Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Jennifer Whiteside.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I offer today a reflection, a poem by local New West poet Jónína Kirton. I just send so much love to Jónína and her husband, Gary, today, who is recovering from surgery.

“Fraser River Forgetting”

“around New West we find many mentions of Simon

the one the river is now named after

his Métis interpreter and guide forgotten

there are no statues no plaques devoted to

my great-great-great-grandfather, Waccan

a.k.a. Jean Baptiste Boucher

a voyageur who spoke many languages

and is said to be the most famous

Métis man this side of the Rockies

he remains unnamed in most history books

there are no statues no plaques devoted to

his place in the settling of these lands

now buried at Fort St. James

I think I just felt him roll over

did he know what he was bringing?

[10:05 a.m.]

some say his wife, my Tse’khene great-great-great-grandmother

Nancy McDougall helped save Sir James Douglas

from Chief Kw’eh’s knife

she too was erased while her Scottish father

can be found in many historical accounts

as I sit by the river I am here to ask

if this erasure is a silent blessing

I am here to ask if it is ever good to forget

to ask forgiveness from the Coast Salish

it is their place names that matter most

forgotten by some but never gone

it is their Ancestors that sit with me

by this river, the Stó:lō

now commonly called the Fraser

a place of forgetting for so many”

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: In about a week, the Canadian men’s junior national field hockey team will be heading off to a competition in Chile, the junior Pan Am Games. I have forgotten what it feels like. It’s been so long since I had the opportunity to do so.

I want to recognize a couple of individual athletes. First, I want to recognize Lachlan Scobbie, who is a son of my former teammate, Blair Scobbie. The interesting thing is Lachlan is going to the junior national tournament. His son is. Blair represents Canada at the masters. Lachlan also happens to be the nephew of former MLA Nick Simons and Slim, who we all know in this House very well.

The second person is Karam Sandhu, who is from North Delta, who I’ve coached as a little child, and now he’s going to the junior national team. His dad, Kook Sandhu, who was my teammate, is now going to the masters, representing Canada.

I want to recognize all the players: Rajan Bahi, Gurnoor Bhullar, Caleb Fitch, Abhijeet Gill, Paramdev Hundal, Baldeep Mangat, Gavin Thind, Robin Thind, Abiram Yogeshwaran — all of them from British Columbia. I want to wish them well at the Pan American Games.

Misty Van Popta: In the House today, we have members from the VRCA. We’ve got Chris Atchison; Jeannine Martin; and Craig Larkins, who I hold a special place for, given that his podcast The Builder’s Bench was the first podcast that I ever did.

With them are the young construction leaders. There’s a delegation of about, I believe, two dozen. These are the up-and-comers in the construction industry. I’m looking super forward to meeting with them later, as is our caucus.

Will the House make them feel welcome.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Joining us in the gallery today are representatives from the B.C. Psychological Association. Dr. Erika Horwitz is president of the association and a registered psychologist with more than 30 years of experience. She is joined by Laura Darch, the association’s executive director.

Founded in 1938, the BCPA represents registered psychologists across British Columbia working to advance professional standards, public education and access to psychological services.

I am really looking forward to meeting with them later today and would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them to the gallery today.

Claire Rattée: I’d like to echo the welcome that my colleague just gave for the representatives from the British Columbia Psychological Association. I’m also looking forward to meeting with them later as well as — I’m not sure if they’re in the gallery today, but they are in the precinct — representatives from Stenberg and Rhodes College, the mental health and counselling program.

I’m looking forward to meeting with Emma, Jsabell and Ben later today.

I’d ask that the House make them welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’ve got some truck loggers in the House today. Please join me in welcoming the new president of the Truck Loggers Association of British Columbia, Bob Marquis, from the Sunshine Coast; as well as Adam Culos, who’s the general manager of Thichum forestry. Two outstanding individuals. I’m looking forward to having lunch with them alongside some other truck loggers this afternoon.

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

Kiel Giddens: Over this past weekend, the World Cup snowboard finals took place in Mont-Sainte-Anne, Quebec. Evan Bichon from Mackenzie, B.C. took home the bronze medal, the first for the community of Mackenzie in a major sporting event.

[10:10 a.m.]

Will the House please congratulate Evan on this massive achievement.

Sunita Dhir: Sitting in the gallery, we have Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. senior leadership and members of the board joining us today. Engineers and geoscientists play a critical role in protecting the public interest and building the infrastructure systems and innovations that keep our province safe, resilient and growing.

Thank you for all the important work you do on behalf of British Columbians.

I ask the whole House to make them feel very welcome.

Rob Botterell: I rise today to welcome the University of Victoria Green club, who are visiting the Legislature today to experience question period as future leaders of our province. Their commitment to sustainability and civic engagement is exactly the kind of leadership we need in B.C.

May the House please help me make them feel welcome.

Hon. Randene Neill: It is my pleasure today to say hello to Nancy Wilkin. She is in the gallery. It’s also a sad day for us because for the last several years, Nancy Wilkin has been a fierce, fierce advocate for biodiversity health and wildlife health in this province. She’s co-chaired the Minister’s Wildlife Advisory Council, which is a pivotal part of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship’s Together for Wildlife strategy.

So a big thank you to her for all of her advocacy and love of nature.

Will the House please make her feel welcome.

Macklin McCall: I’d like to take a moment to recognize that we have a delegation here today from Peachland and West Kelowna, representing communities across the Central Okanagan, including Mayor Patrick Van Minsel and Mayor Gord Milsom. They’re here in the legislative precinct today meeting with both government and opposition members to discuss issues that matter to their communities and, quite frankly, the region. These are important conversations, and it’s good to see the engagement happening here today.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them today.

Hon. Anne Kang: I have two sets of introductions today.

Today I have some very special friends here: Debbie Pudek, President of B.C. Soccer, and their CEO, Gabriel Assis. They are here in celebration today with us. The FIFA Canada Celebrates test event will be going on from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.

B.C. Soccer plays a vital role in our communities across our province. As a governing body for soccer in B.C., they support thousands of players and coaches and volunteers.

Thank you so much for your work.

With B.C. preparing to host matches during the FIFA World Cup ’26, organizations like B.C. Soccer are instrumental in building excitement, supporting participation and creating a lasting legacy that extends far beyond the tournament itself.

Please join me in welcoming Debbie and Gabriel to the Legislature.

My second introduction is…. They couldn’t make it into the gallery because of their size, but Maple the Moose, Clutch the Bald Eagle and Zayu the Jaguar are here, the mascots and biggest cheerleaders of the FIFA World Cup games. They are outside right now cheering and really getting the environment going.

Would the House please make Zayu, Clutch and Maple feel very welcome.

Bryan Tepper: I would like to welcome the Seehra family today. We have Sukhvir, Cindy, Logan and Ethan. I’d be remiss not to say I did work with his brother, internet famous for chasing a motorcycle on an escalator.

The Speaker: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I want to thank the member from across the way for recognizing the amazing people here from VRCA.

In keeping with your instructions to not be repetitive on all of the names, I just want to call out Chris Atchison and thank him on behalf of the B.C. government for all of his work that he is putting towards the development of our regulations around prompt payment legislation and his leadership around that.

Welcome to all the young construction leaders here in the B.C. Legislature. I’m happy to join my colleague in welcoming them to the precinct.

[10:15 a.m.]

Misty Van Popta: I’d also like to recognize Ashley McDougall in the House. She is not only a constituent of mine; she is a friend, my former CA, who I lost to a new government relations job. Also, she’s probably the only person who can get me out of my pajamas on a Monday night to go network with some construction folks.

House, make her feel welcome.

Bruce Banman: Canadians are known as being warm and welcoming and friendly. I had a chance to have breakfast this morning with Karen Ward from Huntington Beach.

I would like this House to prove how welcoming, how warm we are. Please welcome Karen for her first time up here in the House and having a chance to look at the Legislature. Please welcome her.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Environmental Assessment
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Environmental Assessment Amendment Act, 2026.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

When the province passed the Environmental Assessment Act in 2018, the goal was clear — create a transparent, predictable path for resource development that honours reconciliation and protects our natural environment.

After six years of experience implementing the new law, we know it created a comprehensive, robust assessment process. It promotes sustainable economic development while protecting the environment with meaningful consultation with First Nations throughout the process.

Our ongoing review of the act also has revealed it hasn’t been meeting intended outcomes on dispute resolution with First Nations. That’s why we are introducing targeted amendments to create structure to areas where the act needed more clarity and a new tool to be available to support earlier issue resolution. Our intent is to build alignment, enhance predictability and strengthen our foundation of mutual trust.

We are also including amendments that provide clarity in the participating Indigenous nations framework under the act related to U.S. tribes. These changes respect the unique relationships that B.C. First Nations have with the province while continuing to meet our consultation obligations to U.S. tribes.

By refining these elements, we can ensure that critical reviews of proposed major projects remain a bridge to sustainable growth in a timely, predictable process.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: 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

Easter and Annual
Barriere Lions Club Egg Hunt

Ward Stamer: As we gather to celebrate Easter, there’s one special guest who always seems to hop into our hearts this time of year. It’s the Easter Bunny.

Now, the Easter Bunny may not say much, but the message he brings is simple. He shows up quietly, often before the sun rises, leaving behind small surprises, colourful eggs, sweet treats and a little bit of magic for children and families to discover together.

Maybe that’s the lesson in it all. The Easter Bunny reminds us that joy doesn’t have to be noisy and kindness doesn’t have to be complicated. Sometimes it’s the smallest gestures, the ones done quietly, that mean the most.

In Barriere, we’re fortunate to have a tradition that brings that spirit to life every year, the annual Easter egg hunt hosted by the Barriere Lions Club. This event is more than a hunt for chocolate eggs. It’s the laughter of the children, the excitement of the search and families coming together to share in those special moments. It’s what community is all about.

It doesn’t happen without effort. It takes volunteers, time and dedication. So I want to sincerely thank the Barriere Lions Club and everyone involved for continuing this wonderful 50-year-plus tradition and creating memories that will last a lifetime.

[10:20 a.m.]

Easter is a time of renewal. After a long winter, we begin to see the signs of spring — longer days, warmer weather and new life all around us. It reminds us that no matter the challenges we face, there is always hope and a chance for a fresh start. Just like the Easter Bunny, each of us can bring a little light into someone else’s day through a smile, a kind word or a helping hand.

When the children search for the eggs and families gather, let’s also think about what we can give, not just what we can receive. In the end, the Easter Bunny isn’t just about chocolate and candy. He’s about kindness, community and bringing joy to others.

Happy Easter, everyone, and safe travels to all.

Transgender Day of Visibility

Jennifer Blatherwick: Today we celebrate Transgender Day of Visibility and the achievements of transgender, Two-Spirit and non-binary people. This is the first year that B.C. is officially proclaiming March 31 as the Transgender Day of Visibility, in honour of the more than 18,000 transgender, Two-Spirit and non-binary people living in our province.

In recognition of the significant contributions of transgender, non-binary and Two-Spirit people to this province, I am proud to stand firmly with them and affirm my belief in a British Columbia that values diversity, recognizes strength and upholds dignity and belonging for all of us.

Visibility matters. Everyone deserves to see themselves and their contributions represented in their communities, and we all benefit when people can be their most authentic selves. This day serves as an opportunity to uplift transgender, Two-Spirit and non-binary people and their accomplishments in every part of our society, from the sciences to the arts, to health care, to business, to education, to social services and beyond.

Today is also a reminder that not all transgender, Two-Spirit and non-binary people are free to live their lives safely. Many still face hate and discrimination on an ongoing basis and struggle to access the life-saving health care and supports that they need. The rights of people to live safely are not up for negotiation in British Columbia. This day affirms and reaffirms that we are committed to continuing to remove systemic barriers; addressing transphobia; delivering inclusive programs and supports; and upholding the rights of transgender, Two-Spirit and non-binary people.

On this Transgender Day of Visibility, I call on everyone in British Columbia to come together to celebrate our diversity and to continue to make our province safer and more welcoming for every single person.

Sukhvir Seehra and
Pharmaceutical Care in Surrey

Bryan Tepper: Sukhvir Seehra, with us today, is a pharmacist, health care leader and lifelong Surrey resident dedicated to improving access to care in his community.

As the owner of two Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacies in Surrey, he opened the first Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacy care clinic in the Lower Mainland at his Newton location — a true prescription for better care. He later expanded the model with a second pharmacy care clinic at Shoppers Drug Mart in Panorama. Together these clinics help pioneer a model where pharmacists play a larger role in front-line health care.

Today patients can receive pharmacist prescribing for minor conditions such as allergies, urinary tract infections, rashes, eye infections, acid reflux, birth control and more, getting timely relief without needing an emergency room or walk-in clinic. Through these clinics, thousands of patients receive care each year, including vaccinations, chronic disease screening and point-of-care testing for diabetes, cholesterol and strep throat.

Sukhvir works closely with local physicians, medical clinics, Surrey Memorial Hospital and Surrey’s urgent and primary care centres to ensure that patients can access care when and where they need it. A strong advocate for the evolving role of pharmacists, he regularly works with policy-makers, health care partners and educational institutions to advance expanded scope and improve access to community-based health care services.

He leads a clinical team dedicated to patient-centred care and is deeply committed to mentorship, regularly supporting and precepting pharmacy students from the University of British Columbia and across Surrey, including his own high school, to inspire the next generation.

[10:25 a.m.]

Born and raised in Surrey, Sukhvir believes everyone deserves accessible health care close to home. His vision is to see pharmacy care clinics become a standard part of pharmacies across the province, because when it comes to community care, the dose is never too high for better access.

Life Sciences Industry
and Role in Economy

George Anderson: When people talk about prosperity, they’re talking about something simple — good jobs, growing businesses and the confidence that a person can build their future here in British Columbia. That is why life sciences matter.

In British Columbia, life sciences is not a niche corner of our economy. Life sciences is an industry that will define the century, and British Columbia is already leading. Our life sciences sector supports about 28,500 jobs across 1,800 companies, generating $3.1 billion in GDP in 2022.

The average compensation in the sector is 21 percent higher than wages across B.C. We are leading because British Columbians are doing extraordinary things. At UBC, Dr. Pieter Cullis helped pioneer the lipid nanoparticle technology that made modern mRNA vaccines possible. Genome B.C. is supporting active life sciences research throughout B.C., which is demonstrating the breakthroughs of today and defining the industries of tomorrow.

Then there are companies carrying that leadership forward. AbCellera, Stemcell Technologies, Aspect Biosystems and Acuitas Therapeutics are companies proving that British Columbia is more than a place where ideas are discovered. B.C. is a place where ideas are built, scaled, commercialized and sent out to the world.

Take Xenon Pharmaceuticals, which recently announced positive phase 3 trial results demonstrating a 53.2 percent median reduction in monthly seizure frequencies. For families living with epilepsy, that is hope. For investors and workers, that is confidence. And for British Columbia, that is proof.

B.C.’s future is not to become an extension of somebody else’s economy. Our future is to build with B.C. researchers, workers and companies and on B.C.’s terms. That’s how we build prosperity. That’s how we create jobs. That’s how we strengthen paycheques. And that’s how British Columbia shows the world that we do not wait for the future to arrive. We create it.

Qingming Festival and
Contributions of Chinese Canadians

Teresa Wat: I rise today to recognise Qingming festival, also known as Tomb Sweeping Day. This year Qingming falls on Sunday, April 5, a time when families gather to honour their ancestors, reflect on their roots and express gratitude for those who came before them.

Qingming is a tradition that spans generations. It is a moment of remembrance, of respect and of connection between past and present. It reminds us that the opportunities we have today are built on the sacrifices of others.

Here in B.C., Chinese Canadians have a long and profound history — one marked by resilience, perseverance and contribution in the face of hardship. In the 19th century, thousands of Chinese labourers came to Canada and played a crucial role in building the Canadian Pacific Railway, a project that helped unite the country from coast to coast. They worked under dangerous conditions, often for low wages, and many lost their lives. Yet their contributions were essential to the foundation of modern Canada.

Beyond the railway, Chinese-Canadian pioneers have built communities, established small businesses and contributed to the economic and cultural fabric of B.C. Despite facing discrimination, including the head tax and exclusion laws, they remained steadfast and determined to build a better future for their families and for this province.

Today this legacy lives on in these vibrant and diverse communities across our province. As we mark Qingming festival, we honour not only our ancestors but also the pioneers whose courage and sacrifice helped shape who we are today. Their stories are part of B.C.’s story. Let’s take this moment to reflect, to remember and to express our gratitude.

Nature and Community
in Cowichan Valley

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: There are few places on earth as breathtaking as the Cowichan Valley. Nestled between the mountains and the sea, our valley offers a harmony of natural beauty and warm community spirit that’s hard to put into words but easy to feel the moment you arrive.

[10:30 a.m.]

From the rolling vineyards and orchards that catch the morning light to the glimmering waters of Cowichan Bay, this land inspires gratitude every day. The forest breath, with ancient cedars and towering firs; our fields; lakes and rivers provide abundance that sustains both body and soul.

But what makes Cowichan truly beautiful isn’t only the scenery. It’s the people who care for this place. Generations of farmers, artists, knowledge-keepers and neighbours have worked together to protect its spirit. The deep roots of the Cowichan Tribes remind us that this beauty has been cherished since time immemorial and that we share a sacred responsibility to protect it for those who come after us.

In every sunrise over the Mount Tzouhalem, every herring lifting from the estuary and every act of kindness between our neighbours, we see what makes Cowichan extraordinary — a place where nature, history and heart meet.

Oral Questions

Government Position on Ksi Lisims
LNG Project and Comments
by Federal NDP Leader

Á’a:líya Warbus: I would like to start out with a quote that states: “We are utterly mystified and we are frankly enraged at the fact that our NDP government is going full bore on this fossil fuel Ksi Lisims project re-announced by Carney this week. It should not proceed. In my view, absolutely not.” This is a quote from the new federal NDP leader, Avi Lewis.

My question to the government is a simple one. Can anyone clarify the position of this government by denouncing the new leader’s comments today?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Obviously, first of all, I’m honoured to give my congratulations to Mr. Lewis, who won the leadership to the NDP in a respectful and democratic contest.

The position of the government is clear on these matters. The Ksi Lisims LNG project received its environmental assessment approval. B.C. Hydro, under my direction, has an agreement on electricity with Ksi Lisims.

We’re supporters of the project. It will be some of the lowest-emission LNG in the world. It will build jobs and growth and resources and revenues for the people of B.C. Equally, on other LNG projects, we continue to maintain our five principles in terms of supporting LNG in British Columbia.

There were no LNG projects when Premier Horgan became Premier. There are now six under construction or in final levels of approval. I think that demonstrates the position of the government and the success of the policy we’ve undertaken, which focuses not just on economic development but ensures climate action as well.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I gave this government and the minister an opportunity to denounce the comments, and he didn’t take it.

I can ask the question very simply again. Where is the contradiction between the federal party NDP and their very clear position that “LNG is fentanyl to the climate”? They can’t have it both ways.

Can the minister or anybody on that side of the House stand up today and explain this vast contradiction between their position and the federal NDP leader, Avi Lewis?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The position of the previous government was very favourable to LNG, but they produced zero projects. Zero.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Minister will continue.

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: If you multiply the zero success of the opposition parties by six billion, it’s still zero.

On our side of the House, we’ve taken a very consistent position for eight years on this question. We established five conditions for LNG development…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: …in British Columbia, and we’ve had success after success.

Our position was the same on Friday as it is today and as it will be next Friday. We are driving economic development in B.C. We are leading Canada in economic development.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We are leading Canada in projects around B.C.

All of the questions they can ask, and their obsession with Avi Lewis is all they’ve got.

We’re succeeding because we are driving growth in our province, and we’re going to continue to do so.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister’s walk again down memory lane, but it was his flip-flopping which actually cost him the Premiership several years ago.

Again, as my colleague reiterated, the federal NDP did elect a leader, Avi Lewis, last weekend. Mr. Lewis was a key signatory to the Leap Manifesto, which states: “There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction for decades into the future.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Scott McInnis: My question to the Premier is a simple one. When does he plan on facilitating a meeting between the Nisg̱a’a Nation and Mr. Lewis so he can clearly show whether he supports his new leader or Ksi Lisims LNG?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I can’t wait for these Conservative leadership debates. It’s going to be profound.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, that’s a good question. Are there any Conservatives left? I don’t know.

With respect to our position on Ksi Lisims LNG, the facts are the facts. EA approval last year. Approval in an MOU between B.C. Hydro and Ksi Lisims that I announced on the project.

The party of no in this Legislature is across the way.

Members from the northwest are against the North Coast transmission line, which serves the northwest. Ten clean energy projects announced for electricity purchase agreements — they’re against them. They’re against development in the northwest. They’re against projects in the northwest. They’re against clean energy. They’re against a public B.C. Hydro.

But we’re for those things. We’re driving economic development in B.C. in spite of dealing with the party of no across the way.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA
and Government Priorities

Scott McInnis: Let’s be clear. This government is driving the economy into the ground.

It gets better from here. The Leap Manifesto is also very clear on its stance regarding UNDRIP. The manifesto says: “We can bolster this role and reset our relationship by fully implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

I have a very simple question to the Premier. Does he stand behind Mr. Lewis’s position, or will he be making an awkward phone call later today stating that he’s not fully implementing UNDRIP through these supposed DRIPA amendments?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Ten years ago, almost none of the members on the opposite side were members of the Conservative Party. They’re talking about a ten-year-old document in federal jurisdiction? That’s what they think is important in question period? When we’re dealing with, in this world, important economic and social issues, this is what they’re about? All about politics in the federal jurisdiction?

We know where we stand. We, like every member of this House, voted for the Declaration Act a few years ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We continue to support it, continue to work with First Nations and continue to succeed. Of those ten energy projects I talked about, all of them together are majority First Nations–owned. That’s good news for B.C.

[10:40 a.m.]

The Ksi Lisims project is led by the Nisga’a First Nation. That’s good for B.C. The Cedar LNG project is led by First Nations, the Haisla people. That’s good for B.C. Woodfibre LNG, an agreement with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh First Nation — that’s good for B.C. Fortis and their work on Tilbury with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm — that’s good for B.C.

They’re against everything. They’re against everything because they have no plan, no vision and no determination to go forward in the future to promote economic development.

Rob Botterell: Yesterday and just moments ago we witnessed Conservatives, yet again, fanning the flames of fear and hysteria over a perceived loss of private property rights. Yet appraisers can find no drop in property prices attributable to the Quw’utsun decision. It’s as if the mantra of the Conservatives is: “What’s to discuss? We stole the land, fair and square. Repeal DRIPA. Ignore the injustice.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Rob Botterell: We also witnessed the NDP defending the indefensible — less than a week of consultation with First Nations, and no consultation with the wider public on proposed changes to DRIPA. It’s as if the NDP believe they can unilaterally legislate away court oversight of constitutionally guaranteed human rights.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Rob Botterell: Will the Premier stop feeding into the Conservative panic-stricken narrative and stop pretending the government can legislate away court oversight of international minimum standards for the surviving, well-being and dignity of Indigenous people in this province?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, I won’t repeat what the member said about what the opposition is doing because he was very clear, and I think he’s right. They are fanning the flames of division, and I think it’s wrong.

I think it’s clear we have an obligation as government — we have an obligation, I believe, as all British Columbians — to work to reconcile with a difficult past, a past where our forebears arrived and didn’t make treaty, didn’t make agreements. They started for a short period, and then they ignored it for over 100 years.

In fact, it got so bad that governments of the day made it so that First Nations people couldn’t hire lawyers. They couldn’t organize. They couldn’t fundraise to defend their own interests. If members don’t know that, they should look it up, because it is truth in this province.

I thank the member for it.

We’re going to continue to lean into the relationship — working with, listening to, learning from — because I think when we work together with First Nations people, as the Minister of Energy just demonstrated, we achieve incredible successes for the First Nation, for all British Columbians.

I thank the member for his question.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Rob Botterell: The opposition of First Nations in B.C. to any changes to DRIPA is well known. DRIPA’s strength lies not only in what it set out to do but in how it was developed — years of consultation with First Nations, culminating in unanimous support from members of this House. Amendment or repeal of DRIPA will break trust with First Nations that has taken 50 years to rebuild.

Beyond the amendment, my question to the Premier is: what threshold of support does the Premier require of the over 200 First Nations in B.C. in order to consider that they have the support of nations for amendments to DRIPA — 10, 20, 100, 200?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not going to do a math game on this. I think it’s clear. There’s work to be done. There’s listening to be done. There’s learning to be done. I have a great respect for the many different perspectives that Indigenous leaders, that First Nations leaders, bring to this conversation.

I am committed to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It’s something that we all…. Well, not all of us but most of us in this House…. Well, actually, all of us. When we were here and we looked at it, we debated it, we listened to it, we heard the perspectives and we agreed with it.

[10:45 a.m.]

You know, it’s because it’s about moving forward together, listening. You’re not always going to have agreement. That’s where you have to lean into the conversation. It’s something I’m committed to do. I’ve learned a lot from those conversations, and I’m sure there’s more to be learned.

Again, you’re stronger when you listen to each other, when you don’t fearmonger, when you learn from each other. You trade ideas back and forth, and you come up with better solutions. That’s something that I remain committed to, and it’s something I would hope that all members would lean into.

This is not an easy question. This is not an easy issue. If it was, it would have been solved 150 years ago, but we’ve got to do that work today because governments of the past refused to.

Forensic Psychiatric Services
and Budget Priorities

Bruce Banman: The independent B.C. Review Board is sounding the alarm about the province’s forensic psychiatric system. They’re sounding the alarm. The report says there are not enough forensic psychiatric beds, there are not enough treatment programs and there is not enough housing for people leaving the system.

To the Minister of Health, what is her plan to address this crisis since it was not addressed in this year’s budget?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. Forensic psychiatric care remains a very important part of the continuum of services for people experiencing psychiatric and mental health issues. That is why our government has been focused on building out an entire continuum of mental health care, substance use addiction services. That includes, of course, forensic psychiatric care.

We work closely with health authorities to assess the capacity of the system, the needs of the system, including providing care for some of the most severe, the most mentally ill people here in British Columbia who have had interactions with the criminal justice system. We have opened beds at the Surrey Pretrial Centre, a place where people can receive the care that they need as they are awaiting trial or part of the criminal justice system.

We are going to continue to do that work. We work with seven regional clinics around the province as well. It is an important part of the entire acute care system, the forensic psychiatric care system. We are going to continue the focus on this work.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Bruce Banman: What I just heard was that once again we are going to do more planning. We are not going to actually do anything, but we are going to plan it to death yet once again. It is shameful. It has been nine years. The review board warns that without these resources, the system risks failing its mandate to protect the public.

My question: if it’s so important, why was the budget for this not increased? Actions speak louder than words. My question is very simple. To anyone on that side of the House that is planning on taking responsibility, will they please stand up?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As the member may have missed, there is $131 million in this year’s budget to help build out the involuntary care treatment system…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …mental health and addictions treatment — including ACT teams, including expansion of involuntary services for those people experiencing the most severe and concurrent disorders. It is incumbent on this government to help people who are not in a position to access care for themselves to help them do just that.

We are actively working on expanding those beds in Surrey, in Prince George, looking at other locations around the province, because, again, we know that it is important to invest in the entire continuum. That is not just at the point of acute care — adding to the thousands of tertiary and acute psychiatric beds in this province already, at dozens of facilities around the province — but also to invest in the work that has to be done to support people in mental health, support people experiencing substance use issues so that those problems do not elevate to the point of needing this type of care.

[10:50 a.m.]

We are going to continue to invest in every part of this continuum, continue this work, because we know that’s what needs to be done.

Rosalyn Bird: As much as I appreciate the minister’s answer, the work is not working. Our Northern B.C. Therapeutic Community, although open, is operating at half capacity, with 20 of the 45 beds occupied, and it no longer takes forensic psychiatric patients.

They can’t fill the other beds due to critical staffing shortages. If people cannot access treatment, if they cannot stabilize, then they cannot safely transition from hospitals and from correctional facilities.

What is the minister’s plan to support these patients, and how will she make up for the critical capacity that has been lost?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member speaks to some of the critical staffing shortages that we are experiencing in British Columbia. She is right. Like many other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world, we are experiencing a global health care worker shortage, which is why this government has been so focused on both short-term and long-term tactics and strategies to increase the number of specialists, to provide the type of care that the member refers to.

We’re going to continue that work because we know that by, for example, promoting opportunities here in British Columbia to American-trained professionals — a campaign that, I might add, the opposition opposed — it is actually working to bring those specialists, to bring those physicians, to bring those health care workers here to British Columbia.

We know there is more work to be done, both in building out the facilities that are required…. That is why we have invested billions of dollars in new hospitals, in renovations, in urgent and primary care clinics, in the facilities that we need to see for British Columbians and why we will continue to invest in recruiting, training and retaining the health care workers who we need to staff these facilities.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Rural Retention Incentive
Program and Budget Priorities

Rosalyn Bird: Well, “critical staffing” is a gross understatement. It’s not just our Northern B.C. Therapeutic Community that is facing staffing shortages. It’s all across Northern Health, which is currently looking to hire 300 desperately needed nurses.

These positions won’t be filled any time soon, as the government is cutting the provincial rural retention incentive. The program helps retain — as you have just stated, Minister — and attract professionals across northern B.C.

Will the minister reverse the cut today and extend the program to the communities that rely on it across the North?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m not too sure where the member is getting her news from, because the program she refers to is not ending today. It will continue because we know that it’s been an important part of being able to recruit and retain critical health care workers across the North — not just the North but all of British Columbia.

But may I remind the member that they opposed our recruitment campaign into the U.S., something that has resulted in more than 400 health care workers…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …signing job contracts here in B.C.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: This includes the very nurses that the member speaks of. We have reduced the amount of time that it takes for an American-trained nurse to be licensed and credentialed here in B.C. from what was weeks to just days.

I have spoken directly to American-trained nurses who have moved to British Columbia, and they tell me about why they have come — pushed out of the States by the uncertainty, the chaos, the anti-science rhetoric there — to British Columbia, to move to small rural and remote communities and to move to larger cities because they want to deliver health care to people in a public, universal system — something that this government will always stand for. I ask the members opposite to say the same.

[10:55 a.m.]

Family Residence Program
and Budget Priorities

Reann Gasper: First this government cuts funding for families with autistic children, and now they have quietly brought back the cuts to the B.C. family residence program, a program that will allow families to be with their sick children when they receive critical medical care away from home. This is not just wrong; it is inhumane. This government tried to cut the program last year but was forced to walk it back due to public outcry.

Why is this government cutting the funding for families who want to be next to their children when they need it the most?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the importance of supporting people who live in rural communities, who face enormous obstacles that those who live in larger cities just simply don’t have to face.

It is incredibly stressful to face the situation of a sick child, for example, knowing that when you live in a rural community and you need to travel, to arrange that travel, to pay for that travel creates a lot of anxiety for families. That’s exactly why we introduced the program in the first place, to make sure that families were supported.

We’re also taking action to increase our capacity in health care and health care delivery in rural areas. There’s no question that programs like this are facing increased costs — for example, due to Trump’s war and the increase on gas prices.

We are always looking for ways to ensure that services like these can support families. That is why this program is continuing. That is why we continue to work with health authorities to support people and the travel costs. It’s why we continue to work with charities like Hope Air, like the Cancer Foundation in supporting people to receive the care that they need.

Brennan Day: I don’t have any equity cards with me but I’m going to stand up for struggling British Columbians anyways.

This government is cutting support for families with sick children across rural B.C. through pullbacks of the B.C. family residence program. Tomorrow they are reducing stays from 30 to 21 and imposing an $80,000 income cap. And $80,000 in British Columbia is not wealthy. That’s families barely holding it together. Less than the living wage in my community.

So to the Premier: how much money is this government planning to save by cutting support to families with sick kids?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As I just outlined in my last answer, we know just how important it is to support families who have to travel to be with their sick children. That’s why we brought in the B.C. family residence program in the first place. It didn’t exist before.

I have directed the Provincial Health Services Authority, Variety and others involved in this program to find a way to continue to support families. In fact, this year we increased the amount of funding for this program.

We know that the costs are going up. We know that we want to support as many families as possible, which is why when these third parties looked at the program, they made decisions about how to continue to support families, how to continue to make sure that everybody possible could benefit from these programs.

Every dollar counts, especially during this time. That’s why we’ll continue this program. That’s why it will continue to support families in their greatest time of need.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day: The program didn’t exist before this government took power because you could still access health in rural B.C.

“Families should not be full of anxiety about how to access housing or accommodation for their families in one of the most expensive housing markets in the world, Vancouver.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Brennan Day: Those are not my words. Those are the words of this Premier.

Yet here we are again. FIFA is skyrocketing the rates of accommodation in Vancouver. Families are once again terrified about where they’re going to sleep and how they’re going to pay their bills while caring for their children.

Will this government do the right thing today and reverse these cuts, yes or no?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member is mistaken. There are no cuts. The program funding has increased.

We know that the increased costs of gas and other things make it more difficult to spread the money across more families. We also know that it’s incredibly important for families to be able to come down, for example, to the Lower Mainland to access the highly specialized care that is needed.

That’s why we work with health authorities to support people. That’s why we work with charities like Hope Air and Angel Flight, for example, to make sure that people have access to the care they need and the supports that they need at this time. To suggest anything different is absolutely false.

I understand as a member of a rural community myself just how difficult it is for people. That’s why I will always stand up to support rural families, rural people in getting access to the health care that they need.

Drug Decriminalization Program
and Data Collection

Claire Rattée: We know that the drug decriminalization pilot that was brought in by this government was an absolute failure, and the minister continues to say that it did not produce the results that she had hoped for, although we still don’t know what those results were.

When asked yesterday about the results of this $19 million experiment, the minister said: “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.”

This pilot was the first of its kind anywhere in the world. This government deliberately chose to destroy $35 million worth of valuable clinical research right before they began, and then they chose to not track the outcomes of the pilot.

We were promised evidence-based policies. This government not only ignored the evidence; they destroyed it. Then they refused to track outcomes and told British Columbians that everything was working. So was that incompetence, or was it intentional?

Why did this NDP government order the destruction of one of the only complete addiction and public safety databases just before launching its $19 million decriminalization experiment, and will the Premier admit today that this government made a deliberate decision to proceed without evidence?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I’m pleased to let the member know that data findings have been public throughout the decriminalization pilot. They are available on Health Canada websites. They were reported quarterly throughout the program. The last report was published last August.

As a three-year pilot, there will be final reports that come from this. There are two evaluations that are also currently being worked on right now that span the term of this pilot.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: One of those evaluations will be available soon, and the next will be available in 2027 as the work is completed. Those data will be absolutely public, those reports will be public, and the member will be welcome to read them.

[End of question period.]

Anna Kindy: I’d like to make a point of privilege. The minister mentioned that we oppose recruitment from the U.S., and I’m not sure why we would oppose it when we have one of the lowest rates of doctors in the OECD countries.

The Speaker: Member. Member.

Anna Kindy: So I want a point of privilege to the comment that we oppose recruitment from the U.S.

The Speaker: That’s not a point of privilege, Member.

Petitions

Elenore Sturko: I rise to present a petition. I have a petition with over 500 signatures of Cloverdale residents who oppose the construction of B.C. Hydro’s Willoughby substation on residential property in their neighbourhood.

Orders of the Day

The Speaker: Hon. Members, pursuant to the motion adopted yesterday, the House will proceed with the deferred division on Motion M203, moved by the member for Fraser-Nicola.

[11:05 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.]

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M203 — Merit Oversight
in Public Service
(continued)

The Speaker: I’ll read again. The motion M203 was deferred to today for the division vote.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 45
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	Wilson	Valeriote
Botterell	McInnis	Paton
Day	Bhangu	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Dhaliwal
McCall	Maahs	Block
Stamer	Gasper	Mok
Davis	Chan	Boultbee
Sturko	Armstrong	Kealy
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper
NAYS — 46
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
	Morissette

Motions Without Notice

Membership Change to
Private Bills and Private
Members’ Bills Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That Claire Rattée replace Hon Chan as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.]

Leave granted.

The Speaker: You heard the question.

Motion approved.

Membership Change to
Insurance (Vehicle) Act
Review Special Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That Steve Kooner replace Hon Chan as a member of the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.]

Leave granted.

The Speaker: You have heard the question.

Motion approved.

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

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

[11:20 a.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Safe Access to Schools
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: All right, I’ll ask everyone to step out, have your conversations outside.

Larry Neufeld: I’ve got 17 minutes left. Does everyone want to listen to me for 17 minutes?

Interjections.

Larry Neufeld: There we go. Well, I put away most of my speech because I thought I had five, so I’ll fill in where necessary.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: I’ll start over. Yeah, exactly.

I’m here to finish our debate on Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act. Clearly, without question, as I stated yesterday before we didn’t finish up, I don’t see a path where a rational person could argue the basic premise of this bill based on its title alone. I just don’t see that as being possible.

I believe that I did also illustrate yesterday that I’m a person that is very interested in finding the root cause as opposed to adding band-aids, and solving the root cause issues as opposed to adding additional layers of regulation unless they’re necessary. That is the root of my comments. I really do question if Bill 12 covers things that aren’t already covered in other places within the judicial system.

What I would suggest is that when systems add layers as a means of repair, as opposed to correcting root cause issues, I’m concerned that the system becomes fragile. If it does become fragile, lessening the strength of governance, I would go further to suggest that might even suggest failure.

With respect to Bill 12, I know that this is, again, a two-year extension of a previous document. I would suggest that to assess whether or not this bill is actually needed, I think there’s an accountability component here that is important to address.

I would wonder, and perhaps this can be done in committee stage…. I would love to see the government table how many arrests have been made under this bill, how many charges have been laid under this bill and what enforcement gaps exist. What work has gone into identifying those enforcement gaps, and how have they been addressed? Again, that’s something that I would be asking myself and my colleagues to request of the government to table during committee stage.

Well, I don’t think I am going to stand here and entertain you guys for another 15 minutes unless…. Well, no, I’m not going to.

In closing, I would say, and I’ve already said it, how can you not support safety? How can you not support the safety of children? Without question.

I also support law and order. I also support efficiencies, and I support a lack of redundancy. I do not support replacing enforcement with extension of legislation. If existing laws are not enforced, as I’ve already stated, extending them reveals weakness of a system, which is not conducive to good governance and law and order.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll recognize the Attorney General to close the debate.

Hon. Niki Sharma: With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 12, Safe Access to Schools Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’ll move to second reading on Bill 13.

[11:25 a.m.]

Bill 13 — Safe Access to Places
of Public Worship Act

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

Over the past several years, we have seen a troubling increase in activities that make people feel unsafe when trying to access their place of worship. These actions do more than interrupt religious activities. They create fear, hostility and potential harm for people seeking to practise their religion by visiting their mosques, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras or churches.

At the heart of this bill is a very basic principle: people who choose to attend their place of worship to exercise their religious freedoms should feel safe. For many people, worship spaces are sources of emotional and mental support and places of peace in times of stress or crisis. People should be able to access these spaces without fear of intimidation or disruption.

Most British Columbians agree that targeting places of worship crosses a line. No one should be made to feel unsafe going to their place of worship or practising their faith. Preventing people from accessing these places is unacceptable, and the Safe Access to Places of Worship Act will make it clear that this behaviour cannot continue.

The bill would protect qualifying places of worship with access zones to ensure activities at the place of worship can proceed without disruption. In most cases, these access zones will include the building itself, the property on which it sits and a 20-metre buffer zone around the perimeter.

Within an access zone, the following behaviour will be prohibited: impeding entry to or exit from the place of worship; disrupting activities occurring at the place of worship; engaging in interference, which means trying to convince someone not to take part in an activity at a place of worship; intimidation, including any behaviour that could reasonably cause somebody to be concerned about their physical or mental safety.

These prohibitions are targeted to address harmful and disruptive behaviours that have no place in or around places of worship. Attendees of a place of worship should not be placed in a position where they are effectively a captive audience for harmful or hateful activity.

To support the effective enforcement, the bill authorizes police officers to make warrantless arrests to stop people from contravening the act. It also establishes a statutory basis for seeking an injunction against individuals who refuse to comply with the legislation.

This bill includes specific exemptions that apply to authorized activities. These exemptions ensure that the act does not unintentionally prohibit behaviour that may ordinarily occur at a place of worship. Lawful strikes, lockouts and picketing under the Labour Relations Code are also expressly permitted.

Importantly, this bill limits prohibitions to clearly defined access zones that only apply when a qualifying sign is posted by a place of worship. These zones are limited in size and activity solely at the discretion of the place of worship.

Finally, the act is time-limited. It is set to be repealed in four years, or earlier by regulation, ensuring that its continued necessity can be reviewed and reassessed by the Legislature.

I want to take a moment to thank all the faith leaders that have engaged with us over the course of this. Over the last year or so, I’ve heard many stories, whether it’s at a mosque or a synagogue or a church. I’ve heard stories that I think would send everybody in British Columbia into upset and anger at these things that some people faced.

It was shared with me, by a member of an organization that is from the Muslim community, that there are places in this province where organizations are specifically targeting mosques to spread hateful language. So the worshippers that are showing up at these places are feeling intimidated. They’re hearing hate speech as they’re entering it.

I’ve heard from synagogues about the sense of safety that the Jewish community so desperately needs right now when it comes to their places of worship. You can’t go to a service at a synagogue without seeing security guards surrounding there.

I’m just so grateful for people that came together to tell us the tools that they needed to increase their safety. I had a chance to speak to religious leaders from many churches, including Catholic churches, talking about the need for this type of intervention or legislation so that their worshippers can feel safe. Oftentimes it’s one or two people, they tell me, or sometimes it’s more organized than that.

[11:30 a.m.]

With this protection and with the work that we were able to do together, I’m confident that they’ll be able to let their people know, when they come to show up, that there is a sense of safety and a sense of sanctuary zone around these places of worship that respects not only the people’s ability to go there but also that sanctity of what is happening there and the sense of community that people get from showing up there.

I think that all British Columbians understand and respect the importance of allowing people to access their places of worship. They’re more than just places of worship. Often they’re gathering places where community events are held, where people engage in many aspects of not only their family life but their religious life. They’re important, and they’re spread out throughout the province in very important parts of the neighbourhood.

It is unfortunate that we need such legislation. It’s unfortunate that I heard from the religious leaders about all the things that they’ve been facing lately. I’m hopeful that if this legislation is passed, it will help bring the temperature down in some places of worship that we’re seeing escalation and help to define where you can do protests and where you can’t.

Unfortunately, with this small segment that is engaged in this harmful behaviour…. It has disrupted places. It has increased the level of unsafe conditions. I think our government agrees that we can’t allow that to continue.

I’m proud of the work that we’ve done to bring this bill to the House today, and I’m hopeful that it will receive the support of everybody, because this is certainly something that we can all agree on.

Steve Kooner: I rise today to speak to the Safe Access to Places of Public Worship Act, Bill 13.

Let me begin with something that is very important. Every British Columbian should be able to attend their place of worship in safety, in peace, without fear. Whether it is a synagogue, a mosque, a church, a gurdwara or a temple, these are sacred places. These are spaces where people gather for their families, their communities and their faith. There is no place in British Columbia for intimidation, harassment and disruption causing fear at these locations. That’s the starting point.

I’d like to also state that what we are seeing with the religious places, what we are seeing with the concerns from religious places…. This is a public safety concern. We are noticing that we have a significant public safety crisis in this province which is touching religious communities. It’s touching schools. It’s touching vulnerable individuals. It’s touching all aspects and all regions of British Columbia. We need to be doing a lot more for public safety in this province.

There are real concerns raised by religious communities across this province in terms of public safety. There are significant issues with public safety in this province. We have seen incidents where individuals attending places of worship have felt unsafe. We have heard directly from community leaders who are asking for protection. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously.

While we are having an honest debate today, we must also address the core underlying issue to these concerns — the public safety concern and the issue of public safety enforcement in this province right now.

[11:35 a.m.]

The core issue is whether this provincial government is enforcing the laws that actually exist right now, because the reality is that many of the actions that this bill, Bill 13, seeks to address are already illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada. The Criminal Code of Canada has existed for a very, very long time in this country.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, intimidation is illegal. Criminal harassment is illegal. Uttering threats is illegal. Obstruction is illegal. Disturbing religious worship is illegal. When these activities amount to criminal harassment, criminal intimidation, criminal obstruction, the real question is: how come we are not seeing action? How come we are not seeing public safety enforcement action on these laws? That’s the question.

If we saw public safety enforcement action, we would be seeing less fear, seeing less concern in the public — concerns about visiting religious places of worship, concerns visiting educational institutes, concerns visiting places of business.

We have tools right now that have existed for some time. We have legal tools. What has been missing is consistent, visible and effective enforcement of these public safety tools. We can bring more legislation, but we must also bring enforcement of that public safety legislation to have meaningful results, to make sure that our religious communities can feel safe, that members of the public can feel safe in this province.

There are costs related to government inaction. When enforcement fails, communities are forced to step in. Now we’ve heard the Attorney General mention, give examples of some of the concerns about religious communities, what concerns the religious communities are having.

I want to speak about a real example. Members of the Jewish community have told us that one synagogue in British Columbia is paying approximately $100,000 per month for private security. Let us think about that — $100,000 per month for private security. That’s over $1 million in private security for a year.

Private citizens shouldn’t have to pay for their own security costs. The provincial government should be enforcing public safety laws and having meaningful results in public safety so that British Columbians would not have to pay for private security on their own or even have to resort to those measures.

While we’re at it, while we’re discussing Bill 13 and this new piece of legislation and while we’re discussing public safety enforcement, it doesn’t really help religious communities now when the government has brought forward a budget which puts an additional 7 percent on security costs. That adds extra cost to enforcement, and that does not help public safety for religious communities.

[11:40 a.m.]

That’s not what public safety is supposed to look like, when private citizens are having to pay for their own private security and are burdened with even more expenses on top of that private security.

Public safety is a core responsibility of this provincial government. When this government fails to deliver it, the burden shifts onto families, onto volunteers and onto communities. That’s exactly what is happening today.

We are seeing words being legislated, but where’s the meaningful action that’s going to protect religious communities in this province?

It’s a simple question. Where has this government been? Where has the enforcement been? Where has the visible presence of public safety been when these communities needed it the most? Passing a new law after the fact does not erase the reality that communities were left to deal with these challenges on their own.

There’s a serious risk when there’s substitution of legislation for action. Legislation alone cannot solve the public safety problem. There must be action to solve the public safety problem.

This is a problem in terms of…. We are seeing a continued trend from this government. We are seeing an increase of legislation. But when it comes to actually seeing action, we’re not seeing that. That seems to be a trend, whether you’re looking at public safety or you’re looking at other areas.

I’ve been seeing that through the debates, seeing that through the legislative work here at the Legislature. I’ve been seeing a lot of legislation come through. But when you actually try to see if that legislation is delivering results on the ground, that seems to be something really, really missing.

Every time a problem arises this government introduces more legislation, but legislation is not the substitute for action. Religious communities deserve enforcement action. Religious communities deserve public safety enforcement action. These crimes, crimes that are done against religious communities, need to stop. They need to stop.

We need a robust justice system. We need strong resources for our law enforcement so there’s strong enforcement on public safety issues, so communities don’t have to deal with these types of public safety issues in the first place.

Although we’re seeing the government moving on bringing this legislation, the hope is that the government also considers enforcement, because legislation alone won’t solve the problem that religious communities are facing.

We already have a Criminal Code of Canada, and it addresses all the elements that are being addressed in this new piece of legislation that we have before the House, which is Bill 13. The real question is: although we have the Criminal Code of Canada, how come we don’t have that public safety enforcement? Public safety enforcement is the responsibility of this provincial government. How come we haven’t had that enforcement?

[11:45 a.m.]

If we’ve had legislation that actually deals with intimidation, harassment, impediments to access to religious places…. If we’ve had this legislation for a very long time, why hasn’t there been action until now?

We are in need of real public safety measures. We need more than new legislation to address the problem, like I just mentioned. What is needed is a comprehensive approach to public safety. That includes ensuring that police have the resources they need, ensuring that laws are consistently enforced and ensuring that there is a visible presence when risks arise, ensuring that communities are supported before problems escalate.

Another trend we have seen is a reactive measure from this provincial government when it comes to public safety crises throughout this province. This government has been reactive in addressing public safety issues in this province. This government has always been scrambling once the public safety crises arise.

What needs to be done? There needs to be a comprehensive plan for public safety for religious communities in this province, where proactive action takes place in regards to public safety enforcement in this province.

The goal should not be to react after the fact. The goal should be to prevent any sort of fear, harassment, impediment to religious communities. The goal is to prevent this type of activity, and if it does happen, the goal should be the enforcement of public safety to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

We heard from the Attorney General earlier when we just started discussing this bill. In addition to the legislation, there’s also responsibility on this government to ensure that our justice system is functioning effectively. That includes enforcement. It includes coordination with law enforcement. It includes ensuring that existing laws are being used to their full extent. If those laws are not being enforced, then the question becomes: why not?

We have to get this right for religious communities and all British Columbians in this province. A lot of people come to this province, and one of the top reasons that they come to this province, that they move to this province from other countries, is they feel this is a safe place to live. They come for safety. They come for security.

If you don’t have safety or security, everything else is put into question in life. One must feel safe in order to live their lives. I have heard it firsthand. People that have come from different countries have posed….

[11:50 a.m.]

Some people have come to this province and now they’re thinking about going back to the country of their origin because they don’t feel safe. That’s not right. We can’t just have words being legislated. We have to have public safety enforcement.

The public and religious communities need to have the confidence that the provincial government is with them every step of the way in making sure they’re protected and safe.

We often hear the words, “There’s a lot of talk, but where’s the walk?” meaning where’s the action? When you ask people that have actually dealt with this type of fear, these types of public safety incidents, they will tell you: “We’re not seeing the results. We’re not seeing the protection.”

If people are not seeing the protection, what good are just words being legislated? It’s unacceptable. People on the ground — communities where they are, religious communities, British Columbians — need to see action where they once again feel safe in this province.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that any law that passes here is clear, effective and workable. We must ensure that this bill is also properly drafted. We must ensure that it can be enforced in a practical way. We must ensure that it actually improves safety on the ground. The ultimate measure of legislation will not be what is written on paper. It will be whether people feel safer when they walk into their place of worship.

Let me be clear. The goal of protecting access to places of public worship is important. The safety of religious communities across British Columbia is important. We on this side of the House will continue to hold this provincial government accountable for their failure to enforce the laws that already exist. We must have public safety enforcement in this province, to make sure religious communities and British Columbians feel safe. We’ll continue to raise the concerns of communities that have been left to carry the burdens themselves.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I explained earlier an example that one synagogue is having to pay $100,000 per month for private security. That’s over $1 million per year.

The provincial government should be taking public safety enforcement action. Communities shouldn’t be left on their own to provide their own public safety.

Noting the hour, I reserve my place, and I move adjournment of the debate.

Steve Kooner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 2 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:25 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2026

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2026, to order.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Hon. Chair, I have come to an agreement with the official opposition Finance critic to reorder the consideration of the clauses in part 1 of this bill. This will allow for staff support to be present. I would like to ask the consent of the committee to stand down clauses in a specific order, so that we are able to have a better flow in consideration of the bill.

For the committee’s and the Chair’s information, we would like to proceed in the following manner: clause 6, clauses 1 through 5, clause 7, clauses 11 and 12, clauses 14 to 27, clause 13 and then clauses 8 to 10.

Finally, when we get through part 1, for greater clarity, part 2 will proceed in normal numeric order. I would ask that at this time we stand down clauses 1 through 5 so that we can proceed to clause 6.

The Chair: In the committee, could I ask the committee not to be speaking when either the Chair is speaking or the minister or the member is speaking? Okay.

The question to the committee is: can we stand down clauses 1 through 5?

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive stood down.

On clause 6.

Peter Milobar: I’m just wondering, for ease of zooming in, is the Chair wanting me to read every clause repetitively, or how will we trigger that?

The Chair: I think that I can probably just come back and recognize you once the minister has spoken. Then, when we get to a point where you are finished with your questions, if you could let me know that verbally, that would be very helpful.

Peter Milobar: Okay. I appreciate that.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Good morning. I’d like to introduce my staff that I have here today to support me, Deputy Minister Shauna Brouwer, Assistant Deputy Minister Stuart Restall and executive director Colleen Rice. I’m happy to answer questions from my counterparts on this important piece of legislation.

The Chair: Again, I’ll remind members of the committee that when the minister or the critic is speaking, it is preferred that the rest of the people in the committee are not speaking. Thank you so very much.

Peter Milobar: With a new piece of legislation, why the need to now repeal sections 6, 7 and 10 of the act?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: We are speaking as a result of the motion just passed to section 6 at the moment. If there are questions about the content of ESTRA for part 1, I refer the member to the debate on Bill 5, the Trade Recognition Act. For part 2, I refer the member to part 2 of the act, which is remaining unchanged.

The amendment that is before us today is to ensure that those provisions continue beyond May 28, 2026’s sunset date. For part 3, those provisions will sunset as planned on May 28, 2026. Reminding the member that we are here to debate the changes to the sunset provision of the act.

For part 4, nothing in part 4 of the act is suggested to be changed.

Peter Milobar: I appreciated that. That’s why I asked why it was needed. If it’s repealing the sunset, why is there not a new sunset?

Hon. Diana Gibson: When ESTRA was introduced in response to trade conditions being set by the U.S. government, it was unknown how long that situation would persist. Our government chose to have a sunset in the act based on the volatility that continues to be there with U.S. trade conditions.

This is being proposed to ensure that we can continue to protect B.C. businesses and advance in a continuing geopolitically unstable situation with the U.S.

Peter Milobar: I guess I’m just trying to get clarification. So there was a sunset clause. This appears, unless I’m misunderstanding the answers, to remove the sunset clause.

I’m wondering why, if that’s the case, there’s not a new date and a new sunset clause. The sunset clause was a significant piece of discussion when this act was first brought in, in the discussion previously.

Hon. Diana Gibson: The recommendation here is that we move to the Lieutenant Governor having the ability to determine the sunset date. We have seen that uncertainty in trade with the U.S. continues, and that enables us to be able to be proactive on ensuring we’re doing the right work here through our procurement.

Peter Milobar: What consultations were undertaken with business organizations, those that previously had voiced concerns about there not being sunset clauses or wanting to make sure that there was a sunset clause for review? This seems to now make things open-ended in terms of not having a predetermined check-in date in terms of a sunset clause.

Hon. Diana Gibson: This amendment is about extending the application of ESTRA beyond that initial sunset date, and we’ve been hearing very positive feedback around this. I’ve been meeting with businesses, talking about procurement policy, and the support for this is quite broad.

Peter Milobar: What I’m hearing from the minister is that there was no official discussion or consultation with the groups specifically about removing any future sunset clause and making the provisions under ESTRA open-ended and at the whim of cabinet to make OICs, as to whether or not it gets reviewed or continues on or not.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to remind the member that what we’re talking about here is only the sunset clause for the procurement policy and that the broader conversation when ESTRA was introduced was concerns with having a sunset clause for the broader policy.

This is only tied to the procurement directive. We have engaged in round tables and continue to be asked by businesses across this province to stand up for British Columbia in this moment. It continues to be full of uncertainty for business with regard to international trade, and B.C. has continued to stand up for our businesses.

It is continuing to be a volatile climate out there with regard to U.S. trade, and it’s important for the province to counter tariffs on Canadian imports in ways that offer the potential to bring economic benefits to British Columbians and to Canadian suppliers.

The procurement directives we’re working on, talking about today are a measured response to provide certainty and stability to continued insecure relations with the U.S.

Peter Milobar: So what would be the trigger point, then, to publicly review these procurement rules and guidelines and processes? That is part of the reason for a sunset clause. It’s to make sure they’re just not ongoing indefinitely. This seems to change that.

What will be the trigger point? What will be the public discussion? What will be the ability to know exactly what is happening, if it’s just open-ended without a check-in date like a sunset clause triggers?

I ask this because we’re watching, in real time, less and less access to government information through changes to FOI laws. That will make things even harder for people to understand or get information on what is actually happening.

I’m trying to get a better handle on why the need to not set a date. There was a date set previously of May 28, 2026. I understand and fully am aware that, of course, things are ongoing with the States. But we don’t know what will happen with CUSMA. We don’t know what will happen with the federal election down in the United States in the next two years. We don’t know a lot of things.

But to not have a defined reference point of a date, it seems like the government is hoping to just have an open-ended change to some of these provisions and not have that sunset clause.

I’m just trying to get a better understanding of why the need to make it open-ended, as opposed to what we’re doing right now, which is just an amendment at a set point in a year or two to better re-evaluate once international trade agreements have been dealt with, federal government to federal government.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: We’re here having this conversation today, clearly, because it was not possible to predict the right time for this to sunset, and we cannot predict right now what’s happening with U.S. trade. When this was introduced, it was unclear how long the powers would be needed to ensure that we’re addressing the unstable U.S. trade relations and some tariffs.

If that situation were to change, this would be revisited — including, for example, CUSMA. If it’s extended, B.C.’s procurement directive would be reviewed to determine if it still needs to be held, in the best interest of the province, or if it should be removed or updated.

Peter Milobar: However, as I read this, with this change, there’s no automatic review or change that’s necessary. In other words, with this change, the government could choose, if it so wished, to just continue any of these provisions, ongoing, and never have to revisit it again, or they could just unilaterally cancel it.

Now, they could always cancel it at any time they wanted, even with a sunset clause. But a sunset clause creates an automatic trigger to at least have a very public discussion and review about whether they need to continue on or not.

Removal of this sunset clause and not inserting a different date as a sunset clause creates an open-ended ability for government to continue these provisions for as long as they want, without any deemed reference point. Is that not correct?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Technically, the answer to your question is yes, but it’s really important for us to acknowledge here that the U.S. has been our largest trading partner and a good neighbour. We want to get back to that place, and we value the business partnerships we’ve had.

If there’s a change with the U.S. trade — it could be through CUSMA or tariffs and other ways — we would be revisiting this. This could be even in the summer, when the Legislature isn’t sitting. The way this is drafted gives us the flexibility to be nimble so that we can address this as soon as we have the opportunity to do so.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned. Thank you very much for your work.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:25 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Social Development
and Poverty Reduction
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $5,976,762,000 (continued).

Kristina Loewen: Yesterday we were talking about income assistance, temporary income assistance. We established that there were 73,939 cases, that the caseload is expected to increase — I got those figures — and then that 97 percent of the budget goes towards the clients, not admin.

Moving on. How does the current monthly assistance rate compare with the average rental cost in major cities and the market basket measure in those cities — such as Kelowna, Victoria and Vancouver? How does the ministry reconcile this discrepancy?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I first want to correct something on the record from almost my final sentence yesterday. The $158 million that we were talking about to administer income assistance — that is entirely a staff cost. I said the cost of buildings, but my staff reminded me as soon as I sat down that that was wrong. That’s covered in another area of government. That’s on yesterday’s record.

Thank you for the question today. As the member knows, income assistance levels, including the shelter rate, are the same across the entire province, wherever you live. That’s the same as every province and territory. There is a single shelter rate. It’s not tiered to different cities and what their average rental cost is or their vacancy rate or anything.

I can say that B.C.’s shelter rate is the third highest in all of the country, and that’s certainly in reflection of the fact that B.C. has high housing costs.

The shelter rate had not been increased since 2007 when we first formed government, and we have increased the shelter rate by $125 per eligible case. That was a 2023 shelter rate increase. Altogether, rate increases have gone up by $450 a month since September 2017. That shelter rate increase of $125 per month was part of that.

I’ll just end by saying, I think getting to the point of the member’s question, that the shelter amount that SDPR provides is just one portion of what a person in need can receive from our government. The Housing Ministry and B.C. Housing have been doing a particularly good job right now of promoting online the SAFER grants and the other low-income supports for families with children so that people are able to apply on a city-by-city level, based on their economic circumstance, based on the cost of housing in that area.

That would be a question to take to the Housing Minister, because that program is administered through that ministry. But it’s another example of where our poverty reduction strategy…. Although SDPR has significant income support tools on the economic side, we, together as a government, have a multitude of supports for people, to be able to help them with the increased cost of everything right now. That’s through our poverty reduction strategy. It’s the plan where we are working together on those issues.

[11:35 a.m.]

Kristina Loewen: I wanted to ask you about the Rent Bank stock. I understand now that that’s part of the Housing Ministry, but I wanted to ask you about it because of the connection between housing and homelessness, obviously, and how quickly individuals become entrenched in homelessness and how our ministry correlates to that.

Did you discuss with the Minister of Housing and weigh in on that program being discontinued? I think it was just vitally important as a stopgap measure to prevent homelessness and to prevent spending in this ministry. Where are we at with that?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Another clarification of my previous answer. I seem to be doing this. We are third highest in the country for shelter and support allowance together. I’m reminded that some provinces don’t have a separated amount, so the global amount is third highest.

The Rent Bank is still available to SDPR clients, and I’ll leave the conversation on that to the Housing Minister. SDPR income assistance clients are eligible to apply to the Rent Bank. But I would say our more common experience is that SDPR clients, income assistance clients, would come to us and ask for a crisis grant for shelter, or any of the other crisis supplements that we have available.

Rent Bank, I think, is taken up in particular by people who are not SDPR clients because SDPR clients have other tools in-house when they get into an emergency situation in relation to income supports or an unexpected cost, and that can include shelter.

Kristina Loewen: After the Global News exposé last fall that alleged widespread fraud within the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, did the government conduct an audit or an investigation of any type?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: This is such an important area. I’m glad that the member asked the question.

Big picture — because more people need help right now, it’s vital that our budget and the financial support that we have goes to the people that really need it. That’s why we have prevention and loss management baked into everything that we do. There are rules and checks that are followed every time.

I will just clarify a little bit — or maybe correct a little bit, from my view — something the member said. The Global TV examples were examples that we had found inside our system because we do this prevention and loss management verification. Those were cases that were identified, investigated and acted on because we have this baked into every single part of our prevention program — again, so that the money goes to the people that really need it.

Last year, for example, we conducted 18,000 reviews. We identified 2,000 cases of fraud, and we identified more than $18 million to be recovered from people who had been found to be ineligible.

[11:45 a.m.]

Our ministry staff processes about 100,000 client reports every month from required monthly reporting, and they do immediate updates to any change in circumstance. So when you see an example of fraud in the media, it shows that the SDPR system did its work and that we caught the person.

We rely very much on front-line staff to identify and close loopholes, and we have made some policy changes in response to what they observe, in what the data shows us about parts of the program that are oversubscribed and about people that are taking advantage.

There’s a lot more I can say about that. I think we’re going to do this, this afternoon. I’ll just say again that we take fraud extremely seriously, because any dollar taken by fraud is a dollar taken away from someone in real need. We are reliant on our front-line staff to use, within our existing system….

We made sure and talked with them after the Global TV example to say: “Remember, there are all kinds of whistleblower access within our system. We need to know when things are going wrong so that we can close the loopholes if necessary but also recover money from the people that have taken it in a wrong way.”

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.