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 Corporation, 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 Hul’q’umi’num’, 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 the 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 one of the four advisors who accepted my request to be on my council.

He was an extraordinary person going out of his way, always willing

in the parliament a few years ago. He was the first one of the four advisors 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, and 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 but 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 at 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, and 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.

Harwinder Sandhu: Today I am pleased to rise to recognize an extraordinary athlete from our community, Ina Forrest. Fresh off the Milano-Cortina 2026 Paralympic Winter 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 game since 2010. What an incredible record of three gold and two bronze medals.

Ina is now the most decorated wheelchair curler in the history, and we are incredibly proud to call her a member of 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.

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 the housing, accessibility and affordable market 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 speed, they show tremendous heart, discipline and skill.

Joe Linder and Dane Schmidt were named first team all-stars, and players like Landon 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 Remiya R. Nair, president; Rajumen Playatu, vice-president; Raju Menon; Dr. Alladi Sukumar

And with us today in the House are Remya R. Nair, president, and vice-president Raju Menon, Dr. Alladi Sukumar, Surj Rajan. So 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. And 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 Mali 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. And 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, Rhonda, Linda, Diane and Wendy.

Second, I’d like to welcome Dr. Catherine Lowe. Dr. Lowe 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.

And 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 Ammar Randhawa, Gurmukh Silla, Roman Singh and Keerith 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 and with wise principles from Sikhi, namely seva, simran

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 and 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 Kirit Chutla, as well as Gurmukh Ajla and Ropu 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 Doan; 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 Bowman 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 Sale 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 are empowering B.C. Timber Sales for long-term, full-rotation forest stewardship, managing timber sale licences through their rotation from initial harvests, to replanting, to future harvests.

Together, these amendments will contribute to a more dependable and predictable

fire and other natural disturbances, getting more logs into local pulp mills.

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

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

land 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 services 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.]

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

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 have 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 Durfeld Log and Timber, led by Rick Durfeld, and OT Timber Frames, founded by Oliver Tritten, with operations manager Jurgen Pobstl.

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.

Durfeld 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 Durfeld 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, Mr. Speaker, 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 Kapsilan, 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 have 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

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 he would table amendments that would give British Columbians the certainty that they deserve when it comes to some of the challenges that 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.

But 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 is 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?

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 enrichment, like sitting down with the Cowichan, 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: Well, 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, but 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 Musqueam 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 he stands up, despite knowing the opposite, and misrepresents, 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

I really just didn’t see any engagement between market discount that would be related to the Cowichan 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 of 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 share that is buried deep in a sub-fund in my retirement savings, but I’m still not the AI minister, and the original question remains unanswered.

A conflict of interest can be reasonably….

Interjections.

Jeremy Valeriote: 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 of 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 I 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.]

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, to the most vulnerable

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.

So 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, 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.

Credit Rating and
Economic Impacts of Budget

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 for Fraser-Nicola…. Pardon me, to quote the member for Fraser-Nicola….

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, 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, 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….

[2:25 p.m.]

Interjections.

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.

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.

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, generating 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, 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’s pretty amazing. That is 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 that 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 are 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.’s continues to be 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? 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

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 a superpower. Those investments are turning around into investments in our infrastructure, whether that’s mining, whether it’s natural gas, whether that’s tech, whether that’s in life sciences.

We continue to be leaders in the country, 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, whether that’s investments into skills training, doubling the trade 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: Yes, thank you. 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’m sorry, 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 that 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? 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 opportunity. They would hire more people if they could get them skilled up and trained. That’s why this budget doubles the skills training. 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 were $19 million that were budgeted for the decriminalization pilot, to study it, and now we’re being told that there were no results that were found. So I don’t understand if British Columbians should either not trust that that’s accurate, or they 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.

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.]

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 10

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 will 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 — $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: Members, shhh. Members. Members. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjections.

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

Hon. David Eby: 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 to 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 Wildfire Recovery.

Member for Kelowna-Mission.

honour to table the Auditor General’s report, Provincial Support for the Village of Lytton’s Wildfire Recovery.

The Speaker: 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 businesses….

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

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move, 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 also be 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.-2:55 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members, please take your seats so the head table can take proper count.

Members, the motion was made by Government House Leader, and it reads that pursuant to Standing Order 16(4), this morning’s private members’ time deferred division be further deferred until the slate 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, NAYS — 43. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

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 the 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

and disruption. Restrictions apply only within designated access zones around K-to-12 schools.

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, that, 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 enactment 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 regards 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 regards 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 regards 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, 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 of 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.

The original public safety concerns have not been dealt with, with an 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 regards 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, such as the Criminal Code. So 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. So the underlying cause needs to be dealt with, because we’ve heard from the Attorney General, just right now, that despite introducing this legislation two or three years ago, these incidents of 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 or with religious places of worship or 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 to 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. But 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 are 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 as

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, and 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 incident 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 enforcement mechanisms, 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 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 for students, or create harassment for students or create criminal impediment 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 day, you can try creating more and more laws, but if you have 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 regards 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, because if we have more visibility of our public safety enforcements, you will have more of a deterrent effect. That’s why the deterrent effect is

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 or looking at the criminal code or looking 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. And the question becomes…. If you don’t properly resource the enforcement mechanisms, are you going to solve the problem in regards 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.

So that’s where this government seems to be not supporting students, children and the vulnerable population throughout this province. And until we address that issue, the ongoing issues that were mentioned earlier about fearful disruptions, about harassment or about impediment won’t be dealt with until you’ve got the enforcement mechanisms that are mobilized, that are properly resourced, that are highly visible and they are 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. And to deal with all situations, all different aspects that involve public safety…. If you do not properly fund enforcement, public safety enforcement tools, that problem, the public safety problem, will not be resolved.

It doesn’t matter which area we are dealing with, whether it’s schools, whether it’s religious places that we worship, whether it’s business venues or whether it’s 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, that 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. So 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.

So instead of fixing that problem of enforcement, what are we seeing?

[3:20 p.m.]

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

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

as well. 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. They fear 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’ve 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. So, 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 in 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.

And 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 on 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.

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.

[3:35 p.m.]

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.

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

have no place in and around British Columbia schools. 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 are 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, 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 the second reading of Bill 12, the Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026. This bill proposes 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 in 2020,

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 order paper 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 demonstratively been used for that purpose alone in any

not through the use but through the threat of its poorly defined powers.

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. And 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, 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

the penalty clarity of its 1994 predecessor.

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 the 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 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 refuse 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

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

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 practice 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 are introducing the legislation.

As I refer back to my days in policing, I taught, and I am 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 practice 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. And the reason that the answer is yes is because there

changed 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. And 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? And 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 practice 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, 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

to exercise discretion and do their job as they’re paid to do.

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

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

They’ve got two years of information. So 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 — a temporary legislation, to boot — that was temporary, without a public review of the past two years.

Now, first, 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, and I want to say this not because I agree with it but this is where it could lead. I quote: “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. So 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 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, and I quote, “advising” — 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

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. Well, 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 extraordinary expansive definition. It’s troubling. “Advising or persuading or attempting to advise or attempting to 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.

And perhaps more importantly, who decides? Who decides that I am interfering? Who decides that? Who decides that I’m advising or persuading somebody? Or attempting to advise or attempting to persuade. The person? Well, if they disagree with me, of course they’re going to. 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 lawful labour actions. These exemptions are important. But they also underscore the reality that rights are being selectively carved out rather than broadly preserved. And 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.

[4:20 p.m.]

And I think…. 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. If it was a one-off…. But it’s time and time and time again. This government continues to put bills forward where they have more control, less accountability, more secrecy, less transparency. And we’re just supposed to figure, you know what, you guys know what’s best for all British Columbians. We obviously don’t.

So here’s some questions. Could individuals be detained for engaging in peaceful

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 choose silence out of fear of legal consequences? Well, if you’re in government, that’d be great. Right? Because then nobody would be opposing anything. They would just be, tails between their legs, obeying.

Nobody wants to be challenged on anything. I think we need to be, and 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 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. And 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. It requires unwavering commitment to protect not only safety but also fundamental freedoms. That’s how good laws are written.

Have they worked? We don’t know. There’s no review.

Good lawmaking 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? Like: “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 going…. 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? Because the information they were getting wasn’t clear.

This continues that unclarity. It continues the vagueness of laws, even for the law enforcement. How are they going to interpret “advising or persuading or attempting to advise or to persuade?” How do you enforce that?

These are not easy questions, but they are 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 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 bet you if they would have 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.

So 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.

And 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 to leave the application of this legislation to chance. We look forward to committee stage, where these concerns will be

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 to 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, 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. Because the easiest thing in public life is to reduce a debate into

It must also say: “We will show up for you.” And that is why I support Bill 12. That is why I think that 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 with 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-meter 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.

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. And in my view, it clearly is.

The province has said since 2023, that 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. And 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 expectations and what’s going to come next in their life

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.

Or 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 one. 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

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, during the times when children are arriving for school and during school activities, that 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, review, and 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, 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.

Because there is a world of difference between a legal regime that waits for the morning

in advance. They tell police, schools, parents and protesters alike where the line is before the situation deteriorates.

Because 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.

Because 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. 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. And 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. So 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 at the 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.

But 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

best place on earth.

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, but I’d like to tell a little bit of a personal story. Before this act happened, there used to be

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.

So 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.

And 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.

But 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. So the reality was 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 addition

recognize 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, but 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?”

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

light, this amendment invites us to reflect on our roles 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. One, the need to protect students and ensure safe access to education. Two, 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. Because 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 strong 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 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 in 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 and now will be in place, if this passes, until July 1, 2028.

[5:25 p.m.]

These zones have already proven effective in reducing disruptive behaviours near schools, but we know 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

proven effective in reducing disruptive behaviours in our schools, but we know 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.

But I think, as I stand here and kind of giggle with some of my colleagues across the way in here…. I think to say that was a peaceful protest with respectful debate and we’re 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 about being introduced in isolation. It’s part of our broader effort to address rising hate and protect our students, 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.

And 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, 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. To being safe while they’re getting the learning that they deserve.

[5:30 p.m.]

As legislators, we are often called upon to make difficult decisions, to weigh competing rights and interests. And in this case, I believe this bill strikes the right balance. It protects our children, our most valuable asset. Because if we don’t, we know what that consequence will be. It doesn’t just physically protect them. As someone who worked in mental health and addiction, who has seen directly the outcomes, if someone isn’t protected and their mental health isn’t protected, that can come from that…. So it’s also ensuring that we’re protecting them

know what that consequence will be. 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…. So 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 as well.

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, because we need to ensure that when our children go to school, they are safe, 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. And 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.

But 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. But 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, because temporary measures aren’t just about responding quickly. They’re about responding carefully.

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

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.

But 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, they 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.

But 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 is 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.

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’ve 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 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 that 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.

in isolation.

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.

But 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. And 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, because 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 to 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, and that purpose is to protect students, to protect

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, that 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 that 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.

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, and 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 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.

But 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, and what I think many of all of us here in this House…. We want 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 and stable and not chaos. 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

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, and that addresses unacceptable actions, including bullying, harassment, violence, threatening behaviour. All independent schools have anti-bullying policies in place as well. So 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 that are living and working and their parents that are 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 and 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 timeframe for the next two years, we know that we’re protecting the children. We hope that this will continue to show and the data 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, we’ve seen on TV shows, we’ve seen on 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 and I had a young woman, and her family were immigrants, and we had a discussion about immigration, and she said: “Why does the federal government hate me?” Because of the change that had happened — because of the change — she didn’t feel supported, she didn’t feel heard, she didn’t feel important. That is exactly why we need this in place.

We need to make sure the students know that when they get up and they get dressed and they get ready to go to school with their parent or their guardian or their grandparents, that they’re going to be safe, that we do know that 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 really 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. But that being said, Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, how on earth could I speak against that? On its premise, the legislation is something that, again, 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, respect, and every parent expects and deserves that their child has

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. 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 as 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, and 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.]

So 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’m very much a…. I love to fix things

properly enforced. 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. I think that 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, and 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.... And 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

not necessarily severity.

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. And 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 that 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….

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of the 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: Next sitting.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.