chips from the United States. Is that something that we should be doing? Should we be actually importing fibre from another jurisdiction, doing that? Or is the minister going to admit that we don’t have enough fibre in this province to be able to keep our own pulp mills going and we have to rely on chips from the United States to keep those mills going?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite. The member opposite will know that over the course of the last number of decades, companies have made business-to-business decisions that have led to the movement of fibre across the border and back and forth. In some cases, that has increased with the decrease in harvesting here in British Columbia.

I am committed to ensuring that in the case of our pulp mills, they are getting as much of their volume, their residuals here from our B.C. forests, making sure we’re supporting jobs here in British Columbia. That’s a commitment that I’ve made to the Pulp and Paper Coalition. It has led to the work that we’ve done in 2023, 2024 and 2025. We’ve met 90 to 100 percent of our targets.

I’d also note that one of the biggest challenges we face in our pulp sector right now is very low pulp prices. Again, it’s a question we have to ask ourselves as we go through this cycle of low pulp prices to high pulp prices. If pulp prices were high right now, maybe we would see more harvesting because residuals would be going up, because those pulp companies would be willing to pay more for that from those sawmills.

It is such an integrated economy, and the member opposite knows that. I don’t need to explain it. He has spent 45 years and, I would add, 45 years longer than I’ve been alive. And that is so important — the experience that he brings to that.

But I would just acknowledge that it is our intention to increase harvesting on the coast, increase harvesting throughout the province to be able to meet the needs of our milling partners here today from our primary sector, our value-added sector and those that take care of our residuals as well.

Ward Stamer: We’re getting into a spirited discussion, and I enjoy that.

If we can look to the estimate guides for a second, because I’m trying to clear up a couple of things. There have been some changes made, and maybe the minister can explain to me what’s actually going on.

If anybody has their Estimates books handy, in last year’s Estimates book, it’s on page 109, and in this year’s Estimates book, it’s on page 107 under the heading of “Ministry of Forests Vote Descriptions.”

The reason I’m bringing this up is that when you look down the page on provincial operations, the heading in 2025 was “Forest Resiliency and Archaeology.” The budget was $3.69 million, and part of it was: “this subvote also provides for engaging and collaborating with First Nations and supporting reconciliation initiatives.”

Then right below was another heading that called for integrated resource operations — $58.468 million. And a lot of that had to do with everything from construction and maintenance of forest service roads and bridges to associated infrastructure, engineering — all the rest of that kind of stuff.

Now in this year’s budget, just about everything else is the same except for those two. And we’ll also talk about a couple others in the same document, going forward.

Now, at the top, provincial operations — it’s now “Voted Appropriation” — is now $115.822 million. Again, it has that heading about engaging and collaborating with First Nations and supporting reconciliation initiatives.

It also has a heading entitled “integrated investment planning.” I’d like a clarification on what that actually is.

The second part is that that is now…. From what I can see, unless there’s something else, a lot of what was in the integrated resource operations is now in provincial operations.

Again, can I have an explanation as to why not only are they blended together but, if they are, unless my math is wrong, last year’s budget was $62.821 million and this year is $113 million, for a difference of $50.8 million? Can I have some clarification on that?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Let’s dig into the numbers, shall we?

The member may know that there was a fairly significant reorganization in the Ministry of Forests, with our assistant deputy ministers and the files that they have. My colleague Jessica Coster is responsible for provincial operations. That’s a new division in the ministry. Under that is archaeology, the forest investment and reporting branch, engineering, the Indigenous relations branch as well as B.C. Timber Sales, forest landscape planning and the natural resource officer service. Those responsibilities fall under that branch.

I would also note that, in addition, for the changes from Budget 2025 to Budget 2026, the member will note that there was a transfer of $20.366 million from the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth with the movement of Forestry Innovation Investment, the Crown agency, from JEG to Forests.

In addition to that, there was a move of $11 million from the ministry to the Ministry of Citizens’ Services with the new Connected Services B.C. program, essentially taking a lot of the IT services that are spread out in the various ministries and moving that into the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. That is a provincewide program.

There was an additional $3.8 million being transferred from the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship for a radio program that is better situated in my ministry.

Then the member will know that there is some work happening to take human resource capacity, HR functions spread out from across the various ministries, into the Public Service Agency. There’s about just over $5.1 million being transferred from the Ministry of Forests to the PSA to be able to help with that HR consolidation.

There’s a budget lift to be able to align with B.C. Timber Sales and our performance targets, which are increasing year over year. That just speaks to the high level of the budget.

I feel like I should take the opportunity to note a little bit of the fearmongering that happened on the day of the release of the budget from…. Not from my colleague, because I think that my colleague, based off of what I can see right across from me, knows how to read a budget. But my colleague is supporting a leadership candidate who said, on budget day, that there was a significant reduction in the Ministry of Forests.

I just have to share with you that I was sitting right behind the Minister of Finance, and the member for Kamloops Centre was reading out these numbers showing a significant cut. I think he was referencing $400 million. I was thinking to myself: “Did I read my budget books wrong? Did my deputy minister not tell me the right numbers? What is going on?”

I remember going out and phoning my deputy right after, saying: “What is going on?” I went back and I got my copies of the blue book, and the member clearly doesn’t know how to read the budget. I would expect that member for Kamloops Centre — he’s also the MLA that houses the B.C. wildfire service — to understand how forecasts work versus what the actual budget is.

There’s a specific vote count. Again, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson knows this very well, in terms of what is provided to be able to help support the operations of the B.C. wildfire service.

[2:30 p.m.]

I have a very unique vote count because it allows me, as the Minister of Forests and the B.C. wildfire service, to spend what we need to protect British Columbians and to support British Columbians during wildfire season.

I don’t say that as any disrespect to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, but maybe if he can make his neighbour correct that record, because it was just clearly fearmongering and really unfortunate as well. I’d be more than happy to sit with the member for Kamloops Centre and explain to him how the B.C. wildfire service’s budgeting works as well.

Ward Stamer: Yeah, I’m not entirely sure what the member for Kamloops Centre was alluding to, but we also know that, when we look at the budget of B.C. wildfire service at $235 million, that is not the total budget of the B.C. wildfire service. So I don’t know what he was…. Because when you think about it, depending on what year we had…. I mean, it was over $1 billion, I believe, in 2023. So yeah, you’ve got to have the flexibility in fire season, and I appreciate what the minister has said about that.

A couple of questions that had just twigged my curiosity. I see that at the bottom now, we don’t have timber range in economics. We have tenure in economics. I’m guessing that there has been a transfer of some of that responsibility over to WLRS.

I also noticed there was an internal transfer of, I think, $3½ million from WLRS to the Ministry of Forests or back versa — whatever it was. And I think that’s probably part of the range of responsibilities….

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: No? Okay. So I stand corrected. Okay. That was a radio program. So thanks for that.

Where does somebody find…? This is a question to minister and staff. Where do we see the breakout on some of these expenditures? Because it seems like there’s an awful lot, like as the minister just alluded to, with money that’s being spent in different areas that do not come up in a regular budget.

Are there opportunities to ask the minister specifically for line items like that, to be able to get that information in this opportunity? Obviously, we’re not going to get it today, but is there an opportunity for me to be able to ask?

An example would be direct awards. Is there a heading in direct awards that can actually be provided to the member on these areas? Because I know that last year, in the integrated resource operations, there were direct awards done for certain works.

Are there opportunities, going forward with the Ministry of Forests, to be able to ask those specific questions in that?

The second question I have, and this has a direct relation to revenue…. The minister is correct that maybe the member for Kamloops Centre misspoke, but if we were looking at this from a business perspective….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: This committee will take a recess.

The committee recessed from 2:33 p.m. to 2:52 p.m.

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

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates on the Ministry of Forests.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Welcome back to everyone.

Maybe two parts, just so I have it on the record. The member asked about getting into specifics. More than happy to get into specifics. That’s why we’re here.

I know we talked a bit about FSRs last time and dollars associated to that over the course of last year and where we’re looking for next year. Happy to get into specifics on any of the pieces. Of course, if we don’t have any answers, we’re more than happy to provide that in writing following estimates.

The member also asked about the tenures and economics division, which has been replaced by the timber, range and economics division.

Timber and tenures are two separate words. I don’t know why it’s taking me a while to figure that out.

Under the tenures and economics division, we have tenures, pricing, value-added, economics and trade, forest worker support, forest transformation and the Heritage Conservation Act transformation project. So lots of things under that division.

There were no dollars transferred from the Ministry of Forests to WLRS. The one thing that the member will note is there were dollars transferred from WLRS to the Ministry of Forests for a radio program that we’re now responsible for.

But I’m happy to get into any specifics that the member would like to.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

Last year we talked about some significant changes in BCTS. We talked about forest stewardship. I asked the minister what costs were associated with that. Of course, the minister didn’t have any information to that, because it was brand-new.

I’m wondering if he could share with me a little bit on if there are changes in the BCTS mandate on the forest stewardship side of things. What is the work, and what are the financial impacts? But also, I’d like to know: what was the actual cut of BCTS last year? What were the actual harvesting numbers on that?

[2:55 p.m.]

Also, if the minister can alleviate a little bit or expand on the BCTS review that was brought out last year in the fall, just as an update on which recommendations have been followed to date. Which recommendations does the minister see going forward in the next six months and the rest of the calendar year?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Great question.

I just want to begin at the outset…. I am so proud of the forest service, in particular the team responsible for B.C. Timber Sales. I’m sure many of them are tuning in. Very proud of the ability for us to be able to talk about their work. This is an organization, without a doubt, that has struggled over the course of the last number of years like any other licensee would, but I’m so proud of the forest service and the team that makes up B.C. Timber Sales for the outstanding work they’ve been doing.

The member opposite will know that in January of 2025, we started a review. It included three gentlemen who’ve been outstanding leaders in forest policy for some time: Brian Frenkel, who’s a councillor from Vanderhoof; Lenny Joe, who is the CEO of the First Nations Forestry Council; and someone who sat in our very chairs, George Abbott, who was a cabinet minister under the B.C. Liberal government as well, who shared with me that he always wanted to be Forests Minister but didn’t get the honour of doing so.

They produced a report in the fall at UBCM. I released the 54 recommendations that came from that report and made a commitment that we were going to be looking to implement those. We have proceeded taking those 54 recommendations, and the member will note, having read the report, that these are detailed recommendations. It’s not just a checklist. This is in-depth work that’s happening in the ministry to be able to meet our mandate.

Phase 1 of the recommendations is all focused on getting more fibre flowing. I think if there’s something that I’ve heard, and I’m sure the member opposite has heard as well, it’s the need for B.C. Timber Sales to be able to get and meet its targets. We’re working very hard to increase fibre flow, and anything that falls within those priorities falls within phase 1.

[3:00 p.m.]

Looking at the most recent data that we have, year over year, Q3 last year to Q3 this year, it’s a 30 percent increase in sales. It’s pretty substantive. I’m very proud of the organization for doing that and very proud of the work that we’re doing.

The member opposite talked about forest stewardship and some of the work that B.C. Timber Sales is doing. He mentioned our mutual friend Liam Parfitt from Freya Logging. Liam is an outstanding leader in forestry practices. His company, Freya Logging, was successful in bidding on and receiving two contracts in the Prince George area.

I hope that we’re going to see more folks like Liam bidding for these contracts, these commercial thinning sales. We are moving to ensure that B.C. Timber Sales can look at full rotation management, thinning, innovative silviculture, wildfire risk reduction projects — all things that I think are going to be good for our forested land base here in British Columbia.

So 30 percent year over year. We’re doing some work on forest stewardship. We’re moving forward on phase 1 of the 54 recommendations. Maybe, if it’s helpful to the member, I’ll just acknowledge some of those recommendations and where things are at.

One that actually didn’t come from the review but was announced when I announced the review at the natural resources conference last year in Prince George was the doubling of fibre supply for value-added manufacturers to 20 percent of licensees to support local businesses, create more jobs and ensure more wood goes to producing high-value wood products. BCTS has achieved 19 percent of all auctions as category 4, so that’s good news for our value-added sector.

We’re taking action to improve the utilization of residual post-harvest fibres, supporting industries like the pulp sector and reducing waste. This fiscal year BCTS has auctioned at least 1.5 million cubic metres of pulp-focused sales.

We’ve already noted this, but I’ll just note it again. BCTS has successfully sold three commercial thins so far. We’ve got a plan for the next year to launch more and noted that there are about, I think, three more that are coming online in the next several weeks.

We’re increasing the role of prescribed fire in preparing harvested sites for reforestation, the wildfire risk reduction and helping new forests grow and protect communities.

Then the other one that is very technical — but I’m sure the member opposite will know the importance of this — is that we’re reducing the number of no bids. That was something that I noticed very early on when I became Minister of Forests, when I started receiving weekly, biweekly reports from B.C. Timber Sales in terms of their sales targets. We’ve reduced the number of no bids by implementing minimum purchase standards to increase auction participation and reduce unsold timber, and that’s a big deal.

I probably could get a percentage for the member in terms of the number of no bids. It is pretty substantive, and again, it just helps the system flow and make sure we get more sales out in a quicker way.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for that.

One of the questions I asked was the total volume that was harvested in the previous year, if he has that number. It’s encouraging that they’re increasing their percentage year over year — 30 percent. But again, the mandate of the BCTS is 20 percent of the cut, whatever we cut. We’re not holding them to 20 percent of 61 million. We’re not holding them to the percentage of 45 million. It’s supposed to be 20 percent of what we cut. I just wanted to clear that up.

But one of the questions I had to the minister was, when we talk about…. He’s right. With the unsold or the no bid process…. I remember when the BCTS program came out. The BCTS program, when it came out, was not designed for licensees. It was designed for logging contractors because the way it was set up and is still set up…. As a contractor, you would never have more than 50 percent of what you normally would log for a licensee under a contract. Whether it was an evergreen or anything else, you could only have 50 percent.

That was to protect both the licensee and the contractor with having to be too tied together. That was the whole purpose. That business model was for contractors. It wasn’t necessarily set up for licensees. And then over time, it morphed and changed and all these things.

But one of the mechanisms that there used to be in BCTS was that if there was a no bid, there was a mechanism that the next time that bid went out, there was a minimum reduction in the ask on that bid. A few years ago, that was taken away — probably ten to 12 years ago. What happened was…. All it does is that it will increase the cost overall for those auctions.

[3:05 p.m.]

Again, it was a two-year cycle, and that was designed so that you had flexibility in your business. It didn’t mean that you were trying to buy cheap and sell high. It was able to help balance the opportunities. Whether it was…. It could have been a longer breakup. It could have been a mill that might have been going through some difficulty. You had extra flexibility in your logging plan, your harvesting plan, that allowed you to continue to keep working for not only yourself but your workers.

But unfortunately, that mechanism was taken away. So what would happen is a lot of these sales, when they came up, once you started looking at the cost of developing and the cost for selling them…. They were uneconomical, and there wasn’t enough flexibility. For somebody to come along and say: “I’m not taking that risk. I’m just not going to do it….”

I’m glad the minister is adjusting that program so that it allows more flexibility in it. But I still believe that, as the minister alluded to, there are other opportunities for fibre. Again, in these regen areas…. A lot of them that the BCTS is controlling used to be licensees. It wasn’t BCTS land or area. It was Weyerhaeuser, or it was Canfor, or it was somebody else. And then that was transferred over.

I’m glad that the ministry and BCTS are recognizing that we do have value, not only in being able to go in there and get that fibre but to be able to thin it, to be able to enhance the health and vitality of that and also be able to recognize that using that same technology, we can use it in the interface and not run around with a bunch of power saws and fool around having these little brush fires.

We can actually recover a whole lot more and not rely on organizations like FESBC to have to turn around and spend anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000 a hectare to go in there and do it. I’m glad the minister has recognized that. Again, it was through the efforts of not only the logging contractors and the licensees but government and government to be able to come up with a better plan than having to subsidize it.

So that’s great news. I’m excited about those opportunities. It’s going to make it safer on the land base, it’s going to make it more productive, and we’re going to be able to do so much more and extend the season that our contractors are able to work in. That is a significant challenge right now.

A question I do have is on unsold or unused fibre. BCTS is not governed by cut control provisions of the Forest Act. So if we have a bunch of unused volume that is being accumulated through B.C. forest service, what are we going to be doing with that unused volume? Is it going to be turned over to other licensees? Is it going to be turned over to First Nations? What exactly is going to happen with that unused volume?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question, a really good question, about unused volume.

Very different in terms of how it works with licensees where, when they don’t utilize the volume, there’s undercut. There’s an ability for them to be able to ask for an extension — otherwise, an undercut, the member opposite will know, can be used — essentially, a forest tenure opportunity agreement with a nation.

We’ve got a couple of recent examples of that up in the North, with the Wet’suwet’en First Nations near Houston, a collaborative group of nations; as well as up in the northeast, where I have been working on a forest tenure opportunity agreement with some undercut with the Fort Nelson First Nations.

As it relates to B.C. Timber Sales, it’s a bit unique. It’s not the same as, necessarily, the other licensees. It’s unused volume, and that unused volume comes back to government, and then BCTS continues to try to sell it.

One of the pieces in the BCTS review is the need for BCTS to be a partner of choice. BCTS needs to be a stronger partner on the ground. So to the member opposite’s question around that unused volume, we are looking at exploring, at opportunities. If BCTS is unsuccessful and unable to move that volume, how can we partner with First Nations? How can we look at NRFLs, as an example, as an opportunity to be able to move that volume as well?

We are working on some unique examples in the northeast right now, where BCTS has been unsuccessful, but maybe there’s an opportunity for First Nations to be able to partner with us, again with the goal of getting that fibre to our primary sawmills.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answers.

Another question I had revolving around BCTS is…. I asked about additional forest stewardship plans or things that the ministry is doing over and above the scope that they had in the last previous year.

Is there anything else that’s new, other than the recommendations that are coming? As the minister said, they’re still looking at that and working it through the process. Are there any other forest stewardship initiatives that BCTS is currently doing and is being paid for through their budget that they weren’t doing before prior to, say, March 2025?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite: I touched on it briefly in my last answer, but maybe I’ll dive into it a little bit more.

Wildfire risk reduction. I’m trying to remember what conference it was that I announced this. It may have been the ILA last year. I’m losing track. The member and I go to a lot of conferences.

One of the pieces that has been a big priority from the review, but also just the general work that is happening in the Ministry of Forests, is wildfire risk reduction and integrating work between B.C. Timber Sales and the B.C. wildfire service. There’s an ability for us to not only integrate those services but also reduce costs.

We work with forest health specialists in the ministry and externally, and the idea is to be able to help protect communities from wildfires, especially in those WUIs. That’s a big part of our work.

Also, at the same time, we see this as a huge opportunity to see a return on investment, so there are no additional dollars being invested outside of the budget that we already have. I guess I would phrase it to the member…. We’re spending our money differently, with the idea of getting more return on that money in the longer term while also making sure that we are building healthier, more resilient forests to better protect communities from wildfires.

Ward Stamer: Now another question I had…. It relates back to when we talked about the market-based system and with the government using the basis of BCTS sales as the calculation on the overall stumpage that is applied throughout the province.

Again, I remember when the change happened, and there was some concern in the industry about doing that. One of the concerns was that if people start paying an unfair price….

The reason why part of it was done, if I can back up just a little bit, was that the Americans kept saying that we were unfairly subsidizing our forest industry in British Columbia. They will still say that today. And again, it’s unfair, because most of their fibre is coming from private land. Most of ours is still coming from Crown. You know, government land is the main, largest volume that we have in the province. They wanted us to be more of a gauge, of an auction system to be able to determine that stumpage rate.

Now, that’s one of the reasons why I asked about the 20 percent, because that was what was assumed to be part of the calculation. BCTS would do 20 percent of the volume, and then they would have a cross-section of all the operations in British Columbia through their auctioning process. All phases — whether it was conventional, modified conventional, whether it was cable, whether it was air, helicopters — would be blended into a formula.

Are there going to be any negative consequences in not being able to have a total blend across all phases of harvesting in this province and to not have enough volume of that 20 percent? Will the Americans have something to come back to us and say: “Those numbers are incorrect”? Or are there other consequences in not being able to hit those targets and having it evenly spread through all aspects of our harvesting?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I want the member opposite to be assured that we still have a very robust and healthy market pricing system. We stand by it.

I noted on Tuesday for my friends from the United States who might be tuning in — I’m sure some lawyers from the U.S. Commerce Secretary might be — that we continue to make the case that the U.S. Commerce Secretary should follow the law. The 2017 determinations NAFTA panel just ruled that the U.S. Commerce Secretary didn’t follow the law. Just a couple of weeks ago I advised the press gallery downstairs that a similar ruling was put in place where the U.S. Commerce Secretary did not follow the law.

This is something that’s non-partisan. It goes back to the B.C. Liberals and my government now, where we have the same market pricing system, and it has been able to stand the times. Again, we still have a very robust and healthy system. The only folks that seem to have a problem with it are the Americans. If you were to ask the NAFTA panelists, over the course of the last two rulings that I’ve gotten in my inbox the last couple of years, it’s the U.S. Commerce Secretary that’s not following the law, that has to reissue determinations.

We could put an end to it all and just get to a table and work out a deal. I’m sure the member opposite and I would love to be able to help support those discussions, but the Americans aren’t there. That’s unfortunate for them because not only are our workers paying the price but U.S. homebuyers are paying the price right now. That’s an absolute shame.

To the members opposite, I don’t know if I have anything more to add. Just that we stand by the strength of our auction system. The sales data feeds the auction system, and that’s why it’s so important that we continue to get more sales out.

Just on commercial thinning, we didn’t have any of those data points. That’s why those commercial thinning pilots were so important. Again, we stand by our system.

Ward Stamer: Yes, I concur with that. Time and time again on the international scale and stage, we have been able to successfully plead our case that we are doing nothing wrong. Our forest industry is being run by the books, by the law. We have the highest forest environmental standards in the world, and we stand by that. So thanks to the minister for that very much.

I do have a couple of questions, similar to what we had last year, on deactivated roads. I know there are challenges when it comes to old industrial roads that may have been used for the last 25, 30 or 40 years. There may not be any industrial extraction. That may have been the sole purpose of putting that road in, even though there could be lakes available, there could be trails available and that sort of thing. That was the main reason why those roads were built in the first place. Obviously, there are operating costs and annual maintenance costs to keep those roads in play.

I appreciate that, but I know that in all regions of the province there have been…. This has been through subsequent Forests Ministers, both in this government and previous governments, that have not always spent as much time looking at maintenance of those roads than some of the other users would expect. Though it’s challenging when you’ve got 56,000 kilometres of roads or whatever we have in the province of British Columbia…. I appreciate that very much.

Having said that, can the minister give me an update on where we were last year on deactivated roads? Then I know my colleague would like to ask a couple of questions, particularly around some access points.

Can the minister share where we were last year in our haste to be able to rehabilitate roads? With even some of these new licensing requirements on some of these forest stewardship plans, it is now a requirement to rehab the road as soon as it’s finished being used for that purpose. So I’d like to know what the minister’s take on that is.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ll just, maybe, provide an overarching…. Then I’m happy to get into specific roads. I think it’s also important, as I say this…. It’s too bad my colleague the Minister of Transportation isn’t here.

The Ministry of Forests manages 60,000 kilometres of forest service roads, approximately the same road network length managed by the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. So I encourage you guys to mention that to him as well. Not a lot of people would know that or appreciate that about the Ministry of Forests and the incredible team and the engineering branch that, obviously, takes that role.

I would have advised both members across the way last year that recent budget uplifts to the engineering program over the last several years have increased the provincial road maintenance budget from $6.1 million in the 2022-2023 fiscal year to $16½ million in 2025-2026. That’s representing a net annual increase of $10.4 million allocated to the forest service road maintenance program.

This funding allows for additional maintenance on FSRs and is helping to mitigate some of the effects of industry rationalization and some hard choices that will need to be made about which roads continue to be maintained as well.

We talked a bit about this last year, about the need for better communication from the Ministry of Forests when it comes to FSRs. I’ve had some conversations with folks up in Mackenzie and other parts of communities, where sometimes communities are caught off guard when an FSR is closed. An FSR closure is made by the statutory decision–maker. That’s the engineer. Safety drives that.

My long-term vision is to be able to have infrastructure set up to be able to, essentially, have all of our FSRs listed on a website and for us to be able to find a better method to communicate to people where things are at in terms of the status of those FSRs and if there’s a review coming up.

There is a process in place in which a community…. I think the member from Boundary and I talked a little bit about a snowmobile association last year and their ability to be able to take that on. We’ve got a couple of examples that have come to my office in the last few weeks around a snowmobile association wanting to take over an FSR. We’ve got a mechanism in place in which they can. We’re having those conversations.

But there have been additional dollars invested in this budget over the course of the last number of years to FSRs. But at the end of the day, we need to ensure that FSRs are in place and they’re safe.

I appreciate that we’ve got some work to do in the ministry to ensure that we’re better communicating, and that’s a commitment that the members opposite can be assured that we’ll continue to work on.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you to the minister and my colleague for giving me a little bit of time today.

I appreciate the reference to McBride. My understanding is that there is some action happening. The community and the snowmobile club have been successful in raising over $1 million themselves for that particular bridge. I look forward to, actually, estimates in WLRS. My understanding is they’re at permitting right now.

The one I wanted to talk about today is just around road deactivations in general, not any one specific. I’m wondering how wildfire service is being integrated into decision-making around road deactivation. I know with last year’s fires, there were many places that we couldn’t get into to fight the fire, and we had to put roads back.

I’m just wondering. What is the plan, and what are we doing around the planning when we’re deactivating, for wildfires?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member opposite. That was a really good question and a good opportunity for me to be able to check with my team on some of the work that they’re doing on that.

Maybe just at the outset, to assure the member…. When there are conversations occurring about deactivation, I want the member opposite to be assured that B.C. wildfire service is at the table, a part of those conversations.

Industrial-use roads may be available for immediate use in the event of an emergency, whereas wilderness roads can be reactivated and returned to an industrialized standard if needed. So absolutely, they’re at the table, part of the conversation.

I would also note that with the infrastructure in place with the B.C. wildfire service, if we need to build a road, we have heavy contract strike teams in place to be able to go and build the infrastructure needed to be able to help protect communities.

A really interesting question. I’m glad the member raised it.

Donegal Wilson: I know last year in my riding, on the back side of Tulameen, I think it was almost five days before we were able to rebuild the road to get the equipment on the fire, which is why I was bringing it up. There was a big, substantial bridge. So while we have the equipment, we don’t necessarily have the infrastructure readily available for those instances.

I appreciate that the wildfire service is at the table when those conversations are happening. I’m wondering how that integrates with local fire departments. Specifically, it was the community of Eastgate that was having some conversations around….

Interjection.

Donegal Wilson: The community of Eastgate in Manning Park was having some conversations around some deactivations that were happening around their community. They were concerned, at the local fire department. I’m not sure if they’re a full department or a fire brigade, but they are the local front-line service for fire in the community. They wanted to make sure that certain roads were kept for access from one side of the community to the other, as well as for safe evacuation, if necessary.

They were having a hard time finding where they would register those concerns or how they would participate in the deactivation. I’m wondering how communities and local fire brigades are also included at those tables.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Why, welcome, Madam Chair. Welcome to the fun that we’re having here in the Ministry of Forests estimates.

Thanks very much to the member opposite for the question. I want to note for the member that we actually have the Wildfire Resiliency and Training Summit coming up, hosted by my ministry through FireSmart B.C. That brings all of the fire departments across the province together with the B.C. wildfire service to be able to have important conversations like the very important conversation that the member has raised.

The fire brigades and fire departments are engaged. I just maybe have two examples for the member: the regional district of Fraser–Fort George as well as the TNRD. We’ve got processes in place where, through the forest district offices, there are conversations had around access and egress.

I’ve actually, in the case of the TNRD, been at some of those tables and had conversations around some of their concerns with regards to particular access routes and FSRs.

I’d also note at this time, as April 1 is coming around very quickly, that the B.C. wildfire service is meeting with fire departments to outline operational plans and look at scenarios in terms of where potential fires could occur and how best to ensure that those access and egress routes are there.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that answer. Just to flag for your team, I guess, I’m not sure that the fire brigades are recognized by the TNRD or any of the regional districts. I think they are an unofficial fire department. They have a hall, they have volunteers — all of that. But they are not necessarily funded.

Some of the small communities like Eastgate and possibly Arras and a few other small halls…. It just might be worth flagging in your consultation piece, to make sure that all local fire are included. I appreciate that.

I want to talk a little bit about high-value recreation roads — no surprise that I want to talk recreation. But I’m wondering why in some cases when we deactivate a road, we do ditching, we take out the culverts and we do a little bit of cross-ditching, even do a little bit of…. Just put up a sign: “Use at your own risk from here.”

Then the next time we go in and we literally re-slope, replant, take out all the bridges. And it’s done under the guise of removing liability to the licensee. Does the “Use at your own risk” not remove the liability? Why are there those two levels of deactivation? Why can’t high-value recreation infrastructure just use the “Use at your own risk?” Why do we have to take it out?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. If the member opposite has, maybe, any examples, I’d be more than happy to take them.

When a licensee is provided a road permit, there are certain expectations that are listed within that road permit. At the end of the day, when a licensee is deactivating that road — mild deactivation to wilderness standards — it has less to do with liability and more to do with the environmental standards that they’re required to uplift. Liability continues to exist as long as that road is activated.

Of course, slope stability studies and access routes are always looked at as it relates to industry standards.

I’d be interested in any more particular details, maybe, the member could provide, or examples.

Donegal Wilson: Way to be putting me on the spot. I do have some examples. I’ll send them to you, maybe, separately.

The one that does come to mind for me is Rady Creek out of Trout Lake. I think that is one where we’re looking at a complete re-slope, replant. The hazard, I believe, is some unstable slope.

It is a mining road that has been there 120 years. Recreation has been using it for all of that time, so there is some question of whether it can be just used at your own risk from that point. It is an important recreation infrastructure for the community of Trout Lake and something that has had a lot of impact for their communities.

I have several other examples that I can’t just pull off the top of my head. I see Jamie over there smiling at me. I’ll try to think of some later.

Speaking of deactivation, though, I can go to some private property. I have some questions around the Incomappleux. Specifically, what is the process for private landowners that access their property via a forest service road or an industry road to their private property?

Is there a covenant or something put on their property so they know when they buy it that that access is not guaranteed, or is it something that is just considered buyer beware? You don’t really know. This road that comes to your property could be here today and gone tomorrow without access.

I think that the residents there are looking for some clarity on that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite, without a doubt, any private property owner should know if there is an FSR, that it may not be guaranteed forever. Without a doubt, there’s buyer beware. There is a requirement for due diligence for any buyer of private land where there may be an FSR or some access challenges.

In the case of the Incomappleux FSR, property owners have been advised — from my ministry, the Crown lands division and the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship — that they can apply for Land Act permits.

I would encourage the member opposite to pass on that information to those property owners that the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is ready to support them, in their Crown lands division, to be able to access Land Act permits.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you. I’ll take that over to estimates with WLRS as well.

Yeah, I understand buyer beware, but for lots of people that road has been there for a long time. They’ve accessed their property down it. They’re unlikely to know what the legal status is as far as: “Is it a highway, or is it a road?”

I know not all dirt roads are necessarily FSRs. In Keremeos, for instance, the Ashnola Road is actually maintained by highways on dirt up to 16 kilometres. So it’s not always clear in people’s minds what kind of road it is.

My last question. I appreciate the minister’s time today. You’d mentioned $16½ million for ’25-26 for FSR maintenance. I’m very happy to hear that, as someone who has advocated for a long time for an increase in that budget. Can you just share what you have allocated for ’26-27? Is that up, down or the same?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s the same as last year.

Ward Stamer: Thank you to the minister for his answers on that.

Earlier today, the minister touched briefly on the importance of FLPs, forest land plans. I’d like to be able to get into a bit of the questioning around that, if I may.

I’m just looking through the documentation of when it originally happened. It came through with the Forest and Range Practices Act, Bill 23, in the fall of ’21. New regulations were brought into force in July of 2024. We know there are 15 of them currently in the process of being developed and going through.

I have some questions on the FLP process, and I’m hoping the minister will be able to share some of that with us. Through the whole process and reading…. Last year, to frame it, we talked about changes coming with forest stewardship plans. The minister and I chatted about a draft proposal that was brought forth in the southern Interior between the Ministry of Forests and many of our First Nations in the southern Interior.

[3:50 p.m.]

From what I can understand, FLPs are the next step past a forest stewardship plan. The minister, of course, can correct me if I’m wrong.

One of the questions that is being raised, in everything that we see here, is that…. It’s formed through the Ministry of Forests. The chief forester is the person that is ultimately authorized with that work. Ultimately, who has the final decision in an FLP?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Maybe, just to get some clarity…. Is it just in terms of the development of an FLP or once an FLP is in place?

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thank you. I just want to correct the member. FLPs replace the forest stewardship plans.

Now to the member’s questions. When a joint recommendation comes from the forest landscape planning table, that goes to the chief forester, who is the statutory decision–maker when it comes to that point. I think the member knows that.

I would just note, for the public, that that is after public engagement, after industry engagement. The member will know from my remarks at the Truck Loggers Association that I’ve made known, very clearly to my ministry, my expectation for industry to be at the table. There is an expectation that industry is at the table with First Nations, with government. Industry engagement doesn’t happen after. Industry is at the table, part of that engagement, right from the beginning.

I would also note, when we talk about public engagement, that this is non–First Nations as well. Everyone should have a say around the forests in the province of British Columbia. That means communities. There are a number of examples, in Houston recently and in Burns Lake, where we’ve got FLP engagements going, where the community has come out for sessions to be able to learn more and ask very important questions as well.

Once the forest landscape plan has been adopted by the chief forester, then the licensees would develop a forest operational plan. Then those decisions on that operational plan are made by the district manager in the form of cutting permits or, in the case of the operational plan, by the district manager once that plan is submitted.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answers.

The minister was saying that there were many of the FLPs currently going through the process right now. I believe there are 15. What is the timeline this year in any ratification of existing FLPs? Can the minister shed any light on that?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Of the 15 FLPs covering almost 50 percent of the land base, the four pilot FLPs that have been going on for the last few years have been prioritized for completing their draft plans in fiscal year ’26 and ’27.

[3:55 p.m.]

I have, in the case of the Quesnel FLP and the lakes resiliency FLP, met with the Chiefs, met with industry, and I’ve made known, very clearly, my expectations for them to be able to have draft plans in place by the end of this month and then to be able to have those final plans by the end of the fiscal. It’s very important that we prioritize getting these FLPs done, having industry at the table, making sure that public engagement is going.

Based off the updates that I’ve received from my staff at those two tables, work is progressing. I want to thank the nations. I want to thank industry for all the work that they’re doing to build and speed things up.

We’re learning. These are pilot FLPs. My hope for the rest of the FLPs — the 11 of them — is that we’ll be able to learn from those pilot FLPs and be able to speed things up, especially given that many nations who participate at those FLPs may be participating in other FLPs as well.

Also, note that there are a couple of tables where they’re not formal forest landscape planning tables. I would just use the example that I shared on Tuesday, with the Chief of the Simpcw Nation. There’s an example where Chief Lampreau doesn’t have an FLP table established.

I’ll always remember my first conversation with Chief Lampreau. He said: “This is my work, not your work.” He went out, signed MOUs, established agreements, developed a stewardship plan in concert with industry, and he has come back to me and said: “If you go talk to any industry partners in my traditional territories, they will say they’re on board with that plan.” I said to him: “Provide that information, and then let’s develop an FLP.”

I guess what I’m saying with that example — we’ve got another one in West Kelowna with the Westbank First Nation — is that you don’t have to wait for government to establish an FLP. We, obviously, want to be at the table helping and supporting the discussions, but nations can play a leadership role with industry to do this work. I encourage all nations and all industry to go out and do this work as well, outside of the 15 FLPs covering almost 50 percent of the land base that we already have.

Ward Stamer: Does the minister believe that part of the reason why it’s taking so long for the process of the FLPs is that there has been a lack of public engagement? Does he believe that there needs to be a better emphasis on having opportunities with more meetings, more opportunities with all stakeholders, or does the minister feel that that has no bearing, whatsoever, on why it has taken FLPs to get through the process in the first place?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would say, from my perspective, having sat at some FLP tables and having most recently met with the ʼNa̱mǥis First Nation, that historically, First Nations haven’t had a say in forestry on their traditional territories. So there’s a level of trust that needs to be built.

One of my mentors in life, Russ Chipps, the Chief of the SC’IȺNEW̱ First Nations, when I became the chair of the Sooke school district, always said to me: “Before you and I can develop a relationship, I need to be able to trust you.” Trust takes time to build, and it can’t happen overnight.

At these four pilot FLPs, maybe one of the reasons why they’re taking longer is that we have to build that trust.

I want to assure the member that public engagement is already a part of it. It was talked about when the act was amended, as the member would have noted. There is an expectation for me, of my team, to ensure that public engagement is a part of that. There are different stages of public engagement. There is a website where folks can go online and get an update in terms of where things are at with those 15 FLPs.

I think the key piece is the trust. These are difficult conversations. Sometimes there are conflicting conversations amongst nations around territorial boundaries as well. They’re having industry, government and First Nations at the table, workers at the table, the lakes resiliency, and they’ve got representatives from the ranching sector that are there as well.

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Maybe before…. Very quickly, I’ll just…. We can end off and then start back up on another question.

We do a….

The Chair: The committee will remain in place while the minister is speaking, please.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ll be very quick, Madam Chair.

There’s a continued focus on ensuring that there’s a level of public engagement and consultation. Again, it doesn’t happen at one point. It happens throughout the engagement process.

The Chair: At this time, there is a vote called in the main chamber. Please undergo the vote and then come back to this chamber.

Thank you. This committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:17 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

Ward Stamer: Further up with our conversation on FLPs, the minister corrected me when I was referring to forest stewardship plans. Then the next level was forest landscape plans and that sometimes they coexist.

I’m just looking at the data we see coming back from the ministries. But in regards to not only the stewardship plans…. But then we move to the forest landscape plans. It’s framed in a way that it is jointly government and First Nations, with collaboration of licensees and the public and the other stakeholders. That’s what it says in the documentation. That’s how it’s framed.

My question to the minister is, and I ask the question about the authorization on the chief forester: if a First Nation disagrees with the chief forester, then what happens? Will the minister answer that? If, all of a sudden, the chief forester wants to go ahead with something and a First Nation says no, will the chief forester be able to overrule that First Nation?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It is the chief forester’s decision. We have a legal duty under section 35 to consult, but it is the chief forester’s decision.

Ward Stamer: The minister mentioned that the anticipation through his ministry was to complete four this year, I believe, and then the timeline was going to be extended, of course, with those 15. Are there any more FLPs that the minister is planning in the next three to five years?

[4:20 p.m.]

He mentioned 50 percent of the land base would be covered under these existing FLP plans. Are there other plans that are also going to be coming forth within the next three to five years?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would just note for the member opposite that we have funding for 15 of those FLPs in place.

I’m certainly utilizing the example with the Simpcw Nation as well as Westbank. I’m encouraging those nations to go out, do the work, work with licensees. We’ll make sure that once they’ve done that work, it can align with the forest landscape planning process that we have for those 15 tables, but I have limited dollars and resources, as the member will know, for the tables we have in place.

Once those tables have concluded, like the ʼNa̱mǥis one, I’m better positioned to be able to redirect those resources towards those new tables. We’re always in a position and looking forward to launching more tables, but what I will be looking for in future tables is making sure that I’m investing resources towards getting long-term FLPs.

I’ve made it known very clearly to Chiefs and to industry partners that there’s a lot of work that can happen before an FLP-establishment process begins. I encourage the nations and industry partners to do that work so when we get to an FLP table we can get to work right away.

Ward Stamer: If we could, I’d like to talk a little bit about community forests. I believe that both the minister and myself have had positive engagements and discussions with community forests.

I was fortunate enough in Barriere to be director of the Lower North Thompson Community Forest Society for a few years. That is a community forest that actually goes from Vinsulla to Little Fort. It is an annual cut of 20,000 cubic metres. I can certainly do a shout-out to them, because we’re incredibly proud of the community forest in Barriere and surrounding area. It’s well-run. It provides an incredible amount of bursaries and value to our entire valley.

I know that members of the Community Forest Association have petitioned the government for additional community forests in our province. I’d like to hear what the minister has to say. They are talking about doubling the size. We know there are challenges when it comes to access to fibre. I’d like the minister’s take on expanding our community forests in British Columbia.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: One of the best mandate objectives that any Minister of Forests can get from the Premier is the ability to be able to expand community forests. I’m very proud as the Minister of Forests to have announced expansions to community forests in Fraser Lake, Vanderhoof, at Fort St. James, in the member across the way’s, the former leader of the opposition’s ridings.

I never got a thank-you, by the way, for those forest expansions. Maybe you’ll take that opportunity to be able to help celebrate with me the communities of Fraser Lake, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James. I don’t need a thank-you. Those are three outstanding communities. Really proud to be able to work with them. More on the way.

The member will note that community forest expansion…. I should…. It has been fascinating to be at these conferences — UBCM and stuff. I’ll have mayors come up to me and say: “Rich Coleman promised me a community forest. When are you going to get down to it?” or “Bruce Ralston promised me a community forest.” And we’ll look and we’ve got no record of that.

What’s really important for me is looking at the foundation of the community forest program. We’ve got a very good relationship with Jennifer Gunter, who’s the head of the British Columbia Community Forest Association.

I’ve got the mandate, and we’re certainly going to be looking for opportunities over the course of the next number of months and years to be able to expand community forests. We’ve got those three, and I can assure the member that we’ve got more on the way.

I’m the statutory decision–maker when it comes to community forests, so when my team brings opportunities before me, I certainly look at ensuring that the public interest test is given when I’m considering those expansions or new community forests as well.

Ward Stamer: Thank the minister for those….

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Ward Stamer: I know that one of my members has asked about the Golden community forest initiative. Is there anything to share with us on that?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’ve just been advised by my team that we are working with that community. They’ve got a really good relationship with their First Nations. I would encourage the member opposite to engage with them, continue to engage with the district’s Forests office. I certainly look forward to any opportunities that might come to my desk around an expansion. I think, in this case, it’s a new community forest, if I’m not mistaken.

Ward Stamer: Another question to the minister on the community forests. Can he provide the total volume that was harvested last year in the province of B.C. through our community forest program?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’re just waiting for the answer, Madam Chair. Maybe just for the benefit of time we’ll get to another question.

Ward Stamer: Another question — and again, this may be an inopportune time to ask, but again, it revolves around revenue — is that, if we are going to be looking at expanding our community forests…. I know the minister and his office and his organization was doing a tab review, I believe last year and the year before, so maybe the minister can share with us.

When markets come back and our forest industry is significantly in a better shape than it is today, what does the minister foresee in a change in the way the tab rates are? Knowing full well that, even in a community forest like Barriere with only 20,000 cubic metres….

Obviously, if you have a tab rate, there is more flexibility, there’s more money left on the table to reinvest in communities. That has always been the knock, especially with large companies where millions of dollars of logs go by every year and the communities don’t really get much. If there’s a manufacturing facility, they get jobs, but a lot of times there’s not the same type of a spinoff. There’s not the same realization of the money that trickles down to all the community organizations, the school kids that have grants, the service groups that rely on some of these things.

What is the minister’s take, as we move forward, on a change in our tabular rate calculations?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member will know that in the forestry modernization intentions paper from 2021, it identified the harmonization of pricing on area-based tenures as a priority for government.

That continues to be a priority. The member was right in noting the work that my ministry has been doing over the course of the last year on this project. I hope to be able to have updates for the members in the weeks and months ahead.

We’re also reviewing FCRSA as part of this, to be able to make sure that we’re aligning with First Nations tenures. I value the community forest program. I know that it’s successful because of those tabular rates. That’s certainly top of mind, and we’re always looking for equity.

Also, the member notes his local community forest having 20,000 cubic metres. There are some community forests that have some considerable amounts of volume as well. At the end of the day, these community forests benefit local communities, but there’s also a responsibility to be able to benefit all British Columbians in the form of those stumpage payments.

I can assure the member that we’re going to be working very hard to strike that balance, where there’s an ability to be able to make sure that local communities can benefit from that tabular rate while also making sure there’s some accountability as well.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much to the minister.

I have another question. This is from one of my members, one of my colleagues, and it’s basically on what happened previously last year, on the fact of those 13 cattle that, unfortunately, ingested that fertilizer.

Is there going to be a release on that report? Is there going to be any information that the minister can shed on that unfortunate situation? And if there are going to be changes in his ministry to assure the public that that’s not going to happen again…?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just going back a couple of questions ago on the question around community forests, 1.66 million cubic metres was harvested in 2025, and the AAC was about 2.23 million — so a pretty good spread there.

To the member opposite’s question around the cattle, the member for Prince George–North Cariboo and I have been in conversation over the last number of weeks around this incident. There’s obviously some work happening, and I’m only in a position to be able to share some information at this time, but rest assured that my office is in touch with that member’s constituency office, as well, to be able to provide information.

I can assure the member opposite that government responded immediately, halted fertilization operations and initiated a coordinated investigation with the range tenure holder, Quesnel natural resource district and contractors. Diagnostic testing of livestock tissue and water samples is complete. Results are inclusive but strongly suggest urea poisoning.

The aerial applicator has accepted liability, and an agreement-in-principle has been reached to compensate the rancher for the loss of cattle. A Ministry of Environment investigation has been completed and is now before an opportunity-to-be-heard panel to determine whether an administrative monetary penalty is warranted.

There’s not much more I can add at this time.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate that.

Back to the estimates. It’s going to be a question…. I don’t know where to find the information.

Unpaid stumpage. Now, we know that there have been instances where companies have gone in bankruptcy, and there are a couple that come to note. I’m not afraid to ask the question because we shouldn’t be afraid of the answer.

As an example, the San Group. When they shut down in Port Alberni, there was $20 million worth of stumpage that had been unpaid. And I’ve got some questions. Again, I may not get an answer to it, but I would certainly like to know who actually authorized that whole entire process of reaching $20 million worth of stumpage that didn’t end up getting paid. But I may not get that answer, so that’s fine. I’ll at least ask the question in public.

My other question is: how much unpaid stumpage do we have on the books right now from the last three years, and what mechanism does the Forests Minister and the Ministry of Forests have to be able to recover those moneys? I know with the San Group, on that piece of property, it has already been sold. Has any of that money been recovered? What are the mechanisms, going forward, into being able to recover unpaid stumpage?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Good line of questioning from the member opposite, but a line of questioning that would be better or appropriate for the Ministry of Finance.

Ward Stamer: Reforestation. I’d like to know if the minister can bring us up to speed on what happened last year on our reforestation numbers. Again, I think we know it’s a challenging time not only for industry and, obviously, BCTS and everybody else with the lack of fibre that we’re harvesting, but we certainly want to be able to continue with our obligations.

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s great that the feds have come up with the 2 Billion Trees program through Natural Resources Canada that we’re able to partner with, but I’d be curious to know where we are on our reforestation numbers from last year, if they’re available.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: In 2024, we planted 276 million trees. In 2025, we planted 231 million trees. In 2026, we’re estimating to plant 234 million trees.

Because I’m the Minister of Forests and I have to put it on the record: black cottonwood; trembling aspen — holy smokes — amabilis fir; grand fir; subalpine fir; noble fir; western red cedar; red alder; paper birch; Douglas fir, coast; Douglas fir, Interior; mountain hemlock; western hemlock; tamarack; western larch; whitebark pine; lodgepole pine, coast; lodgepole pine, Interior; white pine; ponderosa pine; black spruce; Sitka spruce; spruce hybrid; Sitka spruce crossed with an unknown spruce; and yellow cedar.

We should be very proud of not only the fact that we are planting hundreds of millions of trees every year but we’ve got a decent relationship with the federal government as it relates of the 2 Billion Trees program. I’m hoping to be able to see more dollars from the federal government for tree planting this year and next year as well.

I want to give a shout-out to the incredible folks in the chief forester’s office who do all the work. We’ve got a tree seedling centre, a couple of them across the province. In particular, the vault where the seedlings are is in Surrey. It has been a few years since I’ve been there, and a good excuse for me to be able to go back and chat with the incredible team that is there. Just a shout-out for them.

Ward Stamer: Going through my binder here, there was one area that we didn’t talk about too much. We have time, so I’d like to be able to ask the minister, because I know they’ve done some really good work. There were some budget implications when we talked about FireSmart, and I know that FESBC has received their $20 million this year for their funding. So I have a couple of questions to the minister.

One, does it look like we’re going to be able to continue with the FESBC program at $20 million a year? I know we have a three-year budget, but we only get one year’s worth of estimates, so I’m asking the minister if he believes that that’s something that he would like to be able to push forward to the next three years.

The second one is: can the minister please share with me what the targeted areas are under the FESBC this year for the fuel management treatment and some of the areas that they’re going to be covering?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question and for me to be able to reiterate how committed we are to the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., celebrating its ten-year anniversary this year.

Just in the last year, 60,000 truckloads of fibre that otherwise would be burned in slash piles is leaving the bush and heading towards pulp mills and other operations as well. I would just note for the member that we’re fully committed to that $20 million for this year and moving forward.

I would also note that as part of my advocacy to the federal government to show up at the table and help support stabilizing the sector, in addition to transforming the sector, one of the asks that we had when we held a softwood lumber summit in Vancouver was for the federal government to invest dollars in the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C.

[4:40 p.m.]

That’s not something they’ve done before, but we see it as a huge opportunity to be able to help stabilize the challenge. Again, noting the member’s and my agreement that it’s really important we keep loggers and contractors working right now. I’m hopeful that the federal government will come to the table with some dollars, and I’m certainly going to be reiterating that when I’m in Ottawa in a couple of weeks.

In 2026-27, FESBC will target 2,550 hectares of priority areas to receive fuel management treatments, involving a target of 31 high-risk communities, Indigenous communities, municipalities and unincorporated areas within regional districts within the wildland-urban interface.

We’re more than happy to provide a bit more of a breakdown in terms of what those areas are for the member. We’ll note that.

Ward Stamer: The minister had mentioned it just briefly, and we talked about the Provincial Forest Advisory Council and the recommendations that they brought forth in February — February 2, I believe.

I’m just wondering if the minister can maybe elaborate a little bit more, because there were a lot of recommendations in that report. There were some substantial changes in the way that we would be not only structuring our forests in our province going forward but…. I just would like a little bit more clarification from the minister on….

We know that the first recommendation everyone is supporting because of the increased need for lidar and inventories. We talked about that earlier today. But can the minister share any other recommendations that he sees that the government would be willing to start moving forward on?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

I want to thank the Provincial Forest Advisory Council for their work. In particular, I acknowledge Shannon Janzen and Garry Merkel, who were the co-chairs over the course of last year. Myself as well as the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, the House Leader for the Green Party, when we had a CARGA agreement in place, worked together to be able to develop a terms of reference to be able to review forestry.

It was a very short window that that council had, and I just want to take the opportunity in this public venue to be able to acknowledge the work not only of those co-chairs but all those members who took time out of their busy schedules to be able to help advise government.

I want to advise the member opposite that it’s very important, given the detailed recommendations and the report and the attachments related to the report, that my ministry and government take the appropriate time to be able to review and consider the report and its recommendations.

As the member will note in reviewing the report, many of the recommendations don’t actually pertain to my ministry but pertain to the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship as well as others. So it’s really important for me, before I provide major comments around a report, that I engage with my colleagues to ensure the government has fully reviewed and considered it.

I’d also note that, at the same time, it’s not going to stop us from doing the work that we need to do to restore confidence in the sector and stand up for workers and families right now. I would note that, in terms of data…. I noted earlier this afternoon the important work that we’re doing to be able to revitalize the state of the forests and make sure that we’re sharing transparent information around forests and the data that we have in the office of the chief forester.

At the same time, even prior to the release of the Provincial Forest Advisory Council report, at the Truck Loggers convention — which I think was a week or two prior to the release of the report — I made it known very clearly that I want to see a transition away from volume-based tenures to area-based tenures, with full rotation management. That was noted in the report.

I’m sure there are other pieces as it relates to regionalization and other things that we’d be happy to consider. But I know that the biggest priority that I have right now, with all the reviews that we’ve done over the course of the last two decades, is to be able to take those and no longer tinker around the edges and transform the sector. That’s what I’m committed to doing.

Ward Stamer: We talked earlier on Tuesday about FireSmart, and I think we had a fairly good discussion on the need for FireSmarting in our communities. I won’t have to rehash what we already talked about.

But can the minister give me a little bit more clarity on the review process and what the steps are going to be in trying to determine who is going to be able to be looking at future funding and who is not?

The minister mentioned a collaborative approach in the FireSmart program. I understand that it was a program that initially was started, and then it ended up morphing into a very large annual amount of money that was coming from the provincial government.

[4:45 p.m.]

I think that, from the looks of it, the provincial government is hoping that some of the municipalities, depending on capacity, will start assuming some of those costs after they’ve built up the capacity to where it is. I don’t think that’s an outlandish statement, but I believe that that’s kind of what’s occurring, that the need and the want are much higher than what we can actually pay, particularly when we look at the state of our budget and the state of our province right now.

But having said that, has the minister got a timeline? Is it 30 days, 60 days, 90 days before we start hearing from the minister and other ministers on how this process is going to unfold? What’s going to be the rationale? What’s going to be the criteria on how we determine who’s actually going to be involved in this funding model and who’s actually going to have to start paying for it themselves?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. I’m happy to go back to the similar line of questioning.

I would note that, as we talked a bit about on Tuesday, it’s very important — given the considerable changes that have been happening over the course of the last number of years in the Ministry of Forests with the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., the bigger role that B.C. Timber Sales is playing and how we’re trying to embed wildfire risk reduction, in particular in our wildland-urban interface areas — that we take a whole-of-society approach to this.

We have made significant investments to be able to help support local communities to build staff up and resource. I don’t think it’s wrong for the member to assume that this can no longer be just a provincial government initiative. This has to be everyone coming to the table with dollars and resources.

Again, I’ll just note that a community that comes to mind in terms of the investments that they’re making is West Kelowna. They’ve stepped up, with the support of the provincial government.

When I’m going to be in Ottawa in a couple of weeks, I’ll be calling on my colleagues, not only the Minister of Natural Resources but the Minister of Emergency Management, to be able to step up and ensure that the dollars are being invested to be able to help support wildfire risk reduction.

To the member’s questions around timelines, we’re not at the stage yet where we are providing timelines. I would say that we are still at the very early stages. I can assure the member that we have the funding in place for this year, so we do have some time. I want to make sure we get this right, being that this is not just about FireSmarting and the FireSmarting community programs but embedding the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., B.C. Timber Sales and the B.C. wildfire service. It’s really important that we get this right.

We’re committed to ensuring that we can help support the wildfire service and their ability to do their work. But we know, through the conversations I’ve had over the course of last year, that we have to do more preventative measures. The member and I agree in regards to that, from the conversations we’ve had over the course of the last wildfire year.

There have been a lot of changes to the B.C. wildfire service organization over the last few years. I’m very proud to be a member of this government that made the B.C. wildfire service a year-round operation. There’s a real opportunity for us to be able to look at all of the investments we’ve made and just take a look at where we are going from here.

Fires are getting more complex. Even though 2025 was a calmer wildfire season, there were some scary nights that we had. We chatted about, I think, a fire from Clinton, if I remember correctly, one night in the summer, that grew very quickly. Our team was able to respond very quickly.

There’s always an opportunity. There’s not a need for a comprehensive review but an opportunity to be able to bring people together to be able to have a conversation around where we go from here, because fires are becoming more complex and the need for us to respond is now more important than ever before.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much to the minister.

I totally agree with the minister, and that was kind of why I was trying to frame it in my last line of questioning on Tuesday…. It was with some of our First Nation partners. They have different funding models, different than a lot of our municipal leaders have.

As we chatted before, many of the boots on the ground that are doing this wildfire fuel reduction and mitigation work are the same people that will help us in the fire suppression in the summertime. Not only do we have full-time employees in the B.C. wildfire service, but we also have part-time. Some of the people that are doing the work for us today are going to be the same people that are going to be working on the fire lines this summer.

[4:50 p.m.]

What I wanted to make sure…. I’m hoping that the minister understands where I’m coming from inasmuch as we want to make sure that those people are going to be adequately employed. Again, some of the funding models that they were receiving their grants through have been completed.

From what I hear on the ground…. I would love to be able to have the opportunity, even outside of estimates, with the minister on specific cases where there may have to be an opportunity, whether it’s through B.C. wildfire service or some other way of funding, to be able to make sure that we can continue that work in those smaller groups — these aren’t like municipal West Kelowna–type groups — so that we can get through this transition, make sure that we continue with those workforces, get them through the summer. Then by the fall, hopefully, the minister and the government can decide how we’re going to move forward in some of these programs.

Again, even the district of Clearwater still needs about $100,000 a year to try to maintain their budget that they have for their mitigation work, and much of that funding was coming from the provincial government. So now if, all of a sudden, we have to rely on the taxpayers in Clearwater to pick up that extra $100,000, I’m not entirely sure they’re going to be able to do that.

I would say that they have less capacity than West Kelowna would have with their tax base versus what Clearwater has, or whether it’s 100 Mile or some of the smaller regions throughout the province.

My question to the minister is: is there flexibility, as you were determining this review, to be able to have those conversations with our federal counterparts and be able to make sure that those existing funding models that were being used in the past, that we can continue to try to keep those programs going and not have a six-month or a year delay because we haven’t decided what we’re going to do?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite, the wildfire risk reduction work will continue. We have dollars for that. A lot of those particulars around the FireSmarting program are what is under review. I agree with the member completely.

I, maybe unfairly, used West Kelowna too many times as an example. But the mayor of West Kelowna is a very good lobbyist, and he has been lobbying very hard for his community. Rightfully so, given the challenges that community has faced.

I’m sure if Merlin was listening to estimates, and maybe he is, he’d be saying: “Minister of Forests, why aren’t you using my community?” Again, the member knows very well, given that he represents Clearwater, that that’s a community that’s doing outstanding work.

But we have to meet communities where they’re at. We’re fully committed to doing that, ensuring that we have an engagement process that allows us to be able to work with those communities that are much farther in their work but also with communities that are just turning the page to acknowledging this work.

I would just note some examples in the Interior but also examples in coastal British Columbia, where we are seeing more fires. Mount Underwood fire, I think, was a big wake-up call for those of us on Vancouver Island — one of the largest wildfires in size ever recorded in the history of Vancouver Island.

I know that there are many communities up and down Vancouver Island, including my communities of Langford and the Highlands, that are now considering the work that they need to do to be able to FireSmart their communities as well.

I welcome that and welcome the opportunity for conversations, as well, with the member.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much to the minister for that offer. I appreciate that very much.

We’ve only got, I think, 15, 20 minutes left. I believe we have to be out of here by ten after or so. But there were a couple of things that I had questions on when we talked about some of the different changes in responsibilities. Again, it was on the heading with the range.

Can the minister explain what part of Ministry of Forests on the range package is no longer applicable? In the last two years, what has the Ministry of Forests relinquished in their portfolio over to WLRS on the range side of things?

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I can assure the member that there actually haven’t been any changes. It literally is just moving the responsibilities of the range branch from one ADM to the other. My colleague who is the ADM responsible for the south area, who the member opposite will know very well, is responsible for the range branch.

[4:55 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: When we went back to the provincial operations, there were a couple of things that I pointed out in that line. Can the minister explain a little bit more about the integrated investment planning portion of it? I mean, obviously, there has got to be a reason why it’s in there. Can he elaborate a little bit more on what exactly integrated investment planning is under the provincial operations?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The forest investment and reporting branch, reporting to the ADM responsible for provincial operations, has silviculture. It’s like the 2 Billion Trees program, the fertilization program — a great group of folks who do really important work to ensure that we are looking after our land base and ensuring that we’re investing in the future of our forests here in British Columbia.

Ward Stamer: I’m just trying to remember. When we were talking about the BCTS file, I asked a question to the minister about what the cut was last year. Can the minister share that with me? I think I missed that part.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We issued 4.27 million cubic metres in sales last year.

Ward Stamer: When the minister was talking about the cat 4 program…. I believe it was implemented last year, if memory serves. I know the minister has talked about trying to be at least a minimum of 20 percent of the overall cut of BCTS with, I believe, a target of 30 percent.

I think the minister mentioned today they hit, actually, 19 percent.

Interjection.

Ward Stamer: So 20 percent?

Okay. I thought it was 30 percent.

The Chair: Through the Chair, friends.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is: is there any other…? I know that there were discussions around flexibility in the categories. There were some that felt that they were left out. There were some that thought that there was too much.

Has there been any request to make any changes to the classifications in category 4? Does the minister see, going forward…? It seems like there’s a willingness to increase that capacity and the value-added. Can he see a target increasing to 30 percent in the next five years?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: So 20 percent was a target that I announced last year at the Natural Resources Forum. Very proud of the work that the BCTS team and our value-added sector here in British Columbia has done to be able to hit 19 percent. One more percent to go, and that’s what they’ll do next year, no doubt.

Without a doubt, I think there is an opportunity to grow that program over the course of the next number of years. But I would also note, given the conversation we’ve had today about the importance of the primary sector, that I think it’s important for us to be able to ask ourselves the role of the primary sector in getting the fibre in the hands of the primary sector and what the primary sector can do to be able to get more lumber to the value-added sector as well. Fully committed to that.

[5:00 p.m.]

I would also just note that, as it relates to category 4, we’ve been having some conversations with custom cutters around their ability to be able to access the program as well. But outside of that, I’m really focused on having conversations with licensees about moving away from just providing dimensional, commodity lumber to continuing down that value-added chain.

The member knows, in his own backyard, Heffley Creek with Tolko…. Tolko is doing that, and I commend them for doing that. I hope others will as well.

Ward Stamer: I’ve heard, and this is just unsubstantiated, that there’ve been ideas floated through BCTS that because of some of the challenges in the value-added side of things…. I wonder what the minister has to say when the idea has been floated of hiring contractors to basically go full log length and then have a sort yard.

Has the minister heard of anything like this, or does he have an opinion on this?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: That was part of the recommendations that were proposed by the task force. It’s something that we’re looking at.

Ward Stamer: One other question with BCTS. Did you have a number on the reforestation?

I mean, you can get it back to me. I know last year we had those numbers, and I know that they were, actually, more than 20 percent of the overall volume in the province. So BCTS did an excellent job last year on reforestation.

But if those numbers are not readily available, can you have them presented?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: In 2026, we expect to plant 25 million seedlings. Last year it was 31.3 million.

Ward Stamer: My colleague was just asking me a question. I don’t know the answer, so maybe I’ll ask the question to the minister. We understand, or I’ve heard, that there are still challenges with some of our value-added sector getting access to some of those secondary products.

Has the minister heard the same line of inquiries, in that in certain areas of the province, there seems to be a drag in…? Again, it’s not just B.C. Timber Sales but just an overall lack of veneer when it comes to that side of the equation.

Has the minister heard of any challenges when it comes to getting that type of product to the value-added sector?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would note to the member that a lot of those occur with business-to-business agreements between the primary sector and the value-added sector. Without a doubt, I engage with the value-added sector throughout the province, and there are examples where they do face challenges. It’s one of the reasons why we started the value-added accelerator table, to be able to bring the primary industry and the value-added sector together.

But I would reiterate that my expectation of primary licensees is to recognize that we’re going through a really tough challenge right now with constraints in fibre supply but also duties and tariffs and all the other things that we’ve talked about. When we get through this and we start restoring confidence in the sector, we do have to look at continuing down that value-added chain.

One of the things I’m looking to do, which we talked a bit about on Tuesday, is economic hubs or economic clusters, where you bring the primary sector and the value-added sector and the residual sector together to be able to ensure that they are integrated in those communities and we can ensure that the right log gets to the right mill for the right price.

If the member has ever spoken to Nick Arkle from Gorman Bros., he’ll know the rest of the acronym there.

Ward Stamer: That also raises a question. Maybe the minister can bring us up to speed a little bit. We know that there was a licence transfer in the Princeton area with Gorman Bros. from Weyerhaeuser. From what I understand, that was May of last year, and we still haven’t heard if that transfer has occurred.

Can the minister bring us any information on where we are with that?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: That tenure transfer was formally submitted. As a statutory decision–maker, it’s my decision to approve or not approve in the public interest. I’ll advise the member that that transfer decision has actually just arrived on my desk, and I’ll be reviewing it in due course.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much for the answer. That could be positive news to the contractors down in Princeton.

[5:05 p.m.]

The other question I had when it came back to BCTS is: can you provide me a number of forest service roads that BCTS currently has under their agreements? When we were talking about the 50…. Or was it 26,000? Wasn’t it 26,000 kilometres that we had in the province of B.C.?

Can you give me the number of how many roads are actually under the BCTS authority?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just noting the fact that we only have so much time, so as not to keep the member waiting, we’ll get that information in writing to the member.

Ward Stamer: It seems like it has been a long day. I’m sorry.

Just one other question I had when it came to our FireSmarting program. Not to belay the issue, but I know there was concern, and this relies more on the B.C. wildfire service insurance. I know that there have been improvements made when there is a fire number with a fire in a region. Then, when trying to determine if the fire is out or if it’s under control, that number can be released for insurance purposes.

Has there been any work from the Ministry of Forests’ perspective on that, knowing that in some cases, if there is an active fire, it’s impossible to get home insurance? Has that been brought to the ministry’s attention, and are they doing everything they possibly can to be able to change that, so that the number ends up being inactive or whatever it has to be so that people can get their insurance?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member opposite will know that there’s a lot of work that goes into declaring a fire out. That is not a decision that you or I should be making. It’s a decision that, obviously, should be made by the hard-working men and women of the B.C. wildfire service.

The conversation around insurance is coming up. It is a big issue, and it’s something that we need to be much more mindful of in the years ahead. I can assure the member that we are having conversations with insurance companies, and we’ll continue to ensure that we do this important work around providing this information. I would just note that we do have an app, and the app is an important tool that we use as well.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:08 p.m.