Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

Howard E. Grant

Hon. David Eby: I rise with a heavy heart to share with the House that Howard E. Grant, Knowledge Keeper and Elder of xʷməθkʷəy̓əm First Nation, has passed away.

He spent 37 years on xʷməθkʷəy̓əm council and 26 years as executive director of the First Nations Summit society. He worked for the federal government in senior bureaucracy for ten years, which assisted him — knowing both the federal, provincial and Indigenous governments — in setting up some crucial institutions that we rely on today: the First Nations Health Authority and the First Nations Finance Authority.

He was an instrumental figure in establishing both of those, as well as the creation of the MST Development Corp., a business partnership among the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Peoples, which allowed him to make significant contributions to the Guerin and Sparrow cases as well.

You can’t talk about fostering connections between cultural groups in this province without mentioning Mr. Grant. His father was a Chinese immigrant. His mother was a xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Matriarch. His mother was one of the last fluent speakers of hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓, connecting her community to its past and its future.

It’s important to note that her marriage to his father actually lost them status and resulted in Howard growing up in Chinatown as well as in xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and avoiding residential schools.

In 2013, he travelled back to China to visit his father’s homeland. It’s captured in a documentary film called All Our Father’s Relations, a remarkable story about his family but really about British Columbia. I encourage all members to see it.

We pass on our condolences on behalf of the government caucus and, I’m sure, the whole House to his family, including Member of Parliament Wade Grant, for their loss and for, in fact, our entire province and country’s loss with the passing of Mr. Grant.

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Premier. That was a fitting tribute to a very extraordinary person and a dear friend.

[1:35 p.m.]

Many of you may know that when I started my reconciliation project in the Parliament a few years ago, he was the first one of the four advisers who accepted my request to be on my council. He was an extraordinary person, going out of his way, always willing to help others.

So I, on behalf of all of us, am joining the Premier to send our condolences to the family. He will be missed.

Introductions by Members

Bryan Tepper: I would like to welcome Raman Bains, if he could stand up for us.

Raman is a Punjabi-language Canadian singer, born and raised in Surrey, B.C., a city known for its grit and also the beauty that comes from it. Having been born into a community where vulnerability isn’t always easy to express, Raman leans into it. Raman graduated with a degree in political science from Simon Fraser University and was accepted into law school before he decided to pursue his career in music.

Raman has collaborated with both the Vancouver Whitecaps and Vancouver Canucks, performing at the iconic B.C. Place and Rogers Arena. His latest project and debut album, A Desi Love Story, is out. Raman recently completed his U.K. tour and performed the album for the first time locally at the SoMa festival in Vancouver.

Please welcome Raman Bains.

Statements

Ina Forrest Achievements in 2026
Winter Paralympic Games

Harwinder Sandhu: Today I am pleased to rise to recognize an extraordinary athlete from our community, Ina Forrest, fresh off the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Paralympic Games. Spallumcheen’s Ina Forrest and her team made history as the first wheelchair curling team to go undefeated on their way to a gold medal. This marks her fifth Paralympic medal, having competed in every games since 2010. What an incredible record of three gold and two bronze medals.

Ina is now the most decorated wheelchair curler in history, and we are incredibly proud to call her a member of the Vernon Curling Club and our community. She will be celebrating at the home club this evening.

While I can’t join you in person, Ina and team, I am here with you in spirit.

Please join me in congratulating Ina Forrest and her entire team for their remarkable achievement.

Introductions by Members

Linda Hepner: I would like the House to please welcome the Canadian Mortgage Brokers of British Columbia, who are here today representing mortgage brokers from across this province, professionals working every single day to help people find their homes.

They’re here to talk to us and to share with us their perspective and their experiences on the ground relative to housing, accessibility and affordable markets that they’re trying to navigate and, we know, everyone trying to find a home in our beautiful province.

Thank you for being here today.

May the House welcome them.

George Anderson: I’d like to recognize the outstanding achievement of the Dover Bay Dolphins basketball team from Nanaimo, who brought home silver at the 2026 B.C. 4A provincial championships. As the tournament’s top seed, they showed tremendous heart, discipline and skill.

Joe Linder and Dane Schmidt were named first team all-stars, and players like Landen Ross helped lead this remarkable run. I also want to recognize Head Coach Darren Seaman for his leadership.

To the players, coaches, families and the entire Dover Bay School community: Nanaimo is proud of you.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I would like to welcome and introduce my constituents from the organization of Hindu Mahila Society.

This organization focuses on community services, charity projects and organizing cultural events. I want to say that our province is a better place because of the ongoing and exceptional work they do for the community.

[1:40 p.m.]

With us today in the House are Remya R. Nair, president; Rejimon Palayathu, vice-president; Raju Menon; Dr. Aladi Sukumar; Suraj Rajan.

I will ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Kristina Loewen: Today I want to introduce somebody that I don’t need any notes for. I know this person quite well. In fact, I met him about 30 years ago when he was just a young 20-something and he was sporting a full beard. I can assure you that he looked older then than he does now — my husband, Andrew Loewen.

Together we’ve been married almost 30 years, and we raised four kids together. I am excited to say that he accompanied me to Victoria without any of those children this weekend, and we had a good time together.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I would like to join my colleague across the aisle in welcoming the Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association of B.C. I am looking forward to a conversation with them later this afternoon and grateful for the work that they do.

I also ask the House to join me in welcoming Jasmine Toor from the Mortgage Professionals of Canada. Again, I’m grateful for good colleagues and good opportunities to learn and work together.

Thank you, Jasmine. Welcome.

Bryan Tepper: Just three quick introductions.

We have Govind Malhi here. He’s a wonderful photographer, and he’s documenting Raman’s visit with us today.

I’d also like to welcome for the first time Carlie Froats, my CA from back in Surrey-Panorama, just getting started with me.

Then welcome back Gurjot Cheema, my riding president.

Thank you, all.

Hon. Grace Lore: I have several introductions to make today, so I thank you in advance for patience.

First, I am really thrilled to welcome Vancouver Island Senior Ladies, who are a group of women up and down the Island, aimed at making connections, new friends, and being engaged in community. I love the idea. I loved even more the chance to talk to some of them today in the Hall of Honour. I learnt a few things. I’ve got a few ideas and really appreciate the chance to connect. I’d like to give a warm welcome to Ruth, Sandy, Cindy, Caroline, Rhondda, Linda, Diane and Wendy.

Second, I’d like to welcome Dr. Katharine Low. Dr. Low is a recent immigrant to Victoria and comes to us from London via South Africa and Switzerland. She’s a respected academic engaged in feminist-led research using arts and theatre to support doctors in their training. She’s at the faculty of medicine at King’s College. Her work is creative and transformative.

There are many things that could have brought us together. Reading her bio to you, there’s many opportunities for overlap. But what brought us together was being the mom of boys who love tackle football, and here we are.

Last but certainly not least, my mom is here today. My love of politics and community comes in part from following my mom around when she worked as a producer at Global Calgary. I have early memories of election night and party convention coverage.

My mom is joined by her lifelong friend and auntie to me, Janie Dale. I’m grateful to have her here filling my bucket as well.

Will the House please help me make all of these incredible women welcome today?

Amna Shah: I am so pleased to see that in the gallery we are joined here today by Amar Randhawa, Gurmukh Aujla, Roman Singh and Keerit Jutla. They are here from the Vaapsi Seva Society, specifically the Vaapsi sober living program, which is a community-led, culturally-grounded initiative that tackles addiction and the complex factors that sustain addiction.

[1:45 p.m.]

Now, vaapsi means “return,” and this program is specifically designed to support South Asian men in their journey of return to health, to stability and to purpose. It combines an evidence-based model with wise principles from Sikhi, namely seva, simran and sangat. This reflects a model that is not only effective but also deeply human.

Will the House join me in welcoming these amazing men who do this noble work in our communities.

Gavin Dew: I join the member opposite for Surrey City Centre in welcoming my friends from the Vaapsi Recovery Home, especially my old friend Amar Randhawa, my friend Keerit Jutla, as well as Gurmukh Aujla and Roman Singh.

Thank you very much for being here today. Thank you very much for the work that you are doing to advance B.C.’s first culturally responsive sober living home for Punjabi men. This is obviously very important work.

I think that, across this House, we share a belief that recovery is possible and that your work is very important. Thank you.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This week is a very important week for an outstanding organization that my ministry gets a chance to be able to work with. That is the Forest Enhancement Society of British Columbia.

We’re joined by the executive director, Jason Fisher, former ADM in government, who I first got the chance to get to know when I first started in government, who now sits as the treasurer; Trish Dohan; as well as their past chair and board director, Dave Peterson.

If you haven’t heard of the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., this is an organization that has been performing and delivering for British Columbians in forest health, in helping our pulp sector and in wildfire risk mitigation over the course of the last ten years. Over that ten-year span, 426 projects have been invested in around British Columbia.

Over 62 million trees have been planted through FESBC funding, and more than the equivalent of 225,000 seven-axle logging truckloads worth of fibre have been moved away from our bush, that otherwise would have been in slash pile burns, to local mills to be able to create jobs and opportunity.

On behalf of all of us, I want to thank Jason and his team for their outstanding work.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome here today.

Tributes

Christine Buemann

Kiel Giddens: With the mortgage brokers in attendance, I wanted to pass on sincere condolences to a member who was with the delegation last year, who was not with us this year. Christine Buemann from Prince George recently passed away, on February 1, of breast cancer.

She was a friend to many mortgage brokers across the province and many, many people in Prince George. Hundreds of people attended her celebration of life recently, and we honour her today.

Thank you, and our condolences from the House to all those who knew her.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Forests Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Ravi Parmar presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Forest Statutes Amendment Act.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m honoured to bring forward amendments to the Forest Act and Forest and Range Practices Act. When we talk about the path forward for forestry, we must focus on what forestry means for the people of British Columbia.

The changes we’re introducing today matter. They matter to the workers in the bush, to those on the mill line, to forest-dependent communities and to the families who rely on forestry paycheques to put food on the table.

Today in British Columbia, we live with a growing wildfire threat, a changing global market, American duties and tariffs, low lumber prices and the end of the pine beetle harvest. These are significant obstacles for a historic sector.

To meet this moment, we need to transform B.C. Timber Sales into a partner of choice — modern, adaptable and able to respond to the various needs on the land base.

The amendments we’re bringing forward to the Forest Act are related to the B.C. Timber Sales account, which governs how funds may be used by B.C. Timber Sales. In addition to the amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act, there are three things that will drive these changes.

First, we are going to create more opportunities to access fibre by allowing contract logging, commercial thinning and wildfire risk reduction within B.C. Timber Sales tenures.

Second, our amendments will fast-track the salvage of damaged trees, making it easier for the forest sector to quickly access timber damaged by wildfire and other natural disturbances, getting more logs into local pulp mills.

[1:50 p.m.]

Finally, we’re empowering B.C. Timber Sales for long-term, full-rotation forest stewardship, managing timber sale licences through their rotation from initial harvest, to replanting, to future harvest.

Together these amendments will contribute to a more dependable and predictable working forest that supports getting the right log to the right mill and that supports good jobs, investment decisions and economic stability throughout the forest sector in British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Bill M239 — Aboriginal Title
Transparency Act

Scott McInnis: I move that a bill entitled the Aboriginal Title Transparency Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for a first time now.

At a time when transparency in British Columbia is not just lacking but increasingly absent, this legislation is not optional. It is essential. British Columbians are asking a very simple question: “What is happening on the ground?” Right now they are not getting answers.

This government wants to go to the wall for private property owners. Well, here’s a first step in the right direction on behalf of the official opposition. Across this province, negotiations and legal proceedings related to Aboriginal title are unfolding quietly, often behind closed doors, while the people most directly affected are left in the dark — landowners, families, communities, businesses. They are not asking to be obstructive. They are asking to be informed.

This bill certainly changes that. It ensures that when government enters into negotiations or is involved in proceedings that could affect privately held land, those impacted will receive clear, timely notice — not after the fact, not through rumour, but directly, transparently and in plain terms. It requires that notices be filed to the land title office so there is a public record. It requires annual reporting so British Columbians can see the full scope of what is happening across this province.

This is not about choosing sides; it is about restoring trust. Reconciliation cannot happen in the shadows. It cannot succeed if people feel excluded, uncertain or blindsided by decisions that affect their homes, their land and their future.

British Columbians want to understand. They deserve to understand, and they have every right to know. This legislation brings sunlight into a process that for too long has operated without it. In doing so, it strengthens, not weakens, the path forward.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Wildfire Impacts and Preparedness

Harwinder Sandhu: As we approach another wildfire season in British Columbia, I rise today to encourage everyone to take steps now to be prepared.

For those of us in the Interior, wildfire is not an abstract risk. It is something we have lived through. Communities across Vernon-Lumby and the Okanagan still carry the impact of past fires, including the White Rock Lake wildfire. These experiences have shaped us in how we understand risk, resilience and preparation.

In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, I see the impacts wildfires have on farmers, ranchers, our food systems, as well as on our tourism sector — many businesses and workers who depend on safe and beautiful landscapes. Preparation is not only about protecting homes. It is about protecting livelihoods and local economies.

That is why I encourage everyone to take simple steps now. Have an emergency plan, prepare a grab-and-go kit and understand evacuation alerts as well as reduce fire risk around your home.

Important proactive work is also happening on the ground. I am immensely grateful to the Ministry of Forests for investing $15 million in proactive wildfire mitigation work, reducing fuel loads while protecting our vital watersheds on Aberdeen Plateau.

[1:55 p.m.]

I look forward to welcoming the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship to the site to show them this work firsthand.

I also extend sincere thanks to those who stand ready to respond — to our local firefighters, B.C. wildfire service and volunteer groups such as Vernon Search and Rescue, Air Rescue One and Rider Ventures — and to our communities for coming together to cheer these heroes on. Their courage protects lives, our homes and communities.

Wildfire preparedness is a shared responsibility. As we head into the season, I encourage everyone to take the time now to prepare, because when it comes to wildfires, being ready makes all the difference.

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows
Community Services

Lawrence Mok: I rise today to recognize the important work of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services, a non-profit organization that has been supporting our community for over 52 years. Last year alone, more than one in five residents in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows accessed support through community services programs. In total, the organization served more than 28,000 individuals, delivered almost 24,000 meals to seniors, and provided 3,500 visits and wellness checks to vulnerable people, a clear indication of the growing need in our community and the trust people place in this organization.

As a non-profit society, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services relies on government funding, community donations and strong partnerships with individuals, families, community groups and organizations to deliver essential programs that thousands of residents depend on every year.

Through more than 30 vital programs such as the Neurodiversity Week in March and the happy B.C. Family Day in February, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services provides mental health counselling, youth and family supports, seniors services, legal and victim services and community rehab programs.

Behind every one of these numbers is a person — a youth struggling with mental health, a senior living alone, a family facing crisis, or someone experiencing homelessness.

Today I’d like to ask the House to please recognize and support the vital role of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services, who are committed to showing up for people.

Budget Consultation Process

Steve Morissette: I rise today as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to highlight the committee’s annual budget consultation. I want to let British Columbians know that they can register right now to present at public hearings the committee will be holding through June.

Each year during the budget consultation, the committee hears from individuals, community organizations, businesses and local governments across the province. The consultation works best when people know it exists and understand how to take part, which is where you, my colleagues, come in.

I encourage all members to share information about the consultation through constituency offices, social media, newsletters and community networks, so British Columbians know how and when to have their say.

This year the committee will be holding public hearings in Burnaby, Castlegar, Cranbrook, Dawson Creek, Kamloops, Kelowna, Mission, Nanaimo, Prince George, Smithers, Vancouver and Victoria. There is also an option to participate virtually.

As an MLA from a rural riding and a former mayor of a rural village, I can speak from experience on the unique opportunity this consultation presents for rural areas. It’s a great opportunity for those who live outside of major cities to participate in the proceedings of the Legislature. The deadline to register for public hearings is April 10.

I encourage all of you to share the details of this consultation with your constituents. For those who are unable to participate in a public hearing, the opportunity to participate by submitting written recommendations will also be available in June. I appreciate your support in helping ensure this consultation reflects the voices from every part of the province.

[2:00 p.m.]

Forest Industry and Support
for Value-Added Manufacturing

Sheldon Clare: I rise today to speak to the critical importance of value-added manufacturing within British Columbia’s forestry sector, an opportunity that allows us to maximize the full economic benefits of this foundational industry.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the opportunity and privilege of touring, along with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, two exceptional operations in the riding of Prince George–North Cariboo. These are Dürfeld Log and Timber, led by Ric Dürfeld; and OT Timber Frames, founded by Oliver Tritten, with operations manager Juergen Poepsel.

What I saw was nothing short of inspiring. These are world-class manufacturers transforming B.C. timber into high-value, precision-crafted products that are recognized across our province, throughout North America and around the world.

Dürfeld Log and Timber, based out of Wildwood, north of Williams Lake, for example, has contributed to remarkable projects such as the beautiful upgrades to the Williams Lake Stampede Grounds and the spectacular Tsawwassen First Nation Youth Centre. Their craftsmanship showcases what is possible when innovation meets tradition in the use of wood.

Similarly, OT Timber Frames is demonstrating the future of our forest economy. Based in Miocene, east of Williams Lake, they are preparing for a significant expansion this year, one that will increase manufacturing capacity and create good-paying, skilled local jobs for the region. This is exactly the kind of growth we should be championing.

Value-added manufacturing keeps more of the economic benefit here at home. It supports rural communities and ensures that British Columbia remains a global leader not just in resource extraction but in advanced wood products and design.

As we consider the future of forestry in this province, let us recognize and support companies like Dürfeld Log and Timber and OT Timber Frames. They are proving that with the right vision, support and sufficient fibre supply, our B.C. wood can continue to build communities, drive innovation and create lasting prosperity.

Diversification of Trade
and Investment

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to address this House regarding one of British Columbia’s key strategies in response to the ongoing economic turmoil.

I’m going to begin, of course, by acknowledging that I am speaking on the traditional territories of the Coast Salish Peoples — in Victoria, the Songhees and xʷsepsəm, in North Vancouver–Seymour, the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations. I remain grateful for the teachings shared over the years and committed to continuing my journey of truth and reconciliation.

Over the past year, we have advanced the StrongerBC action plan with determination, reaching out across Canada and around the world to strengthen trade and investment ties as we defend workers and businesses against unjustified tariffs. Interprovincial negotiations continue to open new markets within our great country, while international missions to Europe and Asia are deepening economic relationships.

Here at home, in my role as parliamentary secretary responsible for the Consular Corps, I’ve had the privilege of chairing three significant meetings with representatives from the European Union and the United Kingdom, the ASEAN member states and, most recently, Mexico and Mercosur nations from South America.

Our Premier, along with the Minister of Finance, Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth and the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, have played central roles in these comprehensive discussions. Across all of these engagements, a consistent theme of collaboration and mutual support has emerged. While sharing our ideas and ideals, we identified new opportunities for trade and investment.

British Columbia has long benefited from solid ties across Canada and around the world. Today, as we strengthen and diversify those partnerships, our province is better positioned to thrive in a changing global landscape.

Equine Culture in Langley
and Development of Rural Land

Misty Van Popta: Langley is the horse capital of B.C. but could soon be facing an identity crisis if support to the equine industry further erodes. Like many young girls, I dreamt of owning my own pony, and for a brief time, when I was ten, I had one gifted to me. Her name, like mine, was Misty, and the two Mistys spent the summers of the 1980s riding local rural roads and the great trails of Campbell Valley Park.

Fast-forward 40 years, and Langley is one of the province’s fastest-growing municipalities. Where I once rode bareback down 16th Avenue is now an unofficial highway, and where there were once small farmsteads, now subdivisions.

[2:05 p.m.]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a pragmatist that knows that change is a part of life. But how we manage the pressures of densification and the protection of farmland is at the centre of saving the culture of Langley. Recent changes have created a scenario where it’s more equitable to convert small farmsteads into multi-million-dollar parcels instead of providing support to local governments and developers to focus on urbanized locations.

When times are tough for families to find fun and affordable things to do, low-barrier tickets to a day of rodeo fun are a breath of fresh air, and the Valley West Stampede has proven to be the organization to fill that gap in my community. With Thunderbird Show Park’s place on the world stage as a first-rate facility, it has been a collective sigh of relief in its recent acquisition by the Matheson family, which has ensured that it remains in local hands.

Thank you for solidifying the future of equine culture of Langley. I know you have big plans for the facility.

We must support and balance today’s pressures with our culture. We can build homes and still protect the agricultural roots that define our communities, but that requires an understanding of rural life, the value of local decision-making and a government that sees agriculture not as an inconvenience but as a cornerstone of B.C.’s identity. If we don’t stand up now, we may see our cowboys and cowgirls riding off into the sunset.

Oral Questions

Proposed Changes to DRIPA
and Government Priorities

Trevor Halford: Another day, another example of how this government is allergic to transparency. We have been promised by this Premier, by this government, for months that they would deal in this House regarding DRIPA, that this Premier would make it a priority and that he would table amendments that would give British Columbians the certainty they deserve when it comes to some of the challenges we are seeing in our province today.

What do we get from the Premier today? Absolutely nothing. In fact, we are actually seeing some of the language regarding these changes, these amendments, in the media that are now leaking out. Imagine that. Legislators in this room right here are actually seeing legislation before, not under NDAs, which a bunch of people are already under doing…. But we’re actually learning about them from the media.

This has completely been bundled from the Premier from day one.

My question to him today. Where are the amendments? What’s his plan? How is he going to deal with it? How is he going to fix this mess that he created?

Hon. David Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. The member will recall that the need to amend DRIPA comes from a Court of Appeal decision that was relatively recent. We’re working under compressed timelines.

Any time we have legislation that directly impacts and involves Indigenous People, we have an obligation, a commitment we’ve made to Indigenous People, to sit down with them and engage with them on that legislation. It’s exactly what we’re doing on the Declaration Act.

These are cabinet-level documents that were disclosed only to people who had signed non-disclosure agreements. This is something the previous government did when they were on this side of the House with First Nations. It’s something that we’re doing as well.

These amendments will be introduced in this House. There will be time for debate. British Columbians will see them. The opposition will raise the questions that they wish to raise about them.

The first step in drafting them…. Our efforts have been to engage with Chiefs across the province who are willing and interested in engaging with us in this conversation. It has been a challenging conversation. It is not where any of us hoped to be when that legislation was passed unanimously in this House, and we have to address this issue.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Here’s part of the problem. We have a Premier that will walk into one room and say one thing, and he’ll walk into another and say the other.

He’ll say today: “There’s no issue with property rights. They’re never at stake. There’s nothing to worry about there.” Then he’ll go at the beginning of this calendar year, and he’ll say: “I am going to go to the wall to defend your property rights.” That’s the language of the Premier.

He’ll also say: “I’m going to go as far as I will actually backstop mortgages. That’s what the Premier of this province is prepared to do for you.” Then he’ll say: “There’s no issue. Property rights are never…. There’s no issue with property rights. I don’t know what the opposition is talking about, Mr. Speaker.”

We’ve got a leader of this province, an architect of this legislation, and he has clearly got no plan, and he is clearly not liking the reaction that stakeholders are giving him.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, part of the problem is that once again this Premier is not learning from his past failures. He’s doing these negotiations, he’s doing this work under NDAs, behind closed doors, and he’s not liking the reaction he’s getting.

Will the Premier step up, show some leadership today, table those amendments, debate them in this House and clean up the mess that he made?

Hon. David Eby: I’ll remind the member that when the legislation was introduced, it was passed unanimously in the House, which included members who sit on that side right now.

There was a Court of Appeal decision that did not go the direction that we hoped it would go, that requires us to make amendments to the act to respond to it, to prevent significant litigation risk for the province of British Columbia.

We are engaging with First Nations on that to the best of our ability in constrained timelines with respect and a spirit of true partnership, which is how this original legislation was drafted. We’re doing our best to do that. It is not an ideal situation, and I acknowledge that.

I acknowledge, rightly, the concerns that have been raised following this Court of Appeal decision. That’s why we’re taking this action. That’s why we’re taking the action following the Quw’utsun decision, which deals with private property in Richmond, like sitting down with the Quw’utsun, issuing a joint statement that people’s private property is not at risk.

It’s important work to do, and we will ensure that that legislation is introduced here in this House, that members have time to debate it, raise the questions that they want to raise and understand it completely before there’s a vote in this chamber on any proposed amendments.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA
and Role of Non-Disclosure Agreements

Scott McInnis: This government is making changes to this legislation that affects property rights, resource development, mining and land use across British Columbia. But before anybody is allowed to see those changes, you must sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Referring to these very NDAs, Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Terry Teegee said: “These were imposed on us by the provincial government. I think more involvement should have occurred to allow for more discussions.”

Can this government explain to British Columbians why gag orders are an essential tool for making decisions about their land, their property and their future?

Hon. David Eby: What the member says is simply incorrect.

We are working with First Nations on amendments to respond to a significant litigation risk to the province.

Interjection.

Hon. David Eby: Wow. This is the level of respect for First Nations leadership, what we hear from the opposition.

We are engaging with First Nations leadership. Part of that involves engaging on cabinet-level confidence documents, which requires an NDA, just like it did when the other members sat on this side of the House. We have to do this work in partnership with First Nations leadership. We are attempting, as best as possible in a severely constrained environment, to do that.

I look forward to introducing the amendments here in this House so that members can debate them and we can move forward. But what the member suggests, that this is in relation to people’s private property or other key economic issues in the province, is simply incorrect.

We’ll introduce those amendments, and we’ll have those debates. I look forward to that.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: This isn’t the first time the government has operated in secret regarding land use and property rights.

The Premier attended the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm signing ceremony in the front row and then told British Columbians he hadn’t been briefed. We later found out that the federal minister, in fact, did brief the Premier several weeks before that.

Now he’s proposing DRIPA amendments behind NDAs and cabinet confidentiality. Either this government believes in transparency or governing in the dark.

Can anyone on that side of the House stand up and clarify this today, please?

Hon. David Eby: What the member said is simply false. It’s very unfortunate that we stand up, despite knowing the opposite, and misrepresent, very clearly, the facts here.

The appraisers of British Columbia held an event a couple of weeks ago, and one of their guest speakers expressly looked at the issue of the Quw’utsun decision and the effect on property values in the Richmond East area.

Dan Jones, a Metro Vancouver–based appraiser, said:

“As an appraiser, I tried to analyze if there was any difference in market values now, as there would have been before the decision came out and after.

[2:15 p.m.]

“Honestly, I couldn’t see any determination that there was an adjustment justified or that I could support it if I was asked to do so. I really just didn’t see any engagement between market discount that would be related to the Quw’utsun decision whatsoever at this point in time.”

I know these are serious issues. These are important issues. But overstating the issues, misrepresenting the issues, is not helpful, to say the least. These are issues that any government would have to deal with, and we are. We’re doing it in a way to grow our economy, to build partnerships with First Nations and to bring certainty for business to be able to move forward.

That’s why we’re able to welcome Anglo Teck, the province’s largest corporate office to ever locate in British Columbia’s history. That’s why we look forward to welcoming the largest private sector investment in British Columbia’s history again with LNG Canada phase 2. It is because we are creating the environment where $4 billion in new mining investment decisions have been made in just the last four months.

I look forward to the Mining Minister making even more of those announcements.

Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
and Conflict-of-Interest Concerns

Jeremy Valeriote: We raised an issue outside this House over the break that drew a strong reaction from the government caucus. It turns out that the Minister for AI and New Technologies has personal investments in a targeted AI and technology ETF, or exchange-traded fund.

I checked, and the Minister of Health doesn’t have a personal stake in health care companies, nor does the Minister of Mining have investments in mining operations.

It’s a clever diversion for the NDP to focus on the $11 worth of Oracle shares buried deep in a sub-fund in my retirement savings, but I’m still not the AI Minister, and the original question remains unanswered.

Interjection.

Jeremy Valeriote: A conflict of interest can be reasonably….

I feel privileged and honoured to be heckled for the first time in this House.

A conflict of interest can be reasonably perceived. AI is an unregulated sector that has the potential to have a huge impact on our society, so our government lead on AI should be able to describe a provincial workplan that has a clear-eyed view of the risks and benefits of AI, unclouded by a personal financial stake.

This isn’t political point-scoring or a personal attack. It’s responsible risk management.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Jeremy Valeriote: To the Minister for AI and New Technologies, will he commit…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Jeremy Valeriote: …to the divesting of his AI and technology investments?

Hon. Rick Glumac: This question has already been answered. The member knows that several months ago I went and met with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner about this ETF. I have a letter from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that clearly states there’s no conflict of interest.

I don’t know if the member ever did that. He was in a position of influence in an agreement with the NDP and the Greens.

Did you ever go…?

The Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

Hon. Rick Glumac: Did the member ever go and talk to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner about their own investments, which they seem to be worried about here?

It is absolutely critical that there is integrity in the decisions that we make and that we utilize the resources at our disposal. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner is there to give guidance, and it was received.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: The commissioner also pointed out to the minister that the public may not see it the same way that the commissioner does, and he left it to the minister’s best political judgment to make that determination.

This issue has also exposed a real weakness in our conflict-of-interest protections. Whether a member has $4 or $400,000 in a particular stock or fund is not currently disclosed. Just as importantly, the amount invested can change from day to day without requiring the filing of a material change.

This is an accountability gap. To fill it, we need to come to a shared understanding of how much money might reasonably constitute a conflict or perceived conflict, especially for a minister of the government. I will note, with my $11, I am still not the minister of AI.

This is only being discussed because we waded through the text disclosures.

Will the Attorney General commit to make changes so that the public can see at a glance, in an accessible format, maybe like a pie chart, whether a member has $4 or $400,000 invested in a particular company or sector so they can form their own opinion of what is or may be a conflict of interest?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s really important that every member of this House understand the important role of the conflicts commissioner. I just would like to urge everybody to do as the minister of AI did. If you need advice on whether something is a conflict or not, they are the resource for you to go to, and they will issue you letters that clarify what side of the rules you’re on, as the member did in this circumstance.

It’s invaluable for this, and it helps to keep the integrity of our democracy.

[2:20 p.m.]

Budget Priorities and Credit Rating

Harman Bhangu: Five credit downgrades under this NDP government — five. That is not a technical issue; that is a warning sign.

Every downgrade means higher borrowing costs, billions more in interest — money that should be going to health care, to families and to the most vulnerable. Instead, British Columbians are left paying more and getting less.

My question to the Finance Minister: how can the minister defend a budget that is weakening our financial position and forcing future generations to carry the cost?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Moody’s has highlighted what we already know, that the economic circumstances because of this trade war have diminished economic growth in Canada and elsewhere, and it’s having an impact. Provinces across this country are posting record deficits. Alberta just doubled their deficit in their budget. We’re seeing this across this country.

What we’re doing here in B.C. is two things at once. We’re protecting services that are most important to British Columbians, and we’re working to continue to bring down our deficit. We still have the most favourable ratings of any province across Canada.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Harman Bhangu: I am not going to take financial lessons from a minister that uses taxpayer dollars for limo rides.

Budgets are supposed to be about priorities, and this NDP government has made theirs clear: rising debt, repeated downgrades and a growing interest bill that is crowding out services British Columbians rely on. That is not unexpected. It is a direct result of their decisions and their policies. The consequences are simple — higher costs for British Columbians and fewer supports when they need them the most.

Again, why has the minister chosen a path that weakens British Columbians’ financial standing and leaves British Columbians paying the price for their incompetence?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, but may I point out that I won’t take advice from somebody who was going to cancel the Pattullo Bridge replacement when it was almost finished. There’s a good decision.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: On this side of the House, we are taking measured steps. We’re doing two things at once. We’re protecting services that are key to British Columbians…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …and we’re taking very important steps to work on making sure we’re bringing down our deficit over time, we’re tightening the public belt, and we’re taking important measures to make sure our debt metrics remain competitive.

Kiel Giddens: British Columbia has seen five credit rating downgrades in four years with no improvement in sight. This NDP government’s choices mean that billions of taxpayer dollars are going to banks instead of growing the economy and opportunities for British Columbians.

Moody’s said: “The increase in deficits and rising debt largely stems from provincial policy choices, which we view as evidence of a continued weakening in governance in fiscal and debt management from high standards.”

Credit downgrades are a sign that government has lost control of spending. Based on this government’s habit of spending, can the Finance Minister commit today that British Columbia will not see any more credit downgrades, yes or no?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Our three-year plan finds $3.5 billion in expenditure managements over the fiscal plan. We reduced the size of the public sector by 15,000 jobs, and we make wise decisions in regards to spacing out capital.

We know that that’s the decisions we make on this side of the House — and protecting public services.

We also know the decisions you’d make on that side of the House because you told us.

To quote the minister from Fraser-Nicola…. Pardon me. To quote the member for Fraser-Nicola….

Interjections.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We have to let you dream.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: “If education and health care are the two biggest line items on the budget, they’re the ones…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey:…that are going to have to take the brunt of this somehow.”

That is not the decision we’re making on this side of the House. We will continue….

Interjections.

[2:25 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: On this side of the House, we’ll continue to protect health care for British Columbians. We will continue to make investments in good schools for British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: People know what that side of the House would do, and that’s why we’re over here.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Credit Rating and
Economic Impacts of Budget

Kiel Giddens: I don’t have confidence from that answer that this government is reining in spending, and neither do the credit rating agencies. All four of them actually maintained a negative outlook on this NDP government, despite what the minister just said.

Credit downgrades send a glaring signal to everyone that this province is becoming the most expensive place to invest and create jobs. We’re seeing it now. The business community has already told this government that their latest tax increases weaken business competitiveness and threaten private sector jobs.

How many more small businesses will shutter and how many more jobs will be lost under this government’s watch?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the question from my friend across the way.

My friend will know that since 2017, B.C. has seen one of the strongest GDP growths in the entire country. We’ve seen 351,800 jobs created in British Columbia since 2017…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: …including 181,000 of them in the private sector.

We’re going to continue to do the work we need to do to attract investment. The Premier has highlighted the investment that was made by Teck just recently. I can also share with the members that Amgen recently completed their expansion of a brand-new research lab, a $27 million investment. A Variational AI partnership with Merck, doing a generative AI drug discovery, has now increased their investment, seeing up to $485 million.

Businesses continue to make investments in British Columbia. Why? Because we’re a steady jurisdiction and because we are making key investments in key sectors, training our future generation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ve never been heckled by three people who were running for a leadership race and all dropped out at the same time. That is an amazing, well-coordinated effort.

We’re going to continue to do the work we need to do, investing in our people, investing in the important services that people depend on and growing our economy.

Jobs and Unemployment

Teresa Wat: Despite the fact that the Jobs Minister is trying to paint a rosy picture of what this government has done, the fact is B.C. lost 33,000 full-time jobs in February alone. That’s over 40 percent of all monthly job losses in the whole country. B.C. is supposed to be a leader, not in unemployment growth.

The only thing this Minister of Jobs has overseen since he took over this portfolio is job losses. It seems the only job he focuses on is the one he hopes to get next.

When is this government going to abandon its job-killing agenda and keep British Columbians gainfully employed in B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It took a long time to get to that. I can share with the member that B.C. continues to have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the entire country. I’m sure the member saw that in the numbers. I’m sure the member also saw that we continue, still, to see some of the largest investments across the board in British Columbia, more per capita than every other province in this country.

Not only that, but it’s well acknowledged that B.C. will be leading the country in economic growth.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, it’s your time. You want to waste it? Be my guest. Otherwise, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: They don’t have any questions left. I think that’s why they’re heckling so much.

As I’ve highlighted, we continue to make investments in our people. Our people are our superpower. Those investments are turning around into investments in our infrastructure, whether that’s mining, whether it’s natural gas, whether that’s tech or whether that’s in life sciences.

We continue to be leaders in the country. We continue to grow employment, and we’re going to continue to make those investments. Every single investment that we’ve brought forward in the budget — whether it’s a $400 million strategic investment fund or whether that’s investments into skills training, doubling the trades training in this province — they have opposed. That is the key to continue to grow this economy, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Teresa Wat: I’m sure the Jobs Minister is fully aware of the statistics. The facts are the facts. The government has caused a 50 percent increase in the unemployment rate in just four years.

Even with the skyrocketing growth of the public sector, this government cannot manage to lower the unemployment rate. Under this NDP government, the public sector has grown by 45 percent.

When is this NDP government going to actually grow the economy and cut B.C.’s unemployment rate?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think I misunderstood or misheard the member, but we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates from major provinces. We’ve seen some of the fastest GDP growth in the entire country. We continue to see some of the highest levels of investments coming to British Columbia.

I appreciate the members’ need to get up and have something to say. I appreciate that it’s question period, and they want to try…. In fact, when they see job losses — most British Columbians say we need to do better; we need to get more jobs — they wake up happy. You know why? It’s because they get something to talk about in question period.

We continue to do what we need to do. We hear from employers that they need more skills-training opportunities. They would hire more people if they could get them skilled up and trained. That’s why this budget doubles the skills training with large investments. It’s one of the largest investments in human capital in the last 30 years, doubling skills training, so that when an employer says, “We want to make an investment,” we have people skilled up and ready to take those jobs.

Drug Decriminalization Program

Claire Rattée: Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on ideologically-driven experiments by this government when it comes to the toxic drug crisis. There was $19 million budgeted for the decriminalization pilot, to study it, and now we’re being told that there were no results that were found.

I don’t understand if British Columbians should either not trust that that’s accurate or shouldn’t trust this government to be able to manage their money.

I’m hoping that one of the ministers will stand up today and tell us: is there any usable data that came out of the decriminalization pilot, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and for the continued conversation that I’ve been able to have with her in her role as a critic around what is truly one of the hardest crises this province has ever faced, around the toxic drugs and the increasing contamination of that drug supply, and our government’s efforts.

I would like to thank every member in this House, the efforts of every member in this House, to do everything that we can to separate people from that drug supply, to be able to enforce and come down on the people who peddle these drugs and to build out a continuum of care so that people get access to the help and the supports that they need. That is what this government has been focused on. That’s why we undertook the pilot project around decriminalization. As members in this House know, and as we’ve talked about, it didn’t result in what we had hoped for.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: What we know that needs to be done is to continue to increase those supports for people, ensure that they get access through Access Central, through the growing Road to Recovery that is coming out across the province.

The member was just in her riding, in fact, announcing a new detox withdrawal management facility in Terrace, something desperately needed in the North. This government is going to stay focused on those supports, on access to treatment and recovery, the work that needs to be done to save lives.

[2:35 p.m.]

Provincial Sales Tax
and Support for Small Business

Gavin Dew: It is not just credit rating agencies that have lost confidence in this government. Business confidence in B.C. is consistently among the lowest in Canada, and this government keeps making it worse. On their watch, government jobs have seen ten times the rate of growth as the private sector jobs that pay for them.

Today I’ll be presenting a petition from more than 7,000 employers calling on this government to provide cost relief for small business. Behind every signature is a small business owner trying to keep their doors open, their staff employed, their taxes paid and food on the table for their own families.

This government’s expansion of the PST has gone over like a lead balloon with the business community, especially after the Premier fobbed off their concerns as anecdotal. A new member survey from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business finds that taxes and regulatory red tape are the single biggest input cost constraint in B.C., scoring a whopping 13 percent higher than Canada as a whole.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Gavin Dew: More businesses have closed shop or left B.C. than have opened in the last five reporting quarters.

How many more businesses will need to shut down before the government cancels their job-killing PST expansion and takes their foot off the throat of small business in this province?

Hon. David Eby: There’s no question that small business is crucial to the success of our province. The interesting thing about small businesses is that they’re dependent on a lot of the major projects that we are bringing into this province.

It matters that we’re second in Canada for economic growth. It matters that we’re working with First Nations to advance major projects involving almost $50 billion, with $40 billion worth of final investment decisions coming to term in the next year alone.

Small businesses provide the supplies to the mines, to the LNG projects, to other multi-billion-dollar investments. That is how we have the fourth-lowest unemployment rate in Canada. That’s how we have the second-highest rate of growth, first among major provinces. That’s how we’ve created 181,200 private sector jobs since forming government.

That’s how we’ve expanded per-capita capital investment in B.C. by 92.6 percent. It’s by supporting British Columbians, giving them training opportunities, expediting permitting, doing the hard work. That’s why four major private sector investments in the major projects office of the government of Canada are British Columbian — four times more than any other province in Canada.

Now, what does corrode confidence is instability, chaos, fights, poor relationships.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. David Eby: Honestly, is the Leader of the Opposition, who just had an MLA arrested — is he telling me that he would bring stability to the government?

Interjection.

Hon. David Eby: I’m serious. That happened. That happened.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Members, let’s stick to the point, please. Members.

Hon. David Eby: Fights with First Nations….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition will come to order now.

The Premier will conclude.

Hon. David Eby: Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

Stability, avoiding extremism…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: …asking people who don’t meet minimum standards of ethics to resign — basic requirements of leadership and government absent from the Conservative side.

We bring stability. We bring investment. We bring growth, the second-highest in Canada.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members will come to order.

Premier, please conclude.

Hon. David Eby: One of the leadership candidates of the Conservative Party just proposed partnering with OneBC in residential schools denial and fights with Indigenous people. If they think that’s going to grow the economy, that’s going to support small business, that’s going to bring stability to the province, it’s not. Our government is proud to do this work.

[End of question period.]

[2:40 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: I have the honour to table the Auditor General’s report, Provincial Support for the Village of Lytton’s Wildfire Recovery.

Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Come to order, please.

Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Petitions

Gavin Dew: I rise to present a petition signed by 7,092 employers. This petition calls on government to provide tax and cost relief to our long-suffering small businesses. Specifically, these small businesses outline very specific items of policy they would like to see this government enact.

At a time like this, I think it’s very important we hear voices from small business….

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. You don’t have to explain the petition.

The Speaker: Member for….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Member for Surrey City Centre.

Reports from Committees

Private Bills and
Private Members’ Bills Committee

Amna Shah: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills on Bill M214, intituled Firefighters’ Health Act. The committee reports the bill complete with amendments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

The committee report on Bill M214, Firefighters’ Health Act, will be considered at report stage during private members’ time.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move:

[That pursuant to Standing Order 16 (4), that this morning’s Private Members’ Time deferred division be further deferred until the start of Orders of the Day to the next sitting day and that any division in Section B in today’s sitting be also deferred.]

The Speaker: Members, there is a motion.

Division has been called.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Official Opposition.

[2:45 p.m.-2:50 p.m.]

Members, please take your seats so the head table can take a proper count.

Members, the motion was made by the Government House Leader, and it reads “that pursuant to Standing Order 16 (4), that this morning’s Private Members’ Time deferred division be further deferred until the start of Orders of the Day to the next sitting day and that any division in Section B in today’s sitting be also deferred.”

[2:55 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46
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	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Kahlon
Chandra Herbert	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Gibson	Glumac	Shah
G. Anderson	Chow	Morissette
	Valeriote
NAYS — 43
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	Wilson	McInnis
Paton	Day	Bhangu
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Dhaliwal	McCall	Maahs
Block	Stamer	Gasper
Mok	Davis	Chan
Boultbee	Sturko	Armstrong
Kealy	Williams	Chapman
Bird	Doerkson	Luck
	Tepper

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Forests and then, after that, the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 6, Motor Vehicle Act.

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Trevor Halford: I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege regarding remarks that were made by the Premier earlier today.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools
Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker: We will call the chamber back to order, where we are going to begin our debate on Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

I would call on the Attorney General to introduce the bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Over the past few years, we witnessed an escalation of disruptive protests occurring in and around our K-to-12 schools. In 2023, these demonstrations began to interfere with learning, and they created harmful and distressing situations for students, families and staff who simply needed to be at school.

Government responded to this harm with the Safe Access to Schools Act in 2023. Access zones were established by regulation for all K-to-12 schools at the end of the 2023-24 school year and then re-established for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years.

While the number of incidents has decreased since this act was enacted, they have not yet disappeared. These behaviours continue to surface, and they continue to pose risks. What we have seen, however, is that this legislation has a meaningful deterrent effect.

At its core, this bill is about ensuring that children can learn in a safe, welcoming and accessible environment. It is about ensuring that families and caregivers can enter school grounds without fear or intimidation. It’s about ensuring that staff who dedicate themselves every day to creating inclusive, supporting classrooms can do their work without being confronted or harassed by protesters. Quite simply, no one should ever be scared to go to school.

This bill continues the protections that ensure students and staff have unimpeded access to their learning environments and that their health, safety and well-being remain safeguarded.

As with any legislation that touches on rights and freedoms protected by the Charter, we have taken care to minimize the impacts, while still achieving the essential goal of protecting children and educators from harm and disruption.

[3:00 p.m.]

Restrictions apply only within designated access zones around K-to-12 schools, and these access zones are not established automatically. They come into effect only when established by regulation for each school year. They are limited in size, targeted in scope and in effect only when students and staff are likely to be present.

Another important safeguard is the repeal provision. Instead of making these measures permanent, we are extending them for two years. This ensures that two years from now, like we are doing today, the Legislature can revisit this issue, assess the evidence and consider whether the protections continue to be necessary.

This legislation is not aimed at most people. Most British Columbians understand the importance of education to our children, and they know that schools are not appropriate places for disruptive protests. But a small group continues to engage in behaviour that interferes with the functioning of our education system and compromises the safety and well-being of young people. We cannot allow this behaviour to continue.

For these reasons, we are introducing this bill today.

Steve Kooner: I rise as the Attorney General critic for the official opposition to speak to Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

We just heard the remarks of the Attorney General, and we heard that there was an original enactment, the Safe Access to Schools Act, which, I believe, was brought forward and enacted in 2024. We’ve heard remarks from the Attorney General that there shouldn’t be impeded access to schools, and there shouldn’t be fear or safety concerns about having access to schools.

We’ve heard that, originally, this was enacted a couple of years ago — two or three years ago. Now we’re back here in the Legislature. Fast-forward two or three years later. The government is trying to extend the time limit of this piece of legislation.

We’ve also heard from the Attorney General that despite the government bringing forward this legislation, the fears and the safety concerns in regard to access to schools have not ended. In essence, we’ve heard that the legislation that this government introduced has not solved the issue of fear and public safety issues in regard to access to schools. That has not been addressed, and that’s why we’re here, hearing from the government that they want to extend this piece of legislation.

Those are my preliminary remarks. I’m going to get into my speech here. I rise today to speak to Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

At its core, this bill is straightforward. If you look at this amendment act, it doesn’t really have too much wording. It just has a couple of clauses in there, and it specifically deals with dating issues and extending issues in regard to the original enactment. This piece of legislation extends the repeal date of the Safe Access to Schools Act from July 1, 2026, to July 1, 2028. It gives an extension of two years, specifically. That is the entirety of the amendment before us today.

Let me begin by stating clearly that I support safe access to schools. We support safe access to schools. Every student in this province deserves to attend school, free from public safety issues and free from fear at being able to access their schools. Every parent deserves confidence that their child can enter school safely. Every teacher and staff member deserves a workplace free from fearful interference. There should be no ambiguity on that point.

[3:05 p.m.]

However, there are some concerns with this legislation. Specifically, we have heard from the Attorney General that the original public safety concerns have not been dealt with. With the original enactment, we are still seeing public safety incidents.

On a more common basis, we see real incidents. We see issues where students have felt threatened. We’ve seen issues of lockdowns in regard to our schools. Having public safety issues around our schools is entirely unacceptable. Schools are places of learning, not places where children have to fear in terms of attending educational institutes.

The key question here, when we’re now revisiting this legislation, is: why is this happening? We are seeing legislation being introduced, but we are not seeing the underlying issue of what has been going on with our schools being addressed by this government.

The underlying issue is enforcement. We do see other pieces of legislation, such as the Criminal Code of Canada. It talks about if there’s intimidation. It talks about if there’s fearful impeding. It talks about harassment, if there’s criminal harassment. Those mechanisms, those tools, are there in that other piece of legislation, the Criminal Code. We’ve always had these tools of stopping fearful interference with access.

The problem seems to be that there’s not efficient enforcement. That has allowed for these fearful interruptions, these fearful impediments to our school system, to continue. The underlying cause needs to be dealt with. We’ve heard from the Attorney General, just right now, that despite introducing this legislation two or three years ago, these incidents where children fear to access their schools are still happening.

They’re still happening despite this legislation being enacted two or three years ago. That is really concerning, because this is happening with the backdrop of public safety issues happening right across the province. Whether we’re seeing it with our school system, with religious places of worship, with retail shops or with just everyday folk trying to walk in their neighbourhoods, we are seeing fearful impediments for accessing different institutes or different services that British Columbians require.

This is happening on an ongoing basis. So there seems to be an underlying cause, the real root of these circumstances that are now resulting in this government trying to extend this piece of legislation. Those underlying causes need to be dealt with, because public safety is paramount, and not enough is being done.

There is significant legislation out there, such as the Criminal Code, and we also saw the original enactment of this piece of legislation. The problem seems to be that there isn’t enough enforcement. If you do not enforce laws that currently exist, the public is going to continue to see problems involving public safety issues.

This is very concerning, because public safety should be a fundamental issue that gets dealt with immediately. We need to have proper resources with the enforcement. We need to make sure our law enforcement is properly resourced. We need to make sure our justice system is properly resourced.

[3:10 p.m.]

If we have the proper resourcing, we will see that people that want to take the law in their hands and cause fearful interruptions…. We will see those actually decrease, if we have effective enforcement and if we have effective enforcement tools.

What we are seeing…. As the Attorney General just alluded to earlier, the incidents that the original legislation was designed to stop are not stopping. If they’re not stopping, that means that the government is really missing the mark. The mark seems to be that this seems to be more of a public safety issue that we’re dealing with in this province. That public safety incidence isn’t just related to our schools. It’s related to every aspect of life in this province right now.

When you are going out and talking amongst your colleagues, amongst neighbours, amongst family, it’s a common theme that the public is talking about public safety, and they’re saying that more needs to be done. They’re saying that there is not an effective enforcement of the laws that we currently have. We can keep creating more and more laws, but if you don’t resource the public safety enforcement mechanisms, the public safety enforcement tools, the problem will not be solved.

We really do need to look at the underlying issues behind the legislation. Why is the problem not stopping? We need to stop the problem. Our children, British Columbians’ children, are the future of this province. When we look at vulnerable people, we think of children, we think about seniors, and we think about other groups. If we do think about the vulnerable, we need to make sure that we are addressing the underlying causes in terms of the issues that we are seeing on a daily basis.

We need to be asking ourselves: why are the situations escalating to the point that we now have to look at creating new laws, when there are existing laws that deal with harassment, interference, fear? Those have been long-standing laws. They have been there for years and years. We need to be asking: how come we didn’t have these problems before, and they’ve become a new problem, when we’ve had these laws for a very long time?

What seems to be missing in the discussion? There seems to be a failure to recognize that there’s a widespread public safety crisis that we are dealing with throughout this province. Whether that involves repeat property offenders or repeat violent offenders, or we have people that want to create fear, create harassment or create criminal impediments for students, it all seems to come down to the same rubric. It comes down to an issue of public safety.

If you are dealing with an issue of public safety, you have to deal with enforcement mechanisms. You have to make sure the enforcement tools are properly resourced. At the end of the day, you can try creating more and more laws, but if you have a lack of enforcement, you’re not going to get anywhere. In terms of creating that safety for children, you must properly resource.

I currently serve as critic for Attorney General, and we recently had debates on the budget in regard to Attorney General budgets. One of the concerns I had was that the justice realm isn’t properly funded in this province. We need to make sure our law enforcement, our justice system, is properly resourced.

[3:15 p.m.]

We need to make sure we are being proactive. We need to make sure we are providing more resources. If we have more visibility of our public safety enforcement, you will have more of a deterrent effect. That’s why the deterrent effect is a major, major element of looking at criminal law, at the Criminal Code or at public safety statutes. Deterrence serves a major purpose.

One thing that seems to be missing right across this province is that public safety is not properly resourced. Until we deal with that, there might be ongoing concerns. You can create as many words as you like, but if you don’t have the tools, if you don’t have the tools in motion, the problem is not going to disappear. So the answer to the underlying problem really matters. Do we have the enforcement tools?

I would suggest that we do have the enforcement tools, but they’re not properly resourced. The question becomes…. If you don’t properly resource the enforcement mechanisms, are you going to solve the problem in regard to the fear that’s preventing access to institutions such as schools? You will not be able to do that if you don’t properly resource the actual enforcement mechanisms.

That’s where this government seems to be not supporting students, children and the vulnerable population throughout this province. Until we address that issue.… The ongoing issues that were mentioned earlier about fearful disruptions, about harassment or about impediments won’t be dealt with until you’ve got the enforcement mechanisms that are mobilized, properly resourced, highly visible and actually stopping the underlying public safety issues.

This government has failed, time and time again, on public safety enforcement. That is the reality. We see that constantly being discussed in the public domain. Public safety is an ongoing issue on a daily basis in this whole province.

With this piece of legislation, we saw another piece of legislation addressing a different topic but also having to deal with access — safe access. That’s another aspect that we are dealing with — the public safety crisis in this province. To deal with all situations, all different aspects that involve public safety, if you do not properly fund public safety enforcement tools, that public safety problem will not be resolved.

It doesn’t matter which area we are dealing with. Whether it’s schools, religious places where we worship, business venues or neighbourhoods, this government needs to do better.

Like I mentioned earlier, we already have laws. We’ve seen this law, the original enactment. We also have the Criminal Code of Canada, which has been there forever and which addresses the very behaviours such as intimidation, obstruction, causing disturbances, interference with lawful activities.

These are not new concepts. They are not gaps in the law. There are established offences to deal with this type of conduct. When we are seeing repeated public safety incidents, the issue is not that the law is unclear. The issue is that the law is not being consistently enforced.

[3:20 p.m.]

Instead of fixing that problem of enforcement, what are we seeing? We are seeing legislation being used to compensate for weak enforcement. We are seeing words being introduced into statutes in lieu of enforcement. We are seeing the government extend measures instead of strengthening the system.

The system needs to be strengthened, and the supports around the system need to be strengthened in order to get results to make sure children are not fearing to have access to their safe places such as schools.

We are seeing a reliance on new rules instead of ensuring existing rules are applied. We have existing rules to address the exact conduct that the Attorney General referred to earlier. We have had these rules for a very long time. How come we’re not seeing any meaningful action on that legislation that has existed for a very long time? That’s the question that needs to be asked.

Bill 12 is attempting to solve a problem. It’s a problem that needs to be solved, because children need to feel safe, students need to feel safe, and they need to have safe access. But the underlying issue is that we currently have laws to deal with behaviour that is actually creating fear for students and children, but it’s only if those laws were enforced that we could actually get rid of that fear that our students and children are seeing when they’re trying to access their schools.

Another point I’d like to make about the original enactment and this particular statute is that this statute is now attempting to extend the previous statute by another two years. There was originally a time limit put on the original statute. It was brought into force in 2024. The time limit was until 2026. A couple of years were given. Why did the government only give it a couple of years? Why did the government only give it two years?

They gave it two years because they were trying to bring a temporary solution until they found a permanent solution, a permanent solution to a big problem. I would respectfully submit that that big problem is our general public safety crisis in this province. This government has not been effective in addressing that crisis in this province.

It’s already been two years. Now, since this government has not been able to deal with the exact behaviours that need to be dealt with in terms of making sure our kids feel safe and students feel safe accessing schools, we are now back here so that government can come up with another temporary solution and just give another two-year time limit on this legislation while they look for permanent solutions.

Now, that’s a little bit problematic, because that kind of shows that this government is being reactive, not proactive. By now, there should have been some sort of framework for a permanent solution. That should have been brought forward. So put it out there.

It’s very important to protect children. It’s very important to protect students in regards to their safe access to their learning places. Children are students, and children are the future of this province.

But we must do more than just give them a temporary solution. We must give them a permanent solution, and that permanent solution comes in the form of public safety enforcement in this province and making sure public safety is properly resourced and funded. To the degree that our public safety enforcement establishment needs further resources, those needs must be dealt with as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

This government must give time to address the real issue. It’s had enough time to review and do an assessment, but we must see a permanent resolution to the underlying cause that our children and our students are seeing on an ongoing basis.

It shouldn’t be acceptable that we are seeing more and more incidents of lockdowns at our schools where children fear — they’ve had one lockdown, or another school’s had a lockdown — to now attend school. That doesn’t create a safe environment for learning.

I remember attending school when I was a child in this province. I don’t think I ever heard of any lockdown happening. When I went to, say, elementary school in the ’80s or went to high school in the’90s, I don’t recall hearing these types of incidents that we are hearing about today in this province. Seriously, there has been something that has changed. And we are seeing that, despite new legislation being introduced, the problem isn’t going away in terms of public safety issues in this province related to schools.

The government is now extending the original time aspect of the original legislation, which is July 2026, to July 2028. So we will now be in a state of a temporary fix to the underlying problem for another couple of years. But we must get to the bottom of this. We must have a permanent solution. It doesn’t send a good message to children or students in saying: “Hey, we’re going to give you a temporary fix here. We’ll relook at the problem in a couple years.”

What about these students? They’re probably in the school system right now. They’re thinking: “Okay, what do I do two years from now?”

If this government is serious about solving safety issues for students in regards to accessing schools and education institutes, then this government must introduce a real plan in funding and resourcing the public safety enforcement mechanisms that exist in this province. Where is the plan?

Increase in police presence may be needed. Where’s the plan to fund that even more? We need to make sure there’s consistent enforcement across communities. Is that happening? We need to make sure there’s support for officers on the front lines. Whether that be law enforcement or bylaw enforcement, we’ve got to make sure that the people on the front line doing the enforcement have the support to actually enforce laws to, in fact, make sure there’s safe access to schools.

We also need to make sure…. We need to work with Crown prosecutors to ensure there’s proper follow-through if somebody is creating an infraction of the law, with the current law that it sits with, involving access to schools without any fear.

Without all these elements in terms of the justice system, law enforcement and consistency in enforcement…. If all these mechanisms are not dealt with, nothing will change because the enforcement will not change. The same public safety incidents will continue. The same public safety issues will occur, and we’ll be back here again, extending this legislation once more. And children will be wondering: where’s the permanent fix?

[3:30 p.m.]

Children require stability. One of the things that, in family law, courts look at is they want to make sure children are in stable situations. When you’re just giving temporary fixes every couple of years, that’s not creating a stable environment.

All in all, we’ve had laws that deal with these types of concerns for a long time — such as harassment, intimidation, impediment — that prevent all this stuff. We’ve had laws for a very long time.

Now we are back here again, asking for a temporary fix, but we are not funding the proper public safety enforcement. If this government only did, we would not be asking for permanent fixes. We would be getting permanent solutions. And students deserve permanent solutions. Children deserve permanent solutions, because stability matters for this age group.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s an honour to get up in the House today and have the opportunity to support an amendment brought forward by my colleague the Attorney General.

In 2024, the Safe Access to Schools Act was passed to ensure that students and staff can safely access their schools and be protected from harmful and disruptive behaviours. This is such an important piece of legislation that we brought in, in 2024, and this amendment will help ensure the safety of children at schools. And really, what could be more important? Kids deserve to have a place of learning that feels safe to them, where all children feel safe and welcome.

It’s true that we also have to make sure that folks are able to express their opportunity to be opposed to things, to have the right to protest, the rights that are protected in our constitution. But we must balance these two things. It’s very, very important that children feel safe at their schools and that people working in those schools feel safe — the work of teachers. These folks do such important work. They play such a key role in our children’s lives. To think of them feeling unsafe in their school environment is just really heartbreaking.

I know that, for myself…. I’ve raised three children in the school system in British Columbia. We’ve had the opportunity to have extraordinary teachers in our lives. I really just want to share my respect for the teachers that do incredible work with our kids. It’s important that they, too, feel very safe at school. School can be a place of joyous learning, a place of community and a place where kids get to be themselves. It’s so important that that’s protected.

Since this was originally brought in, in 2024, access zones have been placed around K-to-12 public and independent schools during the school year to protect both students and staff members.

I’m pleased to say that we have seen a reduction in the number of protests and disruptions around schools over the last two years. However, these disruptions do continue to occur, and sometimes they’re quite harsh and very upsetting. This behaviour is persisting. Because of that, we do need to take additional action to keep kids safe in British Columbia so they’re supported in schools and are able to do their best.

We’ve heard from our partners in the education sector that these safe access zones have been helpful in keeping protests and disruptions away from schools, in ensuring that students and staff can safely access schools and focus on learning, which is the top priority for us in government.

Extending the sunset clause by two years, until June 30, 2028, will ensure that access zones can be established beyond the end of the current school year.

Let me be clear. Schools should be welcoming. They should be safe. They should be inclusive places. And harmful disruptions have no place in and around British Columbia schools.

[3:35 p.m.]

We all understand that people have a right to express and voice their views and advocate for change, but not at the expense of safety for students and staff. Children have a right to education, and disrupting their learning is simply not appropriate.

These kids are our future. This is how we build B.C. These are the folks that someday are going to be populating this chamber. These are the folks that are going to be our future teachers and doctors and folks that are delivering our mail and folks that work in all aspects of life in British Columbia. They deserve to have an experience where they can learn in a way that feels safe and inclusive, and that’s what we’re providing in B.C. schools.

We must continue to provide support and take action as needed to keep kids safe at school so that they can focus on what the most important thing is — which, of course, is learning. And we will continue to work with districts directly to explore all options available to make schools safer and more inclusive places to learn.

Jeremy Valeriote: Dozens of Canadian churches have been burned down since May 2021, with many being confirmed as arson. Mosques have received federal security funds to combat Islamophobia and hate attacks against Muslim women. We have heard sentiments of uneasiness during Ramadan for people entering mosques, attending services, and this uneasiness….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I hope we will get to this bill fairly quickly, please.

Jeremy Valeriote: We will, very quickly, and I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

When I’m saying “services,” these sentiments of uneasiness have persisted for years and reportedly have grown. On recent synagogue attacks, this legislation comes after three separate Toronto area synagogues were shot at since March 2. The shootings prompted police in Vancouver and Victoria to send additional patrols to Jewish places of worship and community organizations.

We do have concerns regarding the broad definition of interference within this bill. I will echo opponents to this broad definition, who have stated that: “In other words, any protest outside a place of worship would be illegal regardless of the actual activity taking place in the facility.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re debating Bill 12, which is the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act of 2026. If you could kindly direct your comments to Bill 12, that would be appreciated.

Jeremy Valeriote: I now understand the concern, and apologies for my confusion.

I will have to sit, because I’m not prepared to speak to Bill 12.

Bryan Tepper: I rise today on second reading of Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026. This bill proposes a simple but consequential change. It extends the repeal date of the Safe Access to Schools Act from July 1, 2026, to July 1, 2028.

While the intent behind the original legislation, to protect students and educators from genuine harm, is admirable and one that every member of this House shares, I cannot support its extension without the most rigorous scrutiny.

The principle of safe, uninterrupted access to our K-to-12 schools is not in dispute. Students deserve to learn free from intimidation, disruption or fear. Yet this act, as implemented and as proposed for extension, has raised profound and unanswered questions about proportionality, demonstrable effectiveness, Charter rights and jurisdictional overreach.

I will probably vote in favour of second reading solely to advance the bill to committee stage, where we can demand precise answers on its real-world application. But forgive me if I find the government’s position a little disingenuous, as they seem to find wearing shirts, threatening people they disagree with, to these various school grounds about our children….

[3:40 p.m.]

While we explore the sufficiency of less intrusive alternatives already enshrined in the Criminal Code and rigorously safeguard the fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly that define our democratic society, let us begin with the facts as presented by the government.

The Safe Access to Schools Act, passed in 2024 as Bill 22, established 20-metre access zones around every K-to-12 school, encompassing the school property itself and a legislated buffer zone beyond it. These zones are active 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on school days and during extracurricular activities.

Within them, the act prohibits a sweeping list of behaviours: impeding access to or egress from the school; disrupting educational programs or extracurricular activities; participating in a protest, which is important to note — we’ll get to that — engaging in interference, which is broadly defined as “advising or persuading anyone to refrain from participating in or providing an educational program;” and intimidating or causing reasonable concern for a person’s physical or mental safety. Police are empowered to arrest without warrant on reasonable grounds.

The act also allows for injunctions and includes limited exemptions, like lawful labour actions under the Labour Relations Code and certain work activities.

The government’s narrative is one of preventative success. They tell us, since 2023, there have been more than 40 protest disruptions outside K-to-12 schools, sometimes requiring police intervention. I would highlight the “sometimes requiring police intervention.” They claim the frequency has fallen since the SASA’s enactment, using this trend to justify the two-year extension.

Yet when we move from government assertion to verifiable fact, a striking and telling absence emerges. A thorough review of public records, news reports and answers to the order paper’s questions reveals there are no documented instances of arrests, tickets or charges laid specifically under this act. No parents have been publicly reported as arrested for voicing concerns at their own children’s schools under these provisions.

The primary, and perhaps only, publicized interaction involves protesters at school board offices, administrative buildings separate from children, who are warned to move along, with the act cited as authority.

This application, affecting citizens protesting funding and policy decisions before their elected trustees, clearly falls outside the stated spirit of protecting children at school grounds. It reveals the act’s utility as a tool for managing dissent in the broader education ecosystem, not just for safeguarding school yard gates.

The government cites a decline in disruptions but offers no transparent, auditable data on how or whether the act’s unique and powerful provisions were ever invoked to achieve this. Could it be that these numbers at the time were high because it was on people’s minds and has since gone down? Does it have anything to do with this act?

Police have always possessed general authority to address genuine threats — trespass, mischief, intimidation or obstruction — under the Criminal Code and then common-law powers to prevent breach of the peace. I know many times those tools were what I used as a police officer in instances just like this.

If the act has not produced a single reported enforcement action in nearly two years, one must ask, critically: is it truly preventing imminent harm that existing law could not? Or is it casting a broad, chilling shadow over peaceful expression, achieving compliance not through the use but through the threat of its poorly defined powers?

[3:45 p.m.]

This brings me to the heart of my concern. While protecting students from tangible harm is paramount, this legislation has not demonstrably been used for that purpose alone in any documented case. Instead, it’s dangerously broad and subjective language, prohibiting not just violence or the physical blocking of doors but the act of participating in a protest or anything that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for a person’s physical or mental safety.

It creates a high risk of silencing legitimate parental voices and community dissent. Parents have not just a role but a fundamental right and responsibility in their children’s education. All too commonly recently, that has been pushed aside. School board decisions on funding, curriculum, library resources or staffing cuts directly affect families and communities. Peaceful, lawful protests at or near school boundaries, even if passionate or dissenting, are a cornerstone of democratic engagement and civic accountability.

The official opposition believes strongly in the right to assemble peacefully, a freedom enshrined in section 2(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We also cherish the freedom of expression under section 2(b). Access zones, which some have rightly called bubble zones, can effectively prohibit the exercise of these rights in public spaces, even if that is not the stated intent.

Consider a real-world scenario. A parent, distressed by the closure of a neighbourhood school or a radical change to a cherished program, stands 15 metres from the school gate on a public sidewalk at 5 p.m. holding a sign that reads “Keep our schools open.” Under this legislation, if an extracurricular event is underway, that parent could be deemed to be participating in a protest within the zone or causing concern to someone entering the building. This is not a hypothetical overreach. It is the logical, foreseeable consequence of the act’s sweeping wording.

The law creates a mechanism where subjective discomfort can be conflated with objective threat. I would bring up an instance where somebody says their child is upset seeing a crowd of people at school. Does that create a problem, or has that now become a crime under this legislation? To understand the implications, we must compare this bubble zone and precedents the government itself invokes.

In 1994, British Columbia enacted Canada’s first bubble-zone law, the Access to Abortion Services Act. It created buffers, ten- to 50-metre zones around clinics, doctors’ offices; 160-metre zones around the homes of providers; and 50-metre zones around the homes of staff. It specifically banned protesting, besetting, harassing, filming or even attempting to persuade within these zones, offences carrying clear fines of up to $2,000 or six months in jail.

That legislation was a response to a specific, at that time intense, context of harassment, intimidation and violence targeting vulnerable patients and health care professionals at very specific, identified locations. It was narrowly tailored to an acute crisis.

The Safe Access to Schools Act, by stark contrast, applies blanket, one-size-fits-all prohibitions across every public and independent school in the province, over 1,500 sites, regardless of whether a single incident has ever occurred on that site, and it lacks the penalty clarity of its 1994 predecessor.

[3:50 p.m.]

Enforcement relies on a patchwork. Reference to the Offence Act and the Violation Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation, which sets a $2,000 fine per contravention, plus a $300 victim surcharge for if…. You can get a ticket for $2,300.

Arrest without a warrant is authorized. Yet the act itself contains no stand-alone penalty provisions, only the power to restrain contraventions by injunction “whether or not a penalty or other remedy is provided.”

This creates profound legal uncertainty. Is this a regulatory ticketing matter or something more akin to criminal prohibition? This ambiguity is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement and a shield against accountability. The jurisdictional questions are equally pressing. The government has simultaneously tabled…. Sorry, I’m going to skip that portion.

The government has changed other legislation. A telling criticism of distinction emerges in those changes. In other legislation, the clause explicitly prohibiting participating in a protest has been removed. I would suggest this omission is a tacit admission by the drafters that such a blanket prohibition on protest in a public space would not survive a Charter challenge.

One must then ask: why does that same, likely unconstitutional, clause remain in the Safe Access to Schools Act? Is it because the government believes the rights of parents and citizens near schools are less worthy of protection or because this law just hasn’t been legally stress-tested yet, due to its lack of use?

Meanwhile at the federal level, Bill C-9, introduced this past October, amends the Criminal Code to prohibit the display of Nazi symbols, SS symbols and other hate symbols in public with exemptions for journalism, religion, education and art.

It adds aggravating factors for offences motivated by hate and creates a specific offence for intimidation at buildings used for religious worship. But notably it does not establish fixed-distance bubble zones. The federal approach is conduct-specific. Intimidation must occur at the place of worship. It targets harmful behaviour not geography. It does so under the clear federal jurisdiction over criminal law.

This applies directly to the schools and places of learning that this act is referencing. Why then does this provincial government feel compelled to create hundreds of provincial bubble zones that encroach on what is fundamentally a matter of criminal law? Intimidation, criminal harassment, obstruction and mischief are already comprehensively addressed under the Criminal Code. This appears to be provincial overreach, duplicating and potentially conflicting with the tools already available to police and courts and doing so with a less precise, more rights-infringing instrument.

The Charter is not a suggestion. It’s the supreme law of Canada. Section 1 allows for reasonable limits on rights but only if they are demonstratively justified in a free and democratic society. The government has not met that onerous test here. They cite the 40-plus disruptions since 2023, many of which predate this act and were centred on debates over SOGI curriculum and other policy issues but provide no breakdown distinguishing between violent or criminal acts and lawful, peaceful protests.

[3:55 p.m.]

They claim success because disruptions have fallen yet refused to disclose whether this decline is due to this act, changed public sentiment, increased police liaison or the simple fact that the peak of a particular social debate has passed.

In the absence of enforcement data, the claim of cause and effect is speculative at best. Therefore, the committee stage must be an exercise in forensic accountability. We must demand exact and verifiable statistics on all invocations of the act.

How many arrests without warrant? How many tickets issued? How many injunctions sought? We require the file numbers, dates, locations, detailed case studies and disclosures. Were any of these actions taken against parents at their own children’s schools or against protests specifically concerning school board cuts, staffing or curriculum?

The Attorney General must provide anonymized summaries, evidence of insufficiency. The minister must table specific incident reports from before the SASA’s enactment where police were unable to act under existing Criminal Code provisions — reference section 423 on intimidation, 264 on criminal harassment, 430 on mischief, 120 on obstructing a police officer — or common-law powers, necessitating this new law.

Justification for extension without a review. Why are we extending a sunset clause on a powerful law without first conducting an independent, arm’s-length review of its necessity, effectiveness and Charter compliance? Should that review not proceed, not follow, an extension?

Consideration of narrow, rights-preserving amendments. The committee must explore explicit carve-outs for peaceful parental expression; distance-based distinctions, example of a small buffer zone for peer protest; or a mechanism where zones are activated only by court order upon application showing a specific, credible threat at a specific school — a surgically precise tool instead of a provincial blanket.

Colleagues, this is not about opposing student safety. It’s about ensuring that safety measures are necessary, proportionate, effective and minimally intrusive upon the democratic values we are entrusted to uphold. The right to assemble peacefully and express dissent is not a threat to education. It is its very foundation. A society that teaches civics in the classroom but criminalizes peaceful practice on the public sidewalk outside sends a devastatingly contradictory message.

History shows that bubble zones — while well intentioned in narrow, specific contexts — can, over time, become tools to marginalize unpopular views and sanitize public discourse. Once established, the boundaries of such zones only ever seem to expand, and their prohibitions multiply.

I will support sending Bill 12 to committee, not because I endorse the extension but because this House owes British Columbians a transparent, evidence-based debate before entrenching this law for another two years. Let us use the committee to question the Attorney General and the Education Minister rigorously on the act’s real-world track record, not its theoretical benefits.

I’ve laid out questions that I will be pushing to ask in the committee stage. Hopefully there will be answers.

Let us compel the government to finally provide the data it has withheld. Let us examine whether federal criminal law, properly resourced and enforced, already equips police adequately. Let us be prepared to amend the legislation significantly to protect both physical safety and foundational freedom.

[4:00 p.m.]

In closing, all students have the right to safe access to school grounds, but parents, educators and citizens also have the inviolable right to peaceful assembly and expression in public spaces. The official opposition will always defend both. We look forward to a committee process where facts, evidence and constitutional principle, not fear or political convenience, will guide our ultimate decisions.

I want to finish up off what my colleague before me from Richmond-Queensborough had said about being properly served in this province, because provincewide, we are not being properly serviced by the police and by the courts, and that is what leads to laws like this needing to be put in place. “Needing” I say a little sarcastically, I guess, because we should not need these with the current laws that serve us under the Criminal Code of Canada. Time to start dealing with the real issues.

Garry Begg: Thank you to the member opposite for some of the things he brought up. He, like I, spent many years as a police officer. In my case, I spent many years as a police instructor, so you will forgive me if I stray a bit to talk about some things that we were taught as policemen and I taught as a police instructor.

What we’re talking about today are two pieces of legislation designed to enhance safe access to important places for British Columbians.

Bill 12, which is the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, extends the 2023 Safe Access to Schools Act to July 1, 2028, simply to ensure students, staff, parents and caregivers can access schools without obstruction.

Bill 13, the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, establishes protection against harmful, disruptive or intimidating behaviour around places of worship like gurdwaras, temples, synagogues, mosques and churches.

On its face, none of us in this House would disagree with the intent of that legislation. Schools, we all believe, should be safe places for children, and the ability to practise your faith without fear or intimidation is fundamental to who we are as Canadians and as British Columbians.

We all know that in recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in threats and harassment targeting places of worship and schools across the province. That’s why we’re introducing the legislation.

As I refer back to my days in policing, I taught, and I’m sure he learned, that the most dominant thing in policing is the respect that we have for the law and that as a matter of practice, we apply, in our daily lives, tact to how we enforce the law. We do not enforce every law. We enforce laws with what we call discretion, and in my view, discretion is the biggest policy that we have.

As a policeman driving down a street, you may see many things, and you may selectively enforce laws that you see. You’re not required to. You can’t ignore it, but you do what you can.

So when we talk about places of worship, places where people go to practise their faith, the question that must be asked is: should they be free, in a democratic society, to do that? The answer….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that we are talking about safe schools today. I know we’ve bounced back and forth a little bit, but I’d appreciate it if you could focus on Bill 12 and the safe schools.

Garry Begg: Thank you. The two, of course, are intertwined, which is why I bring that up. I’m talking about the ability of the police to be discreet, to apply discretion.

[4:05 p.m.]

So change the scenario. We’re driving down a street near a gurdwara, synagogue, mosque, whatever. Do the police have the ability to discreetly enforce laws around that area? The answer, of course, is yes.

The reason that the answer is yes is because there is a second and third thing that has to be applied to laws in this country. And they apply all across the country. That is, in many cases, will charges be approved? Is it likely that charges will be approved? Secondarily, then when the matter goes to court, are we able to prove what we’ve done? The discretion part is the police part to decide what should be done.

In cases like I just outlined around places of worship, we believe, in this country, that people are free to practise their faith.

Now our law says that when you interfere with that happening — whether it’s a school district, a school board in a public area — that is unlawful, which doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be an arrest in that case. It means that the police have the ability to enforce the law in the bubble zone surrounding schools. And that’s important. We want our children to be safe. We want our children to know that their ability to go to school every day and be uninterrupted in what they do is important.

I know the member opposite. I don’t think he disagrees with me in principle, that that’s the way things should be. The safe access zones are enforced so that police can intervene if they believe that the specific law is being violated. The law doesn’t say the police must intervene. It says they can intervene.

On this side of the House, we encourage the best practice to be discretionary. I think that’s forgotten in the course of this discussion here. The police always have the capacity to enforce the law, but they may not be there. Or they may be there and decide that there is no violation of the law or that the likelihood of conviction by Crown — first of all by Crown approving the charges and then conviction by the court — may be very low.

All across the country we have provincial laws and we have federal laws, some of which are duplicative of each other. That doesn’t mean that we in British Columbia cannot and should not exercise our discretion when we enforce the law.

If a person engages in behaviour within an access zone, police may be called to intervene. And the police’s intervention may be simply talking to the people who are protesting and saying: “You shouldn’t be here. Would you go away?” That is enforcing the law. That is applying discretion. It is not, as my friend opposite said, a clear and absolute conviction that will result in the person being convicted in a court of law.

I would say that, most recently, the rise in confrontation that has happened at schools, particularly when it comes to matters like SOGI, have been disruptive. I suggest that, in every case, the police, when attending…. Unless the violators were aggressive, assaultive or doing someone else, the police role there would be to disrupt that, and I suspect that those who were protesting SOGI would obey the police. They would go away, and there would not be a charge.

It is important to understand, as we move this forward, that what we’re protecting are people and places. In summing up, I would say that we expect a lot of our police. The least we can expect of them is that they exercise discretion as they have for 100 years. They are discreet individuals whom we empower to enforce laws. There are very rare cases where police must do something.

[4:10 p.m.]

To move this forward, I say that’s what we do. We trust our police to exercise discretion and do their job as they’re paid to do.

Korky Neufeld: I rise today to speak with caution, deliberation and a deep respect for both the intent and the implications of extending the Safe Access to Schools Act.

Well, the Safe Access to Schools Act was first enacted in 2024. Now this government wishes to extend this to 2028 and, what’s troubling for me, without a review of the unintended consequences.

They’ve got two years of information. What is and is not working, over the last two years? How is enforcement working, or not working, over the last two years? Was there consultation with principals, with police, etc.? How broad was that consultation? Can they make that consultation public? None of that happened, and now you’re asking us to extend legislation — temporary legislation, to boot — without a public review of the past two years.

Now, so you can appreciate where I’m coming from, I was the board chair in my district when we had 300 concerned citizens, parents and community members converge on our school board building during a public meeting. Why were they there? They needed clarification, not a hammer. They needed to be heard, not arrested.

Someone once said this — I want to say this not because I agree with it, but this is where it could lead: “If you take away my voice, all I have left is my fist.” None of us condone that kind of behaviour, but if we restrict people from expressing their concerns, then we’re left with only one other option.

There’s no question in anybody’s mind in this building, and even in the public, that safety of children, safety of educators, safety of school staff must be among the highest priorities of this House. That’s not up for debate. That’s a given. Schools must be places of learning. They must be free from fear of disruption and intimidation. On that principle, I believe all members would agree.

However, it is precisely because this objective is so important that we must examine this legislation with care. This legislation sits at the intersection of two very important principles, ones that we must never treat lightly — the safety of individuals and the preservation of our fundamental freedoms. It’s both/and, not either/or. Laws enacted in the name of safety must be measured not only with their intentions but also by their scope, by their clarity and by their consequences, whether intended or unintended.

At its core, this act establishes access zones around schools, areas in which a wide range of activities are restricted. Within these zones, individuals are prohibited from protesting, from engaging in what is defined as interference and from actions that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for someone’s physical or mental safety. At first glance, this may seem reasonable. No one supports harassment or intimidation at school entrances. We already have laws for that. They’re clear. But the concern arises on how broadly these prohibitions are written.

[4:15 p.m.]

Let’s start off. The definition of “interference,” for example, includes “advising.” When I go to someone, I advise them. I’m giving them my opinion. So now interference could be advising, giving my opinion, or persuading — now that’s a little bit stronger — or attempting.

Now, here’s the real good word: “attempting” to advise. How do you measure that? “I think you were attempting to advise me on something.” Well, they haven’t done it yet. “You’re attempting to strike me.” Well, I haven’t struck you yet. I’m attempting to change your mind, but I haven’t done that yet — “attempting to advise or persuade, by any means.…”

This is an extraordinarily expansive definition. It’s troubling. The “advising or persuading, or attempting to advise or persuade” hasn’t happened yet. It does not limit itself to coercion or harassment, which we already have laws for.

It potentially captures peaceful expression, though it may be the opposite of what the other person believes; peaceful conversation, even though it might be opposite of what the other person may think; peaceful sharing of viewpoints, even though it might be contrary to what the other person’s viewpoint is; and activities that, in other contexts, are fundamental to a free and democratic society.

So we must ask: where is the line between harmful conduct and lawful expression? It’s not in that phrase. It’s confusing, very arbitrarily interpreted. Perhaps more importantly, who decides that I am interfering? Who decides that I’m advising or persuading somebody, or attempting to advise or persuade? The person? Well, if they disagree with me, of course they’re going to. It’s very arbitrary.

This concern is compounded by the prohibition on participating in a protest within access zones. Peaceful protest, as we know, is the cornerstone of democratic life. It is how citizens express dissent. Do some go overboard? Absolutely. They advocate for change and hold institutions accountable. Do we like it? No. Who wants to be accountable these days? So let’s just shut them right down. “You don’t have a voice, because I perceive, I think you’re attempting to….”

To prohibit protests within a 20-metre radius of schools during broad hours of the day raises legitimate questions about whether this act may go further than necessary to achieve its stated goals.

Of course, the act does include exemptions for students, for workers performing their duties and for lawful labour actions. These exemptions are important, but they also underscore the reality that rights are being selectively carved out, rather than broadly preserved. That is a concern. We should be protecting people’s rights, not carving out and making them punitive.

Another area of concern is the enforcement mechanism. Section 6 permits arrest without warrant if a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person is contravening the act. That is a significant power shift. While “reasonable grounds” is a recognized legal standard, its application is fluid in a real-world situation, particularly those involving expression.

It can be complex and, at times, inconsistent, so we must consider the risk of overreach. I’ve been here just over one year, and it seems more and more bills are coming across in these chambers with increased overreach by this government.

[4:20 p.m.]

If it were a one-off…. Time and time again, this government continues to put bills forward where they have more control, less accountability; more secrecy, less transparency. We’re just supposed to figure: “You know what? You guys know what’s best for all British Columbians. We obviously don’t.”

Here are some questions. Could individuals be detained for engaging in peaceful, non-threatening expression, simply because it’s perceived, rightly or wrongly, as falling within these broad prohibitions? I would say that I don’t know, but we’ve had two years of implementing this. Wouldn’t it be great to have a review to find out: has this actually happened? We don’t know, and now we’re going to extend it for another two years. This deserves clarity, not vagueness.

Another question. Could this create a chilling effect, where citizens…? I think this could create chilling effects, but we don’t know, and here it is again. We’ve had two years of implementing this. Why wouldn’t we have a review to find out: has there been any of this? Are people intimidated to speak up, legitimately?

Furthermore, the act allows for injunctions to be granted, even without notice, against individuals who are believed likely to contravene its provisions. Again, this may be justified in cases of genuine risk, but without careful safeguards, it introduces a possibility of pre-emptive legal action against individuals who have not yet committed an offence. This bothers me more than anything: perceived — something that you haven’t done yet but you could do. Well, how will you know? It’s impossible.

There is also the matter of regulatory power. The Lieutenant Governor in Council is granted broad authority to define, expand, modify access zones, modify activities and modify enforcement details through regulation. Here’s another challenge with this bill. When flexibility in law-making can be useful, it also reduces direct legislative oversight. In other words, decisions of significant public importance may be made without the same level of debate and scrutiny that accompanies legislation in this chamber.

This could all be done in an office without anybody knowing about it until it’s out the door, without us having a chance to publicly debate it, to scrutinize it, to put amendments to it, to talk about the unintended consequences — none of that.

To be clear, raising these concerns is not to dismiss the real issues this act seeks to address. There have been instances, both here and elsewhere, where schools have been sites of tension, protests and, in some cases, conduct that crosses the line into intimidation. But we have laws for that. Let’s use the laws we have.

Has that happened over the last two years? What’s the evaluation on that? How many cases came before? What were the results of that? We have none of that. Now we’re extending it for another two years. We have no results. We have no proof of the consequences or of unintended consequences.

These situations must be addressed. The laws that we have need to be enforced, and our judicial system needs to support the police when they bring these charges forward. That’s why it’s not working. There’s no possibility for our police forces to enforce things when the person is out the door before they have even written their report.

I drove along with the police from four o’clock on a Friday afternoon. I would recommend everybody do it. Don’t do it in daytime. Do it on a Friday night, 4 p.m. till 4 a.m. Trust me. It’s a whole new world. We saw things. The hands that are tied for our police because our judicial system does not support them are staggering.

[4:25 p.m.]

Here’s another one. We have laws. Have they been enforced? Have they worked? We don’t know. There’s no review. Good law-making requires precision and clarity, it requires balance, and it requires unwavering commitment to protect not only safety but also fundamental freedoms. That’s how good laws are written. This is poorly written. “Advising or persuading, or attempting to advise or persuade” is not clear. It’s embarrassing. We must ask ourselves whether this act strikes the balance.

Question: does it narrowly target harmful behaviour, or does it cast too wide of a net? Are there unintended consequences? We think there are.

Another question: does it provide clear guidance to citizens and to law enforcement, or does it rely on broad and subjective definitions? “Well, they’re pretty broad. You can kind of make it work.” That’s not good law. Police are going to be looking at this, saying…. It’s going to be so subjective. You’re going to have somebody over here applying it here. You’re going to have somebody over there applying it that way.

Another question. Does it protect access to education without unnecessarily restricting lawful expression? I think this is actually at the crux of the matter. Whether you agree with the protesters or not, you have to ask the question: why? Why were they out there? Why were they expressing their feelings in all kinds of protests? It’s because the information they were getting wasn’t clear.

This continues that unclarity. It continues the vagueness of laws, even for law enforcement. How are they going to interpret “advising or persuading, or attempting to advise or persuade?” How do you enforce that? These are not easy questions, but they’re necessary ones.

It’s also worth noting that this act includes a repeal provision, set for July 1, 2026. This suggests the government itself recognized the need for a reassessment, but where is that assessment? Was there a review done over the last two years of the consequences and the unintended consequences of this bill? What has worked? What hasn’t worked? How do the principals feel and the police feel about enforcing something like this? Do they have suggestions on how to make it better? What’s working? What’s not working? We have none of that.

A sunset clause should not be a substitute for careful drafting at the outset. This was poorly drafted. I’d bet you that if they’d sent it out for some input, I think we could’ve made it better. Temporary laws can still have lasting impacts on individuals, on legal precedents and on public trust.

I urge this House to approach this legislation with thoughtful caution. Let us ensure that in our efforts to protect students and schools we do not inadvertently erode the very freedoms that underpin our society. Safety and liberty are not opposing forces. They must coexist. We have laws in this land, and what is needed when the police enforce them is a judicial system that supports the police. We don’t have that right now. That’s what needs to change.

It’s our responsibility as legislators to ensure that we get it right. Ultimately, laws like this do more than regulate conduct. They signal our values. They tell citizens where the boundaries lie between safety and freedom, where the boundaries lie between protection and liberty, and we must get the balance right.

I urge members of this House to approach Bill 12 with thoughtful caution. Support the objective — I don’t think there’s anybody in this House that doesn’t want safer schools — but scrutinize the mechanism. Protect students, but preserve rights. Extend protections if necessary, but do so with clear justification and careful limits. That is the responsibility entrusted to us in this House.

[4:30 p.m.]

This side of the House will fully support safe schools — always will. But the issues I’ve outlined need amendments that clarify intent and create guardrails, not leave the application of this legislation to chance.

We look forward to committee stage where these concerns will be addressed. By voting yes to the second reading, we’re not saying yes to this bill. What we’re saying is that we can make reasonable, sensible amendments in order to protect physical safety and, at the same time, everyone’s freedoms.

This bill does not do that as written. That’s why this side of the House looks forward to committee stage, where we can look at this bill clause by clause, show what the unintended consequences would be and clarify the language so we can make it clear, not vague, so that those who enforce this have clarity.

I want to thank you for the time. It’s always a privilege as MLA for Abbotsford West to stand up in this House and to talk about a bill. This bill is very important because it talks about students and schools and teachers and staff. But let’s make sure we get it right.

George Anderson: I rise to speak in support of Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

On its face, this is a short bill. It is not lengthy. It is not sprawling. It doesn’t have a bunch of clauses and schedules, but it does one thing plainly. It amends section 9 of the Safe Access to Schools Act by changing the repeal date from July 1, 2026 to July 1, 2028. That is the legal text before us.

But as is often the case in this House, a short bill can carry a large principle. The principle here is both simple and profound. If the law requires children to go to school, then the law must also ensure that they can get there safely. This is what this bill is about — not ideology, not theatre, not slogans and not the endless temptation in modern politics to turn every issue into a culture war trophy.

This bill is about whether children, parents, educators and staff can walk into a school without intimidation, without obstruction and without being dragged into adult conflict at a school. I say to this House that they must be able to do so. They must be able to, because education is not optional in the way that so many other aspects of public life are optional.

Under British Columbia’s School Act, children of school age in a district are entitled to enrol in an educational program. Residents in British Columbia must enrol and participate in an educational program until the age of 16, subject to the statutory scheme. In other words, school attendance is not treated in law as a casual, personal preference. It is treated as a social expectation and a legal obligation.

That does matter. It matters because when the province compels attendance, the province assumes responsibility. When the law says to a child, “You must go to school,” we cannot then shrug our shoulders at what happens on the path to the door. When the law says to a parent, “Your child belongs in class,” it cannot be indifferent to whether the entrance to that class has become an arena for adult confrontation. When the law says to teachers, counsellors, educational assistants, principals and support workers, “Show up for children,” it must also say: “We will show up for you.”

[4:35 p.m.]

That is why I support Bill 12. That is why I think this debate today deserves seriousness.

The easiest thing in public life is to reduce a debate into caricature. One caricature says that if you support this bill, you do not care about freedom. The other caricature says that if you question this bill, you do not care about children. In my opinion, those caricatures are beneath this House. Both avoid the real work of legislation, which is to think carefully and weigh honestly and draw lines responsibly. That is what all of us are called here to do.

Let us begin where legislators should begin, with the law itself. The Safe Access to Schools Act was assented to on May 16, 2024. It created a legal framework to protect access to kindergarten-to-grade-12 schools. It defines the protected setting broadly enough to include the range of education authorities that operate schools in British Columbia.

It prohibits within an access zone impeding access to or egress from the school, disrupting educational programs or extracurricular activities, participating in a protest, engaging in interference and intimidating or attempting to intimidate a person or otherwise doing or saying anything that could reasonably be expected to cause concern to a person’s physical or mental safety.

It authorizes access zones to be established by regulation. It generally defines those zones as the school parcel plus a 20-metre buffer, with tailored rules for schools and multi-use buildings, and excludes private residences and limits the zone in time, generally 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on school days when extracurricular activities are occurring and includes explicit exceptions for students, work, educational activities and lawful labour activity.

It also provides for enforcement, including arrest without warrant and injunctions, and it builds in a sunset clause.

I provide that backgrounder because legal architecture matters. It matters because it tells us what this legislation is and what it is not.

It is not a general ban on dissent. It is not a provincewide speech code. It is not a law that says certain opinions are unlawful. It is not a law that says students cannot criticize government, curriculum, policy, pedagogy or public institutions. It is not even a law that says protest is forbidden in British Columbia.

It’s a law that is, frankly, more civilized. There are some places where society is entitled to insist on a parameter of peace, and a school is one of those places.

I do not say that casually. I say it as someone who believes deeply that free expression matters. I say it as someone who believes that a healthy democracy is noisy, contested and vigorous. I say it as someone who would be deeply troubled by a law that targeted ideas instead of conduct.

I also say this: freedom of expression has never meant freedom to choose the most captive and vulnerable audience possible and insist that they endure your demonstration at the threshold of their legally required school day. That is not freedom in its best sense. That is coercion dressed up as principle, and a mature democracy should have the confidence to say so.

[4:40 p.m.]

One of the reasons I support this bill is that it does not ask us to make a false choice between liberty and safety. Too often our politics is filled with false choices. Either you care about rights or you care about order. Either you care about protest or you care about children. Either you care about freedom or you care about schools. But those are not the choices before us. The real question is whether a limited, temporary, carefully bounded access zone law is a proportionate response to a documented problem. In my view, it clearly is.

The province has said, since 2023, there’s been approximately 40 protest disruptions outside of K-to-12 schools, interrupting students learning, with police called in a number of cases. In 2024, there were about 20 schools that had been targeted since that school year.

In announcing this extension, government has talked about the frequency of disruptions, which have occurred since the law came into force, but those disruptions have not disappeared. The evidence is there. The evidence is real, and that evidence is demonstrative of deterrence as well.

The law appears to have reduced the frequency of the conduct, but it has not eliminated the need for the law altogether. That is exactly the kind of circumstance in which an extension may be justified, because the argument against extension often proceeds by contradiction. If the problem continues, critics say the law is ineffective. If the problem decreases, critics say the law is no longer needed. But public law does not work that way.

If a measure reduces harm while the harm still persists, the serious question is not whether the law has magically erased all conflict from public life. The serious question is whether the remaining risk is still justified or justifies the continuation of a targeted response. In this case, I believe it does, and I believe that for legal reasons, moral reasons and practical reasons.

Let me begin with the practical. Imagine the first day of kindergarten. A small child with a backpack that is slightly too large and a parent trying to calm while feeling emotional. A teacher waiting at the door knowing that for some of the children, this will be the first time they’ve ever spent the day away from home. That moment matters. It matters in ways that stay with people for years.

Now imagine that moment disrupted, not by the ordinary noise of community life, not by traffic, not by the unpredictability of weather, but by a deliberate adult demonstration positioned at or near the school entrance — signs, shouting, filming, confrontation, adults who have decided that their message should be delivered at the exact place where children are trying to begin their day.

To an adult critic, that may look like participation in public debate, but to that five-year-old with that slightly large bag, it may look like danger. And the law is entitled to take the perspective of that child seriously.

Or think of a student with autism spectrum disorder who depends on routine. That route matters. The noise matters. The predictability matters. The emotional temperature matters. A change in that environment is not merely inconvenient. It can be overwhelming. It can be destabilizing. It can mean the difference between entering the building and not. Yet that child has the same legal right to education as every other child.

Indeed, perhaps what access means is tested most honestly not in ideal conditions but in moments like this, moments when a child needs the law not in abstract but to be there fully for them.

[4:45 p.m.]

Picture a high school student walking to an important exam. They are already carrying pressure — the pressure of grades, the pressure of graduation, the pressure of work, the pressure of family expectation and what’s going to come next in their life. That student should be thinking about their test, not about whether or not adults have transformed the school perimeter into a site of confrontation.

A counsellor arriving for work, knowing that one of their students is in crisis; or an educational assistant preparing to support a child with complex needs; or a parent bringing a child to school after a difficult morning at home — the law does not exist only for the easiest school day. It exists for the hard ones. It exists for the vulnerable one. It exists for the day when access is not an abstraction but a fragile bridge between a child and a place that they need to be.

That is why access matters. That is why the school entrance matters. And that’s why I reject the suggestion that the immediate area around a school should be treated as if it were just another interchangeable protest venue. It is not.

A school is not an ordinary site in public life. It is a place of compulsory attendance. It is filled with minors. It is a place where the state and the family intersect. It is a place where teachers, support workers and volunteers carry out public responsibilities of enormous importance.

Schools are the places where communication should be safe, especially for students. Once we accept that, the logic of this bill becomes so clear.

Now, I want to treat this question with the seriousness it deserves, but I also want to confront directly the rights-based concerns. Yes, this law engages expressive freedom. As a lawyer, I can say that plainly. A law that restricts protest activity within a designated zone around a school engages freedom of expression. The real issue is not whether those rights are engaged; the real issue is whether the limit is justified.

On that question, I think the case for Bill 12 is strong. The objective is pressing and substantial: protecting access to kindergarten-to-grade-12 schools; protecting students’ education, health, safety, well-being; protecting the safety and well-being of those delivering education; and protecting the practical ability of families and staff to enter school grounds. Those are not trivial interests. They are fundamental civic interests. The act directs that these interests be considered when access zones are established.

Second, there is a rational connection. If the identified harm is obstruction, intimidation and/or targeted protest activity at or near the school entrance, then creating a narrow protective zone around that entrance is rationally connected to the objective of preventing the harm. That is not difficult analysis; it is straightforward. If the door is where the problem occurs, the law is entitled to protect the door.

Third, the law is carefully tailored. This is where some of the strongest arguments for the bill lie. The bill does not establish a provincewide no-protest rule. It doesn’t prohibit criticism of government policy. It doesn’t create indefinite restrictions detached from school life. It does not apply 24 hours a day. It doesn’t extend into private residences. It does not prohibit educational programming or extracurricular activities. It expressly exempts strike, lockout, picketing activity carried out in accordance with the Labour Relations Code.

[4:50 p.m.]

Those are not minor drafting choices. Those are the features of a law that is trying to be proportionate, and we should say that clearly, because one of the greatest mistakes in public debates is that we often talk as if every legal limit is alike, and they are not.

There is a difference between a broad, permanent, indiscriminate suppression of expression and a limited, temporary, location-specific access zone law designed to protect children getting to school, and legislatures should be capable of recognizing that difference.

Indeed, the law here is more restrained than some critics admit. Access zones are established by regulation. The executive is directed to have regard to the importance of student well-being, staff well-being and the need to protect access to schools.

The general dimensions of the zone are modest — the school parcel and a 20-metre buffer with tailored rules where the school is in a multi-use building. The times are modest too — generally school days from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and extracurricular times.

This is not the Legislature saying that certain people must vanish from public view. It is the Legislature saying that during the times when children are arriving for school and during school activities, the immediate threshold to the school must remain free from conduct that undermines safe access. That is a narrower proposition and, in my view, a justifiable one.

Fourth, the law remains temporary. This is one of the most important features of this debate. Bill 12 does not make the act permanent — extends the repeal date by two years, from July 1, 2026, to July 1, 2028. The original act built in a sunset from the start, and Bill 12 preserves the principle of legislative reconsideration rather than abolishing it. That matters constitutionally, democratically and politically, because it demonstrates restraint.

This House is not being asked to grant an endless power and forget about it. It is being asked to continue a temporary protection for a further defined period because the evidence indicates the underlying problem has diminished but not disappeared.

This is how a responsible legislature should behave. It should not legislate as if every emergency is permanent, it should not legislate as if no problem ever recedes, and it should not legislate as if rights concerns can be brushed aside. It should revisit, reassess and review. This is exactly what this bill will allow us to do again in 2028.

I also think it’s important to place this law in a broader legal context. British Columbia is not inventing the concept of access zones. Our province has long recognized there are certain settings in which access itself must be protected, and this is what this bill does.

We have long understood that law may distinguish between expressing a view in the public square and targeting a place where people must be able to enter safely with dignity. The right to dissent is not the right to stage your dissent at the exact point where children must pass. And the right to protest is not the same as a right to convert school access into a large viewing party.

A free society is allowed to say that, and, in fact, I would argue that a free society must also be able to say that if it takes both rights and children seriously.

Now, some may argue that existing criminal law, public order law and trespass law should be enough. I understand the instinct behind that argument, but I don’t think that it is persuasive. General legal tools often address conduct only once it has escalated to a certain threshold, and access zone laws actually do something very different.

[4:55 p.m.]

They provide clarity in advance. They define the protected area in advance. They define the prohibited conduct in advance. They tell police, schools, parents and protesters alike where the line is before the situation deteriorates.

There is a world of difference between a legal regime that waits for the morning at the school entrance to become chaotic enough to trigger general enforcement and a legal regime that says in advance with clarity that this threshold is protected. That’s why this law matters. Children are the reason why people should care about this law, because once we keep children at the centre of this analysis, many of the abstractions begin to dissolve.

There must still be places in a civilized society where the first obligation is peace, and my view is that schools must be one of them. I do not think that’s an extreme proposition. I actually think it’s a modest one, a deeply decent one, a democratic one.

Democracy at its best is not only about the right to speak, but it’s also about the wisdom to know where not to speak in ways that would wound the vulnerable. It is not only about assertation; it is about restraint. It is not only about liberty. It’s about stewardship, and stewardship is what this House is being asked to exercise today.

There are a number of organizations, when this law came to be, that supported this being brought forward, such as CUPE, the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils.

Why does that matter? It matters because the House didn’t outsource its judgment, and we should not and because it is prudent to listen when the people closest to the functioning of schools — trustees, parents, teachers and school leaders — are telling us that disruption at the perimeter of schools and ensuring safe access matters. That matters significantly.

I want to address a different point as well. Some may say: “But what about peaceful protests? What about the people who are not shouting, blocking, threatening?” Of course, that’s a very fair question. The Legislature is entitled to conclude that in the very immediate threshold around a school, even protests that present themselves as peaceful may still undermine the objective of a calm, welcoming and secure learning environment.

I said this earlier, and I will say it again, that the school entrance is not the public square, and it’s not a neutral public square. It’s a threshold to a compulsory environment for children. That proximity, that place where intimidation can occur, that point of access where vulnerable young adults who will soon one day be sitting in the chamber that we are in…. It’s important that we safeguard that place, that we continue to hold it as sacred and ensure that young people can learn in an environment that is safe and free from intimidation.

Sometimes as a legislature, we will be saying we that drew a measured line, we’ve seen evidence that it mattered, and we’re not going to remove that line prematurely. That is what Bill 12 does in a modest form but with a very meaningful effect. That’s why this Legislature again will be able to look at this issue and be able to talk about whether or not this is still the right the right forum to be able to move forward.

The question that we do have to ask is: what do we owe to children? What do we owe to educators? What do we owe to all of the individuals who have expected us to come forward and bring forward legislation and laws that provide British Columbia with the best opportunity to continue to be the best province in Canada and the best place on earth?

[5:00 p.m.]

I support this legislation because teachers and staff deserve to do their work without intimidation. I support this bill because the law is limited, temporary, reviewable and proportionate. I support it because, in the end, this House must sometimes say something very simple with great clarity.

Children belong in classrooms, not in the crossfire of adult conflict. Schools belong to learning, not to intimidation. Access to education must be more than theoretical.

Let us be clear. Protests are protected. Dissent remains protected. Debate remains protected.

This is what democracy looks like when it remembers our children. This is what responsible law-making looks like when it is calm, careful and sure of itself. This is government and us as legislators ensuring that we are making sure that schools are not a place of intimidation.

For all of those reasons, this is why this House should pass Bill 12.

Lynne Block: I rise today to speak to Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

Now, at first glance, this legislation appears modest, indeed almost administrative in nature. It contains no sweeping new provisions, no expanded powers, no recalibration of rights or obligations. It does one thing and one thing only. It extends the repeal date of the existing act by two years, from July 1, 2026, to July 1, 2028.

Yet, as is often the case in this chamber, what appears simple is not necessarily insignificant.

Let me begin with a foundational observation, one that should guide our deliberations. This amendment does not change what the law is. It changes how long we are willing to live with it. That is the essence of this bill. It is procedural, not substantive reform. It does not revisit the architecture of the Safe Access to Schools Act. It does not refine its definitions, recalibrate its scope or respond to evolving concerns. It simply prolongs its life.

That raises a fundamental question before this House: is continuation without reconsideration justified?

Let us remind ourselves why the original act was enacted. The Safe Access to Schools Act was introduced to ensure that students, parents and school staff could access educational environments free from intimidation, obstruction and disruption. It created “safe access zones” around schools, spaces where certain expressive activities could be restricted in order to protect the well-being and security of children and staff.

This objective is not controversial. Indeed, it is deeply compelling. We are speaking about children, about their right to learn in safety, about parents’ confidence in sending them to school and about educators’ ability to do their jobs without fear or interference.

[5:05 p.m.]

Students need to feel safe and be safe when entering their schools. Parents dropping their children off at school don’t want to run a gauntlet to ensure their children are safe within the school. On that principle, there’s broad agreement.

I’d like to tell a little bit of a personal story.

Before this act happened, there used to be quite a bit of back-and-forth between certain groups — BCTF, CUPE — and the school districts. I remember, very vividly, a CUPE strike many years ago before this legislation. And truly, it was terrifying, because the teachers, BCTF, had decided to support the CUPE in what they wanted. It would not benefit the BCTF, none of the teachers, but it benefited the CUPE, so they were on strike.

We had people coming from all over at several schools — not all the schools. So you’re looking at 100 adults yelling, screaming, placards, blocking cars, blocking people, yelling at everybody. It really was terrifying.

At that time, because I knew that the majority of students were going into the school and there was not the full staff, I crossed the picket lines, because it wasn’t for the teachers’ benefit, and it wasn’t for anybody else’s. It certainly wasn’t for the students, and it certainly wasn’t for the parents. So I crossed the picket lines along with quite a few other teachers and principals.

When we were in there, we had probably 90 percent of the students arrive. The parents expected them to go to school, to be in school, to be safe and to be taught. Well, that was a time when I had 60, 70 kids in one classroom. It was fun. We had a great, great day. It only lasted for one day.

What was interesting…. Two things. A few years later, the BCTF went on strike, and the CUPE did not support them. The second interesting thing was that after that particular day, I had a visit — talk about harassment — from the president of the teachers association, admonishing me. Why didn’t I support the teachers? I said: “I’m supporting our children. They are my first priority, and that’s why.”

Well, that did not go over well. But to this day, I am so glad I did that for the students’ welfare and for the parents’ peace of mind too. They knew.

So I’m glad that there is this legislation, but I have a few positives and a few comments about that.

Another example: SOGI. SOGI has been sort of a litmus test, pro or con.

As a school trustee, we had a lone SOGI protester. This was after the legislation. No, it was before. They were outside the school, one particular school, and we asked that gentleman to move outside the area, and he did.

What was really interesting…. He didn’t live in our riding. He didn’t live in our school district, didn’t have a child in school. So he was there as a sort of professional protester, I guess.

Anyway, thankfully, we didn’t have more. But it was scary for the children. They didn’t understand, and neither did the parents. Even though the parents, a lot of them, did agree with SOGI — some did not — the reality was that that was not the time or place, particularly for the children.

So what are the positives of this amendment? It has definitely carried several clear advantages. Continuity and stability is the main one. It does ensure continuity. Allowing the act to expire in 2026 without replacement would create a legal vacuum, one in which protections disappear overnight. This amendment prevents that outcome. It maintains a stable framework that schools and communities have already adapted to. So continuity and stability are paramount.

Another positive of this is protection of vulnerable populations. The most vulnerable are our children.

[5:10 p.m.]

This amendment continues protections for vulnerable populations, namely students, in balancing rights courts have consistently recognized — that the state has a legitimate interest in safeguarding children. Extending the act preserves that protective function.

What’s another positive? There’s time for evidence-based evaluation. The extension provides that additional time. Public policy, particularly where it intersects with constitutional rights, should be informed by evidence. So a longer timeline allows for that. What does it allow for? More or even some data collection, especially longitudinal data collection.

It also provides impact assessment, an opportunity for objective assessment — where is the framework for something like that? — and meaningful consultation with impacted groups. It could be even student groups, as well as parents, as well as teachers, as well as staff. Rushed decisions rarely produce good laws.

What’s another positive? Avoidance of legislative urgency. It does avoid the pressure of an impending deadline. Without this extension, the Legislature would be forced to revisit the act under time constraints, which can compromise the quality of debate and scrutiny. This is an issue that has come up and appeared before us in the Legislature — lack of quality of debate and scrutiny on certain things.

Those are the positives. Here are the negatives.

There are some concerns regarding this amendment. The first one is that it involves the possible delay of democratic accountability. The original sunset clause was not incidental. It was intentional. It reflected a recognition that this law engages fundamental freedoms and should therefore be revisited within a defined time frame.

Extending the deadline risks diluting that accountability, and I think that’s incredibly important. Should we not take the time to review the original law and see if there are areas that need improvement or revision as they may now be out of date with today’s societal needs and norms — data collection, impact assessment — especially in light of evolving pressures in society today?

A second concern is one of prolonging contested restrictions. The act limits certain forms of expression and assembly within designated zones. While these limits may be justified, they remain constitutionally sensitive. By extending the law without modification, we are effectively prolonging those restrictions without reassessing whether they remain necessary, proportionate or properly tailored.

Again, where is the data or statistics? I love data and statistics. To me, that informs. Where is the data or statistics to confirm whether this law is working as intended? Does it need refinement? Are the restrictions enough or too much? Reflection and review would be a positive step. So perhaps in that extended period, maybe we can do that.

There is another negative: the risk of temporary becoming permanent. And that’s a broader institutional concern. When sunset clauses are repeatedly extended, they risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive. A temporary measure can evolve into a de facto permanent one, not through deliberate decision but through incremental deferral. And shouldn’t this law be just as thorough and impactful in the future, even in two years, as it has been in the past? Shouldn’t it be? I think it should be. How can we assure that it is if what we do is continually extend the date?

Another missed opportunity here is for improvement. Anything and everything should be looked at through the lens of improving. How can we refine it? How can we polish it? How can we make it better?

[5:15 p.m.]

This amendment does not engage with any criticisms or lessons learned since the act’s implementation. And I think that’s critical. Lessons learned. As an educator, lessons learned are paramount for me.

It does not ask: “Are the zones appropriately sized? Should they be increased? Should they be decreased? Are they working as envisioned? Are enforcement mechanisms fair and consistent?”

This is a huge issue today as we see the increase of weekly rallies and protests. We see them daily, weekly. Everybody wants to rally. We’ve got another one coming up this week. So are the enforcement mechanisms fair and consistent? Do they need to be changed, reviewed, refined, polished?

We see the increase of weekly rallies and protests, some with no issues or repercussions, while others can result in violence and property damage. Do we have impact assessments? Are enforcement mechanisms robust enough or too robust, depending on the circumstances? Are they appropriate for each incident? Should there be a review of enforcement mechanisms to see if they are appropriate, adequate or befitting the needs of today?

Are there unintended consequences? Is there longitudinal data that we should begin to collect right now? If so, what kind of framework would we use? What kind of best practice would we use? What kind of data collection would we use? Is there a desire for a review panel of experts, community members, interested parties, along with teachers, students, staff, parents, community members, who would be valuable in determining unintended consequences?

And where’s the meaningful consultation? I think that’s key to anything we do. We should have meaningful consultation. In that sense, this amendment represents not just an extension but a much-missed opportunity.

I want to just do…. A little concern here. No discussion of this legislation is complete without considering the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Safe Access to Schools Act engages several Charter rights, most notably section 2(b), freedom of expression, and section 2(c), freedom of peaceful assembly.

By restricting activities within safe access zones, the act imposes limits on these freedoms. The key constitutional question is not whether rights are limited — they clearly are — but whether those limits are justified under section 1 of the Charter. That is, are they prescribed by law, pursuing a pressing and substantial objective, proportionate in their effects?

The protection of children and access to education is undoubtedly a pressing and substantial objective. The courts have often been sympathetic to such goals or aims. However, proportionality requires ongoing scrutiny. Are the restrictions minimally impairing? Do they go further than necessary? Is the balance between individual rights and collective safety still appropriate today? Even though it’s only been a couple of years, are they still appropriate today?

By extending this act without review, this amendment effectively assumes that the original balance remains valid. That may be true, but it is not self-evident. It is something that ought to be examined, not presumed.

This brings us to a broader principle of governance. Good law is not only about what we enact. It is about how we revisit what we enact. Sunset clauses exist for a reason. They are instruments of humility. They acknowledge that legislators do not have perfect foresight — we don’t — and that laws affecting fundamental rights should not persist indefinitely without reconsideration. That’s what I believe is extremely important in this House.

[5:20 p.m.]

In that light, this amendment invites us to reflect on our role as MLAs. Are we extending this law because it has been rigorously evaluated and found effective? How do we know, or are we extending it because it is easier than undertaking that evaluation now?

Let’s strike a balance here. The challenge before us is to strike a balance between two legitimate concerns: (1) the need to protect students and ensure safe access to education, and (2) the obligation to uphold and continually reassess fundamental freedoms. These are not mutually exclusive objectives, but they do require careful calibration.

In closing, let me return to the central point. This amendment is not about redefining policy. It is about deferring a decision. It extends a framework that may well be justified but does so without revisiting its foundations, and those foundations may not be as strong and solid as they once were.

The question for this House is not simply whether we support the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act. It is whether we are comfortable extending the school act as-is for two more years, without undertaking the deeper review that such legislation deserves. In the end, legislation that touches on fundamental rights should not merely endure; it should earn its endurance.

Darlene Rotchford: I’d like to start by acknowledging that I’m on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, known as Songhees and xʷsepsəm, and thanking them for allowing me to work on their land.

I’m honoured to rise here today in the House to speak strongly on this bill. I would hope that we can all agree within this chamber…. Sometimes we disagree on a lot of things, but I think the safety of one of our most valuable assets is something we can agree on. Our children are one of the most valuable things we have in this province.

This legislation is at the very heart of what it means. We want to ensure that our children have a safe, respectful, inclusive learning environment for when they go to school. We want to make sure they’re safe. At the core of this bill is something very simple but profoundly important — ensuring people in British Columbia can access the place that matters to their children the most, our schools, not just for our children but for all the people who work there and volunteer there as well.

Schools should be a safe place for children. This is not a controversial statement. I believe this is probably a shared expectation among many in this province. Yet in recent years, we have seen a troubling rise in incidents that challenge these basic expectations. We have seen protests and confrontations outside schools that disrupt learning and leave students and their educators feeling very unsafe. We have seen threats, and we have seen vandalism and intimidation targeting our schools.

This is very concerning for someone who has young children, for what the future may look for them if we don’t do this and get a handle on it. This is not an abstract concern. These are real experiences.

Here in the south of Vancouver Island, whether you’re talking to our Greater Victoria Teachers Association, our CUPE members, our ECEs or the parents, there is a very underlying anxiety for these people when they’re talking about their children going to school, especially with some of the recent incidents, unfortunately, that have happened in this province. These are real experiences affecting real people — children who are just going to school to learn, parents trying to drop their kids off at school and families simply trying to gather.

This is why our government is taking action. Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, extends protections we first introduced in 2023. Then, just like now, it was to ensure that safe access to school zones around schools would remain in place. Now this will be in place, if this passes, till July 1, 2028.

[5:25 p.m.]

These zones have already proven effective in reducing disruptive behaviours near schools, but we know that that issue has not disappeared. Since its introduction, there have been dozens of reported disruptions outside of kindergarten-to-grade-12 schools. Even one incident that interferes with a child’s ability to feel safe and learn in their school, quite frankly, is one too many. By extending this legislation we are sending a clear message: there is no place for intimidation or disruption when our children are trying to learn.

Within these zones, certain behaviours are prohibited, not opinions but behaviours — actions like physically blocking access, using intimidation or deliberately causing it that students can’t access their schools. I want to be very clear about this, though. This law does not ban protest. In fact, I can’t deny it. There are many pictures of me in front of this building, perhaps on a picket line with our BCTF and our CUPE members a time or two, having some peaceful protest; standing up for the rights of those teachers and, at times, actually, the students with us.

As I stand here and kind of giggle with some of my colleagues across the way in here, I think, that was a peaceful protest with respectful debate. We were not blocking access, and I think that’s what’s really important. We still encourage those peaceful protests. There’s a time and a place for it, but not at the cost of intimidating or not allowing our children to have safe access to their schools.

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, and our government fully supports that right. People may remain free to express their views, to gather and to protest. What this bill does is set reasonable boundaries, ensuring that expression does not cross that line to harm, intimidation or obstruction, because it’s about balance. It is about balancing the right to protest with the right of a child to walk into their school without fear. It’s about recognizing that rights come with responsibilities.

I also want to highlight that this bill is not being introduced in isolation. It’s part of our broader effort to address rising hate and protect our students and, again, our staff and our volunteers across this province.

We are also listening. We’re listening to educators, to parents, to community organizations and to our law enforcement. Their feedback has been clear. These protections are needed, and it will help make a difference. Police have told us that safe access zones around schools have already been an effective tool for de-escalation.

Importantly, these measures include safeguards. This legislation contains a sunset clause, ensuring that it will be reviewed and reassessed. This reflects our commitment to getting the balance right, not just today but into the future. I appreciate the comments made across the way because, at the end of the day, this is a constantly changing environment. One would hope that we could be optimistic that maybe down the road we won’t need this, but I think having that sunset clause makes sure that we are keeping it alive and real and looking at how that is.

We also have to acknowledge the broader context. Around the world and here at home, we are seeing increased polarization and, at times, rising hostility directed at different communities. In moments like this, leadership also matters. We have a responsibility to stand up for the values that define us — respect, inclusion and safety for all.

That bill does exactly that. It does not take sides. It does not target any particular group or viewpoint. It applies equally, regardless of who you are and what you believe. The focus is clear and narrow: to prevent harmful conduct and ensure safe access for our students to their schools — to get the learning that they deserve and to be safe while they’re getting the learning that they deserve.

As legislators, we’re often called upon to make difficult decisions, to weigh competing rights and interests. In this case, I believe this bill strikes the right balance. It protects our children, our most valuable asset. If we don’t, we know what that consequence will be.

[5:30 p.m.]

It doesn’t just physically protect them. As someone who worked in mental health and addiction, who has seen directly the outcome if someone isn’t protected and their mental health isn’t protected, the outcomes that can come from that…. It’s also ensuring that we’re protecting them mentally and emotionally as well as physically.

It upholds the fundamental principle that everyone deserves to feel safe in our schools. Again, if our children are the most valuable asset in a school, then one could argue the next most valuable asset is the people who actually teach them, the volunteers who go in and volunteer there. So we also have to ensure that we’re taking care of them.

I really hope that everyone here can support this bill. Before we went on break — for anyone who listened to my two-minute statement, I know you’re all very excited about it — I talked about how we can…. My office right across the way is laughing.

You know, we talked about…. We need to come together and work together. We may not always agree how to get there, but we agree that we care about British Columbians and, again, the most valuable asset we have as British Columbians are our children.

I hope that everyone will support this bill. We need to ensure that when our children go to school, they are safe and they’re taken care of while they’re there so they can go home at the end of the day, their teachers can go home at the end of the day, our volunteers can go home at the end of the day, and they’re all safe while trying to access that.

Macklin McCall: I want to start in a place where I think everyone in this House agrees. Students should be able to go to school without being disrupted, without being intimidated, without being caught in the middle of conflict. That’s not controversial. It’s not political. That’s just common sense. I don’t think there’s anyone here who would stand up and say that protests interfering with children getting to school is acceptable. It’s not. And I want to be clear about that from the outset, because this matters.

There is a responsibility on all of us, regardless of where we sit in this chamber, to ensure that schools remain safe, stable environments for students and for educators. That’s the baseline. That’s the expectation. And when that expectation is not being met, government does have a role to play. There’s no question. That’s not really where the debate is.

The debate is not about whether students deserve to be protected. They do. The debate is about how government chooses to do that and whether the approach being taken is the right one, because when we talk about legislation like this, it’s easy to focus on the intent.

The intent sounds reasonable. Protect access, prevent disruption, maintain safety — all things that people would support. But in this place, our job is not just to agree with intent. Our job is to look at the structure behind it, to ask whether the tools being used are necessary, whether they are precise and whether they respect the broader framework of rights and laws that already exist, because good intentions alone don’t make good law. That’s where I think this conversation needs to go.

That’s really where this starts to shift, because this bill isn’t creating something entirely new. What it’s doing is extending something that was always meant to be temporary. When this legislation first came in, it was in response to a specific situation: a rise in disruptions, concern from parents, concern from schools and a need for government to step in. That’s fair. That’s what government is supposed to do when something is happening in real time.

When something is introduced as temporary, that comes with an expectation that it will be reviewed, that it will be measured and that government will come back and explain clearly why it still needs to be in place. This is where I think we need to slow down a bit, because we’re being told that the number of disruptions has decreased. We’re being told the situation has improved. At the same time, we’re being asked to extend these powers further, and those two things don’t quite line up.

[5:35 p.m.]

The issue is declining. If the situation is stabilizing, then the question becomes: what is the justification for continuing and expanding these restrictions? That’s not an unreasonable question. That’s exactly the kind of question this stage of debate is supposed to answer.

Temporary measures aren’t just about responding quickly. They’re about responding carefully. They’re about making sure that once the immediate issue is addressed, we don’t simply normalize those powers without a clear reason. That’s the concern here, not that government acted but that government is now choosing to continue that action without clearly defining what success looks like, without clearly stating what threshold needs to be met for this to no longer be necessary.

If that’s the threshold — it isn’t clear — then what we’re really doing is shifting something from temporary to expected, and that’s a different conversation entirely. That’s why I think it’s important that we move beyond just the intent of the bill and really start looking at whether the approach itself is the right one.

This is where I think we need to ground this conversation a bit, because this is being framed as a public safety issue. And I agree. It is. If people are being intimidated, if access is being blocked, if there’s disorder outside a school, that is a public safety issue. But if it’s a public safety issue, then we should be honest about something. We already have the laws to deal with it. They already exist.

Police already have the authority to step in, to intervene and, if necessary, to arrest. That’s not new. That’s not something we’re missing. That’s already under the Criminal Code of Canada. There are offences that cover this kind of behaviour: intimidation, causing a disturbance, obstruction, harassment. These are not new concepts. They’ve been around for a long time. They’ve been tested in the courts, and they have been applied in real situations over and over again.

Importantly, they are Charter-compliant. They strike that balance between enforcement and rights. They allow police to act when behaviour crosses the line, but they do it within a framework that has already been challenged and upheld.

So when I look at this, the question I have isn’t: do we need to act? Of course we do. The question is: why are we acting like there’s a gap in the law? There isn’t.

If someone is blocking access to a school, that can be dealt with. If someone is intimidating others, that can be dealt with. If someone is creating a disturbance, that can be dealt with. Those tools are already in place. What this bill is really doing is not filling a gap. It’s changing the approach. Instead of dealing with behaviour through existing criminal law, we’re moving to a system where the location itself triggers the restriction.

Zone is created, and within that zone, certain behaviour is automatically prohibited. That’s a different model, and I think we need to be clear about that. When you move away from conduct-based enforcement, where actions are judged based on what someone is doing, and move toward location-based restriction, where actions are judged based on where someone is standing, you’ve changed how the law works.

I’ll say this as simply as I can. I want to live in a province where strong laws that already exist are actually used, where police have the tools and the support to enforce those laws properly and where people’s rights are protected within that system, not in a province where the answer is to bring in new legislation that risks stepping on those rights because we’re not fully using what we already have. Once you start going down that path, it becomes easier to do it again.

I think we need to be careful about that. At the end of the day, this is not a situation where police are standing there with no authority. That’s not reality. They have authority. They’ve always had it. The issue isn’t whether the law exists. The issue is whether it’s being used and whether there are enough resources to actually enforce it.

[5:40 p.m.]

This is where I want to bring up my own experience, because I think it matters in a discussion like this. Before being here, I spent nearly two decades in policing. Part of that time was in general duty, which is patrol, basically, out on the road responding to calls.

I also served on the RCMP tactical team and was involved in public order deployments across British Columbia. Those are the situations where protests, demonstrations and large gatherings are actually managed on the ground — not in theory, not in policy but in real time with real people and real consequences.

I can tell you that those situations are not simple. They are often tense. Emotions are high. People feel strongly about what they’re there for, and they have a right to. That’s something that is drilled into you early — that in Canada, people have a right to assemble, have a right to protest, and they have a right to express themselves.

At the same time, there are limits when behaviour crosses into intimidation, obstruction or public safety concerns. So the job of police in those moments is not just to enforce the law. It’s to manage that balance. That balance is not something you figure out on the fly. It comes from training, extensive training. We were trained specifically on how to operate in public order situations, how to interpret and apply Canadian law in dynamic environments and how to do that while respecting and upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You learn very quickly that clarity in the law matters. You need to know where the line is, and you need to be able to explain that line to the people you’re dealing with. When people understand the boundary, most of the time situations can be managed without escalation.

When the law is vague or when it relies too heavily on interpretation, that’s when things become difficult. Different officers may see the situation differently. Different people may understand the rules differently. That’s where inconsistency starts to show up. That’s not a criticism of police. It’s the reality of putting people in a position where they are expected to make judgment calls in grey areas.

In my experience, the most effective situations were the ones where the law was clear, where expectations were clearly communicated and where everyone, police and public, understood where that line was. That’s what allows for both enforcement and the protection of rights to exist at the same time.

So when I look at this legislation, I don’t look at it from a policy perspective first. I look at it from what it will look like on the ground, what it will look like for the officers standing there trying to make a decision in real time, what it will look like for the people involved trying to understand what they can and cannot do.

From that perspective, the question isn’t whether we should act. Of course, we should act when there are issues affecting public safety. The question is whether this approach gives the kind of clarity, consistency and balance that is actually needed in those situations, because if it doesn’t, then we’re not making the job easier. We’re making it more complicated.

When I look at this legislation through that lens, not just what it says on paper but how it will actually play out, there are a few concerns that stand out. The first is the language being used. Terms like “Interference,” “intimidation” and “disruption” are central to how this legislation works. On their face, those words sound clear enough. Most people would have a general sense of what that means, but when you move from general understanding to enforcement, those terms start to become much less precise.

What one person sees as interference, another might see as expression. What one officer interprets as intimidation, another may not. When you’re asking police to make those kinds of determinations in real time in a dynamic situation, that lack of precision matters, because the more room there is for interpretation, the more likely it is that enforcement becomes inconsistent. Once enforcement becomes inconsistent, public confidence starts to erode. People don’t just look at whether the law exists. They look at how it’s applied and whether it feels fair.

The next concern is the extension itself. This was not designed to be permanent. It was brought in with a sunset clause, a built-in end date, which is an important safeguard. It forces government to come back to reassess and to justify whether those powers are still needed. What we’re seeing now is that timeline being pushed further out.

[5:45 p.m.]

I think it’s fair to ask: “Based on what?” If disruptions are decreasing, if the situation is improving, then what is the clear threshold that justifies extending these powers for another two years? Without that clarity, what we’re doing is shifting something from temporary to ongoing without clearly defining why.

That’s where concerns start to build, not about the intent — again, I don’t think the intent here is the issue — but about the structure. Structure is what determines how a law is used, how it’s enforced and how it’s perceived. If that structure isn’t right, if it leaves too much room for interpretation or if it extends beyond what is clearly necessary, then even well-intentioned legislation can create problems.

This brings me to something that I think sits underneath all of this and doesn’t get talked about enough when we discuss legislation like this: enforcement capacity. At the end of the day, laws don’t enforce themselves. You can pass legislation. You can define zones. You can expand authority on paper. But if there aren’t enough officers to be present, to respond and to actually enforce those laws, then the impact of that legislation is limited. That’s just the reality.

This is where I have a real concern, because we’re talking about introducing and extending new enforcement tools while, at the same time, we have not addressed the underlying issue of capacity. Since 2012, the provincial RCMP contingent has not increased. This government hasn’t added one additional police officer to the provincial complement.

So when we talk about public safety, we need to be honest about what actually makes a difference on the ground. It’s not just the law itself. It’s whether there are officers available to enforce it, to be present, to respond when something is happening, not after the fact. If there’s no one there, or if resources are stretched thin, then it doesn’t matter how many powers exist on paper. They don’t translate into real-world outcomes.

That’s why I come back to this point. This is not a situation where police lack authority. The authority is already there. The question is whether we have the capacity to use it effectively. Public safety is built on two things: clear law and the ability to enforce it. You can’t separate those.

Right now what I see is a focus on adding or extending legislation without addressing the resourcing that actually makes enforcement possible. If we don’t deal with that piece, then we risk creating a situation where expectations are raised but the ability to meet those expectations isn’t there.

This is where I think it is important to talk about rights but in a practical way. Sometimes these conversations can drift into theory or legal language that doesn’t really connect to how things play out in real life.

At a basic level, people in this country have the right to gather. They have a right to protest. They have the right to express themselves. Those are fundamental freedoms, and they’re protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At the same time, those rights are not unlimited. They have never been unlimited. There are clear boundaries when behaviour crosses into intimidation, obstruction or creates a risk to public safety. Again, that’s not new. That balance already exists in law. It’s something police are trained in and understand how to apply. This isn’t a question of whether limits should exist, because they already do; the question is how those limits are applied.

What this legislation does is shift that balance. Instead of focusing on behaviour that crosses a line, it focuses on where someone is standing. It creates a space, and within that space, certain activities are restricted.

I think it’s fair to pause on that. Once you move into restricting expression based on location, you’re taking a different approach than what we’ve traditionally relied on.

Again, I’m not suggesting there should be no limits. There should be. But those limits should be grounded in clear, established law that has already been tested and understood. I think most people would agree with that. They want to know there are rules. They want to know those rules are fair. They want to know those rules are applied consistently.

From my perspective, that’s best achieved by relying on strong existing law applied properly rather than moving toward new layers of restriction that may not be as clear in how they’re used.

[5:50 p.m.]

I think it’s also important that we don’t look at this in isolation, because this isn’t the only place where we’ve seen this kind of approach. We’ve seen similar measures in other contexts — around health care facilities, around places of worship and in other areas where government has stepped in to create defined spaces and restrict certain types of activity within them. Each one on its own is presented as reasonable. Each one is tied to a specific concern. Each one can be defended on its own set of facts.

At some point, we have to step back and look at the broader pattern, because when you start layering these approaches one after another, you begin to change how public space is regulated. You move from a system where behaviour is the focus to one where location increasingly determines what is allowed.

Again, I’m not suggesting there should be no restrictions. There should be, but we need to be mindful of the cumulative effect, because rights don’t usually disappear all at once. They narrow. They shift. They get pushed further away from where people actually are. That’s why it’s important that each time we consider legislation like this, we don’t just look at the immediate issue; we also look at where it fits in the bigger picture. The decisions we make here don’t just apply to one situation. They set a direction.

So when I look at this bill as a whole, I come back to a few simple points. No one is arguing against protecting students. That is not in question. Students should be able to get to school safely. Teachers should be able to do their jobs without disruption. And when behaviour crosses the line, there should be consequences. That’s a given.

But how we get there matters. We already have strong laws in place that deal with this kind of behaviour. We already have authorities that are clear, established and Charter-compliant. And we already have a system that balances enforcement with the protection of rights.

This is not about whether government should act. It’s about whether government is choosing the right approach.

From where I stand, this is not a gap in the law. It’s a gap in how we are using the law, and it’s a gap in ensuring that enforcement is properly resourced and supported. Public safety doesn’t come from adding more layers of legislation. It comes from clear laws applied consistently, with the capacity to enforce them.

At the same time, we have to be careful, because when we move toward restricting activity based on location, when temporary measures begin to extend without a clearly defined end, we start to shift how rights are exercised in this province. And those shifts matter. They matter not just in this case but in what they signal, going forward.

I believe we can protect students. I believe we can enforce law. And I believe we can do both without stepping away from the principles that have guided us for a long time. That’s the balance. That’s the standard. And that’s what British Columbians expect from this House.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I rise today to support the amendment of Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

It should be clear that this is an amendment to extend the time from eliminating it — from July 1, 2026, extending it out for the next two years, to July 1, 2028. It’s not a new law. It wouldn’t fall under a lot of the guidelines that are applied for legislation, including consultation and looking at the public to see whether or not it’s something that is a change that should happen.

This is a change that has already happened and has been in place for over three years, so when I hear members standing up in this House and talking about whether or not this could or should work…. We would have heard this over the last three years. We would have had that feedback in the implementation of this act that was already there.

[5:55 p.m.]

When we talk about this bill, when we talk about the amendment to this and extending it out for another two years…. We have heard in the House, as well, talk of the risk of overreach of the government.

When you look at what the purpose of this bill is, that purpose is to protect students, to protect teachers, to protect parents. It’s a very clear area of where a school is and providing that safe access for a student to show up at the beginning of their school day and know that they’re not going to be harassed or intimidated to get into that house of learning.

I think of an Indigenous girl who’s seven years old and who’s trying to go to grade 2. She’s trying to reach her classroom. Her grandmother is walking her to school, and her grandmother carries a lot of trauma from residential schools. To not have that safe access for them to know that when they show up to the school, no matter what day it is, nobody is allowed to be on those school grounds to prevent her from walking into that school….

I think about the impact of adults. We’re talking about adults yelling, screaming, name-calling, harassing, threatening violence to a seven-year-old Indigenous girl living in British Columbia. When you think about it, this is an easy thing to approve. This is an easy thing to say: “Yes, I believe in that.”

What we’re trying to change with this act is the behaviour. To be clear, it’s the behaviour of the adults that are showing up at those schools and yelling at the children, yelling at the teachers, yelling at the staff that are trying to go into their workplace for that day and being threatened. That is a scary situation. That is chaos.

With this behaviour that is still persisting here in British Columbia, we know that we need to take action. We know that we need to extend this. We need to keep kids safe here in B.C. so that they’re supported in their school to achieve their very best.

Imagine them walking into school that day and feeling confident, feeling safe, feeling secure, feeling like they can actually sit at their desk, have their teacher pull out a textbook and have them really understand what that teacher is trying to teach them that day. But think of the Indigenous young girl that goes home that night, and she’s traumatized. Her grandmother is traumatized, and the whole family is traumatized.

Then imagine that young girl trying to go back to school the next day. Imagine her trying to walk to school with her grandmother again and how she’s going to feel. She’s not going to feel safe.

This is an area where I think it’s really, really important to know…. We have 1,596 active public schools here in British Columbia, and we have 364 active independent schools. That’s a lot of schools. That’s a lot of police resources. We know that we want to support the police service in what they’re doing. We want to set the tone. We want to set a bubble, an access bubble for students to be able to show up to the school, to walk into school, to feel safe, to feel supported.

We shouldn’t be blaming the police officers. We shouldn’t be blaming them and saying that there isn’t a gap in this law. Well, there was, and that’s why we made this change in 2023. There was a gap. We had to fill that gap to make sure the students were protected, that they didn’t have to hear harmful language as they’re walking into their school trying to go and learn.

The access zones provide a reasonable amount of distance between the protests and the students trying to learn. All they’re trying to do is show up that day into their school and trying to get into the school they think is a safe place to be.

[6:00 p.m.]

The time that this is in place is from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. I want us to think about, too, that some of the students that are going to the schools are accessing the healthy breakfast program. They’re getting up. They’re getting dressed. They’re being walked to school or driven to school, and they’re being dropped off to have a healthy breakfast before they start their day, knowing that that food is there, knowing that they’re going to be safe there.

If we take away this bubble zone, this means that any adult can go and approach any child on the school playground. Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to provide that unsafe zone for a student trying to learn?

We’ve heard a lot too, that we need to know where the boundary is. I think this is a very simple, easy amendment to extend it out to show where the access zone is for the schools and making sure that everyone is aware that it’s there. School trustees, principals, staff members, parents, students — everyone who’s coming into the school — will know exactly where the access zone starts and where it ends, and they’re going to be able to know that when they walk into that area, they’re not going to be harassed. They’re not going to be yelled at. They’re not going to be told that they’re shameful and wrong for just being who they are.

That’s the most important part about this. Obviously, this is in response to things that were happening to our students here in British Columbia. We have to always take action. We have to protect those that are voiceless. That is exactly what we’re doing with these amendments. We’re extending out the timeline so that we know that this is going to help students and schools in order to prepare.

We know, too, that when this was first put in place in 2023, the distance was chosen so that it provides a reasonable amount of space between protests or harmful behaviour and students that are trying to get into school to learn. The distance is reasonable, and it’s also basically the width of a road right-of-way, including sidewalks on either side of the road.

We’re not trying to take away the rights of people to protest. We’re not trying to say that people aren’t allowed to protest. I know that one of the other colleagues of mine spoke about attending protests. I’m sure that my family and my mother, in particular, have attended at least 100 to 200 protests in her lifetime, and we joked a lot about that. She loved to go and have her voice heard in a peaceful protest.

That’s different than an adult approaching a young person and yelling at them and telling them that they’re wrong. That’s different than someone — knowing what their limit is, knowing that they’re getting too emotional, knowing that they need to step back.… That’s a whole different side of things.

What we really want to do — I think all of us here in this House — is to have successful students. We want to have children going to school, making sure that they’re able to succeed in environments that are safe, stable and not chaotic. We want to make sure that they are able to also look at different ways of welcoming new students into a school.

Imagine being a parent and looking at different school zones, different school districts, looking at purchasing a house, trying to move your family, maybe for a new job, and you go around to the school districts to see which ones would be the right fit for your child. Imagine knowing, no matter which school you chose in that school district, that this would always be there. This would ensure that whichever school you chose for your child, they would always be able to have supportive, safe, caring and inclusive schools for them.

It’s really upsetting for us to hear about misinformation being used to attack children. We want to make sure that they’re safe. We want to make sure that they’re heard. We want to make sure that the parents are heard.

[6:05 p.m.]

This has also been an area where we want to make sure that we’re providing the right guidance in clarifying areas where there can be protests and areas where there can’t be protests.

I also just want to note that all public school districts in B.C. have a student code of conduct that addresses unacceptable actions, including bullying, harassment, violence and threatening behaviour, and all independent schools have anti-bullying policies in place as well.

If we are asking our children to be held to a code of conduct and a standard, why are we not requiring adults to have that same code of conduct; to carry themselves in a way, away from the school, away from the children and making sure that we’re protecting that?

That’s what we need to be doing. That’s what we need to be doing to protect the students and their parents that are living and working here in British Columbia.

It’s really important too, because a lot of the school boards have safety prevention, intervention and response strategies in place. We’ve seen that play out again and again in schools within British Columbia. That’s a scary, scary situation to be in for a student and for a parent.

I know that I’ve had that happen as a parent myself, and there’s nothing more terrifying than not knowing where your child is at. When they’re in a school lockdown and you don’t know what’s happening, to know that there could be people on the school grounds — adults that are attacking your child — that is a very scary place to be in.

With these amendments in extending the time frame for the next two years, we know that we’re protecting the children. We hope that this will continue to show and that the data will show that the number of incidents is going to continue to decline, but we don’t know what’s coming, and that is the scary part. We’ve seen, on podcasts, on TV shows and in social media, the divisiveness that’s happening — attacking certain cultural groups, residential school denialism, attacking people for who they are. That’s really scary to think about.

When I was attending the high school in Prince Rupert in my riding, a young woman and her family were immigrants, and we had a discussion about immigration. She said: “Why does the federal government hate me?” Because of the change that had happened, she didn’t feel supported, she didn’t feel heard, and she didn’t feel important. That is exactly why we need this in place.

We need to make sure the students know — when they get up, get dressed and get ready to go to school, with their parent, guardian or grandparents — that they’re going to be safe, that we do know they’re there. We do know that they need to be safe. We do know that adults should not be coming up to them on their way to school, blocking them from getting into the school, no matter who they are. Every school should be open and inclusive and there for the students’ success.

Thank you for letting me speak today. I really appreciate the time that I was given, and I hope that everybody in this House can support these amendments.

Larry Neufeld: It’s nice to be here today.

For those that might be watching on television, they may not recognize me as the MLA that represents Tumbler Ridge. That being said, on Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, how on earth could I speak against that? On its premise, the legislation is something that, for me, is very difficult to speak against. As a critic, it is my role to point out where I feel that there could be improvements made, and that is the intent of what I’m going to be doing over the next few minutes.

[6:10 p.m.]

As I’ve already said, I can’t imagine where a person could rationally decide that protection of children is not something that is the absolute, paramount and most incredible responsibility of our society. Without question, every student deserves safety and respect, and every parent expects and deserves that their child has uninterrupted learning opportunities.

Again, my role in this place of honour is to point out where improvements could be made. In this particular case, there are some questions that I would have with respect to Bill 12. My main question would be that given that…. Many of the protections included in Bill 12 already exist in existing legislation. So the main question in my mind is: why do we need this extension? Why are we not enforcing the laws that we already have? Why are we not empowering the police departments and the other law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws that already exist?

This bill does not create new offences. They’re already covered by existing law. I, for one, am a fan of less, perhaps, paperwork, less…. I don’t want to see laws passed for the sake of laws. If it’s already there and it’s already not being enforced, I think that’s our prerogative as legislators to ensure that existing laws of all nature are enforced.

This bill also does not expand enforcement authority. That already exists. Significant and sufficient enforcement authority already exists. As has already been said in this chamber, the bill simply extends the repeal date from 2026 to 2028.

I do know that…. Before I move forward with the written word…. I was sitting, thinking, as I, obviously, was listening to everyone speak before me. And I think it bears…. The colleague across the aisle spoke to it in her remarks. Society has fundamentally changed.

I’m going to date myself with this reference, but anyone that sees the colour of my hair would have a fairly good indication of…. I might be a little bit older than you. The concern that I have is the overall fundamental shift in society — why we would need something like this. And I’m not arguing that we don’t. I’m not.

I’m going to relate a story from my childhood. I grew up in a rural area in a different province, and one of my classmates was very proud of having received a .22 rifle for his birthday. He brought it to school. It wasn’t a big deal. He wasn’t allowed to play with it. It was put…. We went out and shot stones and what have you afterwards. In fact, I remember receiving a hunting knife and bringing that to school to show off to my buddies.

It’s deeply concerning to me, and I’m sure everyone else here that, and rightfully so, today that is not acceptable. It would never happen, nor should it. But what has happened to our society that it has gone from what I just described to what we have now…. That’s a hard one for me.

The other thing that I am concerned with…. Again, not with the basis of Bill 12. I’m truly not. I have three adult children. I have grandchildren who are going to be in school, not imminently, but they will be. Having seen what I’ve seen on the security side of things since I’ve become an MLA over the last 15 months…. Without question, schools must be protected.

My comment…. I don’t know that I would necessarily call it a concern. I will use it as a comment. It could be interpreted that Bill 12, as opposed to being legislation that’s required, is a diagnosis. Hopefully I’ve done a reasonable illustration of the diagnosis of what’s happened to our society.

My comment around the need for Bill 12 is: does the existing government lack confidence in existing law or existing law enforcement?

So again, back to the same premise that I said earlier. Do we actually need this when existing laws, existing facilities are there and perhaps are not being properly enforced?

[6:15 p.m.]

I would then ask the question: is the problem legal insufficiency or enforcement failure?

Being an engineer, I’m very much a root cause person. I love to fix things. I’m a backyard mechanic. I’m a farmer. I love fixing things, but I really need to understand what is wrong with something before I try to fix it. I don’t want to be fixing something ten times. I want to figure out the root cause. In this particular circumstance, is the root cause being addressed adequately with Bill 12?

Again, I’m not arguing the need for it, but I’m suggesting that, perhaps, with some amendments…. I do understand how our system of governance works. Standing on this side, I’m not going to have…. This side’s not necessarily going to have the say as to whether this bill passes or not. But what I would suggest is that, as a responsible critic, I think we can offer, and I hope to offer, improvements or opportunities for improvement. Again, it’s not my decision whether those will be accepted or not, but that’s the role that we play.

With respect to the existing law that I’ve already referenced, we already do have Criminal Code provisions with respect to intimidation, section 423. We do have laws around mischief and obstruction offences, section 430. The Charter section 2(c) protects peaceful assembly.

We also have at our disposal, as does law enforcement, provincial trespass and public order laws. That, I think, is very important, just because I agree with everyone else in this House. I adore the democracy that we live in for the fact that we can disagree and we can do it peacefully.

I know that folks that are watching us on television and watch what we do in question period on occasion might question whether in fact we are disagreeing in a civil manner, but I think society as a whole, for the most part, is able to still do that. I think that’s a benchmark and a hallmark of a strong democracy, and that’s something that I don’t think any of us want to see given up.

The concern…. Well, again, maybe not necessarily a concern, but I’ll make it as a comment that Bill 12 could be interpreted as potentially interfering with the right of assembly in that warrantless arrests and the ability to not go through the typical jurisprudence steps could potentially degrade that. I would suggest that the vast majority, if not all of us, in this place of honour would not want to see that happen, and I’m certain that the public would not want to see it happen.

The act already provides 20-metre access zones, which we’ve talked about. I just did reference the arrest without warrants and the prohibition of interference and intimidation. One of my colleagues from across the way did speak earlier about the litmus test on whether these were required or not. I know those weren’t the words used, but, in my mind, that’s what cropped up.

My question would be: have those powers actually been used under Bill 12? It’s been in place for a number of years. Has it actually been needed? Has it actually been used? Again, in my mind, I am a fan of efficiency. I’m a fan of….

In my previous life, I worked with legislation extensively. I will freely admit I am not a lawyer. I am an engineer. But I had to learn how to…. For those here or those that are watching that have a law background, no offence intended, and please don’t take it that way, but I really was forced to learn lawyer-ese or to learn to be able to read lawyer, if that makes sense.

I’ll move on. The deterrence theory around the need for Bill 12 is that…. In fact, I think, to me, that would be the basis for the need for Bill 12 — that behaviour responds to certainty, not necessarily severity.

[6:20 p.m.]

Again, the fact that we already have these pre-existing laws…. If the enforcement is inconsistent, I would suggest that the law, to a certain extent, does lose its effectiveness. I think that’s, again, part of the root cause scenario that I’m describing. We do need to look, perhaps, a little bit deeper down. Why do we need Bill 12?

In addition to that, I would say that adding more law does not address weak enforcement. And if it’s not being enforced, why? Do we need to talk to the people charged with enforcement or with the responsibility of enforcement? Is there something flawed? Is there something missing with the existing legislation that would require the need for Bill 12?

With respect to a Charter analysis, I would clearly state that section 2(c) of the Charter does protect peaceful assembly. I’ve already spoken to that. I don’t believe anyone in this room, nor who would be bored enough to be watching what I’m saying at the moment…. I can’t imagine that anyone would want to see that infringed upon or in any way diminished. And that, again, would be part of my concern with Bill 12.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Certainly, and I will repeat this ad infinitum….

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

Larry Neufeld: Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of the debate.

Larry Neufeld moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of Ministry of Forests and reports progress on the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2026

Sunita Dhir: Section C reports Bill 6 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: At next sitting.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 3:03 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, Ministry of Forests, 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).

Ward Stamer: As I said earlier, I think I have about 30 minutes left, and then I’ll be handing it over to my colleagues from the Green Party.

I want to thank the minister very much for our previous conversations. I was going through the transcripts yesterday again. I’ve only got time for a couple of questions.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m hoping that I’ll have the opportunity, because there were questions that were brought up previously in our 5½ hours…. There were some references that could be better explained by the Ministry of Environment. There were questions that could be better explained by the Minister of Finance. So I’ll be submitting those questions, including additional questions. We won’t have enough time to be able to answer the questions that were previously asked to the minister because we kind of stacked the questions.

I appreciate everything the minister has said, but there were some specific questions that I had that weren’t necessarily answered. So I’m hoping the minister agrees that I can at least have that opportunity to pass that along, and then obviously his staff, to the best of their ability, will answer those questions. I appreciate that very much in advance.

Two lines of questions.

The first one comes back to laid-off workers and worker supports.

The minister mentioned that he was travelling back east last week to talk to his federal counterparts. We went over some of the original forest supports that were available in past years to forestry workers that were laid off, whether it was temporary or permanently. I think we both can agree that most of those support systems that were specifically designed for forest workers have expired.

The minister has assured me…. There was also some additional information yet last year on some of the other cross-ministry support systems in this province for laid-off workers, but there were a couple of specifics that I asked for further clarification on.

The minister talked about any opportunity for sharing costs with the federal minister or ministers that were available, so one was if there were any additional supports that were going to be offered. I know that one of them was an extension of EI benefits, and I’d like to know what those extensions are.

I’m also aware that there are certain members of the industry that were laid off last year that are, I think, as of tomorrow, March 31, going to be off EI benefits. I’d like clarification on that.

I would also like to know what other additional support is going to be forthcoming, whether it’s in this budget or subsequent budgets, when it comes to specific forest workers — not other workers in other industries, specific to forest workers.

Also, I’d like to know, when we talked about the severance, a little bit more of a clarification on, as an example, the Chemainus mill being shuttered last year and now on an indefinite shutdown or curtailment.

What are the legal parameters between a company having to pay severance, knowing that this could be a shutdown for in excess of a year and a half since they’ve actually turned a wheel…? What does the law say when it comes to severance being paid, and what opportunities do we have for those workers?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite’s first line of questioning — absolutely. We’ve noted and read the transcripts ourselves. We’ll make sure we get back to the member in due course with any questions that we were unable to answer.

And we’re back. I’ve got one, though. The member asked about B.C. Timber Sales in terms of the amount of roads that they’re responsible for as it relates to FSRs. It’s 22,000 that they’re responsible for.

I’ll just advise the member that I was in Ottawa last week. I had an opportunity to be able to meet with several ministers, to be able to continue to make the case to ensure that the federal government is making the necessary investments to be able to support British Columbia’s forest sector and also to support forestry workers in every part of this country.

There’s no sector that has faced the impacts and challenges of duties and tariffs under Donald Trump than forestry…. Forestry, as I remind…. As the member knows well from our conversations a couple of weeks ago, forestry is our auto sector, forestry is our steel sector.

There was a continued level of advocacy, not just from myself but also from a number of unions that were in town the same week that I was — Unifor, in particular — looking at making sure that we are stabilizing the sector and that there are supports in place to be able to help workers that are dealing with curtailments and closures.

Also, really the big focus of my mission to Ottawa was to ensure that I could find a partner, a powerful partner, to be able to help transform the sector. I feel very optimistic, given the conversations I had with my counterparts in Ottawa, that I think we have found that partner, but only time will tell.

The member will know that the federal government has commissioned a transformation task force. I’m not sure if the member had an opportunity to make a submission himself, but they will be releasing that in the next number of weeks. With that, it will hopefully be the first-of-its-kind national forestry plan, certainly in my lifetime, that the federal government has put out.

[3:10 p.m.]

Again, I would note that this is only possible because of the advocacy of British Columbia and the advocacy our Premier has shown to be able to ensure that we’re looking after forestry workers in every corner of this province.

The member noted a number of programs. I would just note that the advocacy of British Columbia — in particular, of the leadership shown by United Steelworkers, by PPWC, by the Pulp and Paper Coalition and by Geoff Dawe — led to those EI changes that were requested being extended. So that is good news for workers in Crofton and, certainly, those in Chemainus.

The member asked questions related to the Chemainus operation, severance and those sorts of pieces. That’s not a question I’m privy to. That is a question that is really a business decision made by Western Forest Products, and it pertains to the collective agreement that they’ve signed with the United Steelworkers. I don’t have access to that collective agreement or that information but certainly can advise Western Forest Products and the Steelworkers that you’re interested in that information.

I’d also just note for the member that as part of our advocacy last week, we’re continuing to make the case for the federal government to be able to invest in our Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. organization, our Crown agency. The member will have noted, in the other House, that we are celebrating ten years…. I think it was actually over 225,000 logging truckloads’ worth of fibre that we’ve removed from the bush over the course of the last ten years.

Then I’ll just also note for the member opposite that one of the programs we talked about a couple of weeks ago and that is top of mind for me, because I know that loggers and contractors often get lost in the mix of things, is the forest employment program. That’s something that I’m having a conversation with my colleague the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction about, given that we’ve now received those federal dollars from the labour market development agreement from the federal government.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much to the minister.

I’d like to point out, Madam Chair, that it would be most helpful if there were only one conversation going on in this room at one time. If there’s more than that, it should maybe be taken outside of this room, if that’s okay. Thank you.

Let’s shift gears a little bit to commercial thinning. We know that BCTS has been able to offer, I believe, three blocks this year on the auction system. We know, obviously, that there are going to be changes coming through, now that additional legislation has been tabled in the Legislature today. We won’t really get into some of the changes in that parameter.

What I’d like to know a little bit more on…. The minister mentioned last year that we had 846 hectares of commercial thinning. I believe that was the statement that was made. Really, what I’d like to know is: what are the targets, going forward, when we know that we have millions of hectares of reforested forest lands that are now coming to that point?

A lot of those were existing licences, whether it was Weyerhaeuser, Canfor or Interfor, all the majors that ended up having plantations from logging back in the ’70s and ’80s. Now that we’re seeing that regeneration take place, in so many cases it’s getting choked out because the trees are too thick. There are extensive opportunities not only for commercial thinning but for other issues or other things that we can do with that land. That also includes doing commercial thinning in our interface.

I’m curious if the minister can provide me with any targets for his ministry, even though this legislation that’s coming out is probably not going to be enacted this year. What would be their targets for this year and in subsequent years, knowing full well that we have millions of hectares in the province, not 846? What are those target levels, even for this year, in the BCTS program?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Just to note for the member opposite that we are not stopping just at the three commercial thinning sales that we have put out — one in the Sunshine Coast, two in Prince George. We’ve got three that are actively working their way through the B.C. Timber Sales system.

I would also note that it’s not just within B.C. Timber Sales. We don’t have targets yet. We’re working to set those over the course of the next number of weeks and months. As the member will note, without getting into legislation before the House, we’ve got some work to do on the policy side to be able to really take advantage of this opportunity in the future.

I’ll just note for the member that while there’s a big role for B.C. Timber Sales to play in commercial thinning, there’s also a role for all licensees to play — those that have area-based tenures, those that have volume-based tenures.

As an example, just in a couple of weeks, we’re actually going to be taking the leadership of bringing all of our coastal operators together to be able to have a commercial-focused thinning workshop. I know that the member spent a little bit of time over the course of the last week in coastal B.C. and, I understand, was raising commercial thinning as an opportunity. I appreciate him doing so.

One of the reasons why we’re focusing on coastal British Columbia is making sure that we’re addressing any barriers, looking at next steps on how we can help major licensees, licensees of all sizes, take advantage of this, in addition to the policy work that we’re doing within B.C. Timber Sales, within other licensee holders, to be able to unshackle and make sure that we can get more sales out.

I’d also note that we’ve provided direction to our statutory decision–makers that we’d like to see these sales accelerated as it relates to partial harvesting and commercial thinning as well.

Then maybe the last piece I’ll touch on is…. The member will know that in Budget 2026, we made another investment of $5 million in the wildfire risk equipment trust program, which provides equipment operators, truckers, loggers and contractors the ability to be able to get government investment towards new equipment. I can advise the member, as he’ll have heard in my remarks to the truck loggers, we are seeing contractors across the province take advantage. I think in the previous quarter, it was about 30 individuals that took advantage of it, which is a good sign. People seeing the opportunity.

Again, really important that we build out this work, we provide these opportunities, and then hopefully leave it to the business community, to the licensees, to take it from there.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much for the minister. Just to carry on, on that, what the minister was mentioning about cut…. I appreciate the minister saying that this budget provides $5 million for equipment, but just to put that into perspective, a processor is $750,000, and a buncher is $1.1 million. So really, it’s not a lot of money when it comes to what it actually costs for equipment in this industry.

The question to the minister. When we talked about the allowable cut…. We spent a fair amount of time on not only the mandate letter from a year ago, from the Premier, on the desire, the drive, the path, the wish to get to 45 million cubic metres, knowing full well with some of the parameters that we have, with the ongoing tariff dispute with the Americans, certainly our cost structure that we have in this province, the most expensive fibre in North America and some of the other challenges that we have….

Does the minister see any light at the end of the tunnel when we try to get back to that 45, even though the budget is conservatively sitting, as a word, at 30 percent? Yet we see even on Vancouver Island the allowable cut or the actual harvesting cut is half of what it used to be.

I was just there, and there is an incredible amount of fibre that is being underutilized. So I’d like the minister to be able to elaborate on why we aren’t able to access more fibre, specifically on the coast right now, knowing full well that we have way less issues when it comes to wildfires and bug infestation and some of the things that have taken a significant chunk out of our inventory when it comes to forests in this province.

[3:20 p.m.]

Can the minister elaborate a little bit more on what his ministry is doing to actually increase the harvesting level on Vancouver Island when, like I said, it’s half of what it was a very short time ago?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m glad the member opposite had an opportunity to be able to spend some time in coastal British Columbia. I know he comes to this with a particular focus in the Interior.

I know, from the learnings that I’ve had over the course of the last year, that this is a large land base, large province. Things in the Interior don’t necessarily work in coastal B.C. I had an opportunity to be able to meet with Art Wilson, who’s the councillor. I often joke he’s the Minister of Forests for the Wei Wai Kai First Nation. I know that he really appreciated the opportunity to be able to meet with my colleague across the way and the time spent at Coastland and a couple of other operations that I’ve had a chance to be able to engage with in the last couple of days.

For the member opposite’s awareness, we recognize the challenges that exist in the coastal forest sector, where you’ve got an annual allowable cut and we have an inability right now to be able to meet that cut with our harvest rate. One of the first steps that I took as Minister of Forests, alongside my deputy minister, was to begin a very comprehensive management unit review to better understand why fibre wasn’t flowing. Was it issues on the ground? Was it to do with the cost structure, with transportation challenges?

The member will know, having spent some time in the bush in coastal British Columbia last week, that there are some significant transportation challenges that we’re dealing with in coastal B.C. — a 40 percent increase, just in the last few years since the pandemic — that have made many stands that typically would have been profitable for licensees unprofitable.

I use the example of the Campbell River district, where we have three million cubic metres of permitted, approved volume of fibre ready to move that has not been able to move because of those barriers that exist with transportation and also with the low price of lumber. I can advise the member that we are exploring every opportunity to try to reduce costs to ensure that the sector can become more competitive.

We’re hopeful that the price of lumber will go up over the course of the year, to be able to help in our desires, because of the work that we’re doing to be able to be more competitive. We know that being a sector that predominantly relies on this commodity, lumber, the American sector does pose a lot of challenges.

I’d also note with the member that, from my trip to Ottawa, I had an opportunity to be able to spend some time with the High Commissioner of India to Canada. We see huge opportunities to be able to get more of our product, in particular in coastal British Columbia, to India.

One bit of an irritant that we have right now is a 10 percent tariff that India poses on all wood products. We believe, through the conversations that the federal government is having, that hopefully that tariff will be lifted — I think it’s about 11 percent right now — which will allow us to be more competitive.

I’ll also note that I think the biggest opportunity that exists for coastal British Columbia is the U.K. My colleagues in Forestry Innovation Investment, FII, have been in the U.K. several times. We have an office there that is exploring many opportunities to be able to get more of our products, in particular in coastal B.C.

I would note that in my conversations with the CEO of Western Forest Products, they’re also making some investments to be able to expand their footprint to be able to meet the demand of the opportunities that exist in not only the U.K. but Europe, as well as North Africa and the Middle East.

The management unit reviews have allowed us to be able to now do the broader work of the cost adjustment review that we’re doing. I can advise the member that over the course of the next couple of weeks, I’ll have more updates to share. We’ve got COFI next week as an opportunity to provide some of those updates.

Whether it’s in coastal British Columbia, the Interior or the North, we are doing this work on the ground. We’re bringing industry and we’re bringing First Nations all to the table to better understand what those barriers are to increasing that harvest, while, at the same, time acknowledging the important work that we have to do to transform this sector so we can no longer just be a commodity dimensional lumber sector but can increase our value so we’re no longer plagued by the disastrous tariffs and duties that we’re currently being impacted by from Donald Trump.

Ward Stamer: I thank the minister for his answers to that.

Let’s shift gears if we may, Minister, while we still have a little bit of time. I know we spent a bit of time — well, actually, a fair amount of time…. It’s a lot different now, because at least I can hear out of both ears. So that makes a big difference than having my head like a football. But that was my issue.

Can we elaborate a little bit more on FireSmart? I think…. I’m still getting calls from concerned communities under the parameters that….

[3:25 p.m.]

I think we all agree, in this room, that the government — even before, when we weren’t even calling it FireSmart, because the program goes way back, even before this government’s tenure, in the opportunities to try to reduce fire risk in our communities…. I think there was a huge initiative put on by this government to be able to increase capacity wherever we could, wherever municipalities were able to engage with the government and to be able to build that capacity.

Now there’s been a pause, I believe, because there’s probably not enough money in the original funding model to be able to sustain what has been built. I’m not saying anything that nobody in this room would agree upon, because, I think, “Build it, and they will come,” and that’s exactly what happened.

I think there’s still a lot of uncertainty out there in some of these municipalities, particularly the smaller and medium-sized municipalities that were relying on the provincial government to be able to give them annual amounts of assistance. Not to cover their entire costs. They helped subsidize, as they went through in their communities, to be able to do these FireSmarting and fuel reduction programs.

There seems to be a sense out there now that because there are other communities that have never ever done that…. Are they the ones now that are going to get the money to be able to gain in some of this capacity? Or is this going to be an opportunity where everyone’s going to be able to discuss exactly what the needs are, what the capacity is, what the ability to pay is, and then to be able to determine when we can start seeing some funding flowing again from the provincial government?

Does the minister have any timelines in this review process? Is it going to be…? Is it 90 days, 120 days? Are we going to know after the wildfire season what it’s going to be looking like for any additional funding that may have to be coming out of 2027’s budget, so that we will know ahead of time that that money will be allocated for next year? Can I get a better sense of what the minister is planning on that review?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: To the member opposite, we spent quite a bit of time on this a couple of weeks ago. I can remind the member that we have not cancelled any programming. We had a pause, but, as the member will know, in Budget 2026, the Minister of Finance has invested another additional $15 million in this program.

This is a successful program. We recognize that. It’s a program that, like any program, requires review, thoughtful consideration, given that there is nothing thoughtful or considerate about wildfires and the impact that they have on the land base.

I had an opportunity, the member will know, to be in Kamloops just a couple of weeks ago to be able to help kick-start the beginning of the 2026 wildfire season. I’m continuously blown away by the fact that we have over 2,400 individuals, 2,400 British Columbians, who have put their name forward, once again, to participate as wildland firefighters, another record-breaking year for the B.C. wildfire service. I think that bodes well to the hustle of the incredible individuals right across British Columbia that want to run into fires to help save lives, help protect communities as well.

The FireSmart funding that the member refers to — again, the additional $15 million — is important to be able to meet demand, but it is equally important over the course of the next number of weeks, as we begin an official review. I’ve made a commitment to a number of mayors. I’m going to be having an opportunity to be able to meet with, I believe, the mayor of Peachland later this week, because I know that there’s a big priority for him and his council.

A big priority for a number of mayors and councils about sustained funding, while also recognizing that there are a number of mayors and councils, a number of local governments that have really excelled, gone above and beyond. I know I’ve used them way too much as an example, but I’ll use them again. West Kelowna, again, has exceeded their ability to be able to access funding in many cases, and we’re hoping that as part of this review, we can find nimble and efficient ways to be able to ensure that we can meet communities where they’re at.

[3:30 p.m.]

There are a number of other programs that the member has referred to that we’ve actually taken over. We believe that the B.C. wildfire service is well equipped to be able to take on much more wildfire risk reduction projects.

As the member will note from the B.C. government news channel, there are constant updates every day about the B.C. wildfire service doing cultural burns and prescribed burns, as well as wildfire risk reduction.

I’d also note for the member that one of the tasks that I gave to my team just a few weeks ago was to reassess all of the wildland-urban interfaces, the WUIs, as an opportunity for the forest sector to be able to be a partner in going in and accessing that fibre and also addressing some of those wildfire challenges that exist in surrounding communities as well.

On the review on FireSmart, we’ll be doing that work over the course of the next number of months. We’ll of course want to have it wrapped up well in advance of discussions pertaining to Budget 2027.

Ward Stamer: Looking at the time, it looks like I have just under ten minutes. I’d like to be able to expand to the minister on that because I think it’s an important line of questioning.

Knowing what the initial projections look like from the experts, it looks like we’re going to have another month in this province of fairly cooler weather, which is good — knowing that that will increase our snowpacks, which we’re so desperate on, because particularly in some areas of the province, they’re still under 100 percent. So that’s good news. However, the long-term projections are hot and dry, and we could quite conceivably end up breaking records that have stood for a significant amount of time.

Can the minister extrapolate a little bit more on some of the changes that B.C. wildfire service has implemented, particularly in the last 12 months — part of it in the reaction to fires, in the way that those fires are being not triaged but assessed on the necessary equipment that’s needed for those fires?

I mean, I think that the B.C. wildfire service has done an amazing job, leaps and bounds over the last two years, compared to what some of the response times were in the past. Part of it was in the lack of resources or in being stretched too thin because of a dry season. At other times, it was the parameters of what was being identified of what should be actually suppressed or not. If there were structures around, or if they weren’t threatened, then they were maybe going to wait and see what was going to happen. So I’d like to know if there has been a change in that.

An example is the tollbooth fire. That was a very small fire for quite a long time. It obviously didn’t meet the parameters of being attacked quickly. It was a substantial burn that everyone could see and also risked Manning Park in what happened with that fire. So having that information being added to the database.… It’s not just structures that are being at risk, but it can also be fibre.

The second part is: how much further have we added with our new technologies, whether it’s drones or whether it’s opportunities to fight fire at night? Can the minister give me a little bit more of an update?

I’m going to be fortunate enough to be able to go to the wildfire centre in Kamloops in May. I’m looking forward to that tour, but unfortunately, that’s a month from now, and fire season starts in a couple of days, officially. So I’m hoping the minister can give us a little bit of an update on what’s new.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the opportunity to be able to talk about the work that we’re doing in the B.C. wildfire service to be able to prepare for the 2026 wildfire season.

The member will note that in just a couple of days, the wildfire season officially begins, but as I was reminded in Merritt — and, in particular, in Kamloops, when I was at the wildfire service headquarters — the team is ready to go. In fact, over the weekend when I was there, they were dealing with a fire in an area that was quite impactful for a local nation.

[3:35 p.m.]

The member opposite will know, living in rural British Columbia, that we have to be prepared for fires all year round. It’s why this government made a very wise decision several budgets ago to be able to make the B.C. wildfire service a year-round organization rather than a seasonal organization.

That’s why we have 600 full-time staff working year-round. We’re continuing to grow that, in addition to hiring the seasonal individual wildland firefighters as well as several contracts that we have in place that are beginning and have begun and will continue too.

The member will know and will get an opportunity, when he tours the B.C. wildfire service headquarters in Kamloops…. I hope to be able to join, but I’m not sure, timing-wise, if it’s going to work out.

There’s a considerable amount of work being done by our predictive services team. I know the member is going to get a chance to be able to get a very deep briefing from Neal McLoughlin, our superintendent of predictive services, on the weather patterns and, in particular, what we could be expecting given the snowpack levels in different parts of the province.

No doubt it’s been dry out there. But as I was reminded by Neal, if we see the rains we hope to see in May and Juneuary, which I hope we get, then it certainly could make for less of an impact as well.

In terms of investments, building on the success that we’ve had in another record-breaking recruitment here for wildland firefighters, we’ve invested an additional $14 million to be able to expand B.C. wildfire services’ on-the-ground firefighting equipment. In addition, we’ve acquired ten additional type 2 units, structure protection units, to protect communities and have also made significant investments in purchasing mechanical assets such as pumps, saws and safety equipment.

I didn’t get a chance to be able to talk about it a couple of weeks ago, but I can advise the member, as I announced a couple of weeks ago, that we’ve also purchased land in Prince George to be able to expand our wildfire depot centre there. We’ve got two, one in Chilliwack and one in Prince George.

The reason for the investment in Prince George is that the Prince George wildfire zone centre is where the majority of our fires are occurring. So the ability to be able to have more equipment, more resources there on the ground, is good news.

It’s just close by the airport, so an opportunity for us to be able to pre-position more of those resources, especially as it relates to the last couple of years, where we’ve seen lots of fires occur in the northeast as well. We’ve got 28 fixed-wing aircraft at 14 bases. We’ve got 120 carriers, helicopters, that are on standby with pilots ready to support us.

I would just note, for, maybe, the member’s benefit…. He didn’t necessarily ask about this. I had an opportunity to meet with the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience when I was in Ottawa. The advocacy of the provincial government, alongside my colleague Gord Johns, who’s the Member of Parliament for the Port Alberni area, Courtenay-Alberni, if I’m not mistaken….

Apologies, Gord, if I’ve messed up your riding name there.

Gord’s been an outstanding advocate in trying to see the federal government step up and procure more fixed-wing aircraft to be able to be held by the centre for interagency forest fires in Winnipeg, so we can share more resources nationally.

The member will know that over the course of the last six months, we’ve seen a lot of provinces announce investments in purchasing aircraft. British Columbia doesn’t have to do that because all the companies that operate them are here. So when you’ve got great companies like Coulson and Conair….

People ask me: “Why don’t you just buy a plane?” Well, why do we need to buy a plane when we’ve got fantastic operators here that create several hundred jobs, when you think about it, not just in the construction of them but also in the maintenance of them as well?

The member opposite will note the wildfires and the impact that they have and the ability to be able to respond. One of the most impactful parts of the time that I got a chance to be able to spend in the member’s region was the Mine Creek fire. I got a chance to be able to see the wildfire salvage work that was occurring. That was a record-breaking turnaround from when the fire occurred to when salvaging occurred.

But it was really helpful for me to understand, especially given the comments that were made by the member’s colleague, Kamloops Centre, about…. Maybe I should just not go down that road, because I’ll just get angry. But I’ll just say that some really immature comments were made.

It was helpful for me to understand, from the fire centre manager in Merritt, the actual process that went towards deciding when to put in resources. That fire centre manager made the absolute right decision not to put resources into that fire. When I say “resources,” I’m talking about people. There’s no way that people should have been put into that fire at arm’s risk. The B.C. wildfire service takes those decisions very seriously.

[3:40 p.m.]

In the case of the Mine Creek fire, they had a plan in place to be able to help protect infrastructure, help protect homes and help protect communities. They will not put wildland firefighters at risk. These are important decisions. It’s why they’re important decisions not made by me, the Minister of Forests, but made by professionals in the B.C. wildfire service.

The member noted the important investments that we’ve made and partnerships that we’ve been able to develop in night-vision technology. In 2025, we doubled our night-vision technology. We’ve got three companies that we’re working with, one of them being Coulson, as the member will know. We had 260 missions.

Now, believe me, night vision is not the be-all and end-all, but it is very helpful in our ability to be able to fight fires well into the evening and the early mornings. Again, you just have to look at, here on Vancouver Island, the Mount Underwood fire, as well as Wesley Ridge — the ability for Coulson, in that case, given that they live and operate in Port Alberni, to be able to support us in our efforts to be able to help fight those fires. We’re going to continue to grow night vision.

To the member’s question around technology, it’s why we have a partnership with UBC Okanagan, to be able to explore the camera network, as well as other investments we’re making.

I’ll just make a last pitch for the member, if he hasn’t had an opportunity to go and meet with the team at Thompson Rivers University, the partnership that the B.C. wildfire service and TRU Wildfire has. That was another highlight of the opportunity that I got — a chance to be able to see young British Columbians doing studies on really important initiatives, and the partnerships and opportunities that exist between TRU Wildfire and the B.C. wildfire service, in our human potential but also on the technology side as well.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister and, obviously, thanks to staff.

Apologies to my colleague — a couple of minutes over.

I would like to hand it over to MLA Botterell from the Green Party.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Noting the time and the fact that we had to transition over here without a break, we’re going to give 15 minutes. We’re going to take a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 3:41 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

[3:55 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to raise some questions in relation to what is a most important segment of our province, our economy, our identity. In many ways, forestry plays a pivotal role in B.C.

I’d like to step back from the lengthy discussions and helpful discussions that have occurred so far on the emergency we face in the forest sector and focus on the long term.

As the minister knows, the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council, otherwise known as PFAC, is a council made up of a diverse array of respected subject matter experts: Jeff Bromley, chair of the United Steelworkers; Jason Fisher, head of the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C.; Al Gorley, former chair of B.C. Forest Practices Board; Shannon Janzen, principal, Hypha Consulting, former chief forester for Western Forest Products; Laurie Kremsitter, RPF, professional biologist and RPBio; Garry Merkel, who chaired the old-growth strategic review and is the director of the Centre of Indigenous Land Stewardship; Harry Nelson, associate professor, faculty of forestry; Hugh Scorah, consultant, post-doctoral fellow at UBC; and an ex officio special adviser being Norah White, deputy chief forester.

This well-respected independent council brought forward ten recommendations to look at the long-term transformation of forestry in B.C. to area-based land management, regional decision-making and a variety of associated changes to rebuild trust across all stakeholder groups and to rebuild business certainty and certainty of fibre supply and certainty of ecosystem-based management.

It’s been a couple of months since the report was tabled. So I would like to raise a number of questions related to the report.

My first question is, really: what is the current status of implementation of the ten recommendations and, in particular, the first three recommendations? These consensus recommendations called for publicly accessible forest and ecosystem inventory, an independent body for data and inventory management and an independent high-value old-growth assessment.

So I’d like to ask what the status of the ten recommendations and those three are.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Welcome, to the Third Party House Leader, for the discussion. Appreciate his interest in wanting to talk about the important work happening in the Ministry of Forests.

The member will know, as he’s outlined, that PFAC, Provincial Forest Advisory Council, was an independent body established under the 2025 cooperation and responsible government accord between the B.C. New Democratic Party caucus and the B.C. Green caucus. I continue to be puzzled why the B.C. Green caucus chose to step aside from that important work and vote alongside the Conservatives to take us to an election when we could be doing this important work together.

I enjoyed the opportunity and time that I had to be able to work with the member opposite on not just the important work to transform this sector but doing so in a way that brings people together. I continue to be disappointed in the tone that the member has taken since that work concluded, when the B.C. Green Party, under its new leader, walked away from the table. It’s very clear to me that that leader is more interested in social media likes and algorithms than actually doing the important work of governing this province.

The member opposite has noted that the report was received by government. We are thoroughly reviewing it alongside all of the recommendations.

I would just note for the member opposite that it’s really important, in reviewing a report of this substance, that we involve all of the partner ministries that have been involved in this work. The member will know, given his advocacy on this, that this is a review that’s not just for the Ministry of Forests but touches so many ministries — the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation; the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth; the Ministry of Finance.

I could go on and on about all the ministries, all the Crown agencies that are impacted by this work and the incredible recommendations that have been brought forward by my colleagues that formed PFAC as well. I want to take the opportunity to thank them for their thorough work, over a period of about six or seven months, to be able to come forward with what they suggest are the steps forward that we should take.

I would note for the member that there are a number of initiatives that PFAC had outlined in their recommendations and within the report that actually is work underway already in the ministry. A cross-ministry working group is working to look at how we can develop long-term forestry while maintaining functioning ecosystems through the transition we want to see from volume-based to area-based management.

The province, the member will know, maintains one of the largest forest inventories in Canada, updated annually for growth, harvesting and wildfire. And $38 million has been invested over the last six years for a new lidar program to collect data for all of B.C. and make it available to everyone. Data has been gathered for around half the province, so about 45 million hectares.

We’re strengthening regionally grounded shared governance through forest landscape planning and joint decision-making agreements in modernizing forest revenue, sharing better-aligned economic benefits with territorial activity.

The member will know well, and as was noted in the work of PFAC, a joint decision-making agreement is now in place between the ʼNa̱mǥis First Nation and the province and Western Forest Products for TFL 37, on the north Island, supporting shared governance and decision-making.

We’re developing a new state-of-the-forest public reporting platform. That is something that we had already begun work on even prior to the release of the PFAC report — reviewing the current state of old forests and deferrals provincewide using technical biodiversity analysis combined with regional, operational and planning insight to identify recommendations for how to finalize deferrals in alignment with existing government commitments, while also respecting the important role that First Nations play in having a seat at the table.

We’re establishing the management zones and the wildland-urban interface through planning processes such as the Crown land wildfire risk reduction program and community wildfire resiliency plans.

I would note for the member, we’re also taking a number of steps to ensure that B.C. Timber Sales remains a critically important program for the ministry and the forest sector, with a number of initiatives in addition to the legislation I introduced earlier today.

Rob Botterell: I’m not going to comment on CARGA, and that’s not… I see that as completely different than the minister. It’s unfortunate that we even have to address that, so I’m just going to leave that.

[4:05 p.m.]

The point I’d like to follow up on is really a question around the relationship to the PFAC report. As you noted, the government is seriously considering the PFAC report.

Two questions to the minister. The first is: what is your target date to provide a full response to the recommendations made by this public response to the recommendations made by this independent, well-respected council that the report was well received?

As well, when you mentioned spending $36 million on an inventory, I guess the question I have is: how does that relate to recommendation 3, which is to produce an independent high-value old-growth assessment? This was a consensus recommendation of the council, including the ex officio member.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We don’t have a target date in mind. The PFAC report is substantive, and I’ve asked my ministry to consider its recommendations in line with all of the feedback that we’ve received from stakeholders over the course of the last number of months.

Over the course of the last number of years, there have been, as the member has noted, substantive reviews done on forestry. It’s very clear to me that we have to outline a path forward. I know the Premier will get an opportunity to be able to outline a path forward for forestry when he speaks to the Council of Forest Industries convention next week.

I know that I will be taking the opportunity over the course of the next number of weeks and months to outline the important work that we’re doing. Much of that touches on important aspects related to the PFAC report and also on many of the pieces that have been raised in other reports and other recommendations that have come forward to government as well, like the work we’re doing with B.C. Timber Sales.

For the member opposite on the lidar piece, I think it’s really important that people, British Columbians, have access to high-quality data. I think it’s equally important for British Columbians to know that government, industry, First Nations and everyone who works in the forest sector has access to high-quality data to be able to make informed decisions.

The old-growth strategic review recommended that the province shift away from only using tree age to classify old growth and implement an approach that uses more detailed information. That’s why we made the investment in lidar, which is light detection and ranging. Lidar is a sensor flown in an aircraft that sends out millions of light pulses and records the time it takes for those pulses to return. The data is used to create three-dimensional models of land surface and vegetation layers.

[4:10 p.m.]

As the member will have noted in my previous answer, we have conducted lidar with the investments that we’ve made on 45 million hectares, half of the size of the province. It’s clear that we have to do more, but we also have to do this in a way that brings value to industry and to First Nations.

That’s why forest landscape planning tables are so critical. The member will know, given the conversations he and I have had with First Nations — many nations that he, in fact, actually worked for prior to politics — that it’s really important we bring them to the table to develop integrated resource management plans that then lead to forest landscape plans, that allow for us to be able to look at our forest not just from a timber-value perspective but from an ecosystem-value perspective, which includes wildlife, includes our old forest and includes all the cultural pieces that make our forests what they are.

We’re continuing to do that work. That is not work that has just started because of the PFAC report. In fact, it’s work that has been ongoing over the course of the last number of months and years.

Rob Botterell: What assurances can you provide, or what steps are you taking, to ensure that these measures that are being announced and proceeded with right now, while working on reviewing this detailed report, don’t undermine or rule out implementation of PFAC report recommendations?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: That is not the intention of the work of the Ministry of Forests at all. I am deeply appreciative of the value that British Columbians provide me in the form of their perspectives, their opinions and their challenges every single day. That is the same that can be said from our forest industry. That’s the same that can be said from First Nations. I have an outstanding team in the forest service, filled with experts in their field, scientists that are leading the way in this work.

The steps that we’re taking to transform B.C. Timber Sales, the steps that we’re taking to grow our value-added sector, the steps that we’re taking to transform this sector from boom-and-bust to stability and certainty, I think, are quite aligned with many of the aspects of the PFAC report.

I would say that it was noted by Garry Merkel and Shannon Janzen at the release of PFAC, which both the member and I had an opportunity to be at, that PFAC is not starting from scratch. It’s building on the work of previous reports, like the old-growth strategic review that was released a few years ago, where there has been substantive work being done.

I think it’s really important for the member to know, and for his supporters and those that may have concerns around what happens to these reports when government receives them, that by no means.… I fully commit to this, and I committed to this to the member opposite when we began this work, even though he has stepped away from the work. I am not a believer in doing reports so reports can just live on the shelves. It’s important that we get this right.

Again, as we are doing this thorough review of the recommendations of PFAC, we are not going to wait to take action to stabilize this sector and to transform this sector. We have to build a working force that can last generations. We need to make more in B.C. to grow our value-added economy. We have to ensure that our biodiversity principles, our ecosystem health and our wildlife are at the centre of the forest economy, moving forward.

I could go on and on about the steps that we’re taking to protect communities from wildfires, including the ability to be able to protect our communities, with wildfire being that key aspect of our forestry operations and our wildland-urban interfaces, which I know was something that was touched on in the PFAC report.

There are a whole host of things in the PFAC report, as there are a whole host of things in the old-growth strategic review recommendations and the action plan that came from that, as well as all the reviews that have been conducted by the government of British Columbia.

It’s very clear to me that forestry has been under this stressful boom-and-bust period not just for the last seven, eight or nine years that my party has been in government but for the last 30, 40, 50 years. So here is an opportunity for us to be able to stabilize this sector and to do it in a way that brings people together. That’s what I’m committed to doing.

[4:15 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: For me, the way I hear that is that your ministry and the government are committed to making the transformations that are identified in the PFAC report. Are there any of the ten recommendations in the PFAC report that have been ruled out?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: No.

Rob Botterell: I’ll shift now to questions related to the old-growth strategic review. Just for the record, the Green caucus and the Green Party are very interested in a long-term sustainable forest sector. Old growth is part of that future, and having a certainty of fibre supply and a certainty of knowing what the forest land base can sustain is a major part of that.

Last spring, Minister, you stated for the record that you were implementing the recommendations of the old-growth strategic review, saying that your ministry was working to ensure that B.C. has a strong, robust and sustainable forest sector that includes protecting old growth. That’s certainly something we share.

Additionally, as early as 2020 a campaign promise under former Premier John Horgan was set out in which, under a re-elected NDP government, there would be full implementation of all 14 recommendations from the old-growth strategic review. We’re not near complete in terms of implementation of the old-growth strategic review.

Recently those involved in the old-growth strategic review wrote yourself and the Premier and others expressing serious concerns around the implementation of the old-growth strategic review. So my question is: what is the ministry’s current plan for ensuring that old growth is promptly and adequately protected throughout this province? Can you give us a timeline for completion of implementation of the 14 recommendations?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: There are 11.1 million hectares of old forests on public land, or about 19 percent of all of B.C.’s forests. As of February 2025, 8.9 million hectares of old forests on public land, about 80 percent of old forests on public land, are at low risk of harvesting. This includes 3.9 million hectares protected under some form of legal designation that generally prohibits forest harvesting, like a provincial park, like an old-growth management area.

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

Also, in addition to that, 1.9 million hectares are currently deferred from harvesting, as well as 3.1 million hectares that are unavailable or uneconomic to log.

The member will note that there has been a substantive reduction in harvesting of our old forests over the course of the last number of years, since we took action with the work that we’re doing to implement the old-growth strategic review project, work that I’m not just doing alone but also doing alongside my colleague the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship as well.

I would just note for the member that it’s just so critically important that when we talk about doing this work, we do this work with First Nations at the table. I know the member values that work, given that it has been his life’s work, in particular with Huu-ay-aht First Nations.

I hope the member opposite will be able to, in his follow-up, reiterate the support that the B.C. Green Party has for First Nations being a leader at the table, not just sitting at the table but leading the table in this discussion.

I am growing increasingly concerned by the social media rhetoric that we see from that member’s leader, who has gone and actively stood with protesters when First Nations have asked those protesters to leave. I think it is so important that we stand with the paaʔčiidʔatx̣ First Nation, who are doing so much work in forestry to be able to build a forest sector for their economy, for their people, for that region that meets the needs of timber values and also meets the needs of ecosystem values.

The member opposite sat across from the former Chief, Arliss Daniels, just a couple of months ago and heard the devastating impact that those protesters are having on her people, on her territories, even after she’s asked them to leave. What does the leader of Green Party do? The leader of the Green Party goes and cheerleads with those protesters and, I might not add, probably doesn’t meet with the paaʔčiidʔatx̣ First Nation while she’s out there, which is deeply disappointing.

I know the member well enough, given that we’ve had a chance to be able to work together over the course of the last year. He knows how unacceptable that is.

The future of forestry in coastal British Columbia, the future of forestry in British Columbia, is going to be done at tables where have First Nations, where you have industry, where you have government and you have local governments. You have everyone who cares about our forests sitting at the table doing the planning work. That’s why FLPs are so critical. That’s why….

You just have to ask the ʼNa̱mǥis First Nation, at the north of the Island, how important the FLP process was to asserting their rights, asserting their title and asserting the important values that they see in forestry, not just in timber values but in ecosystem and wildlife and biodiversity. That is the future of forestry. We are accelerating our work at FLP tables. We’re accelerating the work with boots on the ground, of the forest service, supporting nations in their desired efforts.

I would just point to an example from a week ago, where we announced a subdivision, a forest tenure, that brings the ʕaaḥuusʔatḥ Nation as well as a number of nations in the Clayoquot Sound more control over the tenure in their territories for those very practices, for forestry to have area-based tenures to be able to take advantage of the opportunity for forestry but also for protection and conservation as well.

I don’t have to remind the member — I wasn’t around; in fact, I don’t think I was alive — when the war of the woods happened in the ’90s, in the Clayoquot Sound area, how devastating that was for the forest sector, for people that love forestry, for all different types. The work that we’re doing is bringing people together, bringing nations together. You just have to look at that example in the Clayoquot Sound, the leadership that the forest service has shown to bring people together and to give those nations a voice on their future.

They don’t have to, no longer, have their voice on the picket lines at the front of this Legislature. They do so at the table with the Minister of Forests, with the forest service, with the forest industry at that table as well.

[4:25 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: So there’s one observation right off the bat, that this is starting to feel like question period as opposed to estimates. It might interest the minister to know that our leader of the Green Party has reached out and had discussions with First Nations around the obstacles that they face. I can share that with you.

I want to come back, though, to the very point you’re making, which is that last year, at my suggestion — and we don’t need CARGA to work together on forestry, Minister — you established a round table in order to build consensus amongst various parties regarding ways to come to a resolution regarding the Walbran and Fairy Creek. Those are two areas that are well known for their old-growth forests and two areas that have been highly publicized due to the police responses and injunctions that have been levied at peaceful protesters and Indigenous land defenders.

We all know that in order to reach a resolution that will last, you need to build consensus, not division. So the minister, with my support, held a meeting in January of this year with representatives of various First Nations, including Huu-ay-aht, including paaʔčiidʔatx̣, including the B.C. First Nations Forestry Council, conservation groups, industry associations and industry.

It’s unclear, from my perspective, whether that forum will continue, because you don’t solve the war in the woods in one meeting. My understanding of the outcome of that meeting is that there would be further meetings and that the minister or the minister’s senior staff would be reaching out to First Nations and others to build a plan to have further meetings to continue that important work to find a resolution to avoid having to deal with injunctions.

I’m actually here in Port Alberni today for a funeral involving a First Nation. I had the opportunity to ask Chief John Jack of Huu-ay-aht whether he had been contacted regarding a follow-up meeting of the round table, and he said he hadn’t.

So my first question is: given the importance of this work both for the present and long term — and to the long-term interests of the paaʔčiidʔatx̣ Nation, which I totally support — will the minister be reconvening or holding more meetings of the round table? And what allowances have been made in Budget 2026 to ensure continuation of this important work?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

I want to give full credit to the member opposite. It was his idea to bring forward this round table that we jointly hosted together that had representation from industry, from First Nations, as well as conservation-based organizations, as well as, in my case, a representative from government, and a representative from the Green Party as well.

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. I think it’s fair for me to say that what both the member and I took away from that conversation is that conversations like this need to happen more and more. In fact, I was blown away at the end of the conversation that there were folks handing out business cards and exchanging contact information. You had one of the major companies on Vancouver Island engaging in a very thoughtful conversation with an environmental conservation group. They hadn’t spoken before, but I’m sure they had sent a lot of press releases back and forth and done a lot of conversation in the media.

I value that work. I would remind the member that it’s not just that round table but it is the work that is happening at FLP tables. I’m a big believer in forest landscape planning, and I’m a big believer in the work that we need to do, bringing everyone to the table. I can commit to the member opposite that I will be engaging in round tables like that not just in coastal British Columbia but throughout the province, bringing people together. I think it is something that is critical in helping shape the future of forestry.

In the case of the particular round table that the member refers to, I will be engaging with the First Nations’ leadership in the weeks ahead. I’ve had some conversations, but I haven’t had a chance to be able to engage with every individual.

I think it’s important for the member to be aware, if they’re not, that there have been some leadership changes with the paaʔčiidʔatx̣ First Nation just in the last couple of weeks, as they went through an election. Out of respect for Chief Jones…. I want to be able to go and engage with the new chief, Chief Jeff Jones, because much of the conversation that had been occurring at that round table speaks to events that are occurring within his traditional territories.

Having known Chief Jeff Jones for, probably, going on 15 years, I greatly and deeply value the work that he is doing to build up his community. I know forestry is a key part of that, as is the ecosystem, as are the tourism aspects. This, I know, is critical for his success in his first term and, I know, will be successful as he begins his new term with his council. I plan on travelling up to Port Renfrew to meet face-to-face with the Chief, again a person who I hold in the highest regard, to be able to have conversations with him.

I look forward to being able to engage not only with the First Nations but with industry partners and those conservation-based organizations and will take their lead on how best to move this conversation forward, whether it is continuing to meet with those round tables or in other venues.

I welcome the advice from the member opposite. Again, maybe if he had stuck with CARGA, he’d still be at that table.

Rob Botterell: I’ll make a note that one of the recommendations in the PFAC report is for on-the-ground trials, recommendation 9. I’d just note that at the meeting we had, that one meeting of the round table, the nations at the table that are Nuu-chah-nulth expressed an interest in doing that type of pilot. So I just make that aware for the record.

A question that always comes up as these roundtables meet or in consultations and engagement relates to the need to transition, the need for many communities, including paaʔčiidʔatx̣…. Old-growth harvest, at least some old-growth harvest, is currently an important economic driver, and the nation is looking for ways in which to transition away and is looking for support to do that and to look at the options, recognizing the sovereignty of the nations involved and also creating viable options.

[4:35 p.m.]

My next question to the minister is…. There was a $1 billion conservation fund that was initially announced in 2023 that could contribute directly towards working with First Nations on protecting old growth across the province and also protecting important sacred areas.

I know some years ago now, when I was legal counsel for Cowichan Tribes, we worked, and I assisted the government of the day of Quw’utsun, to protect the Hw’teshutsun area in Cowichan. That would be another example where an area that’s very important to preservation of ecosystems and sacred areas could be protected. This funding is not exclusive to Walbran and Fairy Creek.

My question to the minister is, and this has been raised: how is the minister planning on addressing concerns regarding the scope and sufficiency of the fund? These concerns have been raised by groups such as Na̲nwak̲olas. How much is left of the fund? How can we make sure it’s got the flexibility that nations have requested when they look at options other than old-growth harvesting?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Madam Chair, as much as I appreciate this line of questioning, I would recommend that the member across the way take this very important question to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, who is responsible for that conservation financing.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

To the minister: Minister, would it be possible for you to raise that question in the context of the discussions you are currently having, as you mentioned earlier, with various ministries on implementation of the PFAC report? This issue is integral to some important aspects of the PFAC report.

The Chair: Just a reminder to all members that questions go through the Chair. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I would never start without being recognized, Madam Chair.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Well, some of us know how to follow the rules in this place. Some of us.

Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Not to be repetitive, but I would note for the member that the line of questioning that he’s asking is completely appropriate in the context of the work that we’re doing at forest landscape planning tables, where, again…. The rule for FLPs is not just to look at timber values. It’s to be able to look at not just what your working forest is and what your timber harvesting land base is but also what your conservation zones are.

The member mentions the Na̲nwak̲olas Council. I had an opportunity to be able to meet with a representative of the Na̲nwak̲olas Council just on Friday, where they were outlining the work that they’re doing in developing an integrated resource management plan.

They see an opportunity to be able to take that plan, in concert with industry partners, and turn that into a forest landscape plan where you can have your identified working forest, where you can have your restoration zones, your tree planting zones, and you can also have a very strong and robust conservation area where you’ve got your provincial parks and you’ve got your designated areas for protection for a whole host of reasons and values, whether it’s wildlife, fishing or other things that are important to those nations as it relates to culture.

I’m working alongside my colleague in the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and working with other ministries across government to be able to do so in a way that outlines the important work that we have to do in bringing all of those values to that table. It’s critical work. It’s important work, given the context of the conversation we’re having.

[4:40 p.m.]

I would also note, for the member, at the same time, that I believe in the future of forestry in British Columbia, in particular as it relates to coastal forestry, where we are not harvesting old forests. We have to transition our sector, and it’s going to take time to do so.

It’s why we’ve been making investments on this side of the House on having kilns stood up — in the case of Western Forest Products, with their Chemainus operation, the two largest continuous kiln projects in North America — to be able to help shift us in using more second-growth hemlock.

I’ve got colleagues that were just in India that see huge potential and value in getting more of our hemlock product to India, Vietnam — we’re looking at a pilot right now that many of our companies in the Lower Mainland will be able to take advantage of, value-added ones — and the U.K. as well. There’s a huge opportunity for us to be able to leverage hundreds of millions of cubic metres’ worth of hemlock over the course of the next 100 years and really do that important shift.

I would also note, at the same time, there has been a significant reduction in harvesting of our old forests, that is based on the clear message that we’ve gotten from British Columbians, while also ensuring that we’re doing it in a way that is strong and sustainable for the forest sector as well.

Rob Botterell: I’m looking at the clock. I think I have time for one more question, so I’ll shift gears a bit.

Another issue that has affected the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky’s riding is the issue of western spruce budworm, a tiny but mighty insect, as the minister will know, that can have a terrible impact. My question to the minister is: given the lack of available information at present, can the minister confirm if the ministry has set aside any resources to create and execute a pest management plan for this outbreak?

Additionally, could the minister provide an update regarding where this outbreak currently stands in Whistler, Pemberton and Mount Currie, including whether or not the ministry has taken any measurable actions to curb its progression and limit its potential impact on nearby communities, the forest sector and the local ecology?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thank you to the member opposite. I will commit to not only getting it in writing to the member’s colleague but also offering up a briefing, if the member’s colleague is interested, on this issue. It was a topic of conversation in a couple of tours that I’ve done recently in the Whistler area, in particular with the Líl̓wat First Nations and also in the Chilliwack area and the southern Interior as well.

[4:45 p.m.]

The largest western spruce budworm outbreak in recorded history continues across the southern Interior and the south coast region since 2023, defoliating 1.6 million hectares of forest in 2025, a majority in Douglas fir stands.

I can advise the member that we are actively doing treatments and management in many of the areas that the member has noted, most recently in the Chilliwack district, and we’re continuing to take action. We have expert scientists within our ministry that are helping to advise and guide our work in relation to how we respond to and manage this incident in a way that has the least impact on our forests and our forest health.

I would just note, for the member opposite, the forest health budget allocation covers critical work completed by six regions and the branch. For the past several years, the forest health budget allocation has been around $6.7 million. It’s a really important initiative that we have in our ministry and that allows us to be able to deal with the compounding pressures of climate change, as well as a whole host of things that lead to bugs like this — in particular, in this case, the western spruce budworm — having an impact on our forest health.

I appreciate the member raising it. I’m more than happy to follow up with his colleague on any particulars he may be looking forward to. We have provided some communications through our forest district offices in the past. I’m happy to refer, to the member, some of those, if he’s interested in doing so.

The Chair: Just checking with the member online, Third Party House Leader, if you had any further questions.

Rob Botterell: I’d just like to close, if I may, Madam Chair, by thanking the minister, the ministry and their staff for providing helpful answers to questions that I’m raising and on behalf of the Green caucus.

More generally, I sense there’s some disappointment on the minister’s part about CARGA not proceeding. There are good reasons why it isn’t proceeding, but that doesn’t change my commitment to be available to work with the minister to advance the forestry sector in B.C. Much like MLA Stamer, I’m more than happy to work with the minister to make sure there’s a bright future for this forest sector.

For me, anyway, that means really looking closely at implementing the recommendations, fully, of the PFAC report. That’s why I was thrilled to hear that none of those recommendations have been ruled out.

Once again, thank you so much for the opportunity to raise some questions.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to have some closing remarks.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Just very briefly, Madam Chair, thank you.

I want to take the opportunity to thank my critics for the great dialogue over the course of the last few weeks — I think for about six hours when we were last in this place, and for the last hour and a half. I really appreciate the thoughtful questions that have been raised, and I continue to put the offer out there for continued dialogue and engagement, in particular as it relates to my critic from the official opposition.

I also want to take the opportunity — there’s a lot of work that goes into preparing, for estimates, our binders and materials — to thank the staff, and the team behind me, of the forest service. It’s not just the team behind me. It’s the teams that are on the text chain that are ready, available and willing to answer questions that come forward from the members opposite, and also questions that come forward from all British Columbians.

We greatly value this important work that we do in the forest service to be able to be stewards of the land, to be stewards of our forests. We know that forestry is going through a very difficult period of time. Working together, I think we can chart a path forward that brings a stronger, more sustainable and robust forest sector that can deliver for workers and families, while also delivering for all British Columbians.

I’d also just take the opportunity to not only thank the forest service team but also to thank my team in the minister’s office as well — administrative staff, my political staff.

In particular, a shout-out to the leader in my office, Ian McMahon, who I would not be able to do this work without. Members will know that Ian has had some health challenges in the last while and has been so committed to our success as a government, and I just want to thank Ian for his stellar leadership in leading my office. I’m just so thankful for the partnership that we have as we try to transform this sector for the better.

[4:50 p.m.]

Thanks to the team, and thanks for the opportunity to be able to answer questions on behalf of the forest service.

The Chair: All members, seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 30: ministry operations, $406,398,000 — approved.

Vote 31: fire management, $235,702,000 — approved.

Vote 53: Forest Practices Board, $4,062,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

I will call a recess of this committee.

The committee recessed from 4:51 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

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

Estimates: Ministry of
Social Development
and Poverty Reduction

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $5,976,762,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you. I do.

Welcome to my opposition critic and to other members observing.

I recognize we’re here on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I raise my hands to the Snuneymuxw People, where I live and am elected.

Supporting me today are my acting deputy minister, Suzanne Christensen; and Assistant Deputy Ministers Kim Horn, Raymond Fieltsch, Karen Blackman, Shannon Pendergast and Sam Turcott. Executive Director Rob Bruce is here. Also, from Community Living B.C., Huy Nguyen, who is VP of finance and chief financial officer, and Joanne Mills, VP quality assurance and Indigenous relations.

Thank you to all the staff at SDPR, especially those working on the front line who support people every day. This ministry is so much part of people’s day-to-day lives, from assistance offices to WorkBC centres to our community integration specialists and more, who provide in-person, in-community outreach service to people.

Demand for our services has grown sharply over the last two years, and people coming to SDPR now often have more complex needs compared to previous years. Despite my ministry’s growing and increasingly complicated caseload, our staff continue to find opportunities to improve system efficiencies, reduce administrative costs and prioritize funding to front-line services. We’ve made good progress.

Real innovation that has been able to happen during this time — just a couple of examples of responsive and innovative technologies that our public service staff have found and used to keep services stable. Automation of monthly reports to support additional service channels to clients while maintaining program integrity. Using a callback feature, which is widely used now, by 70 percent of clients who phone SDPR. People avoid being stuck on hold.

And then a third example, during the postal strike. So 89 percent of clients are now using direct deposit to receive payments. All ministry services and service channels remained available. Senior supplements continued without interruption because of very hard work by our social development and SDPR staff. I’m very grateful to them.

Ninety-seven percent of SDPR’s budget goes directly to clients and their bank accounts. Excluding staffing costs, other spending not directed to clients is less than 1 percent of the overall operating budget each year. Including staffing, that total is approximately 3 percent.

I’m really proud of our public service staff who support people in difficult times with exceptional professionalism and dedication.

Last year we made some really important changes that I want to highlight. On December 1, it took effect that couples on disability now receive the same support allowance as they would if they were two single people. This allows couples on disability assistance to keep their full support allowance amount. In other words, your support won’t be reduced because you’re in relationship.

As of January 1, couples with one partner with the PWD designation now keep more income through higher earning exemptions. They can keep more of the money that they earn. These were long-standing advocacy positions of people with lived experience, and I’m really grateful to have been able to make that change with them.

Over 6,500 families benefit automatically from that $52 million Budget 2026 investment. Budget 2026 also adds $121 million over three years to address rising caseloads in disability and income assistance.

We’re also doing a lot of work to help people transition off income assistance by providing support to boost job readiness and support pathways to jobs.

[5:05 p.m.]

People tell me that they feel better and they’re better off when they have a job and the community connections that that includes. So we’re really working hard to reduce barriers for those who want to work, who can work, while continuing to support those who cannot.

Just a couple of examples of those employment support programs for people that have faced barriers and become removed from the labour market.

One is the work experience opportunities grant, called WEOG. We funded United Way to deliver this. They, in turn, make connections with B.C. not-for-profit organizations with funding to create time-limited paid work experience for people on income assistance. Those folks receive hands-on paid work experience to help them prepare for in-demand jobs while they are retaining their income assistance and disability assistance benefits, and 1,200 people are supported by this incarnation of the program. We also had the same program that ran through COVID time, so we are building on the success by repeating it this year.

We’ve also expanded our community-based employment services program. It’s outreach-based pre-employment service for people who have experienced barriers to training and employment because of mental health, substance use and homelessness. We’ve had pilots in Victoria, the Downtown Eastside, Surrey, Prince George, Kelowna, Nanaimo. The services are holistic. They meet people where they are. They include individualized coaching, volunteer opportunities, training. The goal is really to break that cycle of poverty through meaningful, supported pathways to employment.

We’ve got dozens of examples of these kinds of programs that I hope we’ll get into in the discussion to come over the next five hours.

We’re also, in a different area, prioritizing employment support for people in sectors that have faced the greatest impact of global tariffs. This month the federal government funded B.C. a little over $70 million over the next three years to support workers and communities in our province who’ve been impacted by Trump’s tariffs. This investment will allow WorkBC, primarily, to scale up the work that they’re doing already. At our 102 WorkBC centres, people get skills training for in-demand jobs and wraparound supports like counselling, tuition, child care and help with transportation.

There are also wage subsidies so employers can take on workers even if they’re under financial pressure. This all ensures companies get workers with the right skills so they can adapt through economic uncertainty and remain resilient and competitive.

These 102 WorkBC centres are a proven platform. They’ve got dedicated staff helping anyone who’s lost their job or needs help looking for a job. We think that with this new federal funding for tariff impacts, over 8,000 people can expect services to help them pivot to in-demand jobs quickly, specifically from tariff impacts.

If anybody knows anyone that is looking to upgrade their skills, get a higher-paying job, get into the job market, please, we’d really ask that you approach our WorkBC centres, and they can connect you. Whether you’re tariff-impacted or not, WorkBC centres are the intake. With federal funding, we’ve got some programs specifically for tariff-impacted people.

Also really grateful to the Northern Development Initiative Trust. We gave them some of that federal money because they’re proven on the ground, embedded in the North. They will be servicing tariff-impacted workers wherever they are with their focus on rural and remote. They’ve got real expertise in the regions that have experienced the most significant forestry-related impacts. I mean, to our regret, of course — these communities are so hard hit, but I’m really encouraged that we’ve got talented people that can help at this time.

In another area of focus for our ministry, our Crown, Community Living B.C…. You’ll remember, Chair, it was created to fund inclusion supports for people with disabilities in community. It gives people a voice in how they want to be supported and how they want to live.

It’s not for health care and all the other things; it’s for community inclusion. That’s the focus. That’s the mandate. The funds for Community Living B.C. support 29,000 to 30,000 adults with developmental disabilities, with autism spectrum disorder or with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Given the increased caseload, Budget 2026 added $84 million for Community Living B.C., bringing its total funding to $1.9 billion. I’m really grateful to all the Community Living B.C. staff and all the home-share providers and the community inclusion support providers that are contracted to do this work. They work hard. They’re deeply committed to service.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’ve just got one quote from Alex Evanshen, who’s a fabulous self-advocate and a volunteer co-chair. I think he might have just very recently stepped down from his position. In any case, Alex is fabulous. This is his quote: “The home share I’ve been living in for the past ten years has been very, very successful. I have all the independence I want, and I get the support when I need it. I was placed there in a crisis, and it has blossomed into ten years of a very, very successful home share.”

Another self-advocate, Julya Hutton, from Surrey, said: “For me, my home share is a place of comfort and for me to be free and have my own open voice. It’s a place where my self-advocacy began, and I’ve taken charge of my own life.”

People in B.C. are better off when we take care of each other in all ways. The work that gets done with the self-advocates at Community Living B.C. is a model in a lot of ways, especially on the employment side. I’ve learned so much from them. That’s why across our whole government, we will continue to take action to make life more affordable and build a stronger, more resilient future.

The pressures of cost of living and global inflation are being felt by everyone. I’m just going to end, almost end, with a recognition in one sector where that inflation has really been felt, of people offering addiction treatment and recovery centres and of people who support people challenged with mental health and addiction illnesses. I’ve heard a lot over the years about those providing supports.

This budget continues to fund over $20 million for mental health and substance use per-diem increases. That’s $60.5 million over three years. This funding increase from the 2024 budget helps ensure that those services remain viable and in place to support those who need them. These are people who are on income assistance and who want to be in addiction treatment. Part of our SDPR budget goes to fund them.

We all want vulnerable people, those who are unhoused or struggling with mental health and addiction, to get the supports that they need. When someone decides to seek help, we want them to be met with supports that meet their needs.

In that vein, I’m so grateful to our community integration specialists. We have about 185 of them hired right now, in every corner of the province. In 2025, they had 37,000 unique client interactions. They connect people with services and supports in the communities that they work in. They work outside bricks-and-mortar offices. They connect with people in communities, whether they are the food banks, the shelters, the community centres, the libraries, Aboriginal Friendship Centres, on the street, in encampments.

They help people get on the B.C. Housing list. They help them replace their ID. They help them complete their PWD applications. They are just gems. When things are really tough, if there’s a fire or something, I get daily reports from them about the number of people that they’re interacting with and what they need.

I’ll finish…. I’m sure that we’ll get into this in more detail. Last month we published B.C.’s second accessibility plan since the Accessibility B.C. Act became law. This updated plan outlines priorities across all government ministries and the Public Service Agency to continue to build a more accessible and inclusive province for everyone.

To finish, I’ll just reference that we have poverty reduction targets that are built into our legislation. This is so we can better help people get out of tough times and track progress over time. That poverty reduction strategy is instrumental, across all ministries, across government, guiding our work to support people.

I thank you, again, Chair. I look forward to my colleagues’ questions and conversation, and I look forward to the debate.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Kelowna Centre. Would you like to make some opening remarks?

Kristina Loewen: Yes, thank you, Chair. I would.

Today we’re examining the estimates for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. This ministry is responsible for some of the most vulnerable British Columbians.

The programs administered here are not abstract policy exercises. They determine whether people with disabilities can live independently, whether families can afford food and whether individuals experiencing poverty have a pathway towards stability and dignity.

[5:15 p.m.]

Budget forecasts for 2026 — approximately $5.98 billion in operating expenditures for this ministry. The largest components of that spending include income assistance, disability assistance and Community Living B.C. services, yet despite this significant level of spending, we continue to see troubling indicators across the province.

Food bank usage continues to rise. It has risen dramatically in recent years. Many individuals receiving income or disability assistance remain far below the poverty line. Community Living B.C. service providers report workforce shortages and funding pressures. Home-share providers say compensation has not kept pace with the cost of living. These realities demand scrutiny. Our responsibility as the official opposition is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used effectively, transparently and with measurable outcomes for those who rely on these supports.

We will ask questions today about the adequacy of income and disability rates, the sustainability of services for persons with developmental disabilities, wait-lists for community supports, accountability mechanisms for public funds and whether the government’s poverty reduction strategy is achieving its stated goals.

The goal of this process is not simply to review line items in a budget; it is to ensure that the programs administered by this ministry genuinely improve the lives of British Columbians who depend on them. Through these estimates, we intend to examine the full scope of the ministry’s responsibilities and ask whether the government is delivering results commensurate with the resources being spent.

The Chair: Do you have a question?

Kristina Loewen: Yeah. I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to get into that. Okay.

Minister, your poverty reduction strategy commits to reducing poverty by 60 percent. What modelling do you have that shows that current assistance rates will achieve that target?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question.

Thanks for your introduction. I really appreciate the spirit that you bring to this and the shared commitment to doing better for vulnerable people in the province.

That was a very long consultation, but I’m going to give a short answer. I know that we’ll go more into depth here.

We are meeting our poverty reduction targets. The member asked: “Are you tracking? Does income assistance lead to that?” The answer is no, because the poverty reduction strategy…. Because it implicates all of government, we are not relying on income assistance rates to lift people out of poverty.

We are relying on increases every year to the minimum wage. We’re relying on affordable child care. We’re relying on free birth control. We’re relying on our increasing earning exemptions, so people can keep more of the money that they earn. We are relying on our WorkBC employment services program to connect people with better work.

We are meeting our poverty reduction targets because across government, we’ve been investing in the services that people tell us that we need, very much informed by our extremely broad consultation on both the 2018 and the 2024 poverty reduction strategies that we need a cross-government approach to lift people out of poverty.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

If we’re not relying on…. If the assistance rates are below the poverty rate and people can’t rely on those to lift themselves out of poverty and they instead have to access a pile of services, that’s one thing.

[5:25 p.m.]

Do we have stats on the percentage of those receiving income assistance who then are also using the food bank?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The answer is no.

Kristina Loewen: Why is the ministry expanding food bank funding rather than just raising income support so people can afford the food themselves? We know food bank usage has gone up.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you for the question.

Certainly a commitment of our government is to increase income assistance rates. So in a way, I’m rejecting the premise of the member’s question. We have raised rates five times since 2017. The rate for a single person, since 2017, has increased by $450 a month. That’s an increase of 74 percent for income assistance and 51 percent for disability assistance.

In April 2021, the support rate increased by $175 per adult. That was the largest single increase in B.C.’s history.

We introduced, in Budget 2023, several affordability initiatives. The maximum shelter allowance for people receiving income assistance increased by $125 per family unit per month. That was the first increase in maximum shelter rates since 2007. This increase benefited over 235,000 people. On August 1, 2023, there was also an increase to the supplementary assistance budget for items such as crisis supplements, food-related health supplements and more.

On January 1, 2024, there was a $100-per-month earning exemption increase for income assistance recipients and a $1,200-per-year annual earning exemption increase for disability assistance recipients, again so that people can earn more income on top of their monthly support cheque.

[5:30 p.m.]

More recently we’ve introduced increases to disability support rates, which I mentioned in my opening comments around the support allowance and the earning exemption for couples on disability. More than 6,500 families benefited from that change to equalize support rates. As mapped out in our poverty reduction strategy, there’s a commitment to continuing to support people in this regard.

Kristina Loewen: What measurable targets were established under the poverty reduction strategy?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’ll just speak to the targets that were adopted in legislation in 2024. I can go back to the 2018 targets if the member wants, but for right now, with the updates in 2024, we established in legislation ten-year targets to reduce overall poverty by 60 percent and child poverty by 75 percent, and we introduced a new target to reduce seniors poverty by 50 percent. All of these are measured from a 2016 baseline.

Kristina Loewen: How is the ministry measuring success on those targets? Are we waiting ten years? Are we doing checking-in points?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We use the market basket measure, which is designed and collected and measured by Stats Canada. We market annually, and we report publicly annually.

Kristina Loewen: How does the government measure success in poverty reduction programs?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’ll just say again to the member: the measure is the Stats Canada measure. How is each individual person doing? The income relative to the cost of shelter, food, all those pieces — again, that’s the cross-Canada StatsCan measure.

But it might be helpful just to name a little bit more about the framework within the poverty reduction strategy, again, set into legislation now.

The eight key areas are upholding Indigenous self-determination; preventing poverty; meeting basic needs; making programs and services better and more accessible; updating income assistance and disability assistance; opening up access to education and skills training; providing effective pathways to employment; and then, finally, facilitating greater social inclusion.

Then that framework is laid across our entire government. Many ministries are involved. Many programs have their own factors, whether it’s affordable child care or affordable housing or our seniors supplement.

Each of those programs may have its own factors to determine success and measure progress, but what we’re measuring, as directed by legislation, is our ability to lift people out of poverty relative to the StatsCan market basket measure.

Kristina Loewen: What is the current overall poverty rate in British Columbia?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The number I’m going to give is a 2023 number. Unfortunately, because we are reliant on Stats Canada data and there’s a time lag in their reporting, frustratingly, we’re always a little bit behind.

In 2023, the total poverty rate was 12.5 percent, and the child poverty rate was 13.5 percent.

Kristina Loewen: Do you have a poverty rate among seniors?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: It’s 7.8 percent.

Kristina Loewen: What is the poverty rate among persons with disabilities?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m told that we can get a national number but that when it comes down to the provincial or territorial number, the numbers are not reliable. So it is not something that we are measuring.

[5:40 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: Okay. Just a comment. It would seem that that would be an important number to have, given that this ministry oversees persons with disabilities and poverty reduction as well.

My next question. What new initiatives were introduced in Budget 2026 to reduce poverty, if any?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m so glad that you asked, because absolutely, people with disabilities and investing to make things better is what this government’s been doing for eight years in every budget.

I’ll say to the members question about lifting people and combating poverty that you’ll see some elements of that in almost every ministry’s budget. I’m not going to speak to those, but again, our legislated commitment and direction to tackle poverty is incumbent on every ministry.

[5:45 p.m.]

The increases in the 2026 budget include $373 million over three years to address caseload pressures and then $51.6 million over three years to increase the support rate for disability assistance family units consisting of couples or two parents and an increase to the annual earnings exemption limit for disability assistance family units where only one member had the PWD designation. Those are the two 2026 budget investment items that are designed to raise people out of poverty.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

British Columbia’s poverty reduction strategy aims to reduce overall poverty and child poverty rates through coordinated government action. Despite these efforts, poverty rates remain a concern across several demographic groups. Has the ministry conducted an independent evaluation of the strategy’s effectiveness?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for asking questions that are so focused on our ministry and the work that we’re trying to do. I really appreciate it.

I’ll say that despite the intensely increased cost of living and the impacts of global inflation, we’re still meeting our overall targets, which has taken.… The pressures are increasing and growing, but the investments that we’ve been making are helping. We are legislatively required to do annual reporting, so we have that constant metric about to what extent we are meeting our targets and how the numbers look.

The third thing I’d say is that because of the consultation that we did when we renewed the legislation and wrote and published a new poverty reduction strategy in 2024, we had over 10,000 inputs from people across the province, and 70 percent of the people that loaned us their advice had lived experience with poverty.

[5:50 p.m.]

They told us a lot about the programs that were working — the ones that were, the ones that weren’t — what they wanted to see scaled up and what they wanted to see built into the poverty reduction strategy. That is reflected in the strategy that we tabled in the Legislature and what continues to direct our work.

So we feel like we are on the right track, despite the really intensely increased cost of living that is hitting the most vulnerable people the hardest.

Kristina Loewen: To clarify, there was no independent evaluation because you feel like you’re on the right track with the strategy’s effectiveness, correct?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’ll say the independent evaluation is the StatsCan numbers that tell us whether we’re meeting our targets and the very real and very recent input and advice that we got from 10,000 people across British Columbia that formed the report and that told us where we needed to change our course.

Kristina Loewen: Then to further clarify, StatsCan hasn’t been updated since 2023, correct?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Yes. As I said before, StatsCan always has a two-year time lag. All provinces and territories have to work around that.

In the meantime, we follow very carefully the increased requests where caseload is growing. Where clients of SDPR are asking for crisis supplements or grants, we do our own internal tracking based on what we hear at FrontCounter and what we hear from British Columbians about the pressure that they’re under and the help that they need.

Kristina Loewen: Okay, we had time away, and I had to do my own grocery shopping. I went to Costco, and I found that hamburgers that I used to buy for $20 to $24 are now $35 to $40. Cost of living is going up exponentially. It’s a huge increase in a basic item.

In my riding of Kelowna, more and more people are using the food bank each month. This is a direct signal of hardship. Does the ministry track food insecurity as a key outcome of its poverty reduction strategy? If not, why not?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The short answer is yes. We do track food insecurity. It’s also through the StatsCan suite of reporting. That’s point 1.

Second, internally, we track when clients of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, income assistance clients, apply for a crisis supplement. These are available, for people receiving assistance, to address unforeseen emergencies. From April 2025 to December 2025, 120,000 crisis supplements for food were issued.

Then the third metric that I’ll offer the member: since 2017, cumulative inflation has been 26.1 percent. Over that same period, our income assistance rates have risen by 73.8 percent, and disability assistance rates have risen by 51.2 percent.

Kristina Loewen: I know that statistically, by the government’s standards, poverty is decreasing, but it seems a bit disingenuous when food bank usage is going up so much. British Columbians don’t measure their progress or their financial well-being in statistics. They measure it in whether they can feed their children, pay their rent and live with dignity.

Right now the growing line at the food bank tells a very different story than the government’s reports. So until food bank usage goes down, isn’t it fair to say that poverty is not truly being reduced in a meaningful, lived-experience sense?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question.

I appreciate, absolutely, the motivation of your question. I can only imagine if we hadn’t increased rates, if we hadn’t increased minimum wage, if we hadn’t got more people in affordable housing, if we hadn’t got affordable child care, how much tougher things would be right now with the terribly increased cost of food.

We know everybody’s feeling the pressure. It’s why it was so important for us as a government, for example, to invest in school food programs. We just need to find every way we can, meet people where they are and be able to take the pressure off in many, many different ways across many ministries and across government.

Again, that’s one of the central tenets of the poverty reduction strategy — where everybody, every ministry, is doing what they can to help people with costs and to take the pressure off people. We would never have foreseen that the cost of food was such a huge pressure right now. But it does make me particularly encouraged that starting in 2023, the $70 million that went out through my ministry into community food organizations….

One of the things they called for was the kind of community food infrastructure that would help at times like these. So some communities initiated purchasing a reefer truck that they could use to accept the large-scale donations of food from a trucking company and be able to distribute that.

Up north especially, a lot of First Nations are working with us on food sovereignty, building smokehouses, greenhouses — ways to be able to grow food more locally and sustainably. We’ve just got dozens of examples of that from every corner of the province. We know that that’s helping now and making people less reliant on the grocery store and the very increased cost of food and then also helping food banks meet that need with free food right now.

This is all hands on deck, every ministry having some responsibility and programming that’s helping people with costs at this really intensely difficult time.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Respectfully, though, I would say that wasn’t really what I was asking.

I’d asked if it was fair to say poverty is being reduced if food bank usage is going up. What I’m hearing is that we’re covering needs as a ministry. We’re spreading out resources, which is great. I think this is really good, that people have food when they need it. But we’re not truly reducing poverty.

I think that’s just the truth. I think that needs to be said here because it is called Social Development and Poverty Reduction, and I don’t think we’re reducing poverty in British Columbia. In fact, I think the rates are going up. I think when we get the Stats Canada information for the last couple of years, we’ll probably see that.

I’m going to move on to income assistance. I’m going to ask about how many individuals are currently receiving income assistance in British Columbia.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’m trusting that the member wants to hear both income assistance and disability assistance, or are you keeping…? Oh, yeah. I will give both numbers, and then we’ll see.

Then maybe if the member’s next question clarifies if she wants to focus just on one or the other, then I can home my answers in.

So to December, an average of 113,220 people received income assistance monthly. And for disability assistance, to December, an average of 155,724 people received disability assistance each month.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

What is the projected…? I actually did want to know exactly income assistance, not disability, so thank you for splitting it.

What is the projected caseload for income assistance over the next three fiscal years?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I’ve complicated things slightly by my previous answer, having told you about the number of people instead of the number of cases.

If I wind back to the previous answer, I would say that for income assistance, to December, the number is 73,939 cases. That’s because a case may involve a spouse or children. That’s now my answer for your last question, income assistance cases.

The answer to this question: the estimate for 2026-27 is 78,200; for ’27-28, it’s 80,600; and for ’28-29, it’s 86,400.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

How much of the projected $4.04 billion in spending is attributable to basic assistance payments versus admin costs?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Of the income assistance budget — which, as the member said, is $4,043,419,000 — the program management cost, the administration cost is $158.7 million, which is every worker that is front-line, the community integration specialists, the buildings, all of it. As I said in my opening comment, 97 percent of SDPR’s budget goes directly into the bank accounts of low-income British Columbians.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of Ministry of Forests, report progress on the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:15 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 3:05 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 6, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 1.

Macklin McCall: I want to speak here a bit to the bill, to start off, and just have a little something to lead off before I ask my first question here. It should fall within the time, if that’s all good.

The Chair: Proceed.

Macklin McCall: Thank you.

Okay. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to and ask questions regarding this legislation at this stage. I want to be clear, at the outset, there are elements of this bill that make sense. Modernizing services, making processes more accessible, reducing the need for people to attend in person for routine matters — those are reasonable objectives. People expect government services to keep up with how they live their lives. In many cases, that means digital access.

So this is not about opposing modernization. It’s about making sure modernization is done properly, because when government moves services online — especially services tied to identity, licensing and personal records — the stakes change. Convenience increases, but so does risk.

That’s where I think this committee stage matters. This is where we step back from the broad intent and ask whether the system behind it is solid, whether it’s secure, whether it’s accountable and whether it will maintain public trust. That’s the piece that can’t be assumed. It has to be earned.

One of the things I think about with legislation like this is how quickly systems can move from being helpful to being questioned, not because the intent was wrong but because the safeguards weren’t clear or weren’t strong enough or weren’t communicated in a way that people understood. Once people start to question how their information is handled or whether the system is secure or whether mistakes can be corrected, confidence drops quickly and is very difficult to rebuild.

This legislation deals with something that people take seriously: their identity, their personal information, their legal authorization to drive. These are not small things. They are foundational, to help people interact with government and with society.

So when we move those processes into an online environment, we need to be very clear about a few things: how information is being collected; how it is being stored; who has access to it; how long it is retained; and what happens when something goes wrong, because something always goes wrong at some point. That’s just reality with any system. The question is not whether there will be issues; it’s whether the system is prepared for them.

Another piece of this is access, because while online services increase confidence for many people, they don’t work equally for everyone. There are still people across British Columbia, particularly in rural communities — seniors and others — who rely on in-person services. The concern is not just about adding online options; it’s about what happens next. Do in-person services remain fully available, or do they gradually diminish as online systems expand? That matters, because access to government services should not depend on your comfort level with technology.

There’s also the question of system reliability. When people rely on a digital system, they expect it to work consistently, securely, without interruption. When it doesn’t, there needs to be a clear, immediate path to resolve issues.

So I think it’s important that we understand what contingency planning looks like. What happens if the system is down? What happens if an application is processed incorrectly? What happens if someone cannot access their documentation when they need it? These aren’t edge cases. They are real-world scenarios that will happen.

[3:10 p.m.]

Finally, I think it’s important to speak to accountability, because as systems become more digital, they can also become more opaque. Decisions happen in the background. Processes are automated, and it becomes less clear to the individual how outcomes are reached.

That’s why oversight matters. That’s why transparency matters. That’s why, even in a modernization effort, we cannot lose sight of the need for clear lines of responsibility. Who is accountable? Who answers when something goes wrong? How is that communicated to the public?

So again, I want to be clear. This is not about resisting change. It’s about getting it right. When government asks people to trust a system with their personal information, with their identity, with services they rely on every day, that trust has to be backed by more than intention. It has to be backed by structure, by safeguards, by accountability.

With that in mind, I do have some questions for the minister.

Do you want me to keep going or…?

The Chair: Did you want to ask a question on clause 1?

Macklin McCall: I do have questions, yes.

The Chair: Okay. All right, proceed.

Macklin McCall: My questions. I tried to organize them a bit so it’s a little more easier here, but I have just general, really to get the intention behind the bill and behind the clause, just to make sure that we are fully understanding what’s going on and to get the intention behind what this bill means and what it is. So I start off with those questions first.

My first question to the minister would be: can the minister clearly explain the core intent of this legislation beyond administrative efficiency?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Before I begin, I just want to welcome the staff that’s going to be with me here today and thank them for all their work. I have, from the Attorney General Ministry, Carolyn Mills, Tom Fesnoux and Nina Bindra; and then, from ICBC, Steve Roberts. I just appreciate them being here today to help guide us through this.

This is a part of ICBC’s modernization efforts, in general. This is a key one because it’s a customer-facing aspect. I don’t know how many people out there have either lost a driver’s licence or need to replace it. I know, myself, that I was at the office on my birthday last time because I had no time, and I had to do it that day.

It’s about modernizing processes for people. And replacing or renewing your driver’s licence online is an easy way to not only get your service needs met in an easier fashion online but also to free up office resources to things that may be more complicated or take up more time, including driving tests.

Macklin McCall: What problem is the government trying to solve that cannot already be addressed within the existing system?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Legislative changes were needed as a result of some outdated language that put restrictions related to where and how you can renew your licensing. So in order to make online renewal possible, legislative amendments were necessary.

Macklin McCall: How does the government define success for this legislation, once it’s fully implemented? What would that look like?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The first level of success will be customer satisfaction related to the fact that they can now have a new service for online renewal and replacement. I guess that would be the primary one to measure the success, along with the other modernization processes that ICBC is going through.

Macklin McCall: Is this legislation primarily about convenience, cost savings or system transformation?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: All of the ones that the member just listed are a part of this, so all of the above.

Macklin McCall: What risks did government identify at the outset, and how are those risks being mitigated?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In terms of risks related to this type of service improvement, I think the two that would be primary are privacy or fraud. Of course, every time you design a new system, you have to think about how to mitigate all of the risks associated with it.

The reason that this is pretty low risk, in terms of the effect of the risk mitigation, is that ICBC has been collecting personal information already since 1996 in most forms. So they already have really good protections related to their systems and protecting people’s privacy.

The next one is related to fraud. There are other jurisdictions that have gone to online renewal, so there’s a time between this legislation being in force and the implementation window where they will put the right systems in place to mitigate any risks associated with fraud for renewals online.

Macklin McCall: How does the government ensure that moving services online does not reduce public confidence in the integrity of the system?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As an organization, as I mentioned before, that already has a database full of information, they have cyber protections against any security threats already in place that are pretty rigorous. The only new piece of information, I’m told, is the email address, because you would need an email address to renew. But it would be, again, part of that system of information being held by ICBC that’s already protected under serious cybersecurity protections.

Macklin McCall: What safeguards are in place to ensure that confidence does not come at the cost of security or accountability?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: As mentioned before, there already are pretty rigorous systems and controls in place with respect to ICBC’s current operations and holding of people’s information. I’ll just go through a few of them to give you a sense of what they are.

First of all, there are, obviously, the legislative controls that we as a government, and previous governments, have set through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Information Management Act and the Electronic Transactions Act. That’s the legislative framework with which they operate and that sets out certain standards and rules.

They’re also guided by key provincial standards, the Core Policy and Procedures Manual. It’s specifically chapter 12, on information management and information technology management, that guides their operations.

They also have a security policy. It’s based on ISO 27002, that framework for security standards, and they’re reviewed and they’re updated annually. They have multi-layered controls that they’re working on and that continue to evolve, obviously, every time there’s a new threat landscape. They also do — which is, I think, really important — regular penetration tests and vulnerability scans against systems and security exercises to test their incident response plan.

Those are just some of the things that are there, along with, finally, secure databases that are located within Canada.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Attorney General.

Now, how will the government measure whether public trust increases or decreases after implementation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are many ways of getting at the concept of public trust. I guess it’s very particular for ICBC because they’re a client-based organization.

The way that they get at that idea of whether or not they are trusted or if services are meeting standards is that, first of all, I think, a measure will be uptake. How have people used the service once it’s online? Because people live so much of their lives online, it will be telling if there are not a lot of people that use the service. So hopefully, there’s good uptake.

There’s a customer survey that happens, which you’re prompted to do after transactions with ICBC. Of course, they have a complaints process, so if there is a complaint, there’s a group that will receive it, process it and understand what that is. They also do regular brand perception studies and customer satisfaction studies.

[3:25 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: What independent verification mechanisms exist to ensure that the system is functioning as intended?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We were just talking about how ICBC is not a private business. If you think about a private insurance company, the level of oversight and structure is way different than ICBC. ICBC has a lot of rigorous oversight. So obviously, it would be the internal ones that they’d choose to put in place.

In a sensitive implementation of something like this, you would have user testing or insight panels. So you could test, from external users, how it was going before you launched. There’d be the internal things that they did as they were implementing.

As an organization, they would be subject to audits by the office of the independent Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsperson — those kinds of external, independent oversight bodies that they are subject to and that a private insurance company would not be.

Macklin McCall: Just to pivot a bit, following up with a few themes the Attorney General mentioned here in the last few answers.… Can the minister explain, at a high level, how personal information will be collected, stored and protected under this new system? How, if anything, will it differ from what they currently capture versus how that will change from any new changes, with any new information?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think we had a conversation a little bit, maybe, not focused on personal information. I mentioned that they’re using their existing database, and the only new information that this would involve is the collection of an email address. There are actually quite a bit of….

[3:30 p.m.]

First of all, I think, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — FOIPPA, in the province — really sets out the privacy standard that citizens can expect when they are interacting with entities like ICBC, in terms of their private information.

There’s no new database in the system, as I mentioned before, and nothing will be stored on the online platform. It’ll all go to that database that they already hold, and they are used to, as an organization, holding and protecting that private information.

At the very offset, the person will have a high standard to verify their identity. There are many tech systems now that can do that, where your identity is verified before you go further down to the application process. It just starts out with that rigour of understanding who the person is and then protecting their identity or their information once they’ve given it.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that, Attorney General.

I just want to go back to one thing you said, just to make sure it’s clear. You mentioned about the individual confirming their identity. But that was pretty much it, verbatim almost, what you said. Can you just explain a little more deeply how that process is and what that will look like?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are a lot of interesting ways that technology can verify your identity. I’ll just start by saying that, at this point, with this particular service, ICBC is still looking into it. We have to pass the legislation first, and then it gives them the authority to move forward on implementation. So there isn’t one particular method that they’ve nailed down at this stage, but there are a lot of examples of how government already does this online.

How do you verify somebody’s identity? In order to do that, they’ll be leveraging their existing experience and then also working with the Ministry of Citizens’ Services to confirm the final authentication measures, because they obviously have a level of expertise.

The secure authentication methods that are used by Canadians to access highly sensitive personal tax information…. The CRA is an example of how that works with online verification. Sometimes you have to have two-factor authentication, video verification, up to fingerprinting sometimes.

It all starts from the fact that this is only for replacing or renewing, so these are individuals that already have had an issued driver’s licence. That makes the level of verification a little bit different than maybe if they were the first ones coming in.

Macklin McCall: Thanks for that. That explains the digital realm very well. I just have a question kind of going to the analog version, I guess, just to confirm if there are changes or whatnot.

That explains how it will potentially be moving for the online component of it. What will happen with just walking into an ICBC office and renewing your licence that way? Will someone still be able to go in person and then prove their identity, and/or, I guess, will that ever be changed in the future? Are there any plans for that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The in-office service will still be available as it is today. All those people right now that are waiting to renew or replace their licence can still show up at those service centres and get that service. This will just move an option to have an online service.

Macklin McCall: What categories of personal data will be retained as part of online transactions? I believe the Attorney General mentioned that the new personal information that will be dealt with by ICBC will be email. But on a driver’s licence, they have your home address. They have a photograph. They have, potentially, your personal health number. Are those items I just listed held by ICBC, or are those not currently?

Just wondering if they are held by ICBC, because they’re on your driver’s licence, probably on all of ours right now…. If they have been held by ICBC and traditionally are, is anything changing in how ICBC will store or collect that information, moving forward?

Hon. Niki Sharma: They already hold a lot of that information. We’re talking about renewal and replacing, so yes, they have a database right now that holds personal information. We talked about the protections that are in place already for that existing one. The new piece is the email address, which will go into that same system of protection.

Macklin McCall: How long will this information be stored, and what governs the retention period?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: A very interesting answer to that question, I think.

It’s under FOIPPA that would guide how long you can retain information. If you think about a driver’s licence, drivers’ licences are used in a lot of ways to verify identity. So under those rules, specific different information will have different time periods of how long you keep it.

But when it comes to driver’s licence information, it’s till the death of the person. That’s to make sure that their fraud or anti-fraud systems could ensure that there’s no identity theft or whatever, because it’s tied to that person until their death.

Macklin McCall: Perfect. What safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized access, breaches or misuse of any personal data?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I’ve answered this question pretty thoroughly about the different systems and controls they have to protect from the breaches of private information. If there’s something specific that the member has that I didn’t go over yet, then I’m happy to answer.

Macklin McCall: Yes, and I’ll just move to a more clear question regarding that.

In the event of a data breach, what is the notification and response protocol?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If anybody’s listening out there and wants to know what happens in a data breach situation, I will go through the different steps.

First of all, ICBC considers a privacy breach any accidental or deliberate incident involving personal information, and they require immediate action regardless of the sensitivity of the personal information, if that’s occurred.

There are five key steps that they’ll take in responding to a privacy breach: report, contain, evaluate, notify and prevent.

Any possible privacy breach must be immediately reported to a manager or supervisor and reported to ICBC’s privacy and freedom-of-information department. A file is set up with all incident information, and the business area will be contacted to understand the nature and details of the breach.

ICBC will suspend the activity that led to the breach, recovering any personal information, records or equipment, where possible. An assessment of the risk will be conducted to determine what other steps are necessary, such as notification to customers and/or additional mitigation.

Notification will be provided to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and ICBC will work with the OIPC investigator assigned to complete any necessary investigations.

So those are the steps that they take in those events.

[3:45 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: Will individuals have the ability to review, correct or request deletion of their personal info?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, individuals do have rights under FOIPPA to do what the member suggests. So as an organization bound by FOIPPA, they would follow those procedures.

Macklin McCall: What third parties, if any, have access to this data, the new data or any data that’s obtained regarding drivers’ licences?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The authority for any third-party disclosure is pretty well laid out under FOIPPA. So under FOIPPA, it gives…. I think there are, like, ten authorities that…. You have to find a specific authority if you are giving any information to third parties.

It’s pretty clear, under our legislation, what the rules are related to that. ICBC has a privacy statement that’s publicly available so that people can understand, and it’s pretty clear about what their statement is about the privacy and how they use that. So the member can refer to that specifically.

Just to keep, again, to the scope of these legislative amendments, except for an email address, there’s no new personal information, other than stuff that’s already being collected and is protected under FOIPPA and has been for many years.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to start by thanking the staff of the Attorney General that’s here — it takes some time to prepare for this stuff — and thank the Attorney General for answering the questions for today.

Thank you, Chair, for your work.

I’d like to just switch gears a little bit. We were just talking about data and all those types of questions that my colleague was talking about. So I’d like to get into timing issues in terms of how this legislation was brought forward.

Is there an exact date for this impending online renewal system to get started?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The steps that need to be taken to get this live are…. First of all, we would pass the bill. They would do the regulations, and then they would work on implementation.

ICBC has estimated that by 2027, that should all be complete. Hopefully, things go smoothly. It can be faster than that, but that’s the target.

Steve Kooner: In regards to 2027, do we know if it’s going to be towards the end of the year or the beginning of the year or mid-year? Do you have any approximate time period?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Early 2027. If this legislation is passed in this session, we get the regulations complete in the fall and then implementation. They’re hoping for early 2027.

Steve Kooner: As part of the implementation, will there be any sort of educational training for people that are going to actually use this system? It’s one thing a system being there, but it’s another thing for the system to be workable for average folk in British Columbia. That’s an important issue that comes to mind.

Will there be some sort of training or some sort of FAQ section or some training videos? Will there be a third-party agency that will be training people how to use this system? How will it all work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: ICBC has a customer experience design team, and their whole goal is to make something so it doesn’t require training for people to use — a very easy system. I was just learning that system. The goal is just to be very user-friendly so you can apply online. It’s very low barrier.

[3:55 p.m.]

For those people that do want to go to their office still and get their renewal in person, they can also do that.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General just mentioned that those people that do want to go in person will be able to do so. That’s great in terms of having that dual option, but a lot of times when you’re dealing with dual options, some people start thinking: “Well, yeah, we may have the dual option for a period of time, but in the foreseeable future, it may all go online.”

You see it at banks. Some banks don’t even have tellers anymore. They’re going: “There are our machines.”

So there is that live concern. Some people are really anxious when the technology comes in. They’re like: “Okay, at the beginning, we may have a dual system.” But overall, is there going to be a commitment into the foreseeable future that that dual system will be kept in place?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, I know. I think that’s a fair point. I know that there are a lot of people…. I was telling my team over here that when I was out in the media talking about this, I was on a call-in show on the radio, and people were calling in to say: “Actually, I really like going down to the office.” Usually, it’s the seniors population that was like…. They really like the idea of going in and seeing somebody and completing that transaction that’s so vital because it’s your ID.

So absolutely, this is not about taking away service. It’s about enhancing the service for people to use online if they want to. There’ll be some people that can adapt to that technology really easily and readily, and there’ll be some people that really just like to go in and have that service face to face.

Steve Kooner: Just want to stay on this point for a second. Another aspect is that we’ve seen dual services. We often see it with call centres. Call a call centre, and you’re trying to change something. You’re calling Air Canada or something. It used to be very easy. You called the phone line, and that’s the way things were done. Within 15, 20 minutes, you were talking to someone.

Now there’s online. They say, “Well, the easier mechanism is you can go online and do this,” and those wait times with the call centres have just gotten longer and longer. Sometimes it’s like the whole day you’re on the phone.

The phone call system, I would say, is analogous to going in person because people…. If you’re speaking about seniors, they’re like: “Well, pick up the phone, or go talk to someone in person.” They were used to that type of service. They refer to that as in-person. You’re speaking to someone rather than an online service.

There’s one thing that…. The dual service will continue into the future, but will, in any way, the service be watered down? People are trying to use the in-person, but they’re going to have to wait even longer periods to actually use it, whereas they’re kind of influenced to say: “Well, it’s a longer service. If you want to be faster, you might as well go online.”

Will that happen? Over time, will there be less and less employees employed by ICBC to address this? Will it be just one option? “Yeah, you can do it in person, but look, it’s going to become a little tougher because there’ll be less workers. You’re going to have to go through a longer period of wait.”

Is there a commitment from the government that, no, that’s not going to happen? “We’re going to have stable wait times. If you want to go in person, you’ll have the similar amount of service. However long it takes you now, you’re still going to have that, but you’re just going to have this additional….”

I just want to make sure that we’re not heading down that path. We’ve seen it time and time again throughout history in this province, in this country, where telephone service, in-person service or in-person location service gets supplemented with online service, and then, all of a sudden, services get reduced, and you’re waiting longer and longer times with in-person service.

Will there be some level of commitment to actually assure the public that those wait lines going in person will not be cut down, that we will not be cutting down that service? Are there any assurances that can be provided that, yes, we’re going to keep those offices open, but we’re also not going to cut those services, so you won’t have to wait double the amount of time? Is there any commitment from the government in regards to that?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: One of the many benefits of having a public insurer rather than a private insurer is not only are base rates kept steady, and they have been for the last little while, but the pressure for the bottom line in the same way, as compared to serving customers, is different when it comes to some of the private entities that the member was talking about.

The goal of these changes is to provide more options to people in the province when it comes to renewing and replacing licensing. Also, nobody is going to lose their job in this transition. The team that is at ICBC will remain the team at ICBC.

One of the benefits of having very easy things that could be done online, if users choose to, instead of in the office is that the staff team will be free, then, to do some of the more complicated things like drivers’ tests. Sometimes there are delays in some parts of the province related to drivers’ tests, so they’ll be freed up to do things like drivers’ tests or more complicated cases that require their attention.

Steve Kooner: Another concern in regard to timing of this being ruled out…. We’ve seen, from other jurisdictions, that a lot of the other jurisdictions already have online renewal. Why did it take our province timing it now — rather than, say, a few years before — to actually get this system in place?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Because of the state of ICBC over the last few years, of transformations to an enhanced-care model, they were very focused on sustaining and maintaining the business. Rates were going up. Money was being used in other places for revenue. The service delivery was compromised by the business pressures and the very negative balance sheets that they were maintaining for many years.

The enhanced-care model, which was a major transformation in public insurance, came into force and into place in 2021. That was a big focus of the organization. Now we’ve seen the turnaround when it comes to public insurance. People are getting care faster. Less money is going to very complicated legal claims to get things resolved. Basic rates are being maintained. I think that for many years they’ve been steady, and people have received rebates.

The amount of effort that the organization has gone towards that transformation has been the focus for the last few years. Modernization as we move forward, I think, is a key aspect of the next ways that we can transform service for people, and this is an example of that.

The Chair: The Chair is going to call a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:03 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 6 back to order.

Steve Kooner: We are asking fairly general questions, at this stage, on clause 1, and another question comes to mind. We recently dealt with car insurance — not in this bill, but in recent history — and it was made available that you could do online renewals. Now we are dealing with online licensing. Both involve ICBC, but my understanding is that when you are renewing your vehicle, your vehicle insurance involves some insurance brokers as well.

What I’m hearing is that rural insurance brokers have been affected, and they have lost revenue, as a result of car insurance moving to an online system. Can the Ministry of Attorney General shed light on it? Are they expecting any sort of revenue losses as a result of shifting some of these licence renewal services online?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It is a much different service delivery model than insurance, as the insurance brokers play a bigger role, obviously, in the insurance side of things.

We, in the province, do have a very small group of people that do drivers’ licences. They’re agents for driver’s licence renewals or services, in general. Generally speaking, there’s not much of an impact, because most of the service is delivered by ICBC.

Also, we suspect that with these online renewals or replacements, it’s such a small transaction compared to the bulk of most of these agents’ services that, from that perspective, they can be busy doing many other things instead of these types of transactions.

Steve Kooner: As the Attorney General just mentioned, there’s a small portion of the service providers that are private, or they’re contractors providing renewals of drivers’ licences.

Can the Attorney General shed some light on that? Where are those brokers located that provide some contracted service to ICBC to renew drivers’ licences? Which communities are they located in? To the extent of the workforce, how much of a proportion of the workforce do these contractors actually make? Is it like 5 percent, 2 percent, 1 percent? Something in regard to those two questions.

The Chair: Attorney General.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you, Chair. I think we are starting to veer a little bit beyond the scope of the bill in terms of the questioning and the very operational, on-the-ground questioning that the member is asking right now. I would ask for your guidance on that.

What I will say about the percentages that are this category of service agents for ICBC: I don’t have that information on me right now. It’s something that we can endeavour to get to the member, but I think it’s a bit beyond the scope of the bill before us.

Steve Kooner: I appreciate that the information is not available, in regard to the percentage, but there is a concern in regard to in-person service. Right now if you look at the rural communities in this province, and they want to access government services, the question goes more towards being able to access government services. That’s why I asked about the rural communities.

One aspect of my questioning, right from the beginning, was that we’re going to have online. But will in-person be available, and will that be affected at all?

[4:20 p.m.]

Going back to the point, if there are some brokers, if there’s a significant…. More of those brokers exist, say, in the rural communities rather than the urban. I’ve never seen a broker myself. Living here in the Lower Mainland, I’ve never seen that. So it was a bit of a surprise when now the Attorney General mentioned that there are brokers. I thought maybe there are no brokers. I thought ICBC provides all those services. But now we know that information.

What I can think…. To my mind, if I have not seen them in the Lower Mainland or even in Victoria, perhaps they exist in some remote communities where ICBC has less of a capability of providing services because communities are remote. Those communities probably also have seniors and some vulnerable people that may have difficulties using the online service.

It’s important to know if the revenue will affect those contracted individuals. We don’t want them shutting up shop, because we still need to provide services to these remote communities. It’s important in terms of accessing service for driver licence renewal.

Rather than getting into the budgetary constraints and talking about that stuff…. That was not my intent. Intent goes to service. We want to make sure that although we are switching to some online dual service, we are not cutting off any sort of vulnerable communities because there is some limitation in service.

Say there is a contractor, and they were relying — I don’t know, maybe just hypothetically — 25 percent on renewing people’s drivers’ licences and 75 percent on renewing people’s insurance. Now they see that their insurance is affected, so they’re making less revenue off that. Now they see that their driver licence contracting is affected. So what we do not want to see is them saying: “Well, it doesn’t even make sense. We might as well switch to doing something else.” Then those people that are now possibly being serviced in remote communities or rural communities may not have the service that they actually need, as a result of seeing this legislation.

This legislation is actually designed to serve more people, so we don’t want the opposite effect, that some service gets denied. So it’s going to more of the purpose of this legislation rather than talking about actual counting numbers.

Perhaps the Attorney General can elaborate on that a little bit more. If that service is not in rural communities or it’s not in remote communities, that’s something that we don’t have to worry about because we are dealing with the Lower Mainland. There is actually a lot of accessibility that you do see from ICBC, and you don’t normally hear about any contractors.

It’s an important piece of information. I hope that’s something that can be shared. For anybody that’s wanting more information on this particular bill and is feeling a little bit of anxiety that things are starting to go online…. They’re seeing trends of everything going online, and they’re actually getting less service.

There are a lot of seniors that still have problems using a computer. So this would actually alleviate some of that stress and that anxiety knowing that, hey, even if you’re in a rural community, even though there’s a contractor or you’re dealing with some contractors there, that’s not going to affect those contractors.

The question is going to service. If the Attorney General’s department can elaborate on if some of these contractors are in the remote rural communities…. If some of them are in those communities, what’s the plan to address that so they’ll still keep operating?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the member’s question, the heart of it, is service delivery level. So to make sure that every corner of the province has a level of service delivery from ICBC with respect to…. I mean all the services but, in particular, renewal of drivers’ licences and online drivers’ licences.

Right now we have an issue of, especially in the more remote parts of the province…. ICBC has actually been pretty innovative on trying to have mobile offices to go to certain places or deliver tests by going straight to people. We don’t have full coverage in some of the more remote places. Online or contract delivery is a way of raising up that service level, or the innovative ideas that I was just talking about of actually going to places.

You can think of this online renewal and replacement as an added option for people that will actually unlock people’s ability to not have to drive a few hours to get to their office to renew a licence, take time off work, do those kinds of things that are disruptive to people’s lives. This is an additional service delivery level that ICBC is unlocking with online renewal and replacement.

Also, as the public insurer, it’s their job to meet the service needs of the population. I’m sure if there were shifts or needs in different areas, and I talked about some of the ways they’re being innovative to get them, it’s their job to figure out how to deliver that service to that community. Of course, it’s something they’re always going to be watching to make sure everybody gets the level of service that they need.

Steve Kooner: Just a second question. We are talking about ICBC and delivering this type of service. At one point in time, we had ICBC, and driver licensing was actually provided by a different service, I believe. I don’t know if it was the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles. Then you had ICBC just dealing with insurance.

Now we are dealing with a combined system under ICBC. We are talking about ICBC now servicing some remote communities and adding supplemental service by having this online platform, and part of it is to work with ICBC’s infrastructure.

Then that goes to the question. In the past, we’ve had two different departments, one for licensing and one for insurance. In the foreseeable future, moving forward, is it reasonable to expect the plan will be to keep everything amalgamized within the ICBC structure rather than move back to, say, a system where at one time we did have two offices? How does this all work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Chair, now I’d just seek your guidance to get back to the clause that we’re dealing with. I think we’re going quite far now.

The Chair: If the member can just hold for a moment, please.

Member for Richmond-Queensborough, do you want to rephrase the question to make it more relevant to the clause?

[4:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I’ll take it back to my last question, actually. The Attorney General was referring to rural insurance offices. When that reference was made, what does the Attorney General mean in terms of the actual definition of rural insurance offices?

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t think there’s a need to define the term “rural” in this part of the legislation, in this piece. If there is a point along the way which refers to a specific clause and there is a question about whether “rural” needs to be defined or not for the purpose of the legislation, I’m happy to go there with the member. But at this stage, I think it’s just not relevant to this clause.

Steve Kooner: I’m going to be switching to a different line of questioning. We talked about data earlier. This isn’t exactly on the point of data, but it’s on a similar line of questioning. It’s more in terms of the administration of the system.

We’re going to have two parallel systems running. We’ll have one that’s online, and one that’s in-person. When you think of that, you’ve got one in paper. You’ll have a lot of information on paper; you’ll have a lot of data. The stuff online won’t be paper. It’ll all be data, whereas in the office, you might have some paper still.

A crucial thing when you are switching to this type of service, or you’re doing both, is that the systems have to be able to work together in having efficient administrative outcomes. Is there something put in place to make sure both of these systems can actually work? Whereas paper is not getting lost because in one system you don’t have any paper…. Then, in-office, you have paper, and you’ve got the computers. The data will be the same, whether you’re in-office or online. That’s the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We canvassed these questions earlier about there being only one database that ICBC holds, under all those protections that exist.

Steve Kooner: I appreciate that the answer was provided earlier and that they can both coexist. Going to the aspect.… Let’s say there is some paper. Well, how would that paper get dealt with? Would it just be scanned up into the system? What’s the protocol for that? You go to a ICBC office, and you do still see some paper. How does that get dealt with?

Hon. Niki Sharma: ICBC’s been dealing with paper or online storage of information for a long time. Nothing about these amendments are new or additive to that.

If we could get back to the clause, Chair, I think it would help us move.

[4:35 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: All these questions are related to the clause, because under precedent, clause 1 is supposed to be a general-questions clause that is there more to talk about the intent of the bill and the purpose of the bill. If we start getting into a clause, a lot of these clauses are not beefed up. You may read a clause, and it doesn’t even make sense. You’ve got to really go to another piece of legislation to interpret it. If you just read the clause by itself, it takes some time to understand it.

With some legislation, when you do have it, you have the clause. Ask the question; ask ten questions. With this one, I think — because of the nature of how this legislation is written out and how you do have to refer to other pieces of legislation to actually make sense of it — it’s a little easier just to ask more questions on clause 1, and then you can move along throughout this piece of legislation.

That’s why I’m asking the questions in clause 1. It might take me a little longer if we go clause by clause. In the interest of time here, I think the purpose might be served a little better if I’m asking the questions here.

To continue to the next question I have here, this piece of legislation does talk about excluding online services to, say, those people that want to renew their drivers’ licences but that have fines, violations.

What was the main reason why there’s an exclusion in there? Does the Attorney General want to go to a specific clause? Under which clause would she like to provide that answer?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think, also, if we get to clause 2, it helps us to get to some of the more substantive parts that the member is asking about. The regulation-making power is actually under clause 2. I’ll just say that, in terms of us moving forward.

In terms of clause 1 — and, I guess, more so the general question being asked — this is about simple, high-volume processes that need to be more automated or available online. That’s why replacement and renewal was the first step, and the amendments are following that goal. It’s to get these high-volume transactions and other choices associated with them.

If there are other future opportunities for debt collection and things like that and fines to be online, that might be something that happens in the future, but this is only specifically related to renewal and replacement.

Steve Kooner: Based upon that answer, is it fair to say that this is the initial step in providing a more fruitful digitization of in-depth services? So this is a first step, kind of a testing ground, and maybe, in an online platform near you soon, you might see other services as well in the future? That’s the plan?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, I think that’s a fair assessment.

Steve Kooner: Okay.

I did have another question, and I don’t know if the Attorney General wants to answer that in clause 2 too. It’s in regards to the learner class of licences.

Now, a lot of times when we have learner classes, it’s just applying to learn how to drive. I know it’s not like renewing a driver’s licence, but there are knowledge-based tests and stuff in order to actually get your learner’s licence. Was there a specific provision to exclude learners’ licences?

I know this deals with renewals. It’d be interesting to know the answer to that because that could be dealt with, with what was just said earlier — that the government’s response is that it’s going to be an initial step to further services being provided. They will come in the future, but this just seems to be an easier thing.

I did have a question in regards to learners’ licences. Why are they not part of this online renewal system?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m just going to recommend that we pass clause 1 because I think the member is asking questions about clause 2 right now. I’m happy to get in detail into that, once we get to that clause.

Steve Kooner: I’m almost there in terms of clause 2. I think I may have one last question here on clause 1.

Earlier the Attorney General mentioned something about modernization, and we discussed other provinces. How comparable is this system that we now have, that we’re starting off with, in comparison to the other provinces? Are they more advanced, or are we at the same stage? How is this?

We did ask that question earlier: “Why did it take us longer?” Then there were answers supplied. But we do know there are eight other provinces that have this system. How far along are we in regards to those other provinces?

Hon. Niki Sharma: With respect to the online driver’s licence, for online renewal and online replacement, Ontario and the Northwest Territories have that. With respect to online renewal and not online replacement — they don’t have an option for an online replacement — are Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland. Online replacements with no online renewal are Saskatchewan and Quebec.

So there’s kind of a mixed bag with respect to that and what services are available. This would be renewing and replacing online.

Steve Kooner: We can jump to…. I guess we will let clause 1 pass, then.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

Steve Kooner: In regards to clause 2, I had some specific questions, and I think we saved one from the last one. We were dealing with why drivers are needing to change their address, and they’re not getting the opportunity to go to fines, violations. I think part of the question was addressed, but I was still told to come back to it on clause 2, so perhaps that can be answered.

Hon. Niki Sharma: If you look here at clause 2, there’s an added subsection that actually is the regulatory-making power. So it’s “must be made in person unless the applicant meets the criteria prescribed under section 33.1.” That’s the ability to make regulations related to who doesn’t have to be there in person. The beauty of a regulation is it can evolve based on decisions made, and you don’t have to go in and do the longer process of amending legislation.

[4:45 p.m.]

The reason right now learners’ permits, which I think was the question, wouldn’t be included at this stage is because they actually have to take a test. They have to do some level of testing that has to be done in person. That’s the barrier to adding that into a fully online process, but you never know with modernization what might happen.

Steve Kooner: Clause 2 here deals with section 25 and its related subparagraphs here. Perhaps we can go into this more in depth. Clause 2 states: “Section 25 is amended.” Then there are some subclauses. Like I said earlier, when you just read this at first glance, it’s a little bit difficult to understand what each paragraph does.

Perhaps the Attorney General’s office can take us through this section of clause 2(1)(a): “striking out ‘sign an application’ and substituting ‘complete an application’ and by striking out ‘the completed evaluation form’ substituting ‘the evaluation form’.” What are we looking at here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The goal of these amendments…. I think the question was related to section 21, as amended in the subsection (a). A good term is “technology-neutral” language. You can take out the requirement for some of these things to happen that were just found in the language in person, and it could be read as being available online.

Steve Kooner: Okay, so in this clause, it says: “adds regulation-making powers respecting an address to which the driver’s licence may be mailed and respecting interim drivers’ licences.”

Question to the minister: what does it mean by adding regulation-making powers?

Hon. Niki Sharma: For this additional reg-making power, which is in the section that gives the LG the power to make regulation related to that, there are two things that are added. One is respecting an address to which the insurers, ICBC, may mail a driver’s licence.

[4:50 p.m.]

The reason it was better suited to a regulation was because of the complexities of mailing to different addresses so that we may have to, by regulation, direct ICBC how to do certain things.

For example, if it’s a student that is in one location and during school in another location or if it’s somebody in the military who’s serving somewhere, there are specific nuances that need to be addressed with respect to where to mail the driver’s licence, and it was best suited for regulation.

Steve Kooner: Another question on this clause. Under the new subsection (1.3), what precautions will be taken to prevent someone from changing another individual’s contact information with ICBC?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way that they’re mitigating against fraud or changing somebody’s information is that you just can’t do that online. You can’t alter anybody’s personal information online. You can apply for a renewal or replacement, but that information is what it is. So sometimes, I’m told, it’s pre-populated from these forms, from the information already there.

Steve Kooner: In regards to that, I should have added this extra piece when I asked the question.

It’s my understanding that under this subsection (1.3), all that’s needed is a licence number and an old email in order to make the change, as I referenced earlier.

If that’s all you need, are there any more safeguards in place that the change can’t be made, or are there some other safeguards? That seems to be pretty simple — a licence number and an old email.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to clarify, we’re talking about an addition to section 25, (1.3), and I think the member’s question might be related to (1.3) under section 31.

Steve Kooner: I guess we’re on clause 2 here, and then what’s referring to (1.3) is subclause (e). Would that be in there?

There is a spot here that talks about contact information and that being changed, somewhere in here. I don’t know if you can catch that at this stage or….

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m afraid we’re going to need more guidance from the member on the question or the clause that he’s referring the question to.

Steve Kooner: Well, the reference was for clause 2, and it has to deal with changing contact information. Pursuant to my research here, it says that a change is possible if you have the licence number and an old email address.

If that information is not available, I can move to the next question.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think that the member, again, is referring to 1.3, section 31, instead of section 25.

Steve Kooner: I can ask the question again once we get to that section. I’ll move on to another question for now.

The Chair: Member, are you done asking questions from clause 2?

Steve Kooner: No. We’re still on clause 2. It’s just that particular question. I’m done with that one, but I’ll ask a different question.

The Chair: Okay. You’re still asking questions on clause 2? Thank you. Go ahead.

Steve Kooner: Under clause 2, there’s a part of this that deals with, under subsection (i), how ICBC expects licences to be surrendered.

Under clause 2(i), it says in subsection (4): “by striking out ‘surrender the last driver’s licence or duplicate of it held by an applicant unless the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia on cause shown to the corporation’s satisfaction dispenses with its production’ and substituting ‘deal with the last driver’s licence or duplicate of it held by an applicant as directed by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.’”

So it talks about surrender of a licence in this paragraph. To the question, under this new subsection (i), how does ICBC expect licences to be surrendered?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: So the amendment in this, removing the surrender of the last driver’s licence or duplicate of, is solely because you won’t be there in person. The act of surrender, directly when you’re giving it, obviously, is not available to somebody when they’re online. So the language was amended to deal with the driver’s licence or duplicate of it as directed by ICBC. It gives ICBC the flexibility to direct what must be done with the last driver’s licence or the duplicate.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Another question on this clause. Subsection (k), subsection (7.1), deals with: “The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may, at any time, request evidence that a person is eligible for a driver’s licence for which the person is applying or that has been issued under the act to the person.”

It says: “request evidence.” What type of evidence?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That would be up to ICBC and probably dependent on the circumstance.

Steve Kooner: In the same clause, if you go to subsection (m), it refers to section (14.2) and says that a regulation made under subsection (14.1)(g) or (h) may do any of the following: “confer a discretion on the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; delegate a matter to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.”

Could I get the reasoning behind why we needed to have this particular clause and what specifically this clause is designed to capture?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is an addition to the (14.1) of the existing act, which gives the Lieutenant Governor regulatory-making powers related to that. What was needed, legally speaking, was an addition — the subsection as you see in (14.2) — to allow those regulations to confer discretion or delegate a matter to ICBC so ICBC may do something or that sort of thing instead of just cabinet. That was the reason for that addition.

Steve Kooner: Then also, in subclause (h), we are speaking about a picture being taken. “If required by or on behalf of the corporation, submit to having an applicant’s picture taken.”

How would that work? Would there be online service to have the picture taken with biometrics or something like that, or would that be an in-person picture that would be taken?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this requires the flexibility needed for online renewal. At this stage, you would just reuse the photo, if you’re renewing online, that your previous one had, which has the benefit of having a younger picture of yourself for longer on your ID, which is great. I think it’s great, anyway.

That gives the flexibility to do that. Then, also, if there’s a requirement to having the picture taken in person or renewed in person, we can make sure that that happens.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

Steve Kooner: On clause 3, there was one question that, I guess, the Attorney General was referring to and said that my question was more suited to, section 31, and perhaps was referring to clause 3 here that talks about section 1.3, which we were referring to earlier.

Here it talks about changing contact information again, I believe. It’s referring to 3(b).

“If the email address of a person who holds a driver’s licence issued under this act has changed from the email address provided to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia under this act, that person must, within ten days of the change of the email address, notify the corporation of the change by means approved by the corporation, stating the person’s new email address and (b) if required by or on behalf the corporation, the number of the person’s licence and the person’s former email address.”

It talks about a change in contact information, and it refers to how to rectify that change in contact information by providing an email address and providing a driver licence number. That goes to the information.

Are there enough safeguards there in place to make sure the contact actually gets changed in an appropriate manner when there are only two requirements here?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason for this addition was that if you go to the actual portion of this part of the act, it deals with updating contact information of people just generally.

If we remember earlier on in the debate, I mentioned that the new piece of information is the email address. Now that’ll be required for online renewal or replacing. This gives, basically, the same platform or the same provisions similar to other pieces of information to allow the person to update their contact information.

Steve Kooner: Again on clause 3 here, subsection (a) says: “adding ‘by a means approved by the corporation’ after ‘of the change.’” What’s the meaning? “Change” — is that like a material change, or is it a prescribed change? What type of change is that?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This addition is just to provide further clarity to the provision there. By adding “by a means approved by the corporation,” it makes it clear what the means of delivery of that is so it’s clear that it’s set out that it has to be one that is approved by the corporation. That’s the addition in that section.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

Steve Kooner: On this next clause here, a specific question. Can the Attorney General explain this housekeeping amendment further in detail?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is very much housekeeping. When making these amendments, the team saw that there was a missing “licensed,” so they added that to the phrase.

Steve Kooner: Under clause 4 here, it refers to “exempted under subsection (5) or licensed under section 8.” Referring to that phrase, “licensed under,” how is the interpretation adjusted by adding the words “licensed under”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s just for purposes of clarity and accuracy that the word “licensed” was added.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

The Chair: Member, we are debating on clause 5 now.

Steve Kooner: Yes. In regards to clause 5, perhaps the Attorney General can start by explaining the purpose of clause 5 here.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I guess you could think of it as a parallel amendment, with respect to replacement of a driver’s licence. You’ll see that throughout, like some of the similar things that we’ve talked about previously but for a replacement.

Steve Kooner: This particular section here deals with, I guess, duplication rather than just renewal. What are the requirements for an applicant in order to get a duplicate driver’s licence under this clause?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, it’s the same sorts of changes that were required previously. The term “duplicate” I guess means replacement. I think a better wording is “replacement,” but they use the word “duplicate” previously. So you can just think of it, again, as like parallel amendments to deal with replacement.

Steve Kooner: A common situation that comes up…. When somebody renews their licence, they have to go and give the original one, and then the claims or the driver licensing office takes the old one. In this situation, when somebody’s trying to get a duplicate, is there any sort of requirement of returning? I guess there wouldn’t be something to return in this situation.

How would ICBC deal with a duplicate? Is there something you’ve got to get back? Is there something you’ve got to complete in order to get the duplicate? Do you have to have some proof that you had the original?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This section ties in the changes we talked about, and that section with respect to renewing. And 25, you can see (2.3), that subsection, it refers to section 25(2.1). If you refer to that section, it gives the complete list of…. So it just refers back to that.

I think another key one is the 5(b). So 33 would be amended to deal with a person’s existing licence as directed by the corporation. So you remember the amendments we talked about previously were about how the corporation will direct how things are done, and we amended language to make sure that was clear, including what to do with existing licences.

Steve Kooner: Going further on in clause 5 here, there’s a subsection (d), and it’s a notice provision to ICBC or the corporation “must, on finding that the licence in place of which the duplicate was issued was not lost or destroyed or on finding or recovering that licence, immediately notify the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in the form and manner required by the regulation and within the period specified by the corporation, destroy the licence in place of which the duplicate was issued.”

There’s a lot in here. Do the current regulations actually state…? I guess those regulations are going to be created. But when those regulations are going to be created, are they going to follow a precedent? Somewhere in other statutes dealing with ICBC, there is a way to kind of serve ICBC notice of certain things.

Basically, the question is: will it be adopting language similar to what we already have with ICBC and giving notice to ICBC, or would this be looking specifically at a new provision, new language of how to serve ICBC? That’s the first question on this particular clause.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: For this particular section that the member asked about, there is no regulatory-making power or something that would be decided in regulation. It’s a complete clause.

Steve Kooner: How would that work, if it’s a complete clause and there’s no regulation-making power?

Here you have: “immediately notify the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in the form and manner required by the corporation.” Would the corporation just give a letter or something and say: “Well, you have to tell us in this way”?

If there’s no regulation-making power, how would this work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way that this will show up is if you are applying online or applying for it, you get notified about these obligations. Then it’s ICBC’s chance to tell you what they mean by “the form and manner” that they’re requiring.

In the event that you’ve applied for a new one but you found your old one, they will have notified you what to do.

Steve Kooner: Further on this particular clause, subsection (d) also says: “within the period specified by the corporation, destroy the licence in place of which the duplicate licence was issued.”

So in one way, the corporation will specify to destroy that licence. They may say, “Okay, destroy the licence,” but how does the corporation know that the licence was, in fact, destroyed? Will there be a proof requirement that the licence be destroyed and to also provide proof of that?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way this is going to work under this new regime is that if you went in person and you said, “Hey, I have a lost, damaged, destroyed….” You need a new licence. Unless it’s lost, you would be asked to surrender your driver’s licence before you get the new one.

The way it would work online is you apply online. Your new one comes in the mail. You get notified at that point that if you have a damaged one or whatever, you must destroy it. If you found your lost one, you can’t have two licences. It’s an offence to do that, so it’ll give instructions to the person about destroying that previous one.

Now, the backup of that is that that previous one is now dead, so if it were scanned anywhere, it wouldn’t show up as being usable because there’s a new one issued.

Steve Kooner: My next question has to do with this clause, subsection (b). I don’t know if there was any sort of rule, but I always thought that if you wanted to get a new driver’s licence because you didn’t like the picture that was on the licence — or if there were just a minor change of address, you would get that sticker — to actually get another driver’s licence that was a duplicate, it was a lot more work to actually do that.

But when we read this subclause (b), it says: “Deals with the person’s existing licence as directed by the corporation if the licence is mutilated but not lost or destroyed.” What’s going to determine that something has been mutilated versus that it’s just a nuisance and that somebody just wants a new driver’s licence? What determines that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reasoning behind this is that, mutilated, there are still some remnants of a licence, although it doesn’t work. But “lost or destroyed” would mean that it doesn’t exist, right? If you’ve lost it, you don’t have an actual card, or if it’s destroyed, you don’t have an actual card.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Steve Kooner: On clause 6, the first question. This clause talks about signatures, and it talks about pictures. What is meant by establishing consistent rules regarding “signatures supplied and pictures taken”? What are the consistent rules?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The subsection (a) is obviously pretty crucial, and we talked about it earlier; it’s the one that prescribes the criteria for not having to come in person. The (b) is just kind of a regulatory-making power, in case there’s a need to make a regulation regarding signatures or pictures taken — like, for example, what picture you can reuse or not, those kinds of things. There’s a regulatory-making power in that case.

Steve Kooner: Under this new section 33.1, why would there be a need for different regulations for different applicants? Under this section, it says: “(a) provide differently for different circumstances, applicants, matters or things or different classes of applicants, drivers’ licences, matters or things.”

When you think about drivers’ licences, you think it’s going to be pretty uniform. If it’s a situation where you want to renew your driver’s licence. You supply certain information, and you get it. But why would this regulation be asking: “provide differently for different circumstances…”? Are there different circumstances? I just don’t follow the paragraph here. Maybe an elaboration on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: This particular section the member is asking about is to make sure that there’s a broad authority to do the things that you may be able to do to adapt to specific circumstances.

For example, maybe there’s a particular type of licence or a particular type of remedial licence that you’d need to treat differently than the rest, or you wouldn’t want to be online, or not. That would be the flexibility needed to adapt the program, based on the needs of drivers and of ICBC.

The Chair: Members, we’ll take a five-minute recess now.

The committee recessed from 5:33 p.m. to 5:43 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 6, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026, back to order. We are on clause 6 now.

Steve Kooner: All right. My next question is on clause 6 here.

We were talking about “provide differently for different circumstances,” and the explanation was provided on that.

Going further on this paragraph, I just want to read it for a second and make sure I understand it: “(b) exempt from its application, in its whole or in its part, or otherwise in accordance with the terms, circumstances, applicants, matters or things or different classes of applicants, drivers’ licences, matters or things.”

[5:45 p.m.]

It’s fairly detailed in terms of…. Is this meant to be…? Would there be a further elaboration on that? It’s pretty wordy. It talks about a lot in this one thing. “Terms, circumstances, applicants, matters or things or different classes.”

If you go on to it, I think there might be a little bit of an interpretation lag here. Is there anything to help in interpretation of this particular section of this clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The drafters and the legal team wanted to keep consistency in language, so you’ll find the same wording in section 210(a).

Interjection.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Nine. Sorry.

So then you’ll find that same language there. Basically, it’s a way to be very flexible in the circumstances where you want to exempt from its application in a whole or a part, so there are parts of this act to use different circumstances or people or a driver’s licence or things. But the language is consistent.

Steve Kooner: Then, moving further along in this subsection here, on to (c), subsection 2(c) would grant the authority to ICBC to have discretion. The question to the Attorney General: is this going to provide limits? Is the Attorney General’s department going to provide limits on the discretion and how that will be decided?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, this is mirroring existing language in other parts of the act. Of course, this is cabinet decision-making over a regulation, and the bounds of that discretion or limits on the discretion would be in the regulation.

Steve Kooner: It’s my understanding that currently ICBC has a device that is used to collect signatures in person when people renew their drivers’ licences. The public has access to the means to sign contracts digitally, but those do not always look like handwritten signatures that individuals would create in person.

Does this legislation accept digital signatures as equal in terms of the law and for comparison purposes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No. This act or nothing in the amendments differentiates between a digital signature or an actual signature, but there also is the Electronic Transactions Act, which is more of a universal piece of legislation that talks about things like digital signatures and their effect.

[5:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: The next question I have here is: has the Attorney General’s department asked ICBC how ICBC intends to collect digital signatures? I know there’s no differentiation between digital and how printed signatures work, but has ICBC turned their mind to how they’re actually going to collect the digital signatures?

Hon. Niki Sharma: They are not contemplating any changes with their current practice related to that.

There is a section in here that talks about the use of a signature. It’s under 33.2. So you can use…. A signature applied for the purposes may be used only…. Also, it can be used on your driver’s licence or future driver’s licence so that ICBC can use a previous digital signature on a new driver’s licence.

Steve Kooner: The next question I have here: for storage purposes, is ICBC…? This may have been answered in clause 1 by my colleague, but I’m going to ask it, since we’re dealing with photographs at this stage.

For storage purposes, is ICBC required to store digital versions of photographs and signatures inside the province or within Canada?

Hon. Niki Sharma: They have one database, and it’s within Canada.

Steve Kooner: I guess the reference there was that they have one data service, so that’s referring to ICBC having one data service, and it’s currently outside B.C. but in Canada.

Just adding to that, is it fair to say that ICBC is currently contracting out its data storage at this time?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s all actually internal, just to clarify. There is a data centre in Kamloops, within the province, that ICBC uses.

Steve Kooner: All right. Has that always been the case? Is there any sort of…? We’re moving more into digital now, so maybe more of a concern now, if any of the services were going to be outside of B.C.

Is there any sort of plan to make sure and ensure that in the future, even with the online services, everything is going to remain in British Columbia in terms of data storage?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

[5:55 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: We were talking about photographs earlier, that ICBC can set requirements of how to provide your photograph. I guess you could set the requirement and go do it in person, but I don’t know if we got to that point of whether the service is going to be available online right now. I just wanted to clarify that.

So far, from the discussion, I’ve taken that ICBC can provide you with a method of how to provide the photograph, and I’m assuming that you would probably have to go in person to take the photograph at the current time. But is there a mechanism in this where you can actually do the photograph as soon as this legislation comes in? Can you just do it online, or do you have to go in person?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Not at this time. If you wanted a new photograph, you would have to go into the centre.

Steve Kooner: In a different clause, we were talking about how this is the stepping stone for the digitization of providing services, and more in-depth services will be added on as we move forward. We’ve dealt with images and different legislation through the House, and we’ve talked about AI, and we’ve talked about deepfakes and all that kind of stuff.

So now if we’re going to be moving in a direction…. Maybe at one particular time, we may adopt doing photographs in this system, you being able to provide your photograph in a virtual setting. Will there be some precautions taken in terms of dealing with situations such as…?

We are dealing with situations of AI. Some people manipulate their photographs, or they have deepfakes, and they try to take somebody else’s photograph. We see that commonly done on social media profiles and stuff like that.

We’re not there yet, but this legislation sets a template to add extra services. We may not be back in the House. Maybe this legislation might be updated through regulation. We may not see this piece of legislation again in the near future, but we may be posed with a situation that online photographs are now available.

How would we deal with that situation of AI, deepfake photographs and those types of situations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I do think it’s a pressing social issue, the ability of AI to create very realistic deepfakes and representations of people.

The way these would go forward is, as I mentioned in the previous answer, you wouldn’t be able to take a picture online. You’d have to use your existing picture, which would just be added to your new replacement or renewal driver’s licence.

If the technology adapts in the future to be able to do things that are more remote or online photos that you could provide, I’m sure that the question ICBC would have to answer is: how do you make sure it’s that person? How do you verify it before you can even offer that type of service?

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Steve Kooner: In regards to clause 7, we are dealing with reference to section 60. My question here for the Attorney General is: can the Attorney General explain in detail the proposed amendments in section 60?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: This is to do with interim licensing. Just to clarify, the interim licence is — well, as I remember it — a yellow piece of paper or whatever you get that’s not the actual plastic card while you’re waiting for something.

As we mentioned in the legislation, this makes sure that any of the nuances or things that are specific about it — including the time, how long it applies for — are able to be subject to any of the regulations that were specifically pertaining to interim licences.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General explain striking out “Youth Justice Act (Canada)” and substituting “Youth Justice Act”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: This was another error that was caught by my hawk-eyed team over here. They found that this actually isn’t federal legislation, so they crossed out “Canada.”

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Steve Kooner: In regard to clause 9, we’ve got two subcategories here. Section 210 is amended by “repealing subsection (2)(m), and in subsection (3)(m) by striking out ‘prescribed fees’ and substituting ‘prescribed fees and providing for the remission of fees and exemptions from fees.’”

That reminds me of some other bill that we were talking about a little while back, when we were talking about fees, and we went on.

Going to this particular clause, can the Attorney General explain the proposed amendment of striking out “prescribed fees” and substituting “prescribed fees and providing for the remission of fees and exemptions from fees”? Just an explanation of what all that means.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the authority to make regulations for providing remissions or exemptions from fees. When they were reviewing the act for these amendments, 210(2)(m) and 210(3)(m) provided some overlap, so the amendments are meant to clarify and bring those authorities together.

Steve Kooner: How is the scope broadened of a regulation-making authority in relation to fees under the act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It doesn’t broaden. It just clarifies that these were already existing powers.

[6:05 p.m.]

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Steve Kooner: On clause 10 here, we’re talking about a consequential amendment in reference to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. The question I have here is: can the Attorney General explain why sections 122 and 123 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, S.B.C. 2011, chapter 13, are repealed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The proposed amendments are to the sections 31 and 33. These are over 15 years old, and they’re being repealed because they’ve been superseded. The amendments to this bill fully address requirements for address or name changes and applications for duplicates and things like that.

Clauses 10 and 11 approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: I recognize the minister to move the motion.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:07 p.m.